21.02.2014 Views

Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language ...

Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language ...

Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

PAULINE FOSTER <strong>and</strong> AMY SNYDER OHTA 419<br />

Table 4: Total amount of modified output<br />

Modified output<br />

Total identified In response to NfM Other<br />

Japanese L2 41 6 35<br />

English L2 36 4 32<br />

NfM ¼ verify<strong>in</strong>g underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g or announc<strong>in</strong>g non-underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g.<br />

The results <strong>in</strong> Table 4 show that although 77 modifications were identified<br />

(41 <strong>in</strong> the Japanese L2 data <strong>and</strong> 36 <strong>in</strong> the English L2 data) only 10 of these<br />

(13 per cent) were prompted by signals of communication problems lead<strong>in</strong>g<br />

to negotiations <strong>for</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g. The large majority were not related to any<br />

<strong>in</strong>terlocutor signal of communication breakdown.<br />

In answer to the first research question, the data show that signall<strong>in</strong>g<br />

communication problems through the NfM is <strong>in</strong>frequent, the total number<br />

of unambiguous comprehension checks, confirmation checks <strong>and</strong> clarification<br />

checks amount<strong>in</strong>g to only 56 <strong>for</strong> 39 participants dur<strong>in</strong>g a five m<strong>in</strong>ute<br />

stretch of <strong>in</strong>teraction. Modifications aris<strong>in</strong>g from these negotiation moves<br />

is even more <strong>in</strong>frequent, with only 10 such identified <strong>in</strong> the data. This<br />

means that 46 <strong>in</strong>stances of unambiguous signals of communication problems<br />

(the vast majority) did not br<strong>in</strong>g about any modifications to the problem<br />

utterance.<br />

It might be said 8 that the tasks used <strong>in</strong> this study, that is a one-way<br />

<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation exchange, were not conducive to the NfM, <strong>and</strong> that a more<br />

tightly designed two-way task, where <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation must be shared carefully<br />

<strong>and</strong> exactly between participants, would have resulted <strong>in</strong> more negotiated<br />

<strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>and</strong> concomitant modified output. But as Table 4 shows,<br />

modified output was be<strong>in</strong>g produced by the participants much more <strong>in</strong> the<br />

absence of negotiation <strong>for</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g than <strong>in</strong> its presence. A tightly designed<br />

two-way <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation gap task is not a pre-requisite <strong>for</strong> the production of<br />

modified output. This leads us to the second of our research questions,<br />

to look qualitatively at the stretches of <strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>in</strong> our data where there<br />

is no negotiation <strong>for</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> to describe <strong>and</strong> evaluate what is<br />

happen<strong>in</strong>g there.<br />

Qualitative analysis<br />

Def<strong>in</strong>itions <strong>and</strong> examples<br />

The qualitative analysis found <strong>in</strong>teractional processes related to assistance<br />

(co-construction <strong>and</strong> other-correction) self-correction <strong>and</strong> encouragements<br />

to cont<strong>in</strong>ue. These are def<strong>in</strong>ed here, with examples provided.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!