Synchronous CMC and Pragmatic Development
Effects of Oral and Written Chat
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.399-431Keywords:
Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication (SCMC), oral chat, Written Chat, pragmatics, oral productionAbstract
This study systematically examines the strength of the connection between synchronous CMC and pragmatic instruction by measuring the effects of three types of synchronous group discussion (written chat [WC], oral chat [OC], and traditional face-to-face [FF] discussion) on the acquisition of the speech act (refusals of an invitation) in the target language. Zhao (2003) notes that CMC research is limited in terms of investigating the effects these types of discussions have on other features of language development. Even so, the existing research indicates a positive connection between the use of written chat and oral production (e.g., Healy-Beauvois, 1997; Payne & Whitney, 2002). However, no other investigations specifically address the effects of CMC (written or oral) on pragmatic acquisition. In this study, two classes of third-semester Spanish students (N = 27) participated in small group discussions as well as pre and post role-play tasks that elicited the invitation refusal. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of these role plays illustrate that synchronous discussion type does have an effect on pragmatic development. The WC groups outperformed the others in terms of both complexity and variety of strategies used. A discussion of the results and implications for future research and pedagogy is included.
References
Abrams, Z. I. (2001). Computer mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29, 489-503.
Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 202-232. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/alseghayer/de fault.html
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bachman, L. (1997). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and language pedagogy together. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 21-29). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluation of the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics and language teaching (pp. 13-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-62.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 20-36. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse pragmatics. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and social interaction (pp. 38-63). London: SAGE Publications.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Böhlke, O. (2003). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21, 67-88.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1990). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80, 183-198.
Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 33-56.
Crystal, D. (Ed.). (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Darhower, M. (2002). Instructional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249-277.
Dörnyei, Z., & Thurell, S. (1998). Teaching conversational skills intensively: Course content and rationale. In D. Oaks (Ed.), Linguistics at work (pp. 674-686). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Felix-Bradesfer, J. C. (2002). Refusals in Spanish and English: A cross-cultural study of politeness strategies among speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American learners of Spanish as a foreign language. University of Minnesota. (UMI No. 3047626)
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19, 279-294.
García, C. (1989). Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans. Linguistics and Education, 1, 299-322.
García, C. (1991). Using authentic reading texts to discover underlying sociocultural information. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 515-526.
García, C. (1992). Refusing an invitation: A case of Peruvian style. Hispanic Linguistics, 5, 207-243.
García, C. (1999). The three stages of Venezuelan’s invitations and responses. Multilingua, 8, 391-433.
García, C. (2001). Perspectives in practice: Teaching culture through speech acts. AATSP Professional Development Series, 4, 95-112.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor Books.
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Healy-Beauvois, M. (1997). Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement of fourth semester French students. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 93-116). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hymes, (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Jefferson, G. (1986). Transcript notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction. Studies in conversational analysis (pp. ix-xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johanyak, M. (1997). Analyzing the amalgamated electronic text: Bringing cognitive, social, and contextual factors of individual language users into CMC research. Computers and Composition, 14, 91-110.
Karp, A. (2002). Modification of glosses and its effects on incidental L2 vocabulary learning in Spanish. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Davis.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Retrieved October 23, 2001, from http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics and language teaching (pp.1-12). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the nonnative speaker. PMLA, 112, 359-369.
Kramsch, C., & McConnell, S. (1992). (Con)textual knowledge in language education. In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 3-26). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Márquez Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle, Inc.
Pellettieri, J. (1999). 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.
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7-32.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Searle, J. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5,1-23.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, B. (2003a). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29-53.
Smith, B. (2003b). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38-57.
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. SSLA, 26, 365-398.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4, 82-119. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default. html
Spinelli, E., García, C., & Galvin Flood, C. (2002). Interraciones (4th ed.). New York: Heinle & Heinle Thompson Learning.
Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 38-67. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://llt. msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html
Vick, R. M., Crosby, M. E., & Ashworth, D. E. (2000). Japanese and American students meet on the web: Collaborative language learning through everyday dialogue with peers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13,199-219.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-26.
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21, 7-28.
