Keywords
negotiation of meaning
virtual exchange
language-related episodes
language learning online
How to Cite
Number of views: 724
Number of downloads: 460
Abstract
The present study draws on earlier research on learner-learner dyadic interactions in an e-tandem virtual exchange and examines negotiation of meaning episodes based on the qualitative data. These data come from learner-learner interactions during oral tasks carried out using a video conferencing tool. The aim is to unveil the interactional patterns that emerge during negotiation of meaning episodes which have been deemed beneficial for L2 development, particularly those which offer opportunities for modified output to occur (Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015; Long, 1996; Pica, 1994; Schmidt, 1990). The results highlight the role that metalinguistic information plays in scaffolding the process of negotiation of meaning and emphasize the benefits of e-tandem exchanges where learners alternate between the roles of expert and learner, depending on the language used during each language-related episode.
References
Akiyama, Y. (2014). Using Skype to focus on form in Japanese telecollaboration: Lexical categories as a new task variable. In P. Swanson & S. Li (Eds.), Engaging language learners through technology integration: Theory, applications, and outcomes (pp. 181-209). IGI Global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6174-5.ch009
Akiyama, Y., & Saito, K. (2016). Development of comprehensibility and its linguistic correlates: A longitudinal study of video-mediated telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 585-609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12338
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. B. (2010). Synchronous-voice computer-mediated communication: Effects on pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 1-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.1.1-20
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2011). Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 419-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.574639
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41(3), 543-559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.05.005
Canals, L. (2020). The effects of virtual exchanges on oral skills and motivation. Language Learning & Technology, 24(3), 103-119.
Canals, L. (2021). Multimodality and translanguaging in negotiating for meaning. Foreign Language Annals, 54(3), 647-670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12547
Canals, L. (2022). The interplay between metalanguage, feedback, and meaning negotiation in oral interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), 1-24.
Dao, P., Duong, P. T., & Nguyen, M. X. N. C. (2021). Effects of SCMC mode and learner familiarity on peer feedback in L2 interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1976212
Ellis, M. (2016). Metalanguage as a component of the communicative classroom. Accents Asia, 8(2), 143-153.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3588029
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
Eslami, Z. R., & Kung, W. T. (2016). Focus-on-form and EFL learners’ language development in synchronous computer-mediated communication: Task-based interactions. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 401-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1227219
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2014). Native speaker–non-native speaker study abroad conversations: Do they provide feedback and opportunities for pushed output? System, 42, 93-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.020
Fortune, A. (2005). Learners’ use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output tasks. Language Awareness, 14, 21-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668818
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402-430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami014
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Routledge.
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, À. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3-4), 367-395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.016
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in face-to-face and computer-mediated modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000363
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1393-1420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000320
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2012). The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL, 24(2), 116-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401200002X
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2019). Qualitative research in online language learning: What can it do? International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 9(3), 14-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2019070102
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102-120.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361-386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050163
Loewen, S., & Isbell, D. R. (2017). Pronunciation in face-to-face and audio-only synchronous computer-mediated learner interactions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 225-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000449
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Routledge.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311200071X
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00210
Monteiro, K. (2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video-conferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 56-79.
O’Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1, 1-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.jve.1
O’Rourke, B. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (1): eTandem. Languages for Intercultural Communication and Education, 15, 41-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690104-005
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x
Polio, C., Gass, S., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 237-267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060116
Saito, K., & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67(1), 43-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12184
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Seedhouse, P., & Richards, K. (2007). Describing and analysing institutional varieties of interaction. In H. Bowles & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Conversation analysis and languages for specific purposes (pp. 17-36). Peter Lang.
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146644
Strawbridge, T. (2021). Modern language: Interaction in conversational NS-NNS video SCMC eTandem exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 94-110.
Tian, J., & Wang, Y. (2010). Taking language learning outside the classroom: Learners’ perspectives of eTandem learning via Skype. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 181-197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.513443
Torres, J., & Yanguas, Í. (2021). Levels of engagement in task-based synchronous computer mediated interaction. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 203-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31319
Van der Zwaard, R., & Bannink, A. (2014). Video call or chat? Negotiation of meaning and issues of face in telecollaboration. System, 44, 137-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.007
Van der Zwaard, R., & Bannink, A. (2016). Nonoccurrence of negotiation of meaning in task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 625-640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12341
Van der Zwaard, R., & Bannink, A. (2019). Towards a comprehensive model of negotiated interaction in computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 116-135.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.1.71
Wang, Y. (2006). Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL, 18(1), 122-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344006000814
Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72-93.
Yanguas, Í. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 507-531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.3.507-531
Yanguas, Í., & Bergin, T. (2018). Focus on form in task-based L2 oral computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 65-81.
Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2010). The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22(1), 20-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009990176
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 457-477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412873
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553-586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X
Ziegler, N., & Phung, H. (2019). Technology-mediated task-based interaction: The role of modality. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170(2), 251-276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19014.zie
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Laia Canals
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.