SLA in L2 Classroom Interactive Discourse

(1)

ANNA NIŻEGORODCEW_________________________

SLA in L2 Classroom Interactive Discourse

Theoretical Background

From the L2 teaching perspective, L2 classroom interaction,various task

based and topic-based oral activities, serve the purpose of simulating real communication in the L2 classroom in the sense of developing learners’fluency. The question arises,however, about how L2 classroom interactive discourse can beconducive not only to the development of fluency (speaking skills),butalsotothedevelopment of accuracy(gram matical competence).

Numerous research studiesapplying the apparatus of conversational analysis (turn taking) have been conducted in order to assess whatclass

room discourseconditionsare most conducive to SLA,e.g.whether rep

etitionof their turns (or partsoftheir turns) bythe teachers, and various conversational modifications, or extended turn-taking by the learners, haveasignificant influence upon the "uptake”(c. f. Breen 2001:128), that isthe development of "interlanguage, ” understood as acquiring thetar get L2 grammatical competence.

Michael Long’s work (1983)has been particularly instrumental and influential in this respect. Drawing on Evelyn Hatch’s Discourse Theory (1978), Longidentifiedsomenaturaldiscoursemodifications,occurring inconversationsbetween native andnon-native speakers(such as clari

(2)

30 Anna Nizegorodcew

fication requests,self- and other-repetitions,comprehension checks and confirmation checks).

He originally claimed that negotiation for meaning in NS/NNS discourse was instrumental in restructuring the L2 learners’ interlan

guage, and conversationalmodificationswere hypothesized tobe indi rect causa] factors for L2 development. In other words, learner utter ances “constructedbyborrowing chunksof speech from the preceding discourse” (Ellis 1985: 155) were considered evidence of their acquisi

tion.The question arises, however, if such modified structures are avail able for spontaneousL2 use, that is, whether they have been acquired as analysable knowledge(c.f. Bialystok 1978), or whether they are tem

porarilymemorized chunks of language or lexicalised sentence stems(c.f.

Pawleyand Syder 1983).

More recently, Long (1996) modified the Interaction Hypothesis, claiming that the discourse modifications couldbejust oneofthe fac

tors facilitating L2 developmentin someof its aspects.

Wemust note that in L2 classroomdiscoursenot all of themodifica tionsoccurring in naturalistic NS/NNSinteraction have been observed (Longand Sato 1983). L2 teachersfrequently use comprehension checks ("Do you understand?”), but confirmation checks and clarificationre

quests on theirpart are much less common. This means that L2 teachers check whether students have understoodwhat they havesaid butthey hardly ever askfor students’ confirmation whethertheir utteranceshave been understood by theteachers.

Such an imbalance intheuseof discourse modificationsby teachers and learnersis a reflectionofthe dominant role of theteacherin class

room interaction. Teachers frequently ask displayquestions when the answers are well-known to them. Consequently, they do not need any clarification ofthe answers.On the other hand, learnersdo notaskfor confirmationandclarificationofmeanings,becausetheydo not usually feelresponsiblefor classroom interaction.

Among other research studies, I have found (Nizegorodcew 1993) that low-proficiency L2 learners overuse other-repetitions and appeals for the interlocutor’s help (in the former case, repeating the preceding teacher turn; and inthe latter, askingthe teacher,most frequentlyinLI,

"what does it mean?”). I called them, respectively, “passive” and "active” communicationstrategies.

(3)

SLA in L2 Classroom Interactive Discourse 31

In spite of the modification ofits original claims, theInteractionHy pothesis has exertedan enormousinfluenceon classroom research stud ies and, indirectly, on L2 teacher education. The results ofthose stud ies, carried out since theearly eighties, have not been unequivocal.More than ten years agoEllisconcluded his extensive survey of L2classroom discourse studies by saying thateven if L2 classroom interactive dis

course is effective in promotingL2 acquisition at an elementary level, it is notvery successful inpromoting high levels of grammatical competence.

He alsoadmitted thatcommunicative classrooms may not bewell-suited tothe development ofsociolinguisticcompetence (Ellis 1994: 605).

It seems that L2 classroomdiscourse modifications per se cannot be considered crucial factors in L2acquisition (c.f. Ellis 1994). Firstly, be

cause theyarelimited anddistortedin comparison withnatural L2 dis

coursemodifications. Secondly, becausein monolingual L2 classrooms mostof the negotiation work (real communication) between teachers and learners,or between learners in group activitiesis carried out in LI.

And finally, because clarification requests, repetitionsand other L2 dis

course modifications, evenif they occurinthe L2 classroom, and if they areperformedin the target language, refer only to the meaningof lexi cal items, and not tothe grammatical morphology. Thus,they may affect lexical learning ratherthan what is consideredthe coreof L2acquisition, that is, theacquisition ofthe L2grammatical system.

One of the outcomes of theoretical considerations and L2 class

roomresearch was the conclusion that “learnerinteraction is embed ded withinthe text ofthe specific task ratherthan facilitative of learn

ers’development of thelanguage beyondthe immediatecontext” (Breen 2001:124). Moreover, according to Pauline Foster, “studiesby Kumaradi- velu and Gore have bothshown how thelearners’ perception ofthe pur

pose of a classroom task may differ very muchfrom thatof the teacher.If studentsregardgroupworkas a light-hearted and informal partofclass, rather thana pedagogical activity specifically designed to promote SLA, we cannot be surprised iftheyare relaxed enough about communica

tion problems to let them pass, therebymissing opportunities to gain comprehensible input and to createmodified output” (Foster 1998: 19).

In the conclusion of her paper, Foster claims that “tasks that require students to negotiate the formoftheir output shouldbe easier to design” yet not necessarilyconducive to extended L2 production,whereas “tasks

(4)

32 Anna Nizegorodcew

... thatare designed todraw students into negotiating meaningare on the wrong track" as far astheacquisitionofthe target forms is concerned (1998: 20). What is left then for negotiation, ifneither the form nor the meaning focus is beneficial for L2 acquisition?

A cognitive explanation ofthe described phenomenon points to the basic feature of human cognition- its focus on meaning. Learnersinthe L2 classroominteractive discourse are focused too much onmeanings to be ableto pay enough attention to forms. Fluency practice,as if were,un derminesSLA.Gozdawa-Gol^biowski (2004) claims,inaccordance with relevance theory (SperberandWilson 1995) that L2 learners tend to au

tomatically perceive incompleteand faulty semantic representations as relevant and interpretthem accordingly.

In consequence, as I have claimed recently (Nizegorodcew forth

coming),L2 learners focused on communicative tasks disregardthe cor

rectness of L2 formsas long as theyseem to be successfulcommunica tors.What is more, in monolingual settings, they disregard the code itself and code-switch toanothercode, that is, to their LI. Thus,L2 learners during classroom interactive tasksdo not negotiate for meaning,prob

ablybecausethe tasks themselves arenotconsideredpartof serious L2 learning, but,as claimed by Foster, light-hearted and informalpastime.

Besides, asI have said, if any linguistic problemsoccur, they are caused by unknown lexical items, and not bygrammatical forms learners are ig

norant of.

Samples of L2 Classroom Interactive Discourse

Inthefollowingpartof this paper, I willprovide L2 classroomdiscourse samples supporting my claims about:

• learners focusing on unknownlexical items,and noton grammatical forms;

• learners code-switching to LI real communicationduring L2 inter

activetasks.

(5)

Thesamples have been collected by AnnaPrzebinda,my former MA stu

dent. Inher MA thesis (2004), she compared twomost common types of communicative activities: role-plays and discussions. Shetried to find support for her claim thatrole-plays weremore conducive than discus sionstothe development of L2 students’speakingskills. Sheclaimed that during role-plays thestudents wouldspeak more and theywould use less LI thanduring discussions.

Przebinda observed 30 communicative activities focused on the same topics, halfofthem being role-plays and the other half discus sions.The observations were made infivesecondary L2 classes at differ

entlevels of proficiency, from pre-intermediate to upper-intermediate.

She had chosen three topicsof common interest: reality shows, educa

tionand computers, andsheplanned six lessons, two lessons for each topic, one of them including a role-play, and the othera group discus

sion. The speaking activities (role-plays and discussions) in each les son were introduced as follow-up activities to the reading tasks. The three teachers who taught the observed groups followed the design of the lessons, and in each of the lessons the researcher recorded one group of three students during the speaking activity, so as to obtain recorded speaking samples of role-plays anddiscussions from thesame students.

The recorded samplesofthe role-plays and discussions have been analyzedin terms of the number of turns taken bythe participants, the number ofLI and L2 turns, and the numberof unfilledpauses.There

sults of the analysis indicate that the students spoke more and made fewer pausesduring role-plays thanin group discussions. They alsoused less LI during role-plays. Przebinda concluded her research with the claim that role-plays were more conducive than discussions to the de

velopment of speakingskills. Nevertheless, sheadmitted that since some students preferred the latter technique, and since ithad some advan

tages, it should have its place inthe L2 classroom.

It is interesting to view the above mentionedbeneficial aspects of role-plays in the context ofSLA, that is, accuracy (form-oriented) and fluency(meaning-oriented) practice. What does it mean to say that role playsare moreconducivetothedevelopment of L2 speakingskills? Does the developmentof the speaking skills mean only the development of fluency in the sense of making fewer pauses and using more speaking

(6)

34 Anna Niżegorodcew

turns? Is it only thetypeoftheactivity that matters inthis respect (role

playor discussion)?

The following twoexcerpts focus on education (one of the three top ics forthe speaking activities).Thesamples come from two groups (out of five). Thestudents’ agein both groups was 17. Thestudents in group A were females, and in group B males. GroupA came fromanacademic type secondary school (liceum). They were described by the researcher as the most diligent group among the five groups. Group A students wereattheupper-intermediate level ofproficiency(at least accordingto the teaching standards). Group B came from a technical type secondary school(technikum),and according to the teaching standards, theywere at the pre-intermediate level ofL2 proficiency.

Groupdiscussion

Comparing education in South Korea and in Poland (on the basis of a read

ing passage about the South Korean educational system). The students’ task is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the two educational systems, and to compare their effectiveness in terms of future opportunities and the quality of life.

Group A(students1,2and3)

SI: (Reads the questions provided by the teacher.) S2: What do you think? Which system is better?

S3: OK, so let’s talk about the Korean one. Probably they are more educated.

S2: They get better job, opportunity to study later at university and... I don't know...

SI: How long?

S3: Probably the same. (It is not clear from the transcript what the students mean.)

S2: 17 hours (of studying per day). It’s stupid. Naprawdę jakiś beznadziejny system. [It must be an awful system.]

(pause)

SI: So they have seven hours to have a shower, sleep, eat breakfast and 17 hours ... so they sleep almost 5 hours. This is the disadvantage.

S2: It’s stupid, you can’t relax, talk to your parents ... they have no private time. I don’t like it.

SI: And they are more intelligent in the classes but their life ... They don’t know how to live.

S3:1 agree.

(7)

(pause)

S2: OK, so which system is more effective?

SI: 1 think this system have more advantages and disadvantages and Pol

ish system have advantages and disadvantages so we must put them ... to

gether ... choose ... I think that ... that the Korean system ... with this system you could receive better job but the problems you will be ... have...

1 mean in ... 1 think that in Korean system you get a better job so better life, but it’s not so good life if you don’t have the . . .

S3: Private life.

SI: Private life and ... and ...

S2: You don’t know how to ...

S3: How to behave, how to act.

S2: Yes, so I think that our system is better.

S3: It’s not better but it’s more for people as to say. [... it’s more humane, so to speak.]

(pause)

S2: No one is the best but I think our is better than the Korean system.

SI: So that's all?

S2: That’s all.

S3: The end. Koniec. [The end.]

Group B (students 4, 5 and6)

S4: Dobra, no to zaczynamy. [OK, let’s start.]

S5: (Reads out one of the questions.) What are the advantages of the Polish system?

S4: Polish system is better. We don't have to stay in school for 17 hours a day.

And we don’t have to study so much.

S5: Yes. In Korea people must study too much ... But they know more things when they finish school.

S4: But they are so tired ... they can’t do nothing. They don’t have time for playing sport or something like this. All the time they study. It’s stupid ...

(pause)

S5: No, to w ogóle jest bez sensu. [It’s total nonsense.]

S6: (Reads out a question.) But which one is better?

S4: Polish is better. We are not tired . .. We have more time.

(pause)

S5: A praca? Oni mają szansę dostać lepszą pracę i kasę. [And work? They have a chance to get a better job and more dough.]

S6: No tak, ale przecież na nic nie mają czasu. To nienormalne. [That's right, but they have no time for anything. It’s not normal.]

(8)

S5: In Korea you can get a good job.

S6: A w Polsce nawet jak dużo umiesz, to nie możesz dostać dobrej pracy.

[And in Poland even if you know a lot, you cannot get a good job.) (laughter)

S5: (reads out a question) Which system gives you better opportunity to get a better job?

S6: No to ten w Korei. [The Korean one.]

S5: Better life?

S4:1 think Polish.

S6: We have more time ... and we have time for fun.

S5: Tak, i na imprezki. [Yes, and for little parties.]

(laughter) (pause)

S6: No to co? Wszystko już? [So what now? Is that it?]

S4: Dobra, koniec. [OK, the end.]

Discussion

In the abovegroup discussion tasks, the learners are not monitored by the teacher. However,Przebindahas carefullyprepared the taskin terms of itsorganization,introducing a reading passage on education in South Korea and the discussionquestions. In other words, although the com

municative activityinvolves fluency practice, the instruction and the ma terials accompanying it focusthelearners on specific information in the text and inthequestions(Whichsystemis better? Whichsystem is moreef fective? What arethe advantagesof thePolish system?Which system gives youbetteropportunity toget a better job?) which can serve as scaffolding language chunks. It is interesting to note,however, differences between thegroupsin their approach tothe task andintheuse of these chunks.

In Group A, the three co-operating studentsare able to formulate some kindofjustification oftheir answer inL2 (Ithink that in Korean systemyou getabetter job so betterlife, but it’snotso good life ifyou don't havethe...private life... You don'tknow how to... how to behave, how toact).Theyalsosupportone another as far as L2 lexical items are con

cerned (privatelife; how tobehave, how toact). In one instance, there is aclearinterference of the LI phrase “jest bardziej dlaludzi” [it’smore

(9)

for people =it’smore humane]. Even if thestudents provide one another with some help incommunicating therequired arguments, the cognitive difficultyofthe task seems to affect the accuracy ofthelanguage they use. Onthe other hand,exceptforone commentin LI (Naprawdęjakiś beznadziejny system[It must be an awful system]) theyuse only L2dur

ing the activity.

InGroup Btheparticipatingstudentsatfirst use theteacher’s ques tions tosupport theirdiscussion, which, however, soon becomes an LI discussion. It couldbe saidthat theynearly totally forget aboutthe L2 learninggoal ofthespeaking activity (No, to w ogóle jest bez sensu [It’s total nonsense]; A praca? Oni mająszansędostać lepszą pracę ikasę[And work? They have achance to get abetter job and moredough]; ... No tak,ale przecieżnanicnie mają czasu. Tonienormalne[That's right, but they havenotimefor anything. It’s not normal];... A wPolsce nawet jak dużo umiesz, to niemożesz dostać dobrej pracy[And inPoland even if youknow alot, you cannot get a good job]).

The above remarks should be particularlyappreciated in thecontext ofa very highunemployment rate, spokenby 17-year-old boys, forwhom theprospectof unemployment is imminent.

Conclusion

The following phenomenacan beobserved in the analyzed L2classroom discoursesamples:

• Realcommunicative exchanges(especially on lower proficiency lev els) areperformedinLI.

• On higher proficiency levels, and probably with more self disciplined students, L2 communicationis possible. However, stu

dents’ automatic focus onmeaning makes them disregard formalac curacy.

• More proficient (and more self-disciplined) students can support oneanother intheir search for appropriate lexical items toexpress meanings.

(10)

• SlJ\in thesense of thedevelopment ofmore target-like forms prob

ably requires careful monitoring (and feedback) on the partofthe teacher ormoreproficientinterlocutor.

REFERENCES

Bialystok, Ellen. 1978. “A Theoretical Model of Second Language Learning.” Lan

guage Learning 28: 69-83.

Breen, Michael. 2001. “Overt Participation and Covert Acquisition in the Lan

guage Classroom.” Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Direc

tions in Research. Ed. Michael Breen. London: Longman.

Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Foster, Pauline. 1998. “A Classroom Perspective on the Negotiation of Meaning.”

Applied Linguistics 19: 1-23.

Gozdawa-Golpbiowski, Romuald. 2004. "Relevance Defocus in Teaching the L2 System." Relevance Studies in Poland. Ed. Ewa Mioduszewska. Warsaw: In

stitute of English Studies, U of Warsaw.

Hatch, Evelyn. 1978. “Discourse Analysis and Second Language Acquisition.” Sec

ond Language Acquisition. A Book of Readings. Ed. Evelyn Hatch. Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Long, Michael. 1983. “Linguistic and Conversational Adjustments to Non-native Speakers.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5: 177-93.

Long, Michael. 1996. “The Role of Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.” Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Ed. William C.

Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia. New York: Academic Press.

Long, Michael, and Charlene Sato. 1983. “Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse:

Forms and Functions of Teachers’ Questions.” Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Ed. Herbert W. Seliger and Michael Long.

Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Nizegorodcew, Anna. 1993. "The Structure of Foreign Language Discourse and the Use of Communication Strategies by Low Proficiency Foreign Language

(11)

Learners.” Current Issues in European Second Language Acquisition Re

search. Ed. Bernhard Ketteman and Wilfried Wieden. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Nizegorodcew, Anna. Forthcoming. Input for Instructed L2 Learners: The Rele

vance of Relevance.

Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Hodgetts Syder. 1983. "Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency." Language and Com

munication. Ed. Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt. London: Long

man.

Przebinda, Anna. 2004. "Discussion or Role-Play? Helping Secondary School Learners Develop their Speaking Skills.” Diss. Jagiellonian U, Krakow.

Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cogni

tion. 1986. Oxford: Blackwell.