l2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Heidelberg]On: 16 November 2014, At: 19:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Computer Assisted LanguageLearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
L2 Morphosyntactic Developmentin Text-Based Computer-MediatedCommunicationM. Rafael SalaberryPublished online: 09 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: M. Rafael Salaberry (2000) L2 Morphosyntactic Development in Text-Based Computer-Mediated Communication, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13:1,5-27
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/0958-8221(200002)13:1;1-K;FT005
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
L2 Morphosyntactic Development in Text-Based Computer-Mediated Communication
M. Rafael SalaberryDepartment of Spanish Italian & Portuguese, Pennsylvania State University
ABSTRACT
It has been claimed that CMC represents an ideal environment for promoting L2 development.Previous findings have shown the use of more complex structures in the target language in elec-tronic versus face-to-face environments (e.g., Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995;Warschauer, 1996a,b). The present study compares the effect of pedagogical tasks implementedin synchronous face-to-face tasks versus text-based computer mediated communication. Thetarget grammatical feature is the development of past tense verbal endings in Spanish as a sec-ond language. The analysis reveals that the first signs of change in developmental stages of mor-phosyntactic development are more clearly identified in the computer based interaction taskthan in the face-to-face oral task. It is, thus, possible that aspectual distinctions marked throughmorphosyntactic means are made more salient in a written interactional format that maintainsthe functional focus of typical on-line face-to-face exchanges.
1. L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT IN TEXT-BASEDCOMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
The discourse properties of classroom (spoken) interaction have been extensivelyanalysed in second-language (L2) acquisition literature (e.g., Chaudron, 1988;Day, 1986; Johnson, 1995; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). In contrast, the dis-course environment of text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC)represents a new communication medium (e.g., Clark & Brennan, 1991; Rhein-gold, 1994; Spears & Lea, 1994; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Walther et al., 1994).As a consequence, analysis of L2 development in CMC remains relativelyunexplored (but see Ortega, 1997; Thorne, 1999; Warschauer, 1997). There areseveral factors that distinguish face-to-face spoken communication and text-basedCMC. For example, in text-based CMC environments, paralinguistic (intonation
Correspondence: M. Rafael Salaberry, Department of Spanish Italian & Portuguese, Pennsyl-vania State University, 352 N. Burrowes, State College, PA 16802. Tel: (814)–865–1155 or(814)–867–1677 (Home/Office). Fax: (814) 863–7944. E-mail: [email protected].
Manuscript submitted: April, 1999Accepted for publication: October, 1999
Computer Assisted Language Learning 0958–8221/00/1301–0005$15.002000, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 5–27 © Swets & Zeitlinger
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
contour, stress, pitch, etc.) and nonlinguistic (nonverbal) cues are mostly absent.1
Furthermore, turn-taking is negotiated at the level of the written language and, asa consequence, the cohesion pattern of CMC extends over a long discoursedomain (i.e., is more disconnected at the level of adjacent contributions).
Given such noticeable differences in these communication media, a numberof empirical studies have compared the effects of discourse environments (i.e.,face-to-face versus text-based CMC) on the development of second languages.The particular focus of most studies has been on classroom conversation pat-terns, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence, and complexity of languagestructures (e.g., Beauvois, 1992; Chapman, 1996; Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992;Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996a, b). Interestingly, most of these studies haveclaimed that text-based CMC possesses several advantages over face-to-facecommunication for the development of the L2. For instance, it has been claimedthat students produce more target language during text-based computer-basedinteraction than in oral classroom activities (e.g., Kern 1995; Warschauer,1996a). It has also been argued that students involved in synchronous CMC(e.g., local area networks) show an increased level of motivation for using thetarget language as well as reduced anxiety about classroom participation (e.g.,Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996b). Finally, it hasbeen claimed that synchronous computer interaction fosters sociolinguisticcompetence (Chapman, 1996; Chun, 1994). In sum, most previous studies haveaddressed the relevance of factors brought about by CMC that may contributeindirectly to L2 development (i.e., quantity of language production, motivationand anxiety). Few studies, however, have directly addressed the effect of CMCenvironments on the sequence and rate of development of grammatical featuresof the target language such as morphology or syntax. For that purpose, the pre-sent study will analyse the potential effect of pedagogical tasks implemented insynchronous text-based CMC with a focus on the morphosyntactic develop-ment of Spanish as a second language.
2. PEDAGOGICAL MANIPULATION OF TEXT-BASED CMCCONSTRAINTS
Arguably, electronic communication may constitute a useful environment forimplementing a variety of pedagogical activities to promote and accelerate L2development. First, text-based CMC provides a natural way to link a focus onmeaning with a focus on form. Previous pedagogical arguments that proposed
6 M.R. SALABERRY
1 One notable development in CMC environments has been the appearance of what are calledsmileys or emoticons: graphic symbols that depict emotional states of the writer. Emoticonsdescribe facial expressions to compensate for the absence of similar information throughphysical proximity normal in face-to-face contact.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
an exclusive focus on meaning or an exclusive focus on form have beenreplaced by the proposal that L2 instruction should focus students’ attention onform while maintaining a focus on meaning (e.g., Johnson, 1996; Loschky &Bley-Vroman, 1993; Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996). For instance, Bialystok(1990, p.131, my italics) argues that ‘communication strategies . . . reflect theways in which the processing system extends and adapts itself to the demandsof communication. Sometimes traces are left as the system strains to achievethe balance between intention and expression.’ Along the same lines, Tarone(1995) argues that some interactional contexts may provide learners with theright opportunities to expand and refine their interlanguage systems: synchronicvariation in language production is related to diachronic variation. Hence, it isnecessary to design the type of pedagogical tasks that will lead learners to payattention to the functional demands of the tasks at the same time that they con-sider the formal means to achieve that goal. In this respect, Swain (1995, p.141)argues that collaborative tasks ‘lead learners to reflect on their own languageproduction as they attempt to create meaning’. The learning goal set bySwain—as applied for the purpose of developing morphosyntactic knowl-edge—may be more easily attainable in the context of text-based electroniccommunication because students’ attention to form (particularly verbal end-ings) is more explicit than in normal oral discourse. At the same time, a focuson meaning represents the ultimate goal of CMC interactions, irrespective ofthe relative degree of attention to form (e.g., Chapman, 1996; Chun, 1994;Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996a, b).
Second, goal-oriented processing of the L2 appears to be an important fac-tor in L2 development (e.g., Anderson, 1990; Lantolf, 1995; Schön, 1983;Zinchenko, 1979). We note also that interaction in CMC settings is normallyassociated with goal-oriented language use (e.g., e-mail discussion forumsbased on voluntary participation). In consequence, text-based electronic com-munication is more likely to generate a deep level of cognitive processing bylinking goals and means to obtain those objectives (see Kern, 1995;Warschauer, 1996a, b). For instance, Zinchenko (1979, p.309) argues that‘material connected with the goal of an action is recalled more effectively thanthe same material when it is connected with the means of an action’. Similarly,Schön (1983, p.68) claims that the reflective practitioner ‘does not keep meansand ends separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a problematicsituation’. In the area of L2 acquisition in particular, Lantolf (1995, p.28)claims that interacting in the L2 (Long, 1985) or noticing the formal featuresof the L2 (Schmidt, 1990) are necessary but not sufficient conditions for L2
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
development. In turn, language play is ‘the learner “doing something” withwhat they notice in their interactions with their linguistic environment’. Fur-thermore, late research in the area of L2 pedagogy has shown that instructionalactivities that incorporate a strong reliance on students’ goals and objectivesmay be more likely to generate successful learning. For example, Gillette(1994, p.212, my italics), following the analysis of a case study of three effec-tive and three ineffective second-language learners, states that the ‘the stu-dents’ goal in using a given language learning strategy helps determine itseffectiveness . . . successful language learning depends on an individual’s will-ingness to make every effort to acquire an L2 rather than on superior cognitiveprocessing alone’.
Finally, pedagogical activities implemented in text-based CMC environ-ments provide L2 teachers with additional tools to focus students’ attention ontheir language performance. For instance, given that electronic exchanges ofmost types can be saved and archived, both learners and teachers have theopportunity to analyse their own scripts at any time after the CMC session hasoccurred (see Salaberry, in press).2 Most importantly, teachers may design var-ious pedagogical activities focusing students’ attention on language form whichwas generated by the students themselves while negotiating meaning duringCMC sessions (e.g., Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Swain, 1995; Willis, 1996). More-over, the easy access to such transcripts has additional pedagogical advantages.For instance, teachers may be better able to conduct action research given thatthe collection of data does not necessarily undermine their time investment onclass preparation—a time-consuming activity for most teachers. In the follow-ing sections I will focus on the potential advantages brought about by CMC forthe development of past-tense morphology in particular.
3. L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT IN CMC SETTINGS
Given that the development of inflectional morphology is especially empha-sized in most instructed settings at university level (at least in US institutions),it is important to analyse the relative impact of pedagogical activities imple-mented in CMC with the purpose of having an effect on the morphosyntacticdevelopment of non-native languages. In this respect, Harley (1989) suggeststhat the conditions that may have a key role in the acquisition of aspectual dif-ferences in relatively rich inflectional languages (such as French and Spanish)are: (a) increased frequency and saliency in the input, (b) greater and more
8 M.R. SALABERRY
2 Even though oral exchanges may be taped and transcribed as well, the investment of timeand effort is relatively high compared to the simple procedure required to generate a copyof the electronic conversational exchange.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
focused opportunities for output, (c) goal-directed interaction in small groupcontexts, and (d) the appeal to students’ metalinguistic awareness. Not surpris-ingly, all of these conditions appear to be representative of computer-mediatedinteraction environments in L2 learning (e.g., Beauvois, 1992; Chapman, 1996;Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996a, b).
In effect, the inherent characteristics of the discourse of text-based CMC(e.g., written mode of communication, absence of paralinguistic and nonver-bal information) may represent a pedagogically sound environment forincreasing metalinguistic awareness in the L2. As mentioned above, in normaloral conversation the process of conveying a particular message in the L2 maynot explicitly lead to making a connection between language meaning and lan-guage form. For instance, Sato (1988, p.393, my italics) argues that conversa-tional interaction is not sufficient ‘to ensure the acquisition of particularcomplex syntactic structures . . . while encounters with written language, andthe more complex syntactic structures this contains, may well turn out to becrucial’. In electronic communication, in particular, learners can rely on abuffer zone (the editing window) that gives them the opportunity to reflect onthe best type of language form to express their ideas (an additional source ofworking memory, if you will).3 In addition to this advantage, face-to-faceinteractional dynamics such as managing the floor (a defining feature of oralconversations) do not impose as high a price on attentional resources in CMCenvironments as it is usually the case in spoken conversation (Clark & Bren-nan, 1991). Hence, participation in the type of ‘written conversation’ exem-plified by CMC may constitute a pedagogically effective learning environmentto accelerate the process of morphosyntactic development of the target lan-guage. In the next section I will analyse the main features of past-tense inflec-tional morphology in Spanish and English and the effect of functional andformal factors on the development of past-tense endings among Spanish L2learners.
4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF VERBAL MORPHOLOGY IN ADULT L2 ACQUISITION
4.1. Temporality in verb morphology: Tense and aspectIn both Spanish and English, verbal morphology conveys information abouttemporality as in, for instance, the distinction between present and past tense(e.g., the ‘ed’ past tense morpheme in English). However, while the English
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 9
3 In cases when there is no such ‘buffer zone’ between writing and posting messages, thewriter still has the benefit of additional time compared to on-line oral discourse.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
‘ed’ verbal ending marks tense distinctions only (i.e., past), Spanish uses a sin-gle verbal ending to signal both tense and aspectual distinctions. The differ-ence between tense and aspect is important: whereas tense signals the timereference of a situation (e.g., present versus past), aspect defines its internaltemporal contour (e.g., bounded versus unbounded). For instance, in past tenseSpanish, the perfective aspect (preterite) depicts the temporal situation as asingle unanalysable whole, whereas the imperfective (imperfect) describes theinternal temporal structure of the same situation (Comrie, 1976). The follow-ing examples show the distinction in Spanish and English:
Juan durmió (PRET) � John sleptJuan dormía (IMP) � John slept/John was sleepingJuan estaba durmiendo (IMP) � John was sleeping
It should be pointed out, however, that aspectual distinctions—in both Eng-lish and Spanish—are also dependent, e.g., on the temporal features intrinsicin the semantics of the verbal predicate in its unmarked, lexical form. Vendler(1967) proposed a classification of verbs into four different types according totheir inherent semantic values: states (last indefinitely), activities (arbitrarybeginning and end point: process), accomplishments (inherent end point: dura-tive), and achievements (inherent end point, but no duration: punctual). Thefollowing examples of verb types show the differences among lexical aspec-tual classes: statives (to be, to have, to want), activities (to run, to walk, tobreathe), accomplishments (to write a novel, to build a house, to make a chair),and achievements (to notice something/someone, to realize something, toreach the peak). Such classification of verb types is important because Ander-sen (1991) proposed that Spanish L2 learners follow a sequence of eight devel-opmental stages for the acquisition of verbal morphology. He further arguedthat the first four acquisitional stages are dependent on the association of par-ticular verb types with specific verbal endings: achievements with preterite,and states with imperfective (see also Salaberry, 1999; Wiberg, 1996).4
4.2. Learning context: Instructed and non-instructed settingsAs shown above, the scope and complexity of the information about tempo-rality encoded in inflectional morphology posits a challenge for L2 learners.Not surprisingly, several researchers have considered verbal endings to beprime candidates for non-target-like acquisition (e.g., Bley-Vroman, 1989;Coppieters, 1987; Flynn & Manuel, 1991; Paradis, 1994; Schmidt, 1995;
10 M.R. SALABERRY
4 Andersen posited that the four additional stages (5 to 8) represented the use of verbal end-ings that contradicted the lexical aspectual value of the verb to account for the native-likeuse of both verbal markers irrespective of verb type used.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Schwartz, 1993). For instance, Schwartz states that inflectional endings areamong the most difficult features of non-native languages for adult learners’:‘highest amount of variability and lowest degree of success’ (p.159). Similarly,Paradis claims that semantic distinctions such as tense–aspect contrasts areassociated with critical period effects. Interestingly, Schwartz and Paradis(inter alia) also argue that learners with access to natural communication set-tings (immersion in the target language) may be more successful than class-room learners in learning past-tense verbal morphology. Previous data,however, have shown that among natural learners (i.e., with no access toexplicit instruction in the L2) the development of verbal endings is a slow andgradual process which in some cases takes years, and in others merely leadsto fossilization (e.g., Klein et al., 1995; Perdue & Klein, 1992; Sato, 1988;Schumann, 1987). For instance, Perdue and Klein (1992) argue that during thefirst stages of L2 acquisition, learners develop a basic variety of the target lan-guage which represents an equilibrium between semantic, pragmatic, andphrasal constraints. Perdue and Klein remark that some natural language learn-ers fossilize at this stage, while others develop their basic variety further tomake it conform to target-language standards. The learners who continuedeveloping their L2 system are the ones who perceive lexical and structuralinadequacies between the basic variety and the L2. In other words, communi-cation demands (functional needs) may constitute a necessary but not suffi-cient condition to reach native-like mastery of the L2 (see also Sato, 1988;Schumann, 1987).
On the other hand, some studies have shown that classroom instruction mayhave an effect on L2 development (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 1995; Bergström,1995; Buczowska & Weist, 1991; Salaberry, 1998). For instance, Bardovi-Harlig (1995, p.157) states that ‘tutored learners seem to surpass untutoredlearners in formal accuracy, an apparent advantage of instruction’. Even morestrongly, Buczowska and Weist (1991) argue that tutored L2 learners do notfollow the same developmental sequence of L1 learners or untutored L2 learn-ers in the acquisition of inflectional markers of tense and aspect in particular.They further argue that the strongest version of Pienemann’s (1987, 1989)teachability hypothesis should be revised: natural sequences only place con-straints on pedagogical practices, but they do not necessarily determine thespecific developmental stages of tutored learners. Classroom students whohave direct access to form-focused instruction, however, are faced with theproblem of having access to a limited range of contextualization of the targetlanguage. Such contextualization appears to be essential for the processing of
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
discourse-based grammatical markers represented in inflectional morphologysuch as tense and aspect.
It appears, then, that successful second-language learning of morphosyn-tactic distinctions (e.g., verbal morphology) may be dependent on the defin-ing features of both academic and natural settings: a formal analysis andpractice of the target grammar structure in combination with the functionalcommunicative demands of linguistic interaction.5 That is to say, a principledcombination of a focus on meaning and a focus on form may increase rate and,possibly, sequence of acquisition. In this respect, Tarone (1995) argues thatdevelopmental stages of acquisition may be accelerated or even ‘skipped’ ininteractional contexts where the learner is forced to produce language thatchallenges the current L2 system being used by the learner (see also Swain,1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). This type of interactional context is best rep-resented when the interlocutor is focused solely on the learner and communi-cating with her. The type of interaction based on functional demands (arguedfor by Swain & Tarone), however, may not be readily available to learners inthe form of face-to-face contacts in a classroom setting.6 Alternatively, asargued above, functional demands may, in principle, be successfully imple-mented in CMC settings (Beauvois, 1992; Kern, 1995; Salaberry, 1996;Warschauer, 1997).
5. INVESTIGATING CMC AND FACE-TO-FACE CONTACT: A PILOT STUDY
To the best of my knowledge, there are no empirical studies that have analysedthe potential effects of text-based CMC on the development of L2 morpho-syntactic features, even though such grammatical markers figure prominentlyin most classroom-based instruction. For that purpose I conducted a pilot studyto compare language used in face-to-face versus CMC conversational settingsamong four classroom learners of L2 Spanish.7 More specifically, the pilot
12 M.R. SALABERRY
5 The benefits of form-focused instruction are based on the assumption that language usevaries along a style-shifting continuum that goes from unattended speech (vernacular) tomost attended speech (careful style/grammatical intuitions) (Tarone, 1988). The rules pre-sent in the highly ‘monitored’ styles may eventually spread to the vernacular style acrosstime (Gatbonton, 1978).
6 Recent attempts to trigger instructional effects in the acquisition of verbal morphology basedon the implementation of pedagogical constraints (e.g., authentic readings, focused noticingexercises, and controlled and free writing activities) have not, however, proved successful(e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds, 1995). On the other hand, some more successful peda-gogical studies with a strong emphasis on the provision of positive input—as measured byimmediate post tests—have failed to maintain instructional gains in the long run (e.g.,Harley, 1989, for the acquisition of French passé composé–imparfait).
7 Most previous empirical studies on the acquisition of L2 aspect have relied on the analysisof data from a limited number of subjects: a single learner (e.g., Kumpf, 1984; Robison,1990; Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Trévise, 1987), two learners (Andersen, 1991; Sato, 1988), orup to ten subjects (Schumann, 1987).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
study focused on the use of past-tense verbal morphology in L2 Spanish acrossthree language tasks (written grammar test, face-to-face interaction and elec-tronic interaction). The study addressed two research questions:
1. What are some of the most obvious features of the communication patternsexemplified in text-based electronic interaction compared to face-to-faceinteraction?
2. Is the use of morphological markers of temporality negatively and equallyaffected by increased functional demands present in both face-to-face andtext-based electronic interaction vis-à-vis the use of similar verbal endingsin the controlled grammar task?
5.1. SubjectsThe data for the present study are represented by three tasks performed by fourEnglish-speaking students studying Spanish as a second language at a majorresearch university in the US. The following is a brief description of the mostimportant characteristics of the academic background of each subject (seeTable 1 for a summary).
S1 took Spanish in high school and completed the first two academicsemesters of Spanish at college level. At the time of the first interview shewas enrolled in the lower-level third semester Spanish course. She was plan-ning to continue studying Spanish in the future because she had enjoyed herexperience at the college. S2 had had extensive experience with Spanish atthe high school level (4 years) and had taken the lower-level third semesterof Spanish in college. He was enrolled in the upper-level third semester classat the time of the interview to fulfill the language requirement of his depart-ment. S3 studied Latin in high school because he thought it was easier thanother ‘spoken’ languages. He took the first two academic semesters of Span-ish at the college level and he was enrolled in the upper-level third semestercourse at the time of the interview. He was an English major and he was
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 13
Table 1. Summary of Learners’ Academic Background.
High school (years) College (semesters) Course level
Subject 1 2 2 Lower 3rdSubject 2 4 1 Upper 3rdSubject 3 0 2 Upper 3rdSubject 4 4 (French) 2 Upper 3rd
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
planning to take a course in Spanish literature in the future. S4 studiedFrench in high school. At college level she had taken the first two academicsemesters of Spanish and she was taking the upper-level third semester classat the time of the experiment. She had spent one year in France as anexchange student and was fluent in French. While in France she visitedSpain for two weeks.
5.2. Procedure of data collectionThe analysis of the development of Spanish past-tense morphology is import-ant because, as mentioned above, past tense aspectual distinctions in Spanish(i.e., preterite and imperfect) are not explicitly represented in English inflec-tional morphology. For the purpose of this study, only three broad stages of thedevelopmental sequence proposed by Andersen will be considered for theanalysis of data: present tense (no past-tense marking), preterite (achievementsand accomplishments), and imperfect (states).8
The four participants were asked to perform the following three main tasks:
1. A 28-item written cloze test based on a series of vignettes depicting themain events of the Hitchcock movie Psycho as in the following example:
1. El jefe (darle) dinero a la empleada paradepositar en el banco. (Trabajar) para la compañía,pero no (estar) contenta y (querer)otro trabajo.The boss (to give) money to the employee todeposit in the bank. (To work) for the company, butshe (negative—to be) happy and (towant) another job.
In terms of lexical aspect, the 28 verbs corresponded to 14 telic events(achievements), 6 atelic events (activities) and 8 statives. In terms of inflec-tional morphology, native speakers agreed on the use of the preterite as appro-priate in 17 out of the 28 items. It was assumed that the conditions for the task(e.g., relaxed time constraints compared to other tasks) were likely to increasethe degree of attention to language form (e.g., Ellis, 1987; Ochs, 1978). Thedata from this task were used as base-line data for the assessment of the learn-ers’ use of past-tense verbal endings in L2 Spanish, in conditions that allowedfor a high level of monitoring of form.
14 M.R. SALABERRY
8 An alternative approach is to analyse the use of past-tense aspectual markers with regard todiscourse factors such as foreground–background contrasts. However, there is an inherentoverlap in the prediction offered by the account based on the lexical semantic value of thepredicate and the discourse-based approach, since completed events and punctual eventssometimes define the notion of foreground (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 1995, p.266). Furthermore,Bardovi-Harlig claims that the distinction of the predictions of each approach ‘may be toofine-grained for a study of interlanguage’ (p.286).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
2. An informal oral interview in which the learners spoke about their experi-ences learning Spanish in both academic and non-academic settings. Theinterviews were conducted by the researcher and two students were inter-viewed at once to generate as much student–student interaction as possible.9
3. An informal computer-mediated written exchange based mostly on thetopic of what the students did over the weekend. Computer mediation wasaccomplished with the software program ‘Aspects’. The conversationexchanges occurred in real time.10
The oral interview lasted approximately one hour for each pair of subjects,and was audiotaped, videotaped and transcribed in its entirety (the totalamount of recorded time for all interviews was approximately two hours andforty minutes). For the collection of data in the CMC session the software pro-gram ‘Aspects’ was loaded to several computer terminals facing the wall in aregular classroom to avoid possible eye contact among participants. Discus-sions in ‘Aspects’—unlike e-mail lists—represent a synchronous type of com-munication: sending and receiving messages is almost instantaneous. In thechat session of the ‘Aspects’ program the students type their messages on thebottom half of the screen where they can edit their comments before sendingthem. When participants hit the ‘enter’ key messages are posted to all partic-ipants logged on that session. Messages are appended to previously postedmessages and students can scroll back and forth the top half of the screen toreview previously posted messages. All messages were identified by the nameof the sender. At the end of each session the transcript of the discussion wassaved and printed for the present analysis. As was the case for the oral inter-view, each CMC session lasted approximately one hour.
6. DATA ANALYSIS
The data were analysed with respect to the use of morphological markers ofpast tense (verb endings) in the three different contexts represented in thisstudy. The type of data collected for this study did not allow for the use ofinferential statistics. In contrast, the analysis was mostly qualitative as thenature of this exploratory study was intended to analyse the factors that shouldbe considered in the research design of more controlled studies. The data, how-ever, were quantified when necessary for the purpose of showing generaltrends in the use of past-tense verbal morphology across tasks.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 15
9 In one case, one student (S1) was alone during the oral interview because the other partici-pant scheduled for that session had dropped out of the study. On the other hand, S4 was inter-viewed with a fifth participant who did not complete the grammar task and whose data were,consequently, not considered for this analysis.
10 There was a delay time of at least one week and not more than two weeks between each task(the differences in delay times were due to particular constraints of the students’ schedules).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
The results of the first task (grammar test) were transformed into percent-ages of adequate suppliance of past-tense verbs (correct options were deter-mined by means of judgement data from three native speakers who reached100% agreement in their choices). The percentages of correct responses persubject are shown in Table 2. As we can see, all learners supplied a high per-centage of the past-tense forms of the verbs represented in the passage. Fur-thermore, the incorrect use of the morphological markers of past tense (i.e.,preterite or imperfect) was relatively low (except for the case of subject 2). Insum, all learners demonstrated a relatively high level of knowledge of the tar-get grammatical structure when they were provided with adequate amounts ofplanning time.
The data from the interaction tasks were tabulated in a similar way. First, allverbs referring to a past time context were coded for verbal morphology. Thenthe number of verbs used by each learner was counted and later classified byaspectual marking in both the oral and electronic communication sessions.11
Tables 3 and 4 show the results from the open-ended communication tasks. Acomparative analysis of these data shows that the length of the conversationalexchanges mediated by computer was shorter than similar exchanges in the oralconversation. This is not surprising because typing a response requires moretime than simply providing an oral response. Furthermore, a detailed analysis ofthe transcripts showed that students were more likely to shift the focus of theconversation during the electronic communication sessions than in the face-to-face session. Hence, the researcher was less likely to keep the focus of the dis-cussion on past-tense events. As a consequence of the above-mentioned factor,the number of verb tokens in past-tense contexts was lower for the computer-mediated conversation. In the following section I will present a more extendedanalysis of the data with respect to the potential different outcomes betweeninteractional settings (i.e., CMC and face-to-face environments).
16 M.R. SALABERRY
11 The number of verbs marked with present tense reported in Tables 3 and 4 corresponds toverbs used in past-tense temporal contexts: present tense instead of imperfective or perfec-tive past tense.
Table 2. Results of Grammar Task in Percentages.
Subject Use of past tense Incorrect (preterite/imperfect)
S1 28 (100%) 0/0 (0%)S2 23 (81%) 5/2 (25%)S3 21 (93%) 0/3 (11%)S4 27 (97%) 0/1 (4%)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
7. DISCUSSION
The present discussion will focus on three major factors arguably representedin these data: use of verbal morphology, evidence of scaffolding, and indica-tors of power relationships. First, with respect to the use of past-tense verbalmorphology across tasks, some initial changes in the development of mor-phological endings were more evident in the CMC session than in the oral ses-sion. Two other findings were related to the nature of the interaction acrosscommunication media: interlocutor scaffolding was likely to promote the useof target-like morphological markers of past tense in both electronic and face-to-face environments, and power relationships among interlocutors were moresalient in the face-to-face session than in the oral session (e.g., limitedresearcher’s control of the use of the target grammatical form in the CMC ses-sion). I will discuss these findings in the order in which they were presented.
First, it is important to point out that the CMC session shared at least oneimportant feature with each one of the other two tasks: it was an open-ended,on-line communication task (cf. face-to-face oral conversation) and it wasimplemented in a written environment (cf. grammar task). In consequence, thewritten format of the CMC session was expected to increase the likelihood thatlearners would monitor language form (cf. Sato, 1988), at the same time that
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 17
Table 3. Verbal Predicates Used in Past Time Contexts in the Face-to-FaceConversation.
Speaker Verb tokens Preterite Imperfect Present
S1 57 39 (68%) 2 (4%) 16 (28%)S2 70 54 (77%) 10 (14%) 6 (9%)S3 67 34 (51%) 33 (49%) 0 (0%)S4 107 37 (35%) 70 (65%) 0 (0%)
Table 4. Verbs Used in Past Time Contexts in the CMC Session.
Speaker Verb tokens Preterite Imperfect Present
S1 36 29 (81%) 3 (9%) 3 (9%)S2 17 16 (94%) 1 (6%) 0S3 37 25 (68%) 12 (32%) 0S4 39 21 (54%) 18 (46%) 0
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
the functional demands of the CMC task were made comparable to the func-tional goals implemented in the oral face-to-face session. Indeed, the datarevealed some differences in the use of past-tense markers across interactionalsettings that may signal developmental changes. For instance, whereas both S1and S2 used present-tense morphology in contexts requiring past-tense mark-ing in the oral face-to-face setting, the same learners rarely used present tenseduring interactions in the CMC session (cf. data from Tables 3 and 4). Fur-thermore, a more detailed analysis of types and tokens of the data reveals thatsome learners marked some verbs with both past-tense markers (i.e., preteriteand imperfect) in the CMC session but not in the face-to-face session. Forinstance, S3 used the imperfect past-tense marker 33 times (tokens) with sevenverb types in the face-to-face session: 24 tokens of the total number (approxi-mately 75%) corresponded to two verbs: tener (to have) with 8 tokens and ser(to be) with 16 tokens. In contrast, in the data from the electronic interaction,S3 used the verb tener three times with the imperfective and twice with the per-fective, and the verb ser once with the imperfective and five times with the per-fective. That is, S3 started to mark stative verbs with both past-tense markers(i.e., imperfect and preterite), and in so doing he appears to be moving awayfrom exclusive reliance on the use of a single verbal ending (imperfect) for sta-tive verbs (e.g., to be and to have). Recall that within Andersen’s frameworksuch behaviour represents a closer approximation to target-like performance.
It is important to point out that, in the above-mentioned data, S3 was notmerely shifting the use of aspectual markers associated with stative verbs fromimperfective to perfective. For instance, in the following excerpt from theCMC task the stative verb tener que (to have to) was marked with perfective:
R: Muy bien ¿Cómo pasaste el fin de semana?S3: Bien. Tuve que ir a la ciudad de Nueva York para ver al doctor.R: Well. How was your weekend?S3: Good. I had to go to NY to see the doctor.
However, a few turns later the same student used the imperfective marker,a reflection, perhaps, of the yet unstable nature of this incipient developmen-tal stage.
R: ¿Qué recuerdas de la operación?S3: Tenía que esperar en la sala de esperas por más tiempo quetenía que estar en el salón.R: What do you remember from the operation?
18 M.R. SALABERRY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
S3: I had to wait in the waiting room for a longer time than I hadto spend in the (operation) room.
The importance of the above-mentioned example is that the learner appearsto be approximating native-speaker standards in which the use of past-tenseverbal endings reflects semantic aspectual distinctions not represented in thelearner’s native language.
A final difference between interactional settings that should be noted is thefact that the percentage of verbs marked with imperfective is lower in the elec-tronic communication environment than in the face-to-face session. This ispossibly due to the fact that background information (correlated with imper-fective aspect) is more likely to be expressed in longer pieces of discourse (oraldiscourse) (see Silva-Corvalán, 1983). In sum, the above-mentioned contrastsin the use of past-tense morphology across communication environments werebased on the analysis of specific developmental features of the acquisition ofpast-tense marking (cf. Andersen, 1986, 1991; Salaberry, 1999) that may haveimportant consequences for language development. In particular, it was shownthat the first signs of change in past-tense morphological marking were moreevident in the CMC setting than the face-to-face session. Arguably, the specificcharacteristics of the medium of communication represented in CMC mayincrease the chances that learners will focus their attention on both functionand form, thereby increasing the likelihood that morphological developmentwill occur in such an environment rather than in face-to-face settings (see Sal-aberry, in-press; Thorne, 1999).12
Apart from the analysis of the use of verbal morphology, it is important tonote two relevant differences in interactional dynamics between each com-munication medium. First, both conversational settings reflected a relativedegree of scaffolding. Scaffolding is defined here as the conditions created bya knowledgeable person that may help the less experienced participant extendand improve his/her knowledge of the language system (e.g., Donato, 1994).The process of scaffolding, however, was most evident in the electronic com-munication session. For instance, the following exchanges between S1 and theresearcher in the CMC session reveal the powerful effect of a knowledgeablepeer in the use of a morphological marker not completely under the control ofthe learner (see Ahmed & Lantolf, 1994; Donato, 1994).
R: ¿Por qué? ¿Qué hacían que no te gustaba S1?S1: En clase, hacíamos ejercicios que no los ayudan. Todos losejercicios estaban muy aburrido.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 19
12 In fact, it is possible that the small scale of this exploratory study was not sufficient to revealsubstantial quantitative differences across treatments. Subsequent studies based on a largernumber of subjects may provide confirmatory data of the above-mentioned trend identifiedin the present study.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
R: Why? What did you do that you didn’t like S1?S1: In class we did exercises that do not help. All the exercises werevery boring.
In fact, the previous potentially pedagogical environment was also repre-sentative of interactions among learners as was the following case between S3and S1:
S3: Un hombre necesitaba dinero y él tenía dos hombres se lleva asu marida.S1: ¿Por qué necesitaba dinero? ¿Por qué no trabaja?S3: A man needed money and he had two men take his wife.S1: Why did he need money? Why doesn’t he work?
In essence, the process of scaffolding triggered the few instances of the useof imperfect by S1. Arguably, this process may have been more successful inthe CMC session for a variety of reasons, most likely a combination of them,including access to the written medium as well as the reliance on more oppor-tunities for interaction with other students (see below).
Another important factor related to interactional dynamics was that the dif-ferent demands of each communication medium generated differences inpower relationships. In effect, the nature of the power relationship of normalface-to-face communication was represented differently in the CMC environ-ment (see Clark & Brennan, 1991; Spears & Lea, 1994; Walther et al., 1994;inter alia). For instance, as mentioned in the data collection procedure, the par-ticular agenda of the interviewer (researcher) was to trigger as many instancesof past time contexts as possible in both communication settings. This goalwas easy to accomplish during face-to-face interaction as revealed by the factthat students never changed the major topic of discussion initiated by theresearcher even though they were encouraged to do so from the very begin-ning. In the following excerpt S1 and S2 took turns to address the questionposed by the researcher (responses show only opening statements from eachspeaker).
R: ¿Cómo aprendieron español?S1: Cuando era en la escuela secundaria . . .S2: Ah tomé cuatros años de español en la escuela secundaria . . .S1: Sí, yo también la escuela secundaria . . .R: How did you learn Spanish?
20 M.R. SALABERRY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
S1: When uhm I was in high school uhm . . .S2: Ah I took four years of Spanish in high school . . .S1: Yes, I did too . . .
In contrast, the written mode of the CMC session altered the sense of theimmediacy of face-to-face communication, with the consequence that studentswere more likely to bring forth their own agendas and to challenge theresearcher’s selection of discussion topics. Sometimes students ignored theresearcher’s questions and, in other cases, they provided succinct answers fol-lowed by their own personal questions about other topics (which theyaddressed to other students):
R: ¿Qué hacían?R: Me refiero a clases de español que ustedes tomaron antes.S2: ¿S1, qué tipo de cerveze te gusta?S2: Cerveza, lo siento.S1: Escucho a música, como, hablo con mis compañeros, y bailo.S1: No tomo cervezas.S2: ¿Bailas en clase?S2: Creo que no.R: What did you do?R: I’m talking about the Spanish classes that you took before.S2: S1, what type of beer do you like?S2: Beer I mean.S1: I listen to music, eat, speak with my classmates, and I dance.S1: I don’t drink beer.S2: Do you dance in class?S2: I don’t think so.
The previous finding is not surprising considering that both roles and top-ics may be affected by the context in which the data are collected. For instance,Coughlan and Duff (1994, p.189) state that in laboratory-like tasks ‘partici-pants may subvert the immediate goal . . . in their search for appropriate inter-actional roles during the course of a task’. Arguably, the characteristics of themedium represented in CMC provided students with a more likelyenvironment than the face-to-face session to depart from the established goalsprompted by the researcher. In fact, Swain (1995) describes the reasons whyan empirical study targeting the use of aspectual distinctions in L2 French didnot reveal any differences in the use of the selected target grammatical
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
structure. The analysis of the transcripts of students’ talk-on-task revealed that‘the researcher’s goal (in this case to focus students’ attention on the passécomposé and imparfait) was to a considerable extent undermined in the sensethat students set their own agenda as to what they discussed, according to theirlinguistic needs in expressing their intended meaning’ (p.140).13
In sum, it may be argued that communication in an electronic environmentwill have an impact on various patterns of classroom interaction, which, inturn, may have consequences on the L2 acquisition process. For instance,Johnson (1995, p.90) argues that ‘patterns of classroom communication thatare established and maintained between teachers and students will influencestudents’ opportunities to use language for classroom learning and for secondlanguage acquisition’. In fact, even before the extended use of computer tech-nology, Tikhomirov (1979, p.276, my italics) argued that, with the extendeduse of computers for data storing and communication, ‘we are confronted . .. with the reorganization of human activity and the appearance of new formsof mediation in which the computer as a tool of mental activity transformsthis very activity’. In this respect, CMC may constitute ‘a new communica-tion environment capable of creating new conditions for language interac-tion’. Furthermore, as stated above, if students are able to participate in L2exchanges according to their own agendas it is more likely that their use ofthe target language will be goal-directed (Anderson, 1990; Zinchenko, 1979).Finally, the fact that students were more likely to bring up new topics for dis-cussion in the CMC session than in the face-to-face session (usually relatedto opinions, social activities and routines instead of narratives of their acad-emic experience) has research methodological consequences. That is, thelower use of past tense morphology—as a consequence of topic-shifting—inthe CMC session represents an experimental constraint to be considered infuture studies.
8. CONCLUSION
The appearance and rapid establishment of a new communication medium,variously represented by e-mail exchanges, electronic bulletin boards, and,especially, synchronous CMC—has presented L2 researchers and pedagogueswith new challenges and potential for language development. In particular, ithas been claimed that CMC may represent an ideal environment for promot-ing L2 development. Previous findings have shown the use of more complex
22 M.R. SALABERRY
13 In fact, Swain did find significant differences between experimental groups in other mea-surements of L2 production other than past-tense verbal endings.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
structures in the target language in electronic versus face-to-face environ-ments (e.g., Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996a, b).In contrast, the present analysis has been restricted to the study of a singlemorphosyntactic feature: past-tense verbal endings in L2 Spanish. The analy-sis of data from the present study revealed that the first signs of change indevelopmental stages of morphosyntactic development were more clearlyidentified in the computer-based interaction task than in the face-to-face oraltask. It is, thus, possible that aspectual distinctions marked through mor-phosyntactic means are made more salient in a written interactional formatthat maintains the functional focus of typical on-line face-to-faceexchanges.14 Furthermore, the present study has provided additional supportfor previous arguments about the likelihood that power relationships are dif-ferently instantiated in electronic and face-to-face environments, that inter-locutor scaffolding may be equally beneficial in both interactional settings,and that CMC sessions introduce novel methodological factors for the analy-sis of L2 discourse data.
As a final caveat, it is important to add that the findings from this pilot studyare preliminary. Needless to say, no claim is made as to the validity or gener-alization of this pilot study. In contrast, the main purpose of this study was theidentification and analysis of the various factors and constraints that should beconsidered in the implementation of a full-scale research study for the even-tual pedagogical design of L2 activities based on the use of new technologicaltools. The previous analysis of several factors identified in these data will,hopefully, provide a point of departure for more extensive studies.
REFERENCES
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994) ‘Negative feedback as regulation and second language learn-ing in the zone of proximal development’, Modern Language Journal 78: 465–83.
Andersen, R. (1991) ‘Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in secondlanguage acquisition’, in T. Huebner & C. Ferguson (eds) Crosscurrents in Second Lan-guage Acquisition and Linguistic Theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anderson, J. (1990) Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: Freeman.Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1994) ‘Anecdote or evidence? Evaluating support for hypotheses concern-
ing the development of tense and aspect’, in E. Tarone, S. Gass & A. Cohen (eds)Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995) ‘A narrative perspective on the development of the tense/aspect sys-tem in second language acquisition’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17:263–89.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 23
14 The low cognitive saliency of the aspectual marker of past tense in Spanish is determined atthe levels of perceptual complexity (bound morpheme) and semantic complexity (discourse-based nature of point-of-view aspect).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Reynolds, D. (1995) ‘The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tenseand aspect’, TESOL Quarterly 29: 107–31.
Beauvois, M. (1997) ‘High-tech, high-touch: From discussion to composition in the networkedclassroom’, Computer Assisted Language Learning 10: 57–69.
Bergström, A. (1995) The Expression of Past Temporal Reference by English-Speaking Learn-ers of French. PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
Bialystok, E. (1990) Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second LanguageUse. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989) ‘The logical problem of second language learning’, in S. Gass & J.Schachter (eds) Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Learning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Buczowska, E. & Weist, R. (1991) ‘The effects of formal instruction on the second languageacquisition of temporal location’, Language Learning 41: 535–54.
Chapman, D. (1996) Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and Japanese Immersion: ACase Study on Developing Sociolinguistic Competence Through E-mail. Paper read atSymposium on New Technologies and Less Commonly Taught Languages, at Universityof Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chun, D. (1994) ‘Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive com-petence’, System 22: 17–31.
Clark, H. & Brennan, S. (1991) ‘Grounding in communication’, in L. Resnick, J. Levine & S.Teasley (eds) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.
Comrie, B. (1976) Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Coppieters, R. (1987) Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Lan-
guage 63: 544–73.Coughlan, P. & Duff, P. (1994) ‘Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an
activity theory perspective’, in J. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds) Vygotskyan Approaches toSecond Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dietrich, R., Klain, W. & Noyau, C. (1995) The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Lan-guage. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Donato, R. (1994) ‘Collective scaffolding in second language learning’, in J. Lantolf & G. Appel(eds) Vygotskyan Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ellis, R. (1987) ‘Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of thepast tense’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 1–20.
Flynn, S. & Manuel, S. (1991) ‘Age-dependent effects in language acquisition: An evaluationof “critical period” hypotheses’, in L. Eubank (ed.) Point Counterpoint: UG in the Sec-ond Language, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Gatbonton, E. (1978) ‘Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech: a gradual dif-fusion model’, Canadian Modern Language Review 34: 335–47.
Gillette, B. (1994) ‘The role of learner goals in L2 success’, in P. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds)Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Harley, B. (1989) ‘Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment’, AppliedLinguistics 10: 331–59.
Herring, S. (1996) Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-CulturalPerspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24 M.R. SALABERRY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Johnson, K. (1995) Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. (1996) Language Teaching and Skill Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Kelm, O. (1992) ‘The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction:
A preliminary report’, Foreign Language Annals 25: 441–545.Kern, R.G. (1995) ‘Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on
quantity and characteristics of language production’, The Modern Language Journal 79:457–76.
Kumpf, L. (1984) ‘Temporal systems and universality in interlanguage: A case study’, in F.R.Eckman, L.H. Bell and D. Nelson (eds) Universals of Second Language Acquisition.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lantolf, J. (1995) The Function of Language Play in the Acquisition of L2 Spanish. Paper readat Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish as a first or second language, at Penn StateUniversity.
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993) ‘Grammar and task-based methodology’, in G. Crookesand S. Gass (eds) Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Cleve-don, GB: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (1999) Aspectual Tenses in Spanish L2 Acquisition: A UG Per-spective. Paper read at AAAL Annual Meeting, at Stamford, CT.
Ochs, E. (1979) ‘Planned and unplanned discourse’, in T. Givón (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol12: Discourse and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.
Ortega, L. (1997) ‘Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining theresearch agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion’, Language Learning &Technology 1: 82–93.
Paradis, M. (1994) ‘Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications forbilingualism and SLA’, in N. Ellis (ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages.London: Academic Press.
Perdue, C. & Klein, W. (1992) ‘Why does the production of some learners not grammaticalize?’Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 259–72.
Pienemann, M. (1987) ‘Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages’, in C.W. Pfaff(ed.) First and Second Language Acquisition Processes. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pienemann, M. (1989) ‘Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses’,Applied Linguistics 10: 52–79.
Rheingold, H. (1994) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. NewYork: Harper Perennial.
Robison, R. (1990) ‘The primacy of aspect: Aspectual marking in English interlanguage’, Stud-ies in Second Language Acquisition 12: 315–30.
Salaberry, R. (1996) ‘A theoretical framework for the design of CMC pedagogical activities’,CALICO 14: 5–36.
Salaberry, R. (1998) ‘The development of aspectual distinctions in classroom L2 French’, Cana-dian Modern Language Review 54 (4): 504–42.
Salaberry, R. (1999) ‘The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2Spanish’, Applied Linguistics 20 (2): 151–78.
Salaberry, R. (in press) ‘Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: Learn-ing objectives and technological capabilities’, Modern Language Journal 84 (1): 26–37.
Sato, C. (1988) ‘Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development’, Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 10: 371–95.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 25
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Schmidt, R. (1995) ‘Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role ofattention and awareness in learning’, in R. Schmidt (ed.) Attention and Awareness in For-eign Language Learning. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii.
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986) ‘Developing basic conversational ability in a second language:A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese’, in R. Day (ed.) Talking to Learn: Con-versation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.Schumann, J. (1987) ‘The expression of temporality in basilang speech’, Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition 9: 21–41.Schwartz, B. (1993) ‘On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and lin-
guistic behavior’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 147–63.Silva-Corvalán, C. (1983) ‘Tense and aspect in oral Spanish narrative: Context and meaning’,
Language 59: 760–80.Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.Spears, R. & Lea, M. (1994) ‘Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated
communication’, Communication Research 21: 427–59.Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986) ‘Reducing social contract cues: Electronic mail in organization’,
Management Science 32: 1492–512.Swain, M. (1995) ‘Three functions of output in second language learning’, in G. Cook & B. Sei-
dlhofer (eds) Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G.Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995) ‘Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:A step towards second langauge learning’, Applied Linguistics 16 (3): 371–91.
Tarone, E. (1988) Variation in Interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.Tarone, E. (1995) ‘A variationist framework for SLA research: Examples and pedagogical
insights’, in F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham & R. Rutkowski (eds) SecondLanguage Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Thorne, S. (1999) Beyond Bounded Activity Systems: Heterogeneous Cultures in InstructionalUses of Persistent Conversation. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania StateUniversity.
Tikhomirov (1979) ‘The psychological consequences of computerization’, in J. Wertsch (ed.)The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. New York: Sharpe, Inc.
Vendler, Z. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Walther, J., Anderson, J. & Park, D. (1994) ‘Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated inter-
action: A metaanalysis of social and antisocial communication’, CommunicationResearch 21 (4): 460–87.
Warschauer, M. (1996a) ‘Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second lan-guage classroom’, CALICO 13: 7–25.
Warschauer, M. (1996b) ‘Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communica-tion’, in M. Warschauer (ed.) Telecommunication in Foreign Language Learning: Pro-ceedings of the Hawaii Symposium. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, SecondLanguage Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Warschauer, M. (1997) ‘Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice’, Mod-ern Language Journal 81: 470–81.
Wiberg, E. (1996) ‘Reference to past events in bilingual Italian–Swedish children of schoolage’, Linguistics 34: 1087–114.
26 M.R. SALABERRY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Edinburgh, England: Longman.Zinchenko, P. (1979) ‘Involuntary memory and the goal-directed nature of activity’, in J.
Wertsch (ed.) The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. New York: Sharpe, Inc.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 27
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek H
eide
lber
g] a
t 19:
07 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014