Negretti, R. “Web-Based Activities and SLA: A Conversation Analysis Research Approach.” Language Learning & Technology Vol. 3. No.1. July 1999, p. 75 – 87.
Raffaella Negretti conducted this qualitative study in order to analyse Webchat interaction among native speakers of English and ESL students through a Conversational Analysis approach. The CA approach was adopted in order for the researcher to study how social actions are produced in real time, without being bound to preconceived theories. The ESL students were eight graduates in Foreign Languages and Literature from Universita’ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Although having studied English for some time, these students still had trouble using the language to communicate. Webchat was utilized for a month, as a tool for educational resources in ESL and Internet classes. Almost four hours of unsupervised conversation was collected, and students were occasionally asked to print them out.
In addition to that, a second group of native and non-native students from other parts of the world were involved in the Webchat. A total of 36 participants were involved, whereby 17 were native speakers of English from Australia and the US, 19 were non-native speakers from Brazil, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Spain. Interactions between the ESL students and this second group were recorded over four days, for a total of 2 hours and 58 minutes. The timing of each posting was recorded in order to enhance data reliability.
A few questions raised by Pomerantz and Fehr (1997) were influential in order to understand the nature and SLA characteristics of this conversational environment. The first research question is whether Webchat reduces or modifies the range of practices that participants would use in a normal interaction and how it manifests itself in speech. Apart from that, does the context of Webchat affect the way speakers “package actions?”
The second question is how speakers negotiate meanings and create a sequential context in a technological setting that is different from oral communication? In particular, what structures, patterns, and conversational mechanisms used by native and non-native speakers are most common?
Data analysis of the conversations that took place was reliable as they were recorded and easily printed out. However the lack of visual and aural cues to derive meaning was also a challenge, as this channel of communication wasn’t available to students. Seliger and Shohamy’s (1989, p.104) criteria for valid heuristic research was used. Since participants were required to print out their interactions, the researcher didn’t have to observe them.
Among the significant findings of the researcher was the nature of communication in Webchat which was frequently disrupted and discontinued due to simultaneous interactions, required a great deal of motivation and commitment from the speakers. Since relevant replies are sometimes delayed or non-existent, Second language learners face two challenges in terms of trying to acquire typical structures and sequences of the foreign language, while trying to adapt to the new communicative setting.
Besides that, non-native speakers of English frequently used the private chat option, while using appropriate language features. The influence of context here is evident as even when in a one on one chat environment, non-native speakers resort to using L2 instead of L1. This shows that non-native speakers consider the setting of an ‘English only’ rule as very significant, and chances are they wouldn’t behave similarly if they had to engage in face to face oral communication with another person in a foreign country.
Non-native speakers also demonstrated awareness and the ability to handle multiple responses during Webchat which tend to overlap each other, without a specific flow.
Another strategy which native and non-native speakers use involves turn-taking. By reconnecting a sequence of turns and explicitly stating by name who is addressing whom,
Responses can be easily identified by the addressee and the rest of the chat room. Combining two different social actions which is impossible in face to face communication is also performed by both native and non-native speakers. This involves addressing two different people in the same turn.
Apart from that, body language is substituted with the use of uppercase letters and emoticons. Interestingly, non-native speakers relied exclusively on uppercase letters and never used emoticons, which were popular among their native speaking counterparts. This can be attributed to the lack of exposure to CMC for EFL learners. Onomatopoeia and punctuation marks were also used for speakers to express themselves better.
However, native speakers used onomatopoetic devices frequently, and non-native speakers never did. Instead, punctuation such as exclamation marks were preferred by non-native speakers.
In conclusion, participants demonstrated context relevance of Webchat in their interactions. There are many ways in which participants adapted to the limitations of Webchat, particularly when it came to the structure of turn-taking and the sequence of actions. This resulted in participants using unique strategies to ease communication.
Therefore, with regards to the education system in Malaysia, Negretti’s findings open up a whole avenue of possibilities for teaching English. Her method of analysis uncovered certain strategies which students used during Webchat, and this technique could be applied to help students improve their proficiency levels.
The chance to communicate with students from other countries who are native speakers to improve their English, would already boost their level of interest in the subject as it’s something new and exciting for them. If this method can be applied to primary school students, it would be even better as they would be exposed to a medium of communication which will help in building their confidence. This is crucial as they are at a young and impressionable age. Furthermore, the non-threatening nature of online communication will make them feel secure and more willing to engage in an English conversation, regardless of their fluency levels.
If significant improvements are detected at the level of primary school children, this program can then be introduced to higher levels of education. However, the program should be tweaked a little to include the involvement of the teacher as an observer or moderator, to ensure the safety of students.
Analysis of Sample Data
Online communication presents certain boundaries to participants, as they’re sometimes unable to express themselves as clearly as they would like, compared to face to face interaction. Most chat programs have options to reduce the effects of those boundaries, by offering the use of emoticons, animated emotes and voice clips.
However, there is another way for chatters who do not want to use emoticons to accompany their messages, and still be able to decrease the likelihood of their words being misinterpreted by the addressee.
In this excerpt taken from MSN Messenger, both chatters exhibit the frequent use of punctuation marks in order to express themselves clearly and avoid confusion. Punctuation marks can be defined as “a system of conventional signs and spaces employed to organize written and printed language in order to make it as readable, clear, and as logical as possible.”
These include exclamation points, commas, fullstops, colons, hyphens, semi-colons and apostrophes. Punctuation marks remain integral to written communication, as it serves to give a body of text ‘intonation’ and emphasis for readers to interpret and digest. Different forms of written text such as newspapers, letters and notices have distinct forms of punctuation depending on the type of message that needs to be delivered, and the audience which the message is intended for.
The following analysis of the chat sample will attempt to explain the significance of the use of punctuation marks in synchronous online communication.
In the 27th move where the chatter nicknamed ‘Cobaltte’ says: ‘hahaha not quite..captain marvel likes to perform diving headed clearances...i can't..’ there is clear use of several fullstops to connect several sentences. This technique shows the use of fullstops as a link between ‘utterances’, culminating in the structure of a single sentence. ‘Cobaltte’ continues in this method of using fullstops in the 43rd and 46th turns. Other examples of this style are detected further on in the excerpt.
On the other hand, the second chatter nicknamed ‘Kenny’ uses the fullstop mainly at the end of sentences, as can be seen in moves 4, 9, 13 and 19. He demonstrates the same style of usage in other parts of the excerpt as well. Interestingly, ‘Kenny’ never uses the fullstop in the same manner in which ‘Cobaltte’ does, who liberally lines them up one after another in a single sentence structure.
The contrast between the two styles of the usage of fullstops can be put down to personal preference and ‘Kenny’ seems to adhere more to normal writing conventions, regarding the usage of this punctuation mark.
Besides that, it can be observed that both ‘Kenny’ and ‘Cobaltte’ use the question mark many times during their chat session to indicate that a question is being asked, which requires an immediate response from the other. This is akin to a face to face conversation, and the question marks serve as a good substitute for a lack of voice intonation between the two chatters. But there is also a rare instance where in move 15, ‘Cobaltte’ asks a question, and ‘Kenny’ ‘answers’ with a question right after that.
Subsequently, ‘Kenny’ returns to the first question being asked and answers it and ‘Cobaltte’ answers ‘Kenny’s’ question right after he finishes with his reply. So although there is an instance of a question being asked simultaneously, both chatters exhibit a degree of politeness in taking turns to reply to each other.
In addition to that, the use of punctuation marks to indicate emphasis and surprise can also be seen in moves 29, 32, 36, and 54. Exclamation points were used to indicate enthusiasm towards a subject matter in moves 29, 32, and 54. Whereas in move 36, two question marks were used side by side to show surprise.
In conclusion, from the various examples given above it can be deduced that online communication forces participants to adapt and make use of the technology available to them, and helps them to come up with creative ways to express themselves better in the virtual world. The usage of punctuation marks is certainly one of the options that can be utilized, and although it may differ slightly from one individual to another, (such as the usage of fullstops mentioned above) the ultimate goal is to try and replicate the mannerisms of face to face communication.
