Transcript Exploring the Linguistic Complexity of OnTask and Off-Task Interaction During Chat Shannon Sauro University of Texas at San Antonio [email protected].

Exploring the Linguistic Complexity of OnTask and Off-Task Interaction During Chat
Shannon Sauro
University of Texas at San Antonio
[email protected]
Just What Kind of Language Are Students
Producing during Task-Based CMC?
http://www.ishkur.com/posters
Style of Chat
“No normal person, and no normal community, is
limited to a single style of speech …”
(Hymes, 1974: 30)
Why assume that there is only a single style of chat?
Language Within the Same Chat
During the Task
After the Task
Mina
Malmö:
Mina
Malmö:
1,8 kids
Steve
Penn:
on average
Mina
Malmö:
yes.
Steve
Penn:
how is it in USA?
Steve
Penn:
The pollution in
Sweden is not that bad,
but even thoug the
industry not letting out
that much industrial
waste we still have
waste coming from
countrys surrounding
us
good, but one of your
nouns could use the
zero article.
Task-Based Research in Chat
Tasks As the Object of Research
– Negotiation of Meaning Studies
• (e.g., Blake, 2000; Pelletieri, 2000; Smith,
2003)
Tasks As Data Elicitation Tools
– Quality and quantity of self-repair
• (Smith, 2008)
– Comparison of corrective feedback
effectiveness
• (Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Sachs & Suh,
2007; Sauro, 2009)
– Comparison of ACMC and SCMC
• (Sotillo, 2000)
The Study
Research Questions
1. Is the lexical diversity of on-task interaction
greater than that of off-task interaction during
chat?
2. Is the syntactic complexity of on-task interaction
greater than that of off-task interaction during
chat?
The Participants
Collaborative Writing Task:
Environmental Issues
Word Bank
nature
global warming
space
nuclear power
mankind
industrial waste
carbon dioxide
pollution
wind energy
industry
On-Task Language
“Learner discourse related either directly or indirectly
to completion of the assigned task” (Keller-Lally, 2007,
p. 105)
•
•
•
•
•
Opinion exchange using the target words
Task meta-talk
Negotiation of meaning
Self-repair moves
Responses to feedback moves by interlocutors
Off-Task Language
• Exchanges that preceded the beginning of the task
• opening sequences, introductions
• Responses to interlocutor questions not that did
not relate to completing the task
• tangential topics, personal or general questions
• Exchanges following statements of the task being
finished,
• closing sequences, personal or general questions
Transition from On to Off Task Chat
Diana Malmö:
Diana Malmö:
Anna Penn:
Anna Penn:
Diana Malmö:
Diana Malmö:
Anna Penn:
Diana Malmö:
Diana Malmö:
Industry is to blame for much of the
polluting.
=)
I couldn’t agree more!
Great job!
thanks!
so how’s the us today? where are you?
What is your major?
english.
and you?
Tangential Topics
Carlos Penn:
Carsten Malmö:
What if a missile hits a nuclear power plant?
What happens?
Because of how the core of the powerplant
is built
Nothing would happen actually
Carlos Penn:
Is it stabalized or something?
Carlos Penn:
stabilized, I mean
Carsten Malmö:
Carlos Penn:
I did study science, but I’m not sure how to
explain it in english to be honest :)
Is that all the words?
Carsten Malmö:
two to go
Carsten Malmö:
Repairing the Task
Susan Penn:
what’s it called in Swedish?
MC Malmö:
It’s okay. I don’t really know myself
MC Malmö:
Susan Penn:
Wind maler perhaps haha… no I really don’t
know
nevermind – that’s okay!
Susan Penn:
which other words can we discuss?
RQ1: Calculating Lexical Diversity
• Excluded tokens:
– Use of the L1, participants names, laughter (e.g. “haha”),
emoticons, numbers
• Included tokens:
– Abbreviations (e.g., ex, etc.), texting shorthand (np),
ontomatopoetic formulations of surprise (oh, ah)
• Determining types:
– Different inflections of the same word (industry, industries)
and use of contracted forms (ya’ll, he’s) were treated as
different types
• Index of Guiraud:
– The ratio of types to the square root of tokens
Lexical Diversity: Descriptive Data
Tokens
M
SD
Min
Max
On-Task
3851
160.46
54.55
53
307
Off-Task
3318
138.25
87.98
36
344
Total
7169
N= 24
MLT On-Task:
10.05
MLT Off-Task:
7.65
Results: Lexical Diversity
Tokens
Types
Mean
Index of G
SD
On-Task
3851
2244
7.38
0.83
Off-Task
3318
2125
7.47
1.56
Total
7169
4369
N= 24
RQ2: Determining Syntactic Complexity
• Analysis of Speech Unit (AS-unit):
– “a single speaker’s utterance consisting of an independent clause
or sub-clausal unit with any subordinate clause(s) associated with
either” (Foster, Tonkyn & Wigglesworth, 2000, p. 365)
• Clause:
– “a finite or non-finite verb element plus at least one other clause
element (Subject, Object, Complement or Adverbial)” (p.366)
• Measure of Complexity:
– Ratio of clauses (independent and subordinate) to AS-units
RQ2: Syntactic Complexity Coding
Examples
Natalie Malmö :
|When we use others alternative fuels like
gasoline we are putting the global warming at
risk.| (2 clauses, 1 AS-unit)
Hanna Malmö:
*|on or over?| (0 clauses, 1 AS-unit)
Lena Malmö:
|You’ve been very helpful… |Must be hard
chatting with people that aren’t very good at
English.| (4 clauses, 2 AS-units)
Results: Syntactic Complexity
Clauses
AS Units
Mean C/AS
Ratio
SD
On-Task
449
420
1.06
0.32
Off-Task
542
600
.93
.29
Total
991
1020
N= 24
Limitations and Future Directions
• Use of screen capture
video to record the full
range of learner chat
production (e.g. Smith, 2008;
Smith & Sauro, 2009)
Limitations and Future Directions
• Identifying measures of complexity and accuracy
that best reflect the nature of CMC language
• Analysis of Chat Unit?
• Evaluating lexical diversity through comparison to
word frequency lists (Daller, Van Hout & Treffers-Daller,
2003)
Limitations and Future Directions
Comparison of on-task and off-task chat for less proficient
learners and interaction during different types of tasks
• Clarissa : 3. richtig?
Samuel : 4. ?
Clarissa : ich weiss nicht
Samuel : Falsch
Clarissa : ja
Clarissa : 5. richtig?
Samuel : ja
Samuel : 6. Falsch
Clarissa : ja
Internet Oriented Tasks
• Tasks that more closely resemble the technologymediated tasks and tools that language learners
actually engage with outside the classroom
References
Baron, N. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language
Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
Crystal , D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daller, H., Van Hout, Roeland, & Treffers-Daller, Jeanine. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of
bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197-222.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied
Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Keller-Lally, A.M. (2007). Effects of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in synchronous
computer-mediated communication. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, United StatesTexas.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer- assisted language learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14.
References cont.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical
competence. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and
practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sachs, R., & Suh, B., (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous
computer-mediated interaction. In. A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197-227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language
Learning and Technology, 13(1) 96-120. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal,
87(1), 38-57.
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language
Learning & Technology, 12, 85-103. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/smith/default.html
Smith, B., & Sauro, S. (2009). Interruptions in chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 229-247.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous
communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Available from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
Werry , C.C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer
mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-64). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.