NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN INTERLANGUAGE TALK
by
Friederike A. Tegge
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, Florida
April 2004 NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN INTERLANGUAGE TALK
by Friederike A. Tegge
This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate' s advisor , Dr. DuBravac, Department of Languages and Linguistics, and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee . It was submitted to the faculty of The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE :
of Arts & Letters
Studies
ii ABSTRACT
Author: Friederike A. Tegge
Title Negotiation of Meaning in Interlanguage Talk
Institution: Florida Atlantic University
Thesis Advisor: Dr. DuBravac
Degree: Master of Arts
Year: 2004
This small-scale study investigated the extent to which negotiations of meaning during methodologically focused communicative partner- activities were concerned with a grammatical target structure, the dative case following spatial prepositions in German. In addition, the impact of the negotiation of the target structure on subsequent learner performance was investigated. The subjects, beginning-level students of
German, participated in two two-way information-gap activities, preceded and followed by the same grammaticality judgment test. The interaction was audiotaped and transcribed. The improvement in accuracy between the pretest and the posttest was calculated and correlated with the number of negotiation moves. The results indicate that the subjects negotiated meaning, including form, frequently . However, no significant change in the subjects' subsequent performance was observed.
lll TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Table ...... vii
List of Figures ...... ix
Negotiation of Meaning in Interlanguage Talk ...... 1
Negotiation of Meaning ...... 7
Negotiation of Meaning and
Interlanguage Talk ...... 11
Grammar in Negotiation of Meaning ...... 14
The Merits of Negotiation of Meaning ...... 16
Negotiation of Meaning: An Overview ...... 18
Interaction as the Means and not
the End of Acquisition ...... 20
The Issue of Comprehensible Input ...... 22
Michael Long's Interaction Hypothesis .... . 27
Negotiation of Meaning and
Comprehensible Output ...... 29
The Structure of Negotiation of Meaning .. . 32
Feedback and Negative Evidence ...... 32
iv Negotiation of Meaning and Information
Processing ...... 33
Consciousness-Raising and Input
Enhancement ...... 3 4
The Present Study in the Context
of Research on Negotiation of Meaning .... . 35
Method ...... 35
Research Questions ...... 35
Participants ...... 36
Materials ...... 37
Design and Procedure ...... 37
Data Analysis ...... 41
Results ...... 48
Discussion ...... 51
References ...... 57
v APPENDIX
Appendix A: Grammaticality Judgment Test ...... 62
Appendix B: Experimental Activities ...... 67
Appendix C: Excerpts from the Transcribed Data ...... 73
vi TABLES
Table 1: A Communicative Task ...... 7
Table 2: Conversational Adjustments ...... 11
Table 3: GROUP A: Number of Correct Answers in
the Pre- and Posttest ...... 41
Table 4: Group B: Number of Correct Answers in the
Pre- and Posttest ...... 42
Table 5: Groups A and B: Number of Correct Answers
in the Pre- and Posttest ...... 42
Table 6: Group A: Number of Interactional Units ...... 46
Table 7: Group B: Number of Interactional Units ...... 47
Table 8: Number of Units for Group A and Group B ...... 47
Table 9: Percentages of Negotiations in All Units ...... 47
Table 10: Percentages of Negotiations Addressing
Form in All Negotiations ...... 48
Table A1: Grammaticality Judgment Test ...... 62
Table A2: Task 1: Instructions ...... 67
Table A3: Task 1: Crime Scene and Objects ...... 68
Table A4: Task 1: Worksheet A ...... 69
Table AS: Task 1: Worksheet B ...... 7 0
vii Table A6: Task 2: Worksheet A ...... 71
Table A7: Task 2: Worksheet B ...... 72
Table AS: Transcripts of Negotiations of Meaning
Addressing Other Linguistic Features
than Form ...... 73
Table A9: Transcripts of Negotiations of Meaning
Addressing Form ...... 74
Table AlO: Transcripts of Negotiations of Meaning
Addressing the Target Structure ...... 75
viii FIGURES
Figure 1: Correlation between Test Improvement
and Total Negotiations ...... 50
Figure 2: Correlation between Test Improvement
and Dative-Negotiations ...... 51
i x Negotiation of Meaning in Interlanguage Talk
This study deals with negotiation of meaning in interlanguage talk with a specific focus on grammatical form. Negotiation of meaning is defined by Ellis (1994) as "the collaborative work which speakers undertake to achieve mutual understanding" (p.
260). It occurs during interaction between speakers when an actual or potential breakdown of communication is perceived and is intended to prevent or repair such disruption of conversation. In the field of second language acquisition
(SLA) many researchers are exclusively concerned with interaction that includes at least one non-native speaker
(NNS), i.e. a second or foreign language learner, except when interaction among native speakers (NSs) is used as control data. Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos & Linnell (1996) give an accurate description:
Negotiation between learners and interlocutors takes
place during the course of their interaction when either
one signals with questions or comments that the other's
preceding message has not been successfully conveyed. (p.
61)
Long (1980, 1983) coined the term "discourse modification", which has now come to be known as negotiation of meaning and first provided the following now widely accepted types of strategies for negotiation of meaning: comprehension check (Do
1 you understand?), clarification request (What was that?
Sorry?), confirmation request (Do you mean "Kirche"?), and
self- and other-repetition (see also Gass & Selinker, 2001,
for an introduction)
Negotiation of meaning occurs during conversations among
all pairs of interlocutors (NS-NS, NS-NNS, NNS-NNS), due to
the fact that they all need to deal with breakdowns of
communication. As the title implies, this study focuses on
negotiation of meaning in a very specific setting, that is,
negotiation of meaning in interlanguage talk. The term
interlanguage, coined by Selinker (1972), refers to the
developing grammatical system in a learner's mind. This system
consists of correct and incorrect rules and hypotheses about
the target language as well as transfer from their first
language, and, therefore, differs from the target language
structure. Interlanguage talk, thus, refers to discourse among
non-native speakers (Ellis, 1994)
Since the NNSs' grammatical system is "imperfect" or non
target-like, it has been argued that interlanguage talk does not aid language acquisition or, more extreme, that it is detrimental to language learning. The latter has been disproved (Ellis, 1994, p. 266). On the basis of the existing research on interlanguage talk (Varonis & Gass, 1985,among others), it has been widely accepted that interlanguage talk provides valuable learning opportunities. This acceptance can be seen in the Communicative Approach, the current trend of language teaching, which makes great use of communicative
2 partner- and small-group activities (Littlewood, 1981; Omaggio
Hadley, 2001).
The term "negotiation of meaning" to a person less
familiar with the field might imply a focus on semantic
meaning or on lexis. However, negotiation of meaning can be
concerned with various linguistic features, including lexis,
phonology, or grammatical structure. Form creates meaning, in
other words, grammar play s an important part in creating a
meaningful utterance .
A great number of studies on negotiation of meaning hav e
a rather vague task design, in the sense that the tasks do not
encourage or require the use and negotiation of specific
morphosyntactic features (Pica, 1994; Pica, 1996; Varonis &
Gass, 1985; Pica, 1988; Pica et alt., 1996; ). Varonis & Gass
(1985 ) , for example, ask the subjects to "introduce
[themselves) and find out about each other" (p. 72). Pica
(1988) described that the "topics [of the NS-NNS
conversations) ranged from matters pertinent to the NS's
paper, to those more personal to the NNSs such as their family
and friends, previous education, and future plans" (p . 48)
Pica et alt. (1996 ) worked with jigsaw tasks that had no
specific grammatical focus . Other studies are designed with a
greater focus on specific forms, such as Ellis & Nobuyoshi
(1993 ) , who studied the negotiation of past tense in English,
or Swain & Lapkin (1995) whose study focused on reflexive v erbs in French. While most empirical studies on negotiation of meaning work with experimental tasks that have a broader
3 scope on what might possibly be negotiated, foreign language teaching materials often contain activities that are strongly focused on specific grammatical features. The underlying assumption seems to be that the negotiation of specific form can be encouraged and that negotiation of form in fact aids language acquisition (see Terrell, Tschirner & Nikolai, 2000)
However, there is no significant amount of evidence to justify the extensive use of such a task design in teaching materials.
This study focuses on negotiation of meaning in regards to grammar, in order to test the validity of these materials.
The experimental exercises employed here focus on structure, more specifically on a high-frequency structure of the German language: the use of the dative case following prepositions of location.
The author's interest in negotiation of meaning originates in its important role in today's foreign language teaching and the potential benefits for second language acquisition. It has now come to be widely accepted that negotiation of meaning is a facilitator for the acquisition of a second language for several different reasons:
It provides the learner with more comprehensible input
(Long 1982; Pica, 1994).
It allows the learner to focus on form instead of
meaning alone (Long, 1998).
It draws the learners' attention to form and provides
the opportunity for 'noticing the gap', i.e. noticing
the gap between the target language system and the
4 learners own imperfect grammar of the language (Pica,
1994; Schmidt, 1990) .
It makes possible consciousness raising or input
enhancement, i.e. a higher awareness of form through a
higher frequency and saliency in the input (Sharwood
Smith, 1981; Ellis, 1994)
It provides opportunities for comprehensible output
(Swain, 1993, 1995).
It provides feedback and negative evidence (White,
1987) 0
These advantages of negotiation of meaning will be discussed in greater detail below.
This topic of interlanguage talk for this study was chosen because it constitutes the reality in the foreign language classroom. The typical foreign language learner has contact with only one, if any, native speaker: the teacher.
And even that might not be the case since many foreign language teachers are not native speakers, which does generally not entail a disadvantage for the learner but stresses the point that a foreign language learner conducts the greater part of target language conversation with other non-native speakers. Research on interlanguage talk in NNS-NNS pairs is thus of great importance.
The focus on negotiation of meaning regarding grammatical form has been chosen for two reasons: First, teachers and researchers often stress such effects as noticing the gap, i.e. the gap between the learner's faulty language use and the
5 correct target language forms, and consciousness raising or
input enhancement, which refers to methods to draw the
learners' attention to target language form. These assumed
advantages do not exclusively concern grammatical form. But
when dealing with them, grammatical form is often the focus .
Secondly, as an instructor of German at Florida Atlantic
University (FAU), I came across many activities encouraging
negotiation of meaning in partner and small-group work. They
were clearly focused on a specific structure, including
exercises concerning the dative case (see Table 1).
It thus needs to be investigated whether learners use
strategies of negotiation of meaning to deal with grammatical
structure or whether the desired focus on grammatical form needs to be achieved by other means.
The questions that need to be asked are the following:
Does negotiation of meaning occur in interlanguage talk? More
importantly: Do the instances of negotiation of meaning focus on grammatical structure? And, if yes, to what extent?
In order to answer these questions I designed two experimental activities during which the subjects, beginning
German students from first-semester and second-semester classes at FAU, worked in pairs and exchanged information.
Their interaction was audiotaped. The activities were preceded and followed by a grammaticality judgment test on the correctness of sentences containing the target structure, which each student took individually.
6 Table 1
A Communicati v e Task (Terrell, Tschirner & Nikolai, 2001, p.
207)
Sit. 4. tle!l"• w '""""~ l'lQ 1>~ """"ro Jnd genders rt Situation 4 Das Zimmer U ~ E' !IV-f)S , .. li'"C p ctur:. Wrhe the~ :.n tM t ;utrd, ~ r · h
neben dern Sof.1
an C!er wand
wner dern Ttsch
The audiorecorded data was analy zed and the interactional units with or without negotiation of meaning and more
specifically with negotiation of meaning dealing with the target structure were quantified and compared. The results of the pretest and posttest were compared in order to see whether the subjects showed greater correctness in the posttest.
Negotiation of Meaning
Negotiation of meaning is defined as the "collaborative work which speakers undertake to achieve mutual understanding . " (Ellis, 1994, p . 260 ) . It is an attempt to prevent or repair a potential or actual breakdown of communication during discourse by modify ing the conversation.
Michael Long, whose dissertation on input and conversational modification (1980 ) 1s understood to be part of the foundation 7 of research on negotiation of meaning first proposed the
following set of negotiation moves: clarification request
(What was that? Sorry?), comprehension check (Do you
understand?), confirmation request (Dock or dog?), and self
and other-repetition. These types of negotiation of meaning
are now widely accepted throughout literature.
Varonis & Gass (1985) give us some insight into the
structure of a discourse unit involving negotiation of
meaning. They describe the following pattern that negotiation
of meaning usually takes: There is a trigger that causes a
problem in or breakdown of communication. This is followed by
an indicator, which takes the form of Long's negotiation moves
such as clarification request, etc. The indicator is followed by a response, which might again be followed by an (optional) reaction to the response. The response may be itself a trigger. Here is an example of negotiation of meaning as described by Varonis & Gass (1985):
NNS1: My father now is retire. (Trigger)
NNS2: Retire? (Indicator)
NNS1: Yes. (Response)
NNS2: Oh yeah. (Reaction to Response)
(p. 77)
Negotiation of meaning occurs during conversations among all pairs of interlocutors (NS-NS, NNS-NS, NNS-NNS), due to the fact that all of them encounter difficulties during communication. Research in the field of second language acquisition naturally focuses on interaction that involves at
8 least one NNS-interlocutor, even though NS-NS conversations, especially in the early stages of research on negotiation of meaning, were and still are often used as control group data in order to determine the types and frequency of negotiation of meaning specific for interaction involving NNSs as well as its effect on language acquisition (Larsen-Freeman & Long,
1991 )
First, like its child language counterpart, it [research
on SL learners] seeks to determine how speech addressed
to non-native speakers (NNSs ) , whether children or
adults, differs from language used in adult native
speaker (NS) conversation, and whether the differences
aid comprehension and/ or acquisition or perhaps are
necessary for acquisition to take place at all. (p. 116)
The research on negotiation of meaning is intertwined with the research on foreigner talk discourse (FTD), which refers to
NS-speech targeted at NNSs. FTD is adjusted in form and function to what the NSs perceive to be the interlocutor's level of linguistic competence. It is characterized by different kinds of modifications, which are all used to facilitate comprehension. It therefore needs to be defined what part of FTD is negotiation of meaning and what is not.
In the field of second language acquisition a distinction between two aspects of adjustments is generally accepted:
Linguistic modification refers to changes that are made to the grammatical structures, v ocabulary , length of utterances, etc., in order to facilitate understanding. Linguistic
9 modification can result in simplified but grammatical speech, as well as in ungrammatical speech, which is often illustrated with the example of the famous "Me Tarzan, y ou Jane" . These kinds of modifications are not part of negotiation of meaning since, quite obv iously, no collaborativ e work to achieve mutual understanding, i.e. no negotiation, is involved.
Various researchers (Krashen, 1985; see also Larsen-Freeman &
Long, 1998, for a rev iew) claim that these kinds of linguistic adjustments prov ide comprehensible input and thus facilitate language acquisition, but this is of no concern to our study.
Interactional modifications, also called conversational adjustments, are also part of FTD and take the form of discourse functions such as abrupt topic shifts, clarification requests, comprehension checks, etc.
Larsen-Freeman & Long (1998, p . 126) provide a list of conv ersational adjustments (see Figure 1).
From this list comprehension checks, confirmation requests, clarification requests, and self- and other repetitions in various forms, i.e . complete or partial, exact or semantic, have been highlighted and can be considered indicators of negotiation of meaning .
One needs to be careful when dealing with discourse modification to not assume that any instance of comprehension check, confirmation request, clarification request, and self and other-repetition is immediately an instance of negotiation of meaning . These discourse dev ices can serv e sev eral
10 purposes, among them maintaining the flow of conversa tion
(Elli s, 1994).
Table 2
Conversational Adjustments
Conversational Adjustments
Content more predictable/narrower range of topics more here-and-now orientation briefer treatment of topics (fewer information bits per topic/lower ratio of topic-initiating to topic-continuing moves ) Interactional structure more abrupt topic-shifts more willing relinquishment of topic-choice to interlocutor more acceptance of unintentional topic-switches more use of questions for topic-initiating moves more repetition (sel f - and other-, exact and semantic , complete and partial) more comprehensi on checks more confirmation checks more clarification requests more expansion more question-and-answer strings more decomposition
Negotiation of Meaning and Interlanguage Talk
In the communicative approach, a rather eclectic approach to language teaching, communicative practice and interlanguag e talk, i.e. discourse among language learners, is strongly encouraged (Littlewood, 1981; Omaggio Hadley, 2001). Omaggio
Hadley summarizes:
11 Attempts by learners to communicate with the language are
encouraged from the beginning of instruction. The new
language system will be learned best by struggling to
communicate one's own meaning and by negotiation of
meaning through interaction with others. (p. 117)
Interlanguage talk is a valuable tool to provide students with
opportunities to engage in target language conversations in
the classroom. As Long & Porter (1985) report, the average
student in a fronted, teacher-focused classroom produces a
minimal amount of output:
In an EFL class of 30 students in a public secondary
school classroom, this averages out to 30 seconds per
student per lesson - or just one hour per student per
year. (p. 208)
Whether this number can be generalized or not, in classes with
around 25 students in which the teacher guides all or most of
the activities and tasks, the numbers cannot be much higher .
For foreign language teaching and learning, in a classroom
setting research on interlanguage talk is of great interest.
Since contact with native speakers is generally limited for the typical foreign language learner, the communication with fellow-NNSs gains great importance.
The question of the correctness of interlanguage talk has been satisfactorily answered: Even though language learners naturally produce less grammatical output than native speakers, it has been found that language learners repeat only
12 a small amount of their NN-interlocutors' errors (Ellis 1994;
Pica & Doughty 1985) .
Despite its importance, research on interlanguage talk is not as extensive as it should be. In 1985 Varonis & Gass claimed that most research on negotiation of meaning concerned
NS-NNS interaction, neglecting NNS-NNS interaction and it is indeed true that in the early days of the interactionist approach research on negotiation of meaning was focused in interaction between NSs and NNSs (Long, 1982, 1983). Despite the fact that since then more studies have been concerned with this kind of interaction (see for example Pica et alt., 1996) the number of such studies is relatively small compared to literature on NS-NNS discourse.
Varonis & Gass (1985) conducted research on negotiation of meaning in NNS-NNS interaction and concluded that there is more negotiation of meaning in these kinds of conversations than in interaction among either only NSs or between NNSs and
NSs. They hypothesized that this is due to the "shared incompetence" (p. 71) that the NNS- interlocutors perceive.
Learners interacting with other learners feel that they can show incompetence without feeling embarrassed.
We claim that it is the shared incompetence in the domain
of English which allows them to 'put the conversation on
hold' while they negotiate meaning. (p. 84)
Skehan and Foster (2001), on the other hand, see no difference between NNS-NNS, NS-NNS, or NS-NS discourse in terms of embarrassment and annoyance in case of a breakdown:
13 Finally, there is the undeniable dislike people feel for
owning up to not understanding something which another
person has expected to be understood, and the undeniable
irritation people feel when constantly asked to repeat or
explain something. [ ... ] Although a few subjects sought
clarification or confirmation of problem utterances, most
played a very insignificant negotiation role, suggesting
that gaining comprehensible input through checking and
clarifying is not a popular strategy even in situations
designed to promote it. (p. 187)
Pica, et al. (1996) investigated whether interlanguage talk can provide learners with the necessary opportunities for input, output, and feedback for successful language acquisition and concluded that "interaction between L2 learners can address some of their input, feedback, and output needs but that it does not provide as much modified input and feedback as interaction with NSs does" (p. 59). Regarding the role of interlanguage talk in the classroom they encourage both optimism and caution.
Grammar in Negotiation of Meaning
Some researchers assume that negotiation of meaning played an important role in the acquisition of grammar, since the negotiation work made the input more comprehensible, among them Pica et al. (1996):
In addition, a growing body of evidence shows that
participation in interaction can play an even broader and
more theoretically important role in the learning process
14 by assisting language learners in their need to obtain
input and feedback that can serve as linguistic data for
grammar building and to modify and adjust their output in
ways that expand their current interlanguage capacity.
(p. 60)
Pica, et al. (1996) describe the data of their study on
negotiation of meaning in interlanguage talk as follows:
"These utterances contained considerable amounts of L2
morphosyntax and, therefore, might also have served as a
source of useful L2 input" (p. 79).
Despite this claim most of the research resulted in data
involving the negotiation of lexis or phonology. It seems that
the majority of negotiation moves are indeed concerned with
these two aspects of language.
Some researchers have become more cautious about the
impact of negotiation of meaning on the acquisition of morphosyntax. Pica (1996) finds (a somewhat contradictory statement regarding the preceding quote) :
Although negotiation has been observed over grammatical
morphology, this has not been shown in impressive amounts.
(p. 10)
And Skehan & Foster (2001) show even less enthusiasm:
Significantly, the study also showed ( ... ) that where the
negotiation of meaning does occur it is more likely to
result in lexical rather than morphosyntactic adjustments,
i.e. the theoretically most valuable type of negotiated
comprehensible input is the least common. (p. 188)
15 This study tries to contribute to the discussion on
negotiation of meaning and the acquisition of morphosyntax by
investigating "negotiation of form", i.e. negotiation of
meaning with a focus on linguistic form, in interlanguage
talk.
This focus of the study was inspired by the fact that so
called communicative foreign language textbooks such as
"Kontakte: A Communicative Approach" (Terrell, Tschirner &
Nikolai 2000) contain, among others, activities that seem to
be targeted at a particular structure. It needs to be assessed
whether these structure-focused activities serve the purpose
for which they were designed.
The Merits of Negotiation of Meaning
The research on negotiation of meaning is to be situated
in the wider field of research on the role of interaction in
language learning. As Gass, Mackey & Pica (1998) point out,
research on the role of interaction, i.e. interaction that
goes beyond pure rehearsal of structures introduced in a
grammar class, began as early as the 1920s, when Vygotsky (see
Vygotsky, 1978) was concerned with these matters in Russia.
But his findings had not been appreciated until more recently.
The SLA-research before the 1970s was mainly interested in what structures appeared in learner input and output and in what frequency and order they appeared. The general attitude
in language teaching until the 1970s was grammar-focused and understood the role of interaction in the classroom either in terms of carefully manipulated drill exercises 1n order to
16 trigger overlearning and automatization, in a behaviorist
sense, or as a follow-up and rehearsal of previously
introduced grammatical rules (in the framework of the Grammar
Translation Method) (Omaggio Hadley 2001).
Today interaction is seen as an essential part of
language acquisition processes. Interaction and negotiation of meaning are seen to be beneficial for several different reasons, as has been pointed out earlier.
What has come to be known as negotiation of meaning is now understood to be of particular significance in SLA. Pica
(1994, 1996) gives an overview of the development of the concept of negotiation of meaning, its several benefits and its incorporation into different theoretical frameworks.
The following section offers an overview of the development of the concept of negotiation of meaning. I first present a short introduction followed by a more in-depth description of the different perspectives involved in the research on negotiation of meaning. This in-depth account follows a chronological order but, since the alleged benefits of negotiation of meaning are so diverse, it is segmented into passages addressing the different potential effects on language acquisition, an order that we think will help the reader and make the overview as clear as possible.
17 Negotiation of Meaning: An Overview
The concept of negotiation of meaning originates in
Michael Long's Interaction Hypothesis, which he first proposed
in his PhD-dissertation 1n 1980 and later expanded upon in a
series of articles. The Interaction Hypothesis describes
interaction and more specifically negotiation of meaning as an
important facilitator of second language acquisition. While
Long initially used the term conversational modifications, the
term negotiation of meaning, introduced by Varonis & Gass
(1985), is now the accepted term .
Long's Interaction Hypothesis finds its basis in Stephen
Krashen's Input Hypothesis (for a thorough review see Krashen,
1985), which claims comprehensible input to be the necessary and sufficient condition for successful second language acquisition.
In contrast to Krashen's hypothesis that includes the silent period and assumes that acquisition precedes communication, the Interaction Hy pothesis takes the position that negotiation of meaning during interaction elicits comprehensible input and is thus a facilitator for language acquisition.
Soon after Krashen first published the Input Hypothesis, a different hypothesis was put forward as a direct reaction to
Krashen's claims, but it might well be seen as an addition to the idea of comprehensible input: the Comprehensible Output
Hypothesis. Swain (1985, 1993) argues that it is necessary for learners to produce comprehensible output in order to achieve
18 control over linguistic forms. "Pushed output" is seen as a
means to focus the speakers' attention on their production and
their lack of accuracy or difference between their language
and the target language.
From these early assumptions on its role in language
acquisition, the concept of negotiation of meaning has
developed along the lines of other trends in the field of
second language acquisition, being ascribed additional and
different kinds of merits. From a more cognitive perspective, negotiation of meaning may serve several purposes. One purpose
is the focus on form. While Krashen (1985) argues that a focus on meaning lS sufficient for language acquisition, others such as Swain (1985, 1993), Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1994), etc., have claimed that focus on form is also a necessary part of the language acquisition process.
This argument is tied with the discussion concerning information processing and storage. Many cognitive learning theories claim that information must be attended to in order to be acquired. This claim is supported by Sharwood Smith
(1981) who deems consciousness-raising or more recently input enhancement to be beneficial. Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1994) argues for a focus on form in his Noticing Hypothesis, which contains the idea of "noticing the gap", i.e. the learners' conscious or unconscious realization of a gap between their interlanguage and the target language.
19 Another position is that comprehensible input is not enough
and that feedback in the form of negative evidence is
necessary, which shows them what not to do (see White, 1987).
In the following we will look into these different claims
and issues in more detail.
Interaction as the Means and not the End of Acquisition
In the 1970s Hatch made a successful attempt to shift the
focus of L1 and L2 research from the "whatn to the "hown, i.e.
she argued that it was necessary to see how learners learned
and not only investigate what they knew. In her 1978 article
"Discourse analysis and second language acquisitionn Hatch
speaks of the then most frequently used research method of morpheme counts: "Morpheme counts, then, comprise the bulk of the studies since they are the easiest (though for the researcher surely the most tedious) to do, and because they are easily quantifiedn (p. 402) criticizing that these kinds of studies do not offer any insight into the ways in which language is actually acquired:
In all the research, however, an important link has been
missing. In talking about the importance of input and the
frequency of forms in that input, we have overlooked the
most important factor of all, the link that explains how
the child learns. I truly believe that to talk about
child language learning as an automatic process is simply
to say that we have nothing interesting to say about how
that child learns a language. (p. 403)
20 As an alternative approach to SLA research, Hatch proposes
discourse analysis.
A turn to a new methodology might give us a way of
looking at the how. One possibility for a new method is
discourse analysis and, in particular, conversational
analysis. It is not enough to look at input and to look
at frequency; the important thing is to look at the
corpus as a whole and examine the interactions that take
place within conversations to see how hat interaction,
itself, determines frequency of forms and how it shows
language functions evolving. (p. 403)
Hatch, thus, (re)introduced a different role of interaction into the field of second language acquisition, both into research and, with much greater caution, into teaching methodology: She put forward the idea that interaction was not to follow acquisition but was a means to achieve acquisition.
As Pica (1994) describes, the role of interaction was already acknowledged by the time Hatch proposed this approach.
Sociolinguists were investigating the importance of relationships and social roles during interaction for language acquisition. What was truly innovative was the fact that Hatch did not limit the importance of interaction to the social level of language acquisition but saw its importance for linguistic and cognitive processes.
What made Hatch's view so special, however, was her
notion that interaction could also be used as a basis for
21 examining the linguistic and cognitive features of the L2
learning process, not just the social ones. (p. 495)
This new perspective brought about a turn in the field of
second language acquisition and triggered a wealth of research
that was predicated upon the premise that language acquisition
might happen through interaction, employing discourse analysis
as a tool to investigate cognitive processes during language
acquisition.
The Issue of Comprehensible Input
In the late 1970s, Krashen introduced the influential concept
of comprehensible input as a necessary and sufficient
condition for second language acquisition. He developed what he calls "maybe audaciously, a theory of second-language acquisition" (Krashen, 1985, p . vii) with a series of five hypotheses, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis.
The acquisition-learning hypothesis claims that there are two distinct ways of "developing ability in second languages"
(Krashen, 1985, p. 1): acquisition occurs through subconscious processes and forms the basis for fluent language use.
Learning is a conscious process and the knowledge gained cannot be used for fluent speaking. The difference is typically described as one of knowing "what" through learning and knowing "how" through acquisition. This is often compared to knowing what to do when driving a car through studying books and paying attention in theoretical driving classes as
22 opposed to knowing how to drive once one actually gets behind
the wheel. This distinction is quite important in SLA . Its
validity is often taken at face value since it is appealing
but difficult to investigate: We cannot look into the human
mind and see how information is processed and stored. Other
researchers in the cognitive field work with similar concepts
such as implicit or explicit knowledge, declarative and
procedural knowledge (or other equivalent terms), where
explicit/declarative knowledge basically means "knowing what"
and implicit/procedural "knowing how", but do not agree with
the "non-interface hypothesis" (Schmidt 1993) , i.e. the strict
separation of these two realms of knowledge.
The distinction of acquisition and learning, then, is
important in SLA, in interactionist theory and negotiation of
meaning as we will later see when we discuss consciousness
raising, noticing the gap and focus on form (Schmidt, 1990,
1993; Sharwood Smith, 1981).
The Natural Order Hypothesis describes the claim that
there is a definite order in the way structures of a language
are acquired. This order cannot be altered by any outward
influences, including classroom teaching.
The Monitor Hypothesis concerns language production and
1s a result from the acquisition-learning distinction, claiming that learned knowledge can only function as a conscious monitor, that is editor, of a speaker's output, and this only under two conditions: the speaker actually consciously knows the rule, and he is concerned with formal
23 correctness. But "both these conditions are difficult to meetn
(Krashen, 1985, p. 2)
At the heart of Krashen's theory is the Input Hypothesis, in which it is claimed that comprehensible input is the necessary and sufficient condition for language acquisition to take place. Comprehensible input is defined as input, which goes slightly beyond the learner's current level of competence in the target language. Krashen describes comprehensible input as "i + ln, where "in stands for the learner's current competence level and "ln is the part of the input that goes beyond the learner's competence and is available for acquisition.
In the Input Hypothesis Krashen builds on Chomsky's language acquisition device (LAD) , an internal language processor that, according to Krashen processes the linguistic information if it comes in the form of comprehensible input.
As has been said, Krashen believes comprehensible input to be the necessary and sufficient factor for successful language acquisition, due to the internal language processor that inevitably processes the input under the condition that it is at the right level, i.e. "i+ln. There is one possible obstacle though, or, as Krashen puts it: "Not all comprehended input reaches the LADn (p. 3). This obstacle is described in the last of the five hypotheses, the Affective Filter
Hypothesis. The affective filter constitutes a mental barrier or block of negative emotions such as lack of motivation, lack
24 of self-confidence or anxiety, which impedes language
acquisition.
Included in Krashen's theory of second language acquisition is the claim that acquisition precedes output,
i.e. that learners will only produce a form after they have acquired it. The period of acquisition of a particular form can be referred to as the "silent periodn during which a target structure is not produced -"very typically, children in a new country, faced with a new language, are silent for a long period of time ... n (p. 9) - and a learner should also not be forced to do so: " .. . adults are not usually allowed a silent period in language classes, a condition that makes many language students very anxious about foreign-language study . . . n (p. 9).
Krashen summarizes:
We can summarize the fiv e hypotheses with a single claim:
people acquire second languages only if they obtain
comprehensible input and if their affective filters are
low enough to allow the input 'in' . When the filter is
'down' and appropriate comprehensible input is presented
(and comprehended), acquisition is inevitable. It is, in
fact, unavoidable and cannot be prevented - the language
'mental organ' will function just as automatically as any
other organ ... (1985, p. 4 )
Krashen's theory has received a great amount of criticism, especially regarding the vagueness of such key terms as
"comprehensible inputn or "affective filtern . It also cannot
25 account for the common phenomenon of "fossilization", a level of incomplete acquisition of the target language system where a learner does not seem to progress any further despite incomplete and incorrect interlanguage structures. The theory still does not make it clear how acquisition takes place. A major critique is that many of Krashen's claims are so general that they cannot be falsified, e.g. in cases when comprehensible input does not seem sufficient, Krashen brings in the affective filter as the responsible obstacle. Since the affective filter cannot be "operationalized", it is hard to disprove this claim. Edmondson and House (2000) critique that
Krashen's theory in its generality is probably true but in the end trivial.
Despite all the critique, Stephen Krashen (Rodrigo,
Krashen & Gribbons, 2004) stands firmly behind his Input
Hypothesis:
The results thus provide support for the efficacy of
comprehensible-input based approaches, confirm that
vocabulary and grammar can be acquired via comprehensible
input ... (p. 59)
In addition, Krashen's theory of second language acquisition has opened the window to a great deal of research regarding the role of input. The research on negotiation of meaning has benefited greatly from Krashen's controversial claims. The theory triggered further research that either agreed or opposed Krashen's views. For instance, the Output Hypothesis
(Swain, 1985) is a direct response to the assumed silent
26 period. Krashen's theory has also served as the basis for
Michael Long's Interaction Hypothesis (1982, 1983). And has
been said earlier the learning-acquisition distinction is
particularly important for the discussion of consciousness
raising, noticing the gap and focus on form (Schmidt, 1990,
1993; Sharwood Smith, 1981).
Michael Long's Interaction Hypothesis
In the early 1980s Michael Long investigated how
interaction could provide more comprehensible input, assuming
that comprehensible input, defined by Krashen as "i+1", is the necessary and sufficient condition for successful language acquisition. He conducted research on foreigner talk discourse
(FTD ) , i.e. the language nativ e speakers direct at non-native speakers. He investigated the adjustments that NSs made in order to facilitate the NNSs's comprehension and presented the following list of adjustments: (1) input modification, e.g. shorter utterances, etc.; (2 ) greater "here and now" orientation, i . e. a relativ ely high use of present tense and choice of topics that concerned the immediate temporal and phy sical surrounding of the non-native speaker; and (3 ) modification of the interactional structure of the conv ersation, i.e . a "change at the level of discourse" (Long,
1982, p . 212) such as comprehension checks, clarification requests, etc .. While all of these adjustments potentially aided comprehension on the part of the NNS, only the "here and now" orientation and the interactional modifications had the potential to facilitate acquisition in the framework of the
27 input hypothesis (Long, 1982). The assumption that input
modifications did not aid acquisition was based on the
"logical problem with the idea that changing the input will
aid acquisition" (Long, 1982, p. 211). Long argued that these
kinds of changes made the input comprehensible but did not
provide any "+ 1", i.e. any input that went beyond the
learner's level of competence. The input, thus, only provides
structures familiar to the learner, which means there is
nothing new to acquire. "Here and now" orientation and
especially interactional modification, on the other hand,
"serve to make the unfamiliar linguistic input comprehensible"
(Long , 19 8 2 , p . 2 12 ) .
Long, then, focused on interaction modifications, which he later referred to as "negotiations" following Varonis &
Gass (1985) and ultimately "negotiation of meaning". He claimed that in an interaction between an NS and an NNS involving collaborative work to achieve mutual understanding the input that the learner received was better adjusted to his current level of comprehension. The negotiation provides the necessary comprehensible input. If one assumed that comprehensible input led to acquisition, then one could deduce that negotiation of meaning, producing more comprehensible input, indirectly led to acquisition:
If one accepts that there is already substantial evidence
of a second causal relationship between comprehensible
input and SLA, then one can deduce the existence of an
28 indirect causal relationship between linguistic and
conversational adjustments and SLA. (Long, 1985, p. 388)
Long's Interaction Hypothesis was first proposed in a strong
version, claiming that negotiation of meaning was a necessary
and sufficient provider of comprehensible input. Today, a
weaker version is proposed that understands negotiation of
meaning to be a facilitator rather than a cause for language
acquisition. Negotiation of meaning is seen as one of several
of such facilitative processes.
The Interaction Hypothesis caused a great deal of
fruitful research. In the beginning the focus was mainly on a
comparison of NS-NS and NS-NNS conversations and the frequency
of interaction modifications in FTD (see Pica, 1994). Further
fields of interest were the frequency of negotiation of
meaning in the foreign language classroom. The focus was first
on teacher-student interaction, but later, as partner and
small group activities became more popular, also on student
student interaction (Pica & Doughty, 1985; Varonis & Gass,
1985) .
Negotiation of Meaning and Comprehensible Output
Also in the 1980s, Swain (1985) introduced the
Comprehensible Output Hypothesis as a reaction to Krashen's
claim that comprehensible input is not only necessary but also
sufficient for successful language acquisition. Swain is an expert on language learning in immersion programs in Canada,
and reports that the interlanguage of immersion students often
"remains sufficiently 'off-target' as to be a cause of
29 concern" (Swain & Lapkin, 1995, p. 372). This observation led
her to believe that comprehensible input is not sufficient for
successful and complete language acquisition. Instead, Swain
suggests a different solution to this stagnation on a non
target like level: the production of pushed comprehensible
output. Swain (1985, 1993) argues that output production, or
more specifically the production of pushed comprehensible
output that learners need to produce when they are faced with
comprehension problems on the part of their listeners,
presents four different ways in which it may have an impact on
language acquisition: It provides the learners with
opportunities for meaningful practice of their linguistic
resources and thus allows for the "development of
automaticity" (Swain, 1993, p. 159). Secondly, it might draw
the learners' focus to form instead of meaning alone: " ... it may
force the learner to move from semantic processing to
syntactic processing" (Swain, 1993, p. 159). Thirdly, it
provides opportunities for hypothesis testing, i.e. the
learners can try out their means of expression and see whether
they work (see Swain 1993, p. 160). And finally, their output
might trigger responses from their interlocutors, which may
serve as information on the comprehensibility of the learners' output and ultimately on the state of their interlanguage.
"Feedback can lead learners to modify or 'reprocess' their output" (Swain, 1993, p. 160)
The latter advantage of comprehensible output is directly
related to negotiation of meaning. Swain (1993) identifies
30 Long's negotiation strategies among the feedback-responses learners might receive due to incomprehensible output:
"Responses may take the form of confirmation checks, clarification requests, or implicit and explicit corrections"
(p. 160). and she claims that learners modify their output in reaction to such conversational moves: "These studies indicate that during the process of negotiating meaning, learners will indeed modify their output in response to such conversational moves as clarification requests or confirmation checks" (Swain
& Lapkin, 1995, p. 373).
The tendency now in research on comprehensible output is to emphasize its role in triggering "noticing" or "noticing the gap", as it has been introduced by Schmidt (1990) (see for example Swain & Lapkin. 1995, or Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara &
Fearnow, 1999) .
Among the studies on comprehensible output in second language acquisition is Nobuyoshi & Ellis (1993). Their finding supports the claim that output plays a positive role but they suggest caution in one respect: While two of
Nobuyoshi and Ellis' participants in their small-scale study obviously benefited from pushed output production, one did not. Nobuyoshi & Ellis suggest that the learners' learning orientation needs to be taken into account. They distinguish between functionally-oriented learners, who tend to focus primarily on getting the message across, and structurally oriented learners, who often focus on language structure and tend to engage in more self-correction. They suggest that only
31 the latter group seems to benefit from pushed output and that
the "comprehensible output hypothesis will need to be modified
to take account of the type of learner" (p. 209).
The Structure of Negotiation of Meaning
In the early stages, Long's focus was on the possible
indicators and effects of negotiation of meaning. Varonis &
Gass (1985) described the details of discourse units involving
negotiation of meaning. This has been described earlier in
this study. Suffice it to say here that Varonis & Gass (1985)
mad important contributions to the research on negotiation of
meaning.
Feedback and Negative Evidence
White (1987) brought another factor into the discussion
on comprehensible input: the necessity of negative evidence.
According to White, comprehensible input is not sufficient for
second language acquisition in cases where it is impossible to
detect a gap between the target language and the learner's
interlanguage. The literature typically cites her following
example:
*John drank slowly his coffee .
Jean a bu lentement son cafe.
(White 1987, p. 105)
White claims that while the English native-speakers will
realize that the adverb placement following the verb is acceptable in French, the French native-speakers do not receive any negative evidence in their English input that this
32 is impossible in English, especially since the adverb placement in English is relatively free:
John drank his coffee slowly.
John slowly drank his coffee.
Slowly, John drank his coffee.
John is slowly drinking his coffee.
(ibid., p. 105)
White argues that in such cases the learners needed to look out for the absence rather than the presence of certain forms, a possible behavior if we argue in the framework of a parameter-setting theory such as Chomsky's Universal Grammar, but, according to White, in reality not a frequent one:
"Experimental evidence does not strongly support the idea that
L2 learners can detect non-occurring forms." (White, 1987, p.
106)
White proposes several solutions such as explicit correction. One possible way of addressing this problem, however, is the feedback and the negative evidence learners receive through negotiation of meaning (see Gass, Mackey &
Pica, 1998).
Negotiation of Meaning and Information Processing
Negotiation of Meaning is also discussed in a cognitive framework and with regard to mental information processing
(see Gass, Mackey & Pica, 1998).
Within a cognitive framework the question of consciousness arises. As we have seen earlier, Krashen, among
33 others (see Long & Robinson, 1998), believes that implicit knowledge is attained through unconscious acquisition.
An opposing view can be found in Schmidt (1990, 1993,
1994), who proposed the Noticing Hypothesis and with it the notion of "noticing the gap", in other words noticing the difference between one's interlanguage and the target language. Schmidt differentiates between three meanings of consciousness, consciousness as intention, consciousness as attention and consciousness as awareness. Schmidt (1990, 1993,
1994) claims that consciousness as attention, i.e. consciousness on a level of noticing a specific form without understanding it in terms of explicit rules, is necessary to convert input into intake. Intake is defined as that part of the input that the learner notices and takes into the short term memory (Ellis, 1994). Further, attention is not enough but noticing the gap is necessary, i.e . noticing the target form and the deficiency in one's interlanguage.
Negotiation of meaning is a means of drawing the
learners' attention to form. When a breakdown in
communication occurs, the subsequent negotiation sequence
aids the learner in noticing the gap between his
interlanguage and the target language. This ultimately
leads to a more target-like interlanguage system.
(Schmidt, 1994)
Consciousness-Raising and Input Enhancement
A way of drawing the learners' attention to form without explicit grammatical instruction is to raise its frequency and
34 salience and highlight its presence in the input. This is what
Sharwood Smith (1981) called consciousness-raising. More
recently (see Long & Robinson, 1998) this term has been
replaced by input enhancement, which places the emphasis on
the input instead of the learners' perception.
The Present Study in the Context of Research on Negotiation of
Meaning
The present study is predicated upon the findings and terminology recapitulated in this brief overview and is intended to contribute to the field by providing further insight into negotiation of grammatical form, as opposed to other linguistic features such as lexis or phonology, which seem to have received greater attention in the theoretical research. Foreign language teaching materials, on the contrary, often make use of negotiation of meaning to aid the acquisition of grammatical form. The study, thus, takes a rather practical approach: It is intended to test the validity of the underlying assumption in foreign language teaching, that negotiation of meaning aids acquisition of linguistic form.
Method
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to undertake an investigation of the extent to which negotiation of meaning in interlanguage talk during methodologically focused communicative activities is actually concerned with a particular grammatical target structure. In addition, the
35 impact of the negotiation of the target structure on the
accuracy of learner performance in regards to the target
structure was investigated . Two research questions were
addressed:
1. Do beginning-level German students negotiate the dative
case following prepositions in information-gap partner
activ ities that require the use of that specific
structure?
2 . Does the accuracy of the students' subsequent production
improve in regards to the target structure?
Participants
Beginning German students from first-semester and second
semester classes were randomly chosen on the grounds of
voluntary participation from the existing classes at FAU. They
were compensated with one hour for their required time in the
language laboratory. The participants were randomly separated
into two groups: Group A consisted of ten pairs of only
beginning-1 students. Group B consisted of eight pairs of one beginning-1 and one beginning-2 student each.
The question was whether the heterogeneous pairs in Group
B might produce more negotiation of meaning since they consisted of two participants of presumably different competence-levels regarding the target structure . The beginning-1 students had just been introduced to the target structure, l . e. to prepositions followed by the dative case when describing location. The beginning-2 students had reviewed the target feature in class . German 2 classes also
36 provided coverage of prepositions followed by the dative case when describing location (Ich bin in der Schule.) as opposed to prepositions followed by the accusative case when describing destination (Ich gehe in die Schule.)
The pairs performed in two different information-gap activities that took about 15 minutes each.
Materials
A grammaticality judgment test, two information-gap activities, and a selection of transcribed interactional units are provided in the Appendix. The grammaticality judgment test
(Appendix A) was used as a pretest and posttest in order to detect a change in the accuracy of the subjects' performance in the target structure after participating in the experimental activities. The two information-gap activities
(Appendix B) were designed to encourage the use and negotiation of the target structure. The samples of detailed transcriptions of interactional units (Appendix C) illustrates my decision on how to categorize a unit. The indicators in the transcription of each negotiation move are bolded and italicized.
Design and Procedure
Initially, the subjects completed a grammaticality judgment test on sentences containing the target structure as a pretest. Each time, the subjects were asked to give an explanation of their choice. The instructions told them that any answer was a valid answer, even if their choice was based on guessing or feeling.
37 Afterwards, the subjects participated in two experimental partner-activities, which were audiotaped. As has been mentioned before, the subjects were paired homogeneously in
Group A, i.e. two beginning-1 students constituted a pair, and heterogeneously in Group B, i.e. one beginning-1 and one beginning-2 student constituted a pair. These pairs performed the following two activities:
1. Each student received a picture of a room, representing a
crime scene (see Appendix B). The two pictures were not
identical but the task required the students to arrive at
identical pictures by orally exchanging information about
the placement of the different items, which enabled them to
place the missing objects into the correct position in the
picture. To facilitate the proceedings of this activity the
pictures were placed on magnetic boards. The missing items
came in the form of small magnets that could be attached to
the picture. Along with the sketch of the room and the
magnets, the students received a worksheet (see Appendix B)
that offered nouns and adjectives, such as "der Fernseher,
das Regal, etc." and "in, auf, unter, etc." for the
description of the locations. The nouns were given in the
nominative case. There was also a list of the items on the
worksheet. Next to each item in the list the subjects gave a
short written description of the items' locations. This was
to help the subject realize the difference in form between
the given nouns on the worksheet and their form when used in
the description with the appropriate prepositions.
38 2. In the second activity each subject received a chart, which
was only partially completed and in different ways for each
partner (see Appendix B). The task required the participants
to exchange information about where certain people had been
at certain times. Following the style of a crime scene
investigation these people were suspects and needed to give
alibis. This activity differed from the first one in that
the subjects did not have to come up with the correct forms
by themselves. Instead, the answers with the correct
preposition and case were given in the chart. The listeners
had to make sense of what they heard, and enter the correct
form in their chart. In order to raise their awareness of
the target structure, they were given nouns and prepositions
that they heard from their interlocutors, e.g. "der
Fernseher" and "vor", though not in the complete and correct
form required to write down the answer, in this case "vor
dem Fernseher." The subjects were told to cross out any noun
and preposition that they had heard and to enter in their
chart (see Appendix B).
To encourage the use of the correct grammatical forms in an authentic manner the subjects were told that both papers were official police documents.
The subjects were familiar with particularly the second activity type, which is common in the textbook "Kontakte: A
Communicative Approach" (Terrell, Tschirner & Nikolai 2000) used in German classes at FAU. The first type of activity is similar to the exercise shown in Table 1, which can be found
39 in "Kontakte: A Communicative Approach" (Terrell, Tschirner &
Nikolai 2000, p. 207). The experimental activity was different
in that it ensured a two-way information flow, i.e . it ensured
that both subjects were receiver as well as provider of
information. According to Doughty & Pica (1985) this kind of
activity, i.e. a two-way information gap activity, triggers
more negotiation of meaning than a one-way information gap
activ ity or a simple communicative activ ity without
information gap.
Both of the experimental activities were information gap
activities, during which at least one learner needed to obtain
information from his interlocutor. They were also both "two way " information gap activ ities in that both interlocutors
lacked information that the other had. Thus, both needed to obtain and provide information.
After performing the activ ities the subjects, again, took the grammaticality judgment test as a posttest, which was meant to detect a change in their performance regarding the target structure.
A difference between the scores in the pretest and in the posttest may have been caused by the fact that the subjects took the same test twice and were, thus, familiar with it when taking it for the second time . This, however, is very unlikely for two reasons: The target structure is highly complex, which renders a learning effect improbable. In addition, the subjects did not receive any feedback about the correctness of their choices in the pretest and as a consequence could only
40 draw from previous knowledge or the knowledge gained during
the experimental tasks in order to make accurate choices in
the posttest.
Data Analysis
During the data analysis the results of the pre- and
post-grammaticality tests, as well as the difference between
the two (labeled "improvement") were quantified. The degree of
correctness is displayed in percentage. Table 3 describes the
improvement for Group A . Table 4 describes the improvement for
Group B. Table 5 describes the improvement for both groups
together. Names have been changed in all tables for the
purpose of privacy.
Table 3
GROUP A: Number of Correct Answers in the Pre- and Posttest
Pretest Post test Improvement
Tina 0 5 5
Alex 6 10 4
Ben 12 11 -1
Ned 5 3 -2 John 0 0 0 Joe 12 12 0 Karla 0 0 0
Karin 9 9 0
Laura 7 11 4
Jim 9 9 0 TOTAL 60 7 0 10 Correctness i n % so 58 . 3 3 8 .33
41 Table 4
Group B: Number of Correct Answers in the Pre- and Pos ttes t
Pretest Post test Imp rovement
Susi (1) 0 2 2
Liz (2) 4 2 -2
Dave (1) 0 1 1
Jack (2) 4 5 1
Bob (1) 3 4 1
Just (2) 12 12 0
Lee (1) 0 3 3
Kelly (2) 5 5 0 TOTAL 28 34 6
Correctness in % 29.17 35 . 42 6.25
Table 5
Group A and B: Number of Correct Answers in the Pre- and
Post test
Pretest Post test I mp roveme nt
Group A 60 70 1 0
Group B 28 34 6 TOTAL 88 104 16 Correctness in % 40 . 74 48.15 7.41
The audiorecorded data of the interaction during the two experimental activities was analyzed and divided into interactional units. For the purpose of this study I defined an interactional unit as a part of an interaction addressing one specific topic such as the placement of an object or the choice of article. I define the topic very narrowly, i . e. even though the question of the placement of a knife, for exampl e,
42 and the question of proper article use can both be seen - in a
general sense-as part of the same conversational unit dealing
with the knife. The interaction concerning the placement of
the object and the interaction concerning the article use were
viewed as two different topics and thus two different
interactional units.
An interactional unit involves an exchange in the form of
at least two utterances, which may be replaced by such
meaningful non-verbal reactions as nodding, pointing or
gesturing. An interaction necessarily involves two
interlocutors. An interactional unit can go beyond two
utterances, since one topic might be dealt with in multiple
exchanges . An interactional unit might also be interrupted by
a different unit and afterwards be resumed. I consider this
kind of unit to be more useful for our purposes than for
example a T-unit, i.e. a main clause with all its dependent
clauses, since my purpose is to investigate how often the
subjects address a grammatical form during their interaction
and not how many steps it takes to arrive at mutual
understanding. Here is an example of an interactional unit
without negotiation of meaning:
Laura: Wo ( .. ) wo ist Hans Schmidt urn zw6lf Uhr?
Jim: Er ist in der Cafeteria.
The following is an interactional unit with negotiation of meaning:
43 Jim: Er ist in der Cafeteria. (trigger)
Laura: In dem? (indicator)
Jim: Der. (response)
Laura: Der. (reaction)
We can see Varonis & Gass' (1985) pattern of trigger,
indicator, response, and reaction to response as indicated in
brackets.
Following these definitions, the following part of a
conversation represents two interactional units, one with and
one without negotiation of meaning.
Laura: Wo ( .. ) wo ist Hans Schmidt urn zw6lf Uhr?
Jim: Er ist in der Cafeteria.
Laura: In dem?
Jim: Der.
Laura: Der.
Each pair's interaction was analyzed accordingly. Lists are
provided in the appendix with the time of occurrence on the
tape, the addressed topic, and further information whether the unit involved negotiation and, if yes, whether it addressed grammatical form and specifically the target structure.
All interactional units involving negotiation of meaning were transcribed and can be found in Appendix F. The
indicators, i.e. the particular comprehension checks, repetitions, clarification requests, etc., that introduce a unit are balded and italicized.
44 Here are two instances of negotiation of meaning not addressing form, as they occur in the data in the appendix.
They differ in that one contains a non-verbal clarification request. This shows that audio-recording might be insufficient for research on negotiation of meaning:
Bob: Das Messer ist ( . . ) ah ist ( . . ) vooor ( ... ) ist vor
die Bilder.
Just:( ... ) Was ist ein Bilder?
Bob: Auf Englisch? Poster, oder/
Just: Und, ah, wo liegt das Messer?
Bob: ( ... J
Just: Wo liegt das Messer? ( ... ) Wo liegt das Messer?
( ... ) Wo ist das Messer?
Bob: Oh, oh.
The following example shows a negotiation of meaning addressing form, though not the target structure. In such a case we could also speak of negotiation of form to emphasize that it involves the negotiation of a grammatical structure.
The indicator is a comprehension check:
Just: Er ist, er war/ Wissen Sie, was das ist? Er ist
bier, er war bier. Ahhm, gestern er war bier. XX
Wissen Sie, was war ist?
Bob: Haha .
Just: Ok. Gestern ich war bier nicht, heute ich bin bier.
Bob: Ah.
45 The next example shows a negotiation of meaning a ddressing the target structure:
Dav e: Und wo ist J ulia Korner urn elf Uhr?
Jack: Urn elf Uhr sie war auf dem Fahrrad.
Dave: Auf das Fahrrad?
Jack: Dem Fahrrad.
Tables 6, 7 , and 8 show the total number of interactional units (Total Units), the total number of units involving negotiation of meaning (Total Negs), the number of negotiations of meaning addressing grammatical form (Negs
Form) , and the number of negotiations of meaning addressing the target structure (Negs Dative).
Table 6
Group A: Number of Interactional Units
Total Units Total Negs Negs Form Negs Dative
Alex & Tina 48 22 7 4
Ben & Ned 39 11 1 1
John & Joe 41 9 0 0
Karla & 32 3 0 0 Karin Lau ra & Jim 39 9 5 5 TOTAL 189 54 13 10
46 Table 7
Group B: Number of Interactional Units
Total Units Total Negs Negs Form Negs Da tive
Susi & Liz 4 1 17 6 6
Dave & Jack 39 11 2 2
Bob & Just 49 23 12 9
Lee & Kelly 30 7 0 0 TOTAL 159 58 20 17
Table 8
Number of Units for Group A and Group B
Total Units Total Negs Negs Form Negs Dative
Group A 189 54 13 10 Group B 159 58 20 17
TOTAL 348 112 33 27 Table 9 presents the relat1onsh1ps among these numbers to show the percentages of interactional units involving negotiation
of meaning in all interactional units (Negs in all Units) 1 of interactional units involving negotiation of meaning
addressing form in all units (Form-Negs in all Units) I and interactional units inv olving negotiation of meaning addressing the target structure in all interactional units
(Dative-Negs in all Units).
Table 9
Percentages of negotiations in all units
Negs in all Form-Negs in Dative-Negs in Units ( %) all Units ( %) all Units (%) Group 1 28.6 6.87 5.29 Group 2 36.48 12.58 10.69
Group 1 & 2 32 . 18 9.48 7 . 76
47 Further, the percentages of negotiations of meaning addressing form in the total of all negotiations (Form-Negs in all Negs) were calculated, as well as the percentage of negotiations addressing the target structure in all negotiations (Dative-
Negs in all Negs) and in negotiations addressing form in general (Dative-Negs in Form-Negs) .
Table 10
Percentages of negotiations addressing form in all negotiations
Form-Negs in Dative-Negs in Dative-Negs in all Negs (%) all Negs (%) Form-Negs (%) Group 1 24.07 18 . 52 76.92 Group 2 34.48 29.31 85 Group 1 & 2 29.46 24.12 81.82
Results
This study shows that even beginning-level learners negotiate meaning quite frequently: negotiation of meaning made up 32.18%, i.e. one third, of all interactional units for both groups. The results also indicate that interlocutors of a different competence level negotiate more frequently than interlocutors of the same competence level: Negotiation of meaning constituted 36.48% of all interactional units in Group
B, and only 28.6% in Group A. At-test, however, reveals that the difference is not significant (t = .11, p < .05).
This study also shows that negotiation of meaning addresses grammatical form less frequently than other linguistic features such as vocabulary or pronunciation. For both groups, only 29 . 46% of all negotiations addressed form . A 48 slight difference can be observed between Group A and Group B:
while in Group B, 34.48% of all negotiations addressing form,
only 24.07% did so in Group A. Again at-test, however, shows
that this difference is not significant (t = .53, p < .05)
Further, it needs to be pointed out that the largest part
of negotiations addressing form were concerned with the target
structure, i.e. prepositions followed by the dative case. This
was the case for 76.92% of form-negotiations in Group A and
85% in Group B, which makes a total of 81.82% for both Groups.
Many researchers, among them Long (see Skehan & Foster, 2001)
argue that a communicative task should not be designed to
focus on any specific linguistic feature. The question arises
whether a communicative activity that is not specifically
designed to draw the students attention to a specific
grammatical structure will entail any significant number of
negotiations of meaning that address form.
The improvement in the posttest scores seems to imply a
positive effect of participation in the experimental
activities on subsequent performance in the target structure.
Group A improved by 8.33%. Group B improved by 6.25%. And both groups together improved by 7.41%. At-test, however, reveals that these numbers are not significant: for Group At .64;
for Group B t = .69; and for Group A and B together t .55.
In order to visualize the relationship between the number of negotiations used and the improvement in the grammaticality test I correlated the two sets of numbers and displayed them as graphs.
49 Figure 1 i llustrates the correlation between all negotiation moves in general and the improv ement in the test scores .
Figure 2 illustrates the correlation between the negotiations addressing the dative and the improvement in the test scores.
Neither Figure 1 nor Figure 2 show any correlation between their variabl es, a finding that is confirmed by an r-value o f r = .30 for the variables "total negotiations" and "test score improvement" (Figure 1 ) and r = .17 for the variables "dative - negotiations" and "test score improvement" (Figure 2). This study , thus, shows no impact of negotiation o f meaning during the methodologically focused experimental activities on the subjects' s ubsequent performance in the target structure.
Figure 1
Correlation between Test Improvement and Total Negotiations
... c: ·- 4) 4 E • 4) > 3 ...0 • a. 2 E • 1 ~ 0 • • () 0 C/)... • • • rtl -1 -· 4) 1- • -2 • • -3 0 10 15 20 25 Total Negotiations
50 Figure 2
Correlation between Test Improvement and Dative-Negotiations
•
..c: • • Cll E 3 Cll > ec. .E • ~ 1 0 u • • (/) .. 0 Cll • • 1-"' -1 • -2 • •
-3 0 10 Dative-Negotiations
A flaw in the design of the grammaticality tests needs to be
pointed out: the students who scored a 100% in the pretest had
no room for improvement on the posttest and thus had an
improvement rate of 0. This happened in three cases from a
sample size of 18 subjects.
Discussion
This study confirms that negotiation of meaning occurs during interl anguage talk, and that it does so rather
frequently even among first- and second-semester beginning
German students.
This might be due t o the task t y pe: As many researchers, e.g. Pica & Doughty (1986 ) and Nobuy oshi & Ellis (1993), have poi nted out, two- wa y information gap activities typically
51 trigger a high frequency of negotiations of meaning. The first task triggered a higher number of negotiations of meaning, possibly due to the fact that the subjects were able to interact more freely and creatively with less constraints imposed on them by the task. As a drawback, it also produced more frustration among the subjects as the analysis of the audio-recordings showed, during which the frustration of some of the subjects became clear: "See, now I am confused".
A large portion of negotiation of meaning was concerned with phonology and lexis and non-understanding for other reasons (e.g. limited processing capacities often seem to be the reason for interlocutors to request repetition) .
A smaller amount of negotiations of meaning were concerned with grammatical form. The greatest part of such negotiation of form dealt with the target structure. This seems to be triggered by the repeated explicit instructions to focus on this form and produce it correctly "since this is an official police document" (see the instructions given to the subjects in Appendix B). This leads us to ask the following question: do unfocused communicative activities trigger negotiation of form, i.e. do learners under such circumstances divert from a pure focus on meaning to a focus on form? The answer might depend on the learner-type, as Ellis & Nobuyoshi
(1993) suggest. As stated earlier, most studies show a small amount of negotiation of form (see Skehan & Foster, 2001;
Pica, 1994) and most studies use unfocused experimental activities (Varonis & Gass 1985; Pica, 1988).
52 Another important finding is that the study could not
show a significant correlation between the frequency of
negotiation of meaning and test-performance.
In many cases the target structure was negotiated and it was nevertheless written down incorrectly. But most of the
time it was not negotiated at all. One reason might be that
the target structure is not necessary to arrive at the
intended meaning. A preposition and any article plus the
correct noun suffice to successfully bring the meaning across,
i.e. the job can be done without use of the target structure.
Skehan and Foster (2001) deem this quite natural:
In evolutionary terms, it is entirely plausible that the
language system should be robust in this way - requiring
crystalline precision in all communication could well
have been decidedly dangerous for our ancestors' health
and survival. Unsurprisingly therefore, a strategy of
prioritizing the meaning of the message over its form is
not uncommon among language learners. (p. 183)
Another reason might be that the tasks seem rather demanding for the beginning level. Schmidt (1993) points out that
"communicative interaction is always a divided attention task... " (p. 15) involving the aspect of meaning and the aspect of form. If it is correct that attention is a limited resource
(Schmidt, 2001) and that divided attention becomes less successful the more complex the competing aspects of the task become, then the lack of focus on form can be explained by the students preoccupation with the highly demanding aspect of
53 meaning, at the expense of focus on and accuracy in form. This
might especially be the case where the target structure has
such limited semantic value, as it is the case in this study.
If we follow Schmidt (1993; 1994) in assuming that
acquisition always requires attention, then I infer from the
low improvement on the posttest scores that the experimental
activities failed to draw the subjects' attention to the
target form. In cognitive terms, the target structure has for
the most part not entered the subjects' working memory for
further processing, not to mention that subsequently no change
could occur in the subjects' interlanguage regarding the
target structure. This underlines Long and Robinson's (1998)
finding that, "teachers' attempts to raise consciousness might not result in consciousness raising" (p. 18). Students might focus their attention on other things than what their teachers and the task designers intended. Skehan & Foster (2001) agree on this issue. In this study, despite a great effort to make the target structure salient by giving explicit instructions and offering a high frequency of the structure, the subjects generally focused on other linguistic features than grammatical structure. The same point is made by Schmidt
(1994) :
Learning takes place within the learner's mind (brain)
and cannot be completely engineered by teachers or
syllabus designers. Students do not always attend to what
teachers intend them to attend to_ (p. 46)
54 Seedhouse (1997) provides the following "formula" for
successful dual focus, i.e. focus on form and meaning:
It appears from the interactional evidence that it is
possible, in certain circumstances, for teachers to
create and maintain a dual focus on form and meaning,
accuracy and fluency . This can be accomplished by finding
opportunities for learners to talk about topics which are
personally meaningful to them: it is for teachers and
learners to negotiate which topics are meaningful to the
learners, allowing the learners to manage the interaction
themselves, and limiting the teacher's role ... (p. 343)
Even though none of Seedhouse's (1997) suggestions seem to be incorrect, our findings show that they do not suffice in many cases.
I conclude by pointing out the fact that learners even on a beginning level negotiate meaning quite frequently.
Negotiation of grammatical form also takes place, but to a far lesser extent than negotiation addressing other linguistic features such as phonology or lexis . The study implies that the negotiation of a target structure has no significant impact on subsequent performance. But this does not suggest that negotiation of form, if it occurs, does not have a positive effect on acquisition. Instead, this study shows that communicative tasks that focus on a specific grammatical structure need to be carefully designed. Students often do not attend to what the teachers and task designers intend for them to do. It is especially important to design these tasks in a
55 way that the aspect of meaning is not too demanding and thus occupies the learners' attention entirely . This makes the desired dual focus on meaning and form, a "pushdown" (Varonis
& Gass, 1985) i.e. a temporary focal diversion from meaning to form, impossible. The dativ e case is a feature of the German language that, in my experience, many learners struggle with, e v en when they are otherwise well advanced. This also shows in the test results from the second-semester subjects, which seemed to indicate a very low competence in this area. For the first-semester subjects it was a rather new feature and I agree with Nobuyoshi & Ellis (1992) in their conclusion that
"focused communication tasks would seem better suited to increasing control than to 'teaching' new forms" (p. 210)
56 References
Doughty, C. & Pica, T . (1986). "Information gap" tasks: Do
they facilitate second language acquisition?. TESOL
Quarterly, 20 (2 ) , 305-325.
Edmondson, W. J. & House, J. (2000). Einfuhrung in die
Sprachlehrforschung. Stuttgart: UTB.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and
interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction
to the special issue . The Modern Language Journal, 82(3),
299-307.
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition:
An introductory course. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis in second language
acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language
acquisition: A book of readings (pp.401-435). Rowley:
Newbury House Publishers.
Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M. & Fujiwara, M. & Fearnow, S. (1999)
Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on
noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 21(3 ) , 421-452.
57 Krashen, S. (1985) . The input hypothesis: Issues and
implications. London/New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output?. System, 26, 175-
182.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to
second language acquisition Research. London/New York:
Longman .
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An
introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language
acquisition. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation .
University of California, Los Angeles.
Long, M. (1982). Native speaker/non-native Speaker
conversation in the second language classroom. On TESOL
'82, 207-225.
Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to
non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 5(2), 177-193.
Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlangu age talk,
and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2),
207-228.
Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory,
research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition
(pp.15-42) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
58 Long, M. (2001). Focus on form: A design feature in language
teaching methodology. In C. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.),
English language teaching in its social context: A reader
(pp. 180-190). London/New York: Routledge.
Nobuyoshi, J. & Ellis, R. (1993) . Focused communication tasks
and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47(3), 203-
210.
Omaggio Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Pica, T. & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the
communicative language classroom: A comparison of
teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.
115-136). Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers.
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of
NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38(1),
45-73.
Pica, T. ( 1991) . Classroom interaction, negotiation, and
comprehension: Redefining relationships. System, 19(4),
437-452.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal
about second-language learning conditions, processes, and
outcomes?. Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction:
Multiple perspectives. Working Papers in Educational
Linguistics, 12(1), 1-22.
59 Pica, T. & Lincoln-Porter, F. & Paninos, D. & Linnell, J.
(1996). Language learners' interaction: How foes it
address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2
learners? . TESOL Quarterly, 30 (1), 59-84.
Rodrigo, V. & Krashen, S. & Gribbons, B. (2004). The
effectiveness of two comprehensible-input approaches to
foreign language instruction at the intermediate level.
System, 32, p. 53-60.
Schmidt, R. ( 1990) . The role of consciousness in second
language acquisition . Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schmidt, R. (1995) . Consciousness and foreign language
learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and
awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention &
awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63).
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press .
Schmidt, R. (2001) . Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.) , Cognition
and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press .
Seedhouse, P. (1997) . Combining form and meaning. ELT Journal,
51(4), 336-344.
Selinker, L . (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL 10 (3), 209-31.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981) . Consciousness-raising and the
second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2),
159-169.
60 Skehan, P. & Foster , P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P.
Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction
(pp.183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (1985) . Communicative competence : Some roles of
comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its
development. InS. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and
writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review,
50 (1)' 158-164.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the
cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391 .
Terrell, T. & Tschirner, E. & Nikolai, B. (2000) . Kontakte: A
communicative approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Varonis, E. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native
conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning.
Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-90.
Vygotsky , L.S . (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: the input
hypothesis and the development of second-language
competence. Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 95-110.
61 AP PENDI X A
Gramma t i c ality Judgme n t Test
Table Al
Grammaticality Judgment Test
Grammaticality Judgment
Circle the sentence that you think is correct. Can you give an explanation for your choice (There is no wrong or stupid answer. You can answer anything, e.g. "feels right" or " I guessed" or " Because ... "? if that is how you decided.)
I. I der Tisch I a) Die Pistole ist auf der Tisch. b) Die Pistole ist auf die Tisch. c) Die Pistole ist auf das Tisch. d) Die Pistole ist auf den Tisch. e) Die Pistole ist auf dem Tisch. f) Die Pistole ist auf Tisch. Explanation: ______
2. die Lampe a) Das Handy ist auf der Lampe. b) Das Handy ist auf die Lampe. c) Das Hand ist auf das Lampe. d) Das Handy ist auf den Lampe. e) Das Handy ist auf dem Lampe. f) Das Handy ist auf Handy. Explanation: ______
62 3. das Sofa a) Der Koffer ist auf der Sofa. b) Der Koffer ist auf die Sofa. c) Der Koffer ist auf das Sofa. d) Der Koffer ist auf den Sofa. e) Der Koffer ist auf dem Sofa. f) Der Koffer ist auf Sofa.
Explanation:------
4. die BUcher a) Das Messer ist neben der Btichern. b) Das Messer ist neben die BUchern. c) Das Messer ist neben das Btichern. d) Das Messer ist neben den BUchern. e) Das Messer ist neben dem BUchern. f) Das Messer ist neben Btichern. Explanation: ______
5. der Fernseher
a) Das Buch ist vor der Fernseher. b) Das Buch ist vor die Fernseher. c) Das Buch ist vor das Fernseher. d) Das Buch ist vor den Fernseher. e) Das Buch ist vor dem Fernseher. f) Das Buch ist vor Fernseher. Explanation: ______
63 6. die Palme a) Der Blutfleck ist Uber der Palme. b) Der Blutfleck ist Uber die Palme. c) Der Blutfleck ist Uber das Palm e. d) Der Blutfleck ist Uber den Pal me . e) Der Blutfleck ist Uber dem Palme. t) Der Blutfleck ist Uber Palme. Explanation: ______
7. das Regal
a) Die Katze ist auf der Regal. b) Die Katze ist auf die Regal. c) Die Katze ist auf das Regal. d) Die Katze ist auf den Regal. e) Die Katze ist auf dem Regal. t) Die Katze ist auf Regal. Explanation: ______
8. die Bilder a) Das Geld ist zwischen der Bildern. b) Das Geld ist zwischen die Bildern. c) Das Geld ist zwischen das Bildern. d) Das Geld ist zwischen den Bildern. e) Das Geld ist zwischen dem Bildern. t) Das Geld ist zwischen Bildern.
Explanation: ------
64 9. Der Stuhl a) Das Handy ist auf der Stuhl. b) Das Handy ist auf die Stuhl. c) Das Handy ist auf das Stu hi. d) Das Handy ist auf den Stuhl. e) Das Handy ist auf dem Stuhl. f) Das Handy ist auf Stu hi. Explanation: ______
10. die Ti.ir a) Der Hund ist vor der Ti.ir. b) Der Hund ist vor die Ti.ir. c) Der Hund ist vor das Ti.ir. d) Der Hund ist vor den Ti.ir. e) Der Hund ist vor dem Ti.ir. f) Der Hund ist vor Ti.ir. Explanation: ______
II. das Bett
a) Die Flasche ist auf der Bett. b) Die Flasche ist auf die Bett. c) Die Flasche ist auf das Bett. d) Die Flasche ist auf den Bett. e) Die Flasche ist auf dem Bett. f) Die Flasche ist auf Bett. Explanation: ______
65 12 . die Hosen a) Der Pullover ist unter der Hosen. b) Der Pullover ist unter die Hosen. c) Der Pullover ist unter das Hosen. d) Der Pullover ist unter den Hosen. e) Der Pullover ist unter dem Hosen. f) Der Pullover ist unter Hosen. Explanation: ______
66 APPENDIX B
Experimental Activities
Table A2
Task 1: Instructions
TASKl
A murder has been committed and the culprit is at large. You and your partner are German police detectives, investigating the crime scene. A sketch of the crime scene has been drawn based on the witnesses' accounts (see picture). Unfortunately, your sketch and your partner's sketch differ in various details. The sketches need to be exact copies of each other, which means that you have to exchange information about the placement of the objects missing in either your or your partner's sketch. You cannot look at each others' sketches but have to describe the locations of the missing objects orally. The two boxes below provide you with prepositions and nouns that you should use to describe the locations. Make sure to use the correct grammar, especially the prepositions followed by the dative. Each time you figured out the location of an object, place the magnet in your sketch and then complete the written statement below (example is given). Again, please use the correct grammar (underlined in the sample), since this is an official police document.
67 Table A3
Task 1: Crime Scene and Objects
68 Table A4
Task 1: Worksheet A
das Sofa die Lampe der Tisch auf zwischen vor unter das Regal die Bilder die BUcher neben an der Fernseher die Palme tiber in
Modell: Student I: Wo ist die Katze? Student 2: Die Katze ist auf dem Regal.
die Katze: Die Katze ist auf dem Regal.
das Handy:
~ dasGeld:
~ die Flasche'
'das Messer:
® die Kamera:
~ I der Blutfleck:
C:::.~ der Baseballschlager:
~ die Pistole:
@ der Koffe"
/i1fJ das Tagebuch:
~ ~~ ~ der Pullove"
'<
69 Table AS
Task 1 : Worksheet B
das Sofa die Lampe der Tisch auf zwischen vor unter das Regal die Bilder die Bucher neben der Fernseher die Palme an tiber In
Modell: Student I: Wo ist das Handy? Student 2: Das Handy ist auf der Lampe.
die Katze:
das Handy: Das Handy ist auf der Lampe.
Cif!:IJ das Geld:
~ die Flasche:
"das Messer:
~ die Kamera: ,', ..-.! der Bluttleck: C::.-::::@ der Baseballschlager:
~ die Pistole:
@ der Koffer:
@ das Tagebuch: ...-rl l :.. ' I[~ der Pullover: ~~\l... ~
70 Table A6
Task 2 : Worksheet A
You are still trying to solve the murder case. You have narrowed down the group of suspects to four people. They have been interviewed about their alibis for the time of the crime. A chart has been drawn showing where exactly they were at what time. Unfortunately, your chart and your partner's chart are missing different pieces of information. Please, exchange the missing information orally and enter it in the appropriate slots in the chart. Prepositions and nouns to describe the locations are given below in the two boxes. Please cross the word out after you have used it. Make sure to use the correct grammar since this is an official police document.
der Fernseher die Dusche das Rathaus tn tn in die Ki.iche der Fernseher die Kirche die Autobahn die Polizei die Cafeteria tn in in das Fahrrad die Mensa das Bett auf auf auf auf vor vor
Modell: Student I: Wo ist Peter Meier urn I 0 Uhr? Student 2: Er ist im Bett.
Namen~ Peter Meier Susi MUller Hans Julia Korner Zeit -1.- Schmidt urn 10:00 im Bett aufdem Uhr Rathaus
urn 11:00 vor dem aufdem Uhr Fernseher Fahrrad urn 12:00 auf der in der Uhr Polizei Cafeteria
71 Table A7
Task 2 : Worksheet B
You are still trying to so lve the murder case. You have narrowed down the group of suspects to four people. They have been interviewed about their alibis for the time of the crime. A chart has been drawn showing where exactly they were at what time. Unfortunately, your chart and your partner's chart are missing different pieces of information. Please, exchange the missing information orally and enter it in the appropriate slots in the chart. Prepositions and nouns to desc ribe the locations are given below in the two boxes. Please cross the word out after you have used it. Make sure to use the correct grammar since this is an official police document.
der Fernseher die Dusche das Rathaus tn tn tn die KUche der Fernseher die Kirche
die Autobahn die Polizei die Cafeteria tn in tn das Fahrrad die Mensa das Bett auf auf auf auf vor vor
Modell: Student I: Wo ist Peter Meier urn II Uhr? Student 2: Er ist in der KUche .
Namen~ Peter Meier Susi MUller Hans Julia Korner Zeit ...!- Schmidt urn 10:00 in der in der Kirche Uhr Dusche urn 11 :00 in der KUche auf der Uhr Autobahn urn 12:00 vor dem in der Mensa Uhr Fernseher
72 APPENDIX C
Excerpts from the Transcribed Data
Table AS
Transcripts of Negotiations of Meaning Addressing Other
Linguistic Features Than Form
Jim: Wo ist der Baseballschlager, Schlager.
Laura: Schla/ Schlager. A h ... ich wei/3 nicht, wo ist er?
Jim: Der Baseballschlager ist ( .. ) ah neben (. .. ) was ist neben und zwischen? ahm
ich wei/3 nicht
Laura: Zwischen ist wenn es ist ah ah die Bild ist an eine Seite und andern Bild ist an
die andern Seite und das ahm ah das ah kommt in die Mitte. ah, ist zwischen.
Liz: Wo ist Peter Meier urn zwolfUhr?
Susi: Eeer ( ... ) auf der ( .. ) Polisia, Poll
Liz: Poli/ Polizei?
Susi: Polizei, ja.
Karin: Wo ist Julia Korner urn 12 Uhr?
Karla: Sie ist in der Mensa. Was ist Mensa?
Karin: Cafeteria.
Karla: Oh, ok, danke.
73 Table A9
Transcripts of Negotiations of Meaning Addressing Form
Just: Er ist, er war/ Wissen Sie, was das ist? Er ist hier, er war hier. Ahhm, gestem
er war hier. XX Wissen Sie was war ist?
Bob: Haha.
Just: Ok. Gestem ich war hier nicht, heute ich bin hier.
Bob: Ah.
Just: Und wo war, ah, Hans Schmidt urn zehn Uhr?
Bob: Ahm, urn zehn Uhr eeer/
Just: War er.
--Bob: Er war/
Just: War er.
Bob: Hmm?
Just: Ich werden es zeigen. ( ... ) Ich werden es zeigen. [showing?]
Bob: Ahh.
74 Table AlO
Transcripts of Negotiations of Meaning Addressing the Target
Structure
Bob: Wo ist Peter Meier urn elfUhr?
Just: Ahh. Urn elfUhr, Peter ist in der Ki.iche.
Bob: (. .. )in die Kiiche?
Just: In der Ki.iche, genau.
Laura: Wo ( .. ) wo ist Hans Schmidt urn zwolfUhr?
Jim: Er ist in der Cafeteria.
Laura: In dem?
Jim: Der.
Laura: Der.
Alex: W o ist Hans Schmidt urn zehn Uhr?
Tina: Er ist auf dem Rathaus.
Alex: aufdem?
Tina: hmhm
Alex: Ok.
75