Negotiated Interaction and Immediate Output

——An Investigation on Chinese EFL Classrooms

Liu Xuehui (Nanjing Normal University)

Qian Weiwei (Southern Yangtze University)

Definition

• Negotiation, in SLA literature, refers to various kinds of interactional modification made by the learners and their interlocutors in order to deal with communication problems. （ Long, 1985; Richards et al. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 1993 ）

• Various kinds of conversational modification made by learners and their interlocutors in order to achieve mutual understanding, generate more accurate L2 forms, or produce more relevant information concerning a certain topic (Liu and Zhao, 2004).

Based on our expanded notion of negotiation, there can be three kinds of negotiation

• Negotiation of meaning

• Negotiation of form

• Negotiation of content

Theoretical Background

• Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1983)

• Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985,1995)

• Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996)

• Vygotsky’s (1978) social cultural theory

Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1983)

interactional modification

More comprehensible input

L2 acquisition

Swain’s Output Hypothesis

learners’ pushed output in conversation

notice the gap between interlanguage and target language, improve/correct

L2 acquisition

negotiation

Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996)

negotiation

promote comprehensible input

make linguistic forms salient

Learners modify their output

Interaction from the socio-cultural perspective(Vygotsky,1978)

the interlocutor Learner

challenging

Scaffolding / mediation

Internalization

learner-directed /contingent talk

Related Empirical StudiesEarly times: • how negotiation facilitated the comprehensibilit

y of input (meaning) (e.g. Pica et al 1987 ； Gass & Varonis1985)

• description of the conversational modifications in natural communication or classroom interaction

(e.g. Long & Sato1983)

Related Empirical StudiesMore recently:

• how negotiations cause learners to notice the forms and improve their accuracy in output

(produce modified output)

(Branden,1997;Lyster and Ranta, 1997;Lyster, 1997, 2002 )

Related Empirical Studies

• Influence of negotiation on output

- on immediate output (process-based) (e.g. Holliday1995, Pica, 1996 )

- on ultimate improvement in output (e.g. Donato1995; Mackey,1997 )

Related Empirical Studies

• Researches on negotiation in EFL classroom in China:

谭伟民 , 2001

赵国霞 ,2002

周星 & 周韵 , 2002

刘学惠 & 赵国霞 , 2004

Research Design

1. Need for the study

• Insufficiency in researches in this field

• The characteristics of EFL classroom in China

• The characteristics of senior high school students

• Response to “the New Curriculum” implementation

Research Design

2. Research Questions• How often does negotiation take place in the

observed classes?• How different kinds of negotiation (i.e.

negotiation of meaning / form / content) are distributed in the observed classes?

• What devices are most commonly used to initiate negotiation?

• How effective are these devices in pushing students’ modified output?

Research Design

3. Subjects:

9 teachers and their students in their 9 class sessions (all together 405 minutes)

4. Data Collection

audio-recording

transcribing

Research Design

5. Coding5.1. Locating “negotiation” ： distinguish negotiated

interaction from non-negotiated interaction

Non-negotiated interaction: I-R-F pattern1 T: Now next“ 我认为你们每天早上读读英语是很有益处的”。

XX, please. I2 S: I think it useful for you to read English in the morning. R3 T: Very good. Sit down please.

F

Research Design

• Negotiated Interaction: variations of IRFe.g. IR[IR(F)]n(F) , I[R(F)]n (I)(R)(F) , etc.

T: Do you like poems? IS: I don’t like. I don’t like poems. RT: I don’t mean those funny limericks, I mean those formal po

em, those great poems. Do you like them? IS: No. RT: Oh, you don’t like poetry. F

Research Design

• 5.2 Classification of Negotiation

(based on Liu & Zhao, 2004)

Negotiation of meaning

Negotiation of form

Negotiation of content

Negotiation of meaning

1 T: Do you like poems? I

2 S: I don’t like. I don’t like poems. R

3 T: I don’t mean those funny limericks, I

mean those formal poem, those great

poems. Do you like them? I

4 S: No. R

5 T: Oh, you don’t like poetry. F

back

Negotiation of form

1 T: “They are writing a report about the negative effects of cell phones in school”. XX, please. (require to change the sentence to passive voice) I

2 S: A report about the negative effects of cell phones in school are being written. R3 T: The verb. Is or are? I4 Ss: Is. R5 T: A report is written. F

back

Negotiation of content

１ T: Oh, you don’t like poetry. Why not? I２ S: er, I, I, want to read novels. R３ T: That is you prefer novels to poetry, right? F/I４ S: (nodding) R５ T: But, do you think poems are beautiful in verse, beautiful language? F/I

６ S: I like poetry, but novels are more interesting. R７ T: Ok, that’s your own taste. Sit down please. F

Research Design

• 5.4 Negotiation Initiator

1 T: Do you like poems? I2 S: I don’t like. I don’t like poems. R3 T: I don’t mean those funny limericks, I mean those formal poems, those great poems. Do you like them? I4 S: No. R5 T: Oh, you don’t like poetry. F

Research Design• 5.5 Initiating Deviceselicitation (el.) ： further questioning on contentrepair (re.) ： correction (non-negotiation, in fact)

repair-initiation (re. in.) ： indirect correctioncomprehension check (com. ch.) ： eg. see what I mean?

confirmation check (con. ch.) ： eg. So you mean xxx?

clarification request (cl. re.) ： eg. Pardom me?

prompt (p.) ： often by giving half said sentenceClue (cl.) ： give some related information either

in form or in content

Initiative device and output

“Whether learners do modify their output as a result of negotiation depends to a considerable extent on the nature of the indicating move.” (Ellis, 1999: 12)

Research Design

• 5.6 Evaluating Students’ OutputQuantitatively:• The number of c-units• Average length of c-unit

Qualitatively:• Average number of S-nodes per c-unit• The relevance of utterance • The information provided in utterance （ answer T’s

questions/chances to initiate another negotiation, etc.)

Findings

　 Negotiated　exchangeNon-negotiated

totalexchange

Class　1 15　　(20%) 60　　(80%) 75　　(100%)

Class　2 12　　(30%) 28　　(70%) 40　　(100%)

Class　3 11　　(21.5%) 40　　(78.5%) 51　　(100%)

Class　4 14　　(21.5%) 51　　(78.5%) 65　　(100%)

Class　5 8　　　(14.5%) 43　　(85.5%) 55　　(100%)

Class　6 9　　　(12.9%) 61　　(87.1%) 70　　(100%)

Class　7 5　　　(11.9%) 37　　(88.1%) 42　　(100%)

Class　8 7　　　(13.5%) 45　　(86.5%) 52　　(100%)

Class　9 5　　　(7.9%) 58　　(92.1%) 63　　(100%)

Total 84 (16.4%) 429 (83.6%) 513　　(100%)

Finding1. Ratio of negotiated and non-negotiated exchanges

Table 1

Discussion

IRF exchanges take up a large percentage of EFL classrooms.

fewer opportunities for

achieving successful comprehension

production of new language forms

application of communicative strategies

Table 2

Negotiation　of　meaning

Negotiation　of　form

Negotiation　of　content

Total

32 38.1% 15 17.9% 37 44% 84　　　　100%

Finding 2: frequency and percentage of the three types of negotiation

Discussion(1): Need for more NOFs

How to improve accuracy in output?

1. Direct correction:

3. Negotiated correction (negotiation of form)

2. Form-focused exercises

Teacher corrects.

Interrupt comprehension

Indirect, even implicit correction; communication may not stop

Isolated from contexts

Discussion(2) ： Benefits of more NOCs

Negotiation of content appears most frequently.

enrich the content of interaction

involve more students’ cognitive work (both language and general)

involve more student participation

evoke more negotiation of meaning

or negotiation of form better language learning

Finding 3: Distribution of the devices used in teachers’ initiation of negotiation

　 Negotiation　of　meaning

Negotiation　of　form

Negotiation　of　content

Total

Elicitation 2　　(18.2%) 0　　(0%) 9　　(81.8%) 11　　(100%)

Repair 0　　(0%) 6　　(100%) 0　　(0%) 6　　(100%)

Rep.　ini. 0　　(0%) 5　　(55.6%) 4　　(44.4%) 9　　(100%)

Prompt 4　　(13.3%) 6　　(20%) 20　　(66.7%) 30　　(100%)

Comp.　ch. 3　　(100%) 0　　(0%) 0　　(0%) 3　　(100%)

Conf.　　ch. 13　　(44.8%) 3　　(10.3%) 13　　(44.8%) 29　　(100%)

Clar.　re. 12　　(38.7%) 1　　(3.2%) 18　　(58.1%) 31　　(100%)

Clue 0　　(0%) 1　　(20%) 4　　(80%) 5　　(100%)

Total 34　　(27.4%) 22　　(17.7%) 68　　(54.9%) 124　　(100%)

Table 3

Finding 4: relationship between teachers’ initiation and students’ output

Initiation Response

Name　ofdevices

Frequency

Longest　move Shortest　move　(word　number)

Word　number　/　c-unit

c-unitsS-nodes　/　c-unit(word　number)

Elicitation 11 15 1 6.1 13 0.69

Repair 6 17 1 6.2 6 0.5

Rep.　ini. 9 7 1 2.8 6 0.11

Prompt 30 22 1 5.9 36 0.33

Comp.　ch. 3 2 2 2 2 0

Conf.　ch. 29 9 0 2.4 31 0.19

Clar.　re. 31 48 1 5.7 31 0.42

Clue 5 14 0 4.4 5 0.4

Mean 　 4.4 -- 0.35

Table 4

More findings ： Qualitative analysis

1 T: Why do you learn ancient Chinese such as Li Bai’s poems? Why?2 SS: to know something about the history. 3 T: yes, you must know the history. The history of what? （ Cl. Re. ）4 SSS: (two-second silence)5 T: what family do poems belong to? (Clue)6 S: literature.7 T: yes, so we can learn the history of what? (P.) 8 S: the history of literature.

1 S: I suppose you know. If you want to buy a portable computer, I advice you the Lenovo, (unclear) it is the best. And if you want to a heavy one, that is to use in your office. A dell is the best.2 T: Well, will the computer be expensive? (Elicitation)3 S: Maybe the dell is cheaper.4 T: They are cheap now? (Elicitation)5 S: The Lenovo is a little expensive.6 T: Ok, now, sit down please.

Here is an inaccuracy in output, where teacher could try to call the student’s attention by negotiating

on form indirectly.

1 T: What are the results of advertising? Ok, tell you there are mainly two results. On the one hand, it can increase something, on the other hand, it will reduce something. 2 S: that, er, er…the result of advertisement is er…3 T: ok, so you just tell me, it can increase what? (Prompt)4 S: product sale.5 T: product sales, yes. And it can reduce what? (Prompt)6 S: price.7 T: price, very good. Sit down please.

Though communication continues, student loses the chance of producing complete sentences, which could have been improved by teacher’s another requirement.

1 S: er… interference with the development of the positive character 2 T: characteristics3 S: characteristics such as tolerant, thoughtful, thoughtfulness, and cooperation4 T: cooperation. Now what do you mean of interference? (Cl. Re.)5 S: (three-second silence)6 T: Do you mean do good to or do harm to? (Clue)

7 S: do harm to. 8 T: yeah, do harm to.

By an alternative question, the dialog continues at the cost of student’s chances of producing more output.

Conclusion ： Summary of the major findings

• Negotiated exchanges take up a rather small proportion

• No student-initiated negotiation is found

• Negotiation of meaning and content account for the major part

• Formal errors in communication are seldom corrected ， especially in a negotiated way

Conclusion ： Summary of the major findings

• Clarification, confirmation and prompt are most commonly used in negotiating meaning and content

• Prompt and repair initiation, as well as direct correction are preferred in formal treatment

• Some indicating devices are less successful in eliciting students’ more or/and better output.

• teachers would employ other acts to reduce the level of difficulty when students feel difficult in expressing.

Pedagogical implications

• Classroom—— where real communication takes place

• More devices be employed in negotiation

• More tolerance and patience

• Draw students’ attention to form and elicit modified output

Bibliography (1)

1. Boulima, J. A. 1999. Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. [M] Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

2. Den Branden, K. V. 1997. Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47, 589-636.

3. Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. 1998. The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition[J] Modern Language Journal, (82), 299-307.

4. Lantolf, J, P. 2006. (Ed) Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28:67-109

5. Liu, Xuehui & Zhao, Guoxia, 2004. Classroom Negotiation and Learner Participation [J]. Journal of Asia TEFL, 1/1

6. Long, M.H. 1983.Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5,177-194

7. Long, M. 1996. The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. [C] San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 413~468

8. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. (19), 37-66.

9. Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. 1996. Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly. (30), 59-84.

Bibliography (2)10. Pica,T.1994. Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning

conditions, processes and outcomes?”. Language Learning,44: 493-73

11. Rulon, K. A., & McCreary, J. 1986. Negotiation of content: Teacher-fronted and small-group interaction. In Richard R. D. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. 182-199. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

12. Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition ,235-253, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

13. Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson. 上海：上海外语教育出版社 . 125-44.

14. Tsui, A.M.1991.Learner Involvement and Comprehensible Input.[J] RELC Journal, 22, 44~60

15. 谭伟民，《中学生英语课堂协同式会话的基于语料库的研究》，华南师范大学外国语学 院硕士论文， 2001

16. 刘学惠，课堂环境下的第二语习得：理论框架与分析维度 [J] 《外语与外语教学》 , 2005/10

17. 赵国霞 .2002, Classroom Teacher-Student Conversational Interaction and Its Effect on Students‘ Oral English Proficiency [D] 南京师范大学外国语学院硕士论文， 2002

18. 周星，周韵，大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析 [J] ，《外语教学与研究》， 2002/1

Thank you!