http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/pdf/jepson.pdf
“When speakers engage their productive modalities by speaking, they may be pushed to pay attention and change their syntactic output in order to communicate effectively.” In some ways, I’ll agree with Jepson, K. on this argument, but on the other hand, I think that if the speaker doesn’t aim to acquire L2 through negotiation, he/she may not modify his/her output for effective communication. As we learned in class that Kelly met a native speaker in SL and didn’t get the answer to her question about her non-understanding.
[18:50] Harley Bigbear: showmei does your doctor know you talk to els, or would he belive
[18:50] showmei Burnstein: DOCTOR?[18:50] showmei Burnstein: what do u mean?[18:50] Harley Bigbear: nothing my dear[18:51] Harley Bigbear: just a little tom foolery[18:51] showmei Burnstein: oh lol
“The text chat environment may promote more of a need for repair moves due to breakdowns in communication related to topic incoherence.” Indeed, speakers in text chat switch their topics more easily so that it may cause non-understanding resulted from incoherence. Breakdowns in communication promote speakers to negotiate so as to comprehend the content. In order to catch up the speed of communication in text chat, learners may have no choice but to apply themselves to the English environment with their metalinguistic knowledge. When they “engage in modified interaction, triggered mainly by lexical confusion, which could facilitate SLA”, learners acquire vocabulary by looking them up or feedbacks.
However, the experiment shows that in text chat learners have much less repair moves than in voice chat. I think one of the reason might be that speakers could easily go back to previous text or search for relative information online at the same time, so they are apt not to negotiate.
The author brought up an idea that “many participants seemed to be bilingual or multilingual and belonged to a group of people distinguished by multiple literacies.” In my opinion, speakers in the same group ultimately would be from similar literacies because there may be fewer breakdowns, disagreements or conflicts in communication. As the saying goes “birds of a feather flock together”, it is hard for speakers to continue their conversations once there are too many unresolved discrepancies.
“Self-correction is largely dependent on the social context” and in some context, “learners may not see the need for accuracy or may perceive self-correction as face threatening.” Most of the cases I learned shows that native speakers tend not to correct themselves if errors don’t interfere with understanding. On the other hand, most speakers who self correct errors, in order not to confuse interlocutors, know their interlocutors’ non-native backgrounds. And in my experiences, I take self-correction as a kind of self awareness instead of face threatening.
2 則留言:
Do you think peer correction is a "face threatening act?"
Peer correction is a kind of face threatening for some people. When I was a freshman, I would regard it as a biiiiiiiiig face threatening, so I would avoid to make errors, even correct others so as not to embarrass them. Since I am a senior now and I don’t consider peer correction is face threatening anymore but I still avoid to correct others directly.
張貼留言