Long 1981 INPUT, - INTERACTION, - AND - SECOND

INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand

markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an

indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by

xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Custome* Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.
university
Microfilms
Internationa!
3 0 0 N / E B B H O A D , A N N A R B O R , Ml 0 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D FI OW, L O N D O N W C . R 4 E J H N G L A N Q
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8111249
Lo n g , M ic h a e l H u g h
INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
University o f California, Los Angeles PH.D. 1980
University
Microfilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Copyright 1980
by
Long, Michael Hugh
Ail Rights Reserved
R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Los A ngeles
In p u t, In teractio n , and Second
Language A c q u is itio n
A d issertatio n su b m itted in p artial satisfactio n of the
req u irem en ts fo r the degree D octor o f P hilosophy
in A pplied L in g u is tic s
by
M i c h a e l Hu g h L o n g
1980
The d is s e r t a t io n of Michael Hugh Long is approved.
r W. A n d e r s e n
/Susan C u rtiss
L V jA /r-
NoreeFl^ebb =&&CkClL
/
E v e l y n -M. H a t c h , C h a i r
U n iv ersity of C alifo rn ia, Los A n g eles
1980
ii
DEDICATION
To C h a r l i e .
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P a ge
L I S T OF T A B L E S ................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. x
VITA AND P U B L I C A T I O N S ............................................................................ x ii
ABSTRACT OF THE D I S S E R T A T I O N .................................................................. x i i i
CHAPTER
1. INPUT, INTERACTION AMD LANGUAGE

ACQUISITION ........................................................................................ 1
In tro d u ctio n .................................................................................. 1

I n p u t i n F i r s t L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n ......................... 3
I n te r a c t io n in F i r s t LanguageA c q u is itio n . . 11
I n p u t, I n t e r a c t i o n and F i r s t Language
A c q u i s i t i o n ....................................................................................... 16
C o n c l u s i o n ....................................................................................... 23
I n p u t i n Second Language A c q u is itio n . . . . 24
I n t e r a c t i o n i n S e c o n d Language;
A c q u i s i t i o n ........................... 49
I n p u t , I n t e r a c t i o n and Second
L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n ............................................................
C o n c l u s i o n ........................................................................................ 60
2. THE S T U D Y ............................................................................................. 62
P u r p o s e ....................................................................................................... 62
H y p o t h e s e s ........................................................................................ 64
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1 : NS-NS a n d
NS-NNS I n t e r a c t i o n ............................................................ 64
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 2: I n p u t t o
NSs a n d NNSs ....................................................................... 65
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3: T a s k V a r i a b l e s . . . 66
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4: I n p u t - O u t p u t
R e l a t i o n s h i p s ....................................................................... 68
M e t h o d .................................................................................................. 69
S u b j e c t s a n d D e s i g n ....................................................... 69
T r e a t m e n t .................................................................................. 21
P r o c e d u r e s .................................................................................. 22
A n aly sis . . . . . ............................................................ 29
iv
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Page
2. C ontinued
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1 : NS a n d
NS-NNS I n t e r a c t i o n .................................................. 79
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 2: I n p u t t o
NSs a n d N N S s .................................................................. 35
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3: Task V a r i a b l e s . . 87
R e s e a rc h Q u e s tio n 4: I n p u t - O u t p u t . . . 89
S t a t i s t i c a l A n aly sis ............................................ 91
3. R E S U L T S .................................................................................................... 94
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1 : NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
I n t e r a c t i o n ....................................................... ...................... 94
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 2 : I n p u t t o NSs
a n d N N S s ....................................................................................................H 8
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3: T a s k V a r i a b l e s ...................... 125
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4: I n p u t - O u p u t
4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 146
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1 : NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
I n t e r a c t i o n .............................................................................................. 14 6
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 2 : I n p u t t o NSs a n d
N N S s ...............................................................................................................I 58
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 3 : T a s k V a r i a b l e s ...................... 158
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 4 : I n p u t - O u t p u t ............................ 16 3
5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................... 166
A P P E N D I C E S ............................................................................................................. 171
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 184
L I S T OF TABLES
T a b le P age
1. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f P r e s e n t a n d
N o n -p re s e n t Tem poral M arkings o f V erbs
i n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS I n t e r a c t i o n o n T a s k 1 . . 95
2a. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u e s t i o n s ,
S ta te m e n ts and I m p e r a tiv e s in T - u n it s
on Task 1 .......................................................................................... 96
2b. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u e s t i o n s ,
S t a t e m e n t s and I m p e r a t iv e s i n T - u n i t s
o n T a s k 2 . ....................................................................................... 96
?c. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u e s t i o n s ,
S ta te m e n ts and Im p e ra tiv e s i n T - u n its
o n T a s k 3 ............................................................................................ 97
2d. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u e s t i o n s ,
S ta te m e n ts and Im p e ra tiv e s in T - u n its
o n T a s k 4 ............................................................................................ 97
2e. Numbers an d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u e s t i o n s ,
S ta te m e n ts and I m p e r a t iv e s in T - u n it s
o n T a s k 5 ............................................................................................ 98
2f. Numbers an d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u e s t i o n s ,
S ta te m e n ts and Im p e ra tiv e s in T - u n its
o n T a s k 6 ............................................................................................ 98
2g. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u e s t i o n s ,
S ta te m e n ts and I m p e ra tiv e s in T - u n its
o n A l l T a s k s ......................................................................................... 100
3a. Q uestion-T ypes i n T - u n i t s on T a s k 1 .............................. 1 01
3b. Q uestion-T ypes in T - u n its on T a s k 2 ........................10 2
3c. Q uestion-T ypes i n T - u n it s on T a s k 3 ........................10 3
3d Q uestion-T ypes in T - u n i t s on T a s k 4 ...............................104
3e. Q uestion-T ypes i n T - u n i t s on T a s k 5 ............................... 105
3f. Q uestion-T ypes i n T - u n i t s on T a s k 6 ............................... 106
3g. Q uestion-T ypes in T -u n its on A ll Tasks . . . 107
vA
T a b le Page
4. Numbers o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l F ra m e s on
T a s k s 1 t h r o u g h 6 a n d On A l l T a s k s ............................. 109
5. N u m b e r s o f C o n f i r m a t i o n C h e c k s on
T a s k s 1 t h r o u g h 6 a n d On A l l T a s k s ...............................110
6. Numbers o f C o m p r e h e n s i o n C h e c k s on
T a s k s 1 t h r o u g h 6 a n d On A l l T a s k s ...............................I l l
7. Numbers o f C l a r i f i c a t i o n R e q u e s t s on
T a s k s 1 t h r o u g h 6 a n d On A l l T a s k s ............................... 112
8. Numbers o f S e l f - R e p e t i t i o n s on
T a s k s 1 t h r o u g h 6 a n d On A l l T a s k s . , . . . 114
9. Numbers o f O t h e r - R e p e t i t i o n s on
T a s k s 1 t h r o u g h 6 a n d On A l l T a s k s ............................... 115
10. Numbers o f E x p a n s i o n s on
T a s k s 1 t h r o u g h 6 a n d On A l l T a s k s ................................116
11. Numbers o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l F r a m e s ,
C o n firm a tio n C hecks, C om prehension
Checks, C l a r i f i c a t i o n R eq u ests, S e lf-
a n d O t h e r - R e p e t i t i o n s , a n d E x p a n s i o n on
T a s k s 1 t h r o u g h 6 a n d On A l l T a s k s .................................. 117
12. A verage L ength o f T - u n it s in W o rd s o n

13. A v e r a g e Number o f S - n o d e s p e r T - u n i t on
14. T y p e - T o k e n R a t i o s f o r NS S p e e c h o n
T a s k s 1 , 2 , a n d 1 & 2 . . ......................................................... 122
15. L e x i c a l F re q u e n c y o f Nouns and V erbs

o n T a s k s 1 , 2 a n d 6 a n d On A l l T a s k s . . . . 123
16. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f V e rb s and

C o p u l a s o n T a s k 1 .............................................................................124
17. Rank O r d e r s o f R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c i e s o f
N i n e G r a m m a t i c a l M o r p h e m e s i n S p e e c h by
NSs t o O t h e r NSs a n d To NNSs o n T a s k s
1 a n d 6 ......................................................................................................... 125
v ii
T able Paqe
18a. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u e s t i o n s ,
S t a t e m e n t s and I m p e r a t i v e s on T a sk s 1,
4 and 5 127
18b. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u e s t i o n s ,
S t a te m e n t s and I m p e r a t iv e s on T asks
2, 3 and 6 . . . ........................................................................1 28
19. Numbers o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l F r a m e s on
T a s k s 1 , 4 and 5 Com pared w i t h T asks
2, 3 and 6 .............................................................................................. 130
20. Numbers o f C o n f i r m a t i o n C h e c k s on T a s k s
1, 4 and 5 Com pared w i t h T ask s 2, 3 and 6 . . 131
21. Numbers o f C o m p r e h e n s i o n Checks on T ask s

1, 4 and 5 Com pared w i t h Tasks 2, 3 and 6 . . 132
22. Numbers o f C l a r i f i c a t i o n R e q u e s t s on
T ask s 1, 4 a n d 5 Com pared w i t h T a s k s 2,
3 a n d 6 ....................................................................... - . 134
23. Numbers o f S e l f - R e p e t i t i o n s on T a sk s 1,
4 and 5 Com pared w i t h T asks 2, 3 and 6 135
24. Numbers o f O t h e r - R e p e t i t i o n s o n T a s k s 1
4 and 5 Com pared w i t h T ask s 2, 3 and 6 . - 136
25. Numbers o f E x p a n s i o n on T a s k s 1 , 4 and 5

Com pared w i t h T a sk s 2, 3 and 6 . . . . .
26. Numbers o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l F r a m e s ,
C o n firm a tio n C hecks, C om prehension C hecks.
C l a r i f i c a t i o n R e q u e s ts , S e l f - and O th e r-
R e p e t i t i o n s , and E x p a n sio n s on T ask s 1,
4 and 5 Compared w i t h T ask s 2, 3 and 6 . . . 1 39
27. A verage Length o f T - u n i t s i n Words on

T a s k s 1 , 4 and 5 Compared w i t h T a sk s
2, 3 and 6 .............................................................................................. 140
28. A v e r a g e Number o f S -n o d es p e r T - u n i t on
T a s k s 1 , 4 and 5 Com pared w i t h T a sk s 2,
3 a n d 6 ......................................................................................................... 1 4 2
v iii
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T a b le P age
29. C o r r e l a t i o n B e t w e e n NNS I n p u t F r e q u e n c y
Rank O r d e r on T a s k s 1 & 6 Com bined and
K r a s h e n ' s "A v erag e O r d e r " f o r Nine
G r a m m a ti c a l M orphemes 14 3
30. R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c i e s o f Nine G ra m m a tic al

M o r p h o e m e s i n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
C onversation .................................................................................. 145
A. I n te r - r a te r R e lia b ility C o efficien ts

f o r M e a s u r e s i n t h e A n a l y s i s ........................................... 93
B. R e l a t i o n s h i p s Betw een T ask-T ype and

I n t e r a c t i o n and I n p u t D if f e r e n c e s in
NS-NS a n d NS-NNS I n t e r a c t i o n ............................................. 160
ix
AC KNOWLEDGEMENTS
For th eir co n stru ctiv e c riticism and s u p p o rt
thro u g h o u t the w r itin g of th is d issertatio n , my s i n c e r e
thanks go t o t h e m e m b e r s o f my C o m m i t t e e : P rofessors
Roger A ndersen, R u ssell C am pbell, Susan C u r t is s , Evelyn
H atch, G e rry Mahoney, Jo h n Schumann, a n d N o r e e n Webb.
I am p a r t i c u l a r l y indebted to P r o fe s s o r E velyn H atch,
my C o m m i t t e e C hairperson, w h o se w o rk h a s b e e n an in sp i
ratio n t o me, as it w ill surely co n tin u e to be to suc
cessive g en eratio n s of stu d en ts in the field of second
language a c q u i s i t i o n research.
I w ould a l s o lik e to express my g r a t i t u d e to
P rofessors S tephen K rashen, D iane L arsen-Freem an, and
H erbert S e lig e r, who h a v e had a s tro n g influence o n my
ideas about second language acq u isitio n and ab o u t s c ie n c e .
Over th e past few y e a r s each has also become a good f r i e n d .
The same i s tru e of fiv e fellow stu d en ts: K athi B ailey ,
H ossein F a r h a d y , Bob O c h s n e r , C h arlie S ato, and Robin
S carcella. I was fo rtu n ate enough t o work w i t h e a c h o f
t h e m d u r i n g my y e a r s a t UCLA ; earned a great deal
from them i n the process.
R ecen tly , a t the U n iv ersity o f P en n sy lv an ia, I
have a g ain e n te re d a stim u latin g academ ic e n v iro n m e n t.
P rofessors D e ll Hymes, C y n th ia W atson, a n d W essa W o l f s o n ,
and T eresa P ica and Harvey W olfson have a ll been suppor
tiv e co lleag u es and f r ie n d s along the last stretch .
xi
VITA
D ecem ber 2, 1945— B orn, Beckenham, K ent, E ngland
1956— L L .B . , U n iv ersity of B irm ingham
1969-1970— G raduate C e r t i f i c a t e in E d u catio n ,

U n i v e r s i t y o f London
1 9 7 3 - 1 9 7 4 —-M.A. , A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , U n iv ersity of Essex
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
K rash en , S . D., Age, r a t e and e v e n t u a l a t t a i n m e n t in

M i c h a e l H. L o n g , second language a c q u i s i t i o n . TESOL
& R. C. S c a r c e l l a Q u a rte rly 13 .4 .
1979
H atch , E. & D iscourse a n a ly s is , w h a t's th a t?

M i c h a e l H. L o n g I n D. L a r s e n - F r e e m a n ( e d . ) , D i s c o u r s e
1980 a n a ly s is in second language r e s e a r c h .
R o w le y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u se.
Long, M ichael H. In sid e the "b lack box": m eth o d o lo g ical

1980 i s s u e s i n c l a s s r o o m r e s e a r c h on
language le a r n in g . Language L e a rn in g
3 0.1.
K r a s h e n , S . D. , C h ild -a d u lt d if f e r e n c e s in second
R. C . S c a r c e l l a , language a c q u is i ti o n . Row ley, M a s s .:
& M i c h a e l H. L o n g Newbury H o u s e .
( e d s .) I n p r e s s
S e l i g e r , H. D. & C la ssro o m la n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n and

M i c h a e l H. L o n g u s e : New p e r s p e c t i v e s . Row ley, M a ss .:
(eds . ) In p r e s s Newbury H o u s e .
Long, M i c h a e l H. Q u estio n s in f o re ig n e r ta lk discourse,

In p ress Language L earning 31.1.
x ii
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
In p u t, In teractio n , and Second
by
M i c h a e l Hugh L o n g
D octor o f P hilo so p h y in A pplied L in g u istics
U n iv ersity of C alifo rn ia, Los A n g e le s , 1980
P rofessor E velyn H atch, C hairperson
T his stu d y in v estig ated relatio n sh ip s a mo ng l i n
g u istic in p u t, co n v ersatio n al in teractio n , and seco n d
language acq u isitio n . There w ere four general research
qu estio n s p ertain in g to the follo w in g : (1 ) differen ces
in the stru ctu re of n ativ e sp eak er-n ativ e speaker (NS-NS)
and n a tiv e sp eak er-n o n -n ativ e speaker (NS-NNS) in teractio n ;
(2) d ifferen ces in the lin g u istic in p u t to NSs a n d NNSs;
(3 ) relatio n sh ip s betw een task -ty p e and d if f e r e n c e s ascer
tained under q u e stio n s (1) and (2); and (4) relatio n sh ip s
betw een the rela tiv e freq u en cies of item s in the lin g u istic
inp u t to NSs a n d NNSs a n d a p r e v i o u s l y estab lish ed order
for the accu rate p ro duction of those item s by second
lan g u ag e a c q u i r e r s .
x iii
S ubjects for the stu d y were a d u lt s , 48 NSs o f
E n g lish a n d 16 NNSs f r o m a v a r i e t y of language b ack g ro u n d s.
T hirty -tw o of the NSs w e r e m a t c h e d f o r sex and p r i o r
fo reig n er-talk experience, and th en random ly a s s i g n e d to
o n e o f two c o n d i t i o n s , NS o r NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , co n tro llin g
for sex -p airin g s. The r e m a in in g 16 NSs a n d NNSs w e r e
random ly assigned to in te rlo c u to rs to form a t o t a l of
32 d y a d s , 16 i n e a c h co n d itio n . Each dyad p e rfo rm e d s i x
tasks in the same o r d e r : (1 ) spontaneous co n v ersatio n ;
(2) a v icario u s n arrativ e, (3 ) in stru ctio n s, (4 ) a communi
c atio n game, (5) a s e c o n d c o m m u n ic a tio n game, and (6) a
d iscu ssio n of the supposed purpose o f the r e s e a rc h . The
tasks fall in to two c a t e g o r i e s : th o s e w hich r e q u i r e d the
exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n by b o t h s p e a k e r s (task s 1, 4 and
5), and th o se w hich d id n o t (task s 2, 3 and 6 ). A udio
ta p e s were t r a n s c r i b e d and coded for a series of discourse,
sy n tactic, m o rp h o lo g ical, and lex ical featu res. T h irty
hypotheses related to the four general research q u estio n s
were tested .
C oncerning research q u estio n (1), sta tistic a lly
s ig n ific a n t differences b e t w e e n NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n were
found for the fo llo w in g featu res. NSs i n NS-NNS i n t e r
actio n used (1) p ro p o rtio n ately more v e r b s m arked tem por
a lly for p resen t, (2 ) d if f e r e n t p ro p o rtio n s of statem en ts,
q u estio n s, and im peratives in T - u n its , and (3) o f Wh,
yes-no, in to n atio n , and tag q u e stio n s, and h i g h e r num bers
xiv
of (4) co n firm atio n checks, (5) com prehension ch eck s,
(5 ) c la rific a tio n requests, (7 ) se lf-re p e titio n s, (8)
o th er-rep etitio n s, and (9) expansions. No d i f f e r e n c e s
w ere found for th e num bers o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l fram es used.
C oncerning research q u estio n (2), NSs i n NS-NNS
in teractio n used s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ifican tly sh o rter
T -u n its in w ords. D ifferences on m easures of sy n tactic
com plexity and l e x i c a l d en sity and freq u en cy were not
sig n ific a n t. The r e l a t i v e frequency rank o rd e rs of nine
g r a m m a t ic a l m orphem es i n speech addressed t o NSs a n d NNSs
w ere p o sitiv ely c o rrelated .
C oncerning research q u estio n (3), d ifferen ces
betw een NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n on the above m easure
w ere fo u n d t o b e g r e a t e r on t a s k s req u irin g the exchange
of inform ation than on ta s k s not req u irin g th is in nine
of 11 c a s e s .
C oncerning research q u estio n (4), the NS i n p u t
frequency rank o rd e r of n i n e g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s wa s
p o sitiv ely c o rr e la te d w ith a second language accuracy
order for the p ro d u ctio n of those item s. T h e r e w as no
differen ce betw een the stren g th of asso ciatio n of th is
rank order and the second language p ro d u c tio n o r d e r and
th at betw een the same p r o d u c t i o n o r d e r and t h e NNS i n p u t
frequency rank o rd e r.
R esu lts o f the s tu d y were d i s c u s s e d in term s o f
the p o ssib le ro le o f m odified inp u t to NNSs a n d o f
xv
NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n in second language acq u isitio n , and
s u g g e s t i o n s w e r e made f o r fu tu re research.
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INPUT, INTERACTION AND
LANGUAGE AC QU ISITION
In tro d u ctio n
T he s t u d / o f m o s t h u m a n b e h a v i o r u ltim ately seeks
answ ers to the q u e stio n s: who? w h a t ? w h e n ? w h e r e ? how? a n d
why? R e s e a rc h on s e c o n d language a c q u i s i t i o n is no e x
cep tio n . A t one tim e o r a n o th e r , in v estig ato rs have
so u g h t answ ers to a l l these q u estio n s, som etim es sep arately ,
som etim es sim u ltan eo u sly .
"Who" q u e s t i o n s in sacond language acq u isitio n
(henceforth, SLA) o ften in v o lv e com parisons o f ch ild ren ,
ad o lescen ts and a d u lts learn in g a second language (SL)
(cf. Cazden, C ancino, Rosansky and Schumann, 1975). "What"
q u estio n s e n ta il scru tin y o f w hich featu res of a SL a r e
acq u ired and w hich are not (cf. H akuta and C an cin o , 1977),
and are u su a lly tied to "when" q u e s t i o n s , i.e ., to ques
tio n s concerning th e o rd e r in w hich those featu res appear
accu rately su p p lied in the lin g u istic p r o d u c t o f SL
learners (cf. H atch, 1978; K rashen, 1977; L arsen~Freem an,
1978; Schumann, 1978; M eisel, Pienem ann and K la s s e n , 1978).
"Where" g e n e r a l l y means c o m p a rin g SLA i n a foreign and
second language environm ent, in o r o u t o f the classroom
(cf. d 'A n g le ja n , 1978; Wode, 1980). "How" a n d "w h y "
q u estio n s are a d d r e s s e d i n many w a y s , but r e s e a r c h on th em
attem p ts to understand the p ro cess o f SLA. It is hoped
ev en tu ally to account for v ariatio n in success and f a i l u r e
in term s of le a rn e r v ariab les (cf. Cohen, 1977; T ucker,
Hamayan, and G enessee, 1976; L am endella and S c o v e l, 1978),
lin g u istic v ariab les (cf. A ndersen, 1980; Wode, 1976;
Z obl, 1980), environm ental v a ria b le s (cf. Schumann, 1978;
Sw ain, 1979) , o r c o m b i n a t i o n s th ereo f ( c f . K rashen, in
press; 1978; Larsen-Freem an, 19 8 0 ; S e l i n k e r and L am endella,
1978; Schum ann, 1978). F inal answ ers these q u estio n s
c an n o t, of course, be obtained in d ep en d en tly , a n d any
o b serv atio n ally adequate t h e o r y o f SLA w i l l need to
account for d ata in a ll six areas. Answ ers to the o th er
fiv e q u estio n s, for exam ple, w i l l presum e some k n o w l e d g e
of "w hat."
The r e s e a r c h to be reported h ere is a "ho w" and
"w h y " s t u d y , focusing on c e r t a i n aspects in what has bean
called the "m acrobehavioral dom ain" (S elin k er and
L am endella, 1978) of the SLA p r o c e s s , b u t relies in p a r t
on p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d fin d in g s on the lin g u istic prod
u c t o f SL a c q u i r e r s . S p ecifically , th is stu d y seeks to
do t h r e e th in g s. F irst it described and q u a n t i f i e s
v arious featu res of the co n v ersatio n al in teractio n betw een
n ativ e speakers o f E nglish and s t u d e n t s of E nglish as a
second language. Second, it attem p ts to d eterm ine w hether
relatio n sh ip s e x i s t betw een th o se co n v ersatio n al featu res
and v a rio u s c h aracteristics o f the speech addressed to
SL a c q u i r e r s , the in p u t d ata f o r SLA. And t h i r d , it
searches fo r evidence th a t the latte r ch aracteristics,
p articu lar^/ the relativ e freq u en cies o f certain lin g u istic
item s in the in p u t d ata, are related to the o r d e r in w hich
they appear accu rately su p p lied in the lin g u istic product
d ata f o r SL a c q u i s i t i o n . In o th e r w ords, the d isse rta tio n
seeks to estab lish relatio n sh ip s betw een p ro c e s s and
p r o d u c t a n d among i n p u t , in teractio n and a c q u i s i t i o n .
Input in F i r s t Language A c q u is itio n
Chomsky (1965) drew a c l e a r d istin ctio n betw een
lin g u istic "co m p eten ce," a p e rs o n 's t a c i t know ledge o f a
la n g u a g e 's g ram m atical ru les, and "p erfo rm an ce," his or
her use of those ru les in v e r b a l com m unication. W hile
c o m p eten ce was t h e b a s i s fo r perform ance, it was, Chomsky
claim ed, m arkedly d i f f e r e n t from i t (and the relevant
o bject of lin g u istic in q u iry ). Com petence c o u ld n o t be
stu d ied u sin g perform ance d ata, for the latter co n stitu ted
a d eg en erate corpus, fu ll of false sta rts, slip s of the
tongue, rep etitio n s and o th e r lin g u istic "n o ise". The
n o i s e was c a u s e d by a v a r i e t y o f perform ance facto rs,
s u c h a s mem ory l a p s e s , nervousness and tim e c o n s t r a i n t s .
L in g u ists w ould in stead need to have rec o u rse to th eir
in tu itio n s about c o rr e c tn e s s — in the form o f g r a m m a t i c a l i t y
judgm ents— as n ativ e s p e a k e r s o f a la n g u a g e whose gram m ar
th e y were d e s c r i b i n g .
A corollary of th is v i e w was th at t h e human i n f a n t
m u st be endowed w ith a h ig h ly so p h isticated in n ate a b ility
to learn l a n g u a g e — some s o r t o f l a n g u a g e acq u isitio n
d ev ice (LAD). If the ad u lt lin g u ist co uld n o t rely on
speech to induce the c o rre c t ru les of a language, how
co u ld a young c h ild do s o ? The c h i l d c o u l d n o t make g ra m -
m aticality judgm ents u n t i l he o r she knew t h e ru les of
the gram m ar, i.e . was a l r e a d y a n ativ e speaker. F u rth er,
even the w e ll-fo rm ed s e n te n c e s the c h ild heard em bodied
only the surface stru ctu res of a language. Chomsky a r g u e d
th at it was k n o w le d g e o f the underlying deep s tr u c t u r e s
(plus a set of tran sfo rm atio n al ru les) t h a t had t o be
learned. T his d i d seem a more m a n a g a b le task f o r one
human b e i n g .
C hom sky's n o tio n o f lin g u istic com petence has
s i n c e b e e n shown t o be in ad eq u ate as an a c c o u n t o f w hat
i t means t o know a l a n g u a g e , p rin cip ally because it assum es
a sin g le homogeneous s p e e c h com m unity, and say s no th in g
about ru les concerning ap propriate use o f language ( H y m es ,
1967, 1972a, 1972b, 1974). Hymes' concept of "com m unica
tiv e com petence", w hich in clu d es lin g u istic com petence,
b u t also so cio lin g u istic com ponents desig n ed to handle
situ ated and ru le -g o v e re n e d language use, has larg ely
replaced C h o m sk y 's n o t i o n in the work o f so cial scien tists
concerned w ith language acq u isitio n a n d human communi
catio n , However, C hom sky's claim s for the need to p o s it
a stro n g in n ate, sp e cies-sp ecific languag e-learn in g
cap acity have a lre a d y proved u s e f u l. Among o t h e r th in g s,
they have in s p ir e d a great deal of r e s e a r c h on c h i l d
la n g u a g e developm ent in g e n e ra l, and on th e lin g u istic
in p u t to t h e LAD i n p a r t i c u l a r .
A larg e number o f e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s have now b e e n
carried out of the speech a d d re sse d to lan g u ag e-learn in g
c h ild re n w ith the aim o f d isco v erin g j u s t how "degenerate"
a corpus i t c o n stitu tes, and th e r e b y to assess the n atu re
and s i z e o f the in n ate com ponent. C ontrary to specu
latio n s b y Chomsky (1965) and F o d o r (1966), among o t h e r s ,
alm o st a l l sen ten ces addressed to ch ild ren learn in g th eir
m other tongue have been found to be w e ll- f o rm e d (Broen,
19 7 2 ; Brown a n d B e l l u g i , 1964; C ross, 1977; D rach, 1969;
N ew port, 1975; N ew port, G leitm an and G leitm an, 1977;
P h illip s, 1970, 1973; Rem ick, 1971; Snow, 1971, 1972).
Cross (1977), f o r exam ple, rep o rts th at 3.3 p e r c e n t o f
the u tteran ces in m others' speech to ch ild ren were d i s -
flu en t, 2 percent u n in te llig ib le , and 9.8 p e rc e n t run-on
sen ten ces. N ew port e t al. (1977) found a d i s f l u e n c y in
only one u tte ra n c e in 1500. D isflu en cies o r broken
sen ten ces have proved to be few er in speech addressed to
ch ild ren than in c o n v ersatio n w ith other ad u lts (Broen,
1972; N ew port, 1975; S no w , 1 9 7 2) . W hile fin d in g s such
as th ese do n o t i n v a l i d a t e C h o m sk y 's claim s concerning an
innate com ponent, for they are not in th em selves proof
th at they are an a id to the language-iearning ch ild , they
do show t h a t th e corpus a t the c h ild 's disposal is hardly
d eg en erate.
Many o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t betw een a d u l t - c h i l d
and a d u l t - a d u l t sp eech . S till in the sy n tactic dom ain,
f o r exam ple, i t h a s b e e n shown t h a t u tteran ce length in
speech addressed to ch ild ren is sh o rter and le s s v aried ,
as i s the preverb mean l e n g t h of utteran ce (MLU) (e.g .
Lord, 1975; M oerk, 1972; N elson, 1973; S hatz and Gelman,
1973; V o rster, 1974). The s p e e c h is tran sfo rm atio n ally
less com plex (D rach, 1969; Pfuderer, 1969), w ith few er
verbs per u tteran ce, few er c o o rd in a te and s u b o r d in a te
clau ses, and few er s e n te n c e em beddings (Drach, 1969;
N ew port, 1975; P h illip s, 1970, 1973; S h a tz an d Gelm an,
1973; Snow, 1971, 1972; V o rster, 1974). A d jectiv es,
adverbs and pronouns are few er, and the ratio o f content
w ords to functors higher (N ew port, 19 7 5 ; P h illip s, 19 7 0 ;
W ills, 1977). Young c h i l d r e n in itia lly hear p ro p o rtio n
ately m ore i m p e r a t i v e s and q u e s ti o n s than ad u lts (B lount
1972; Brown, Cazden and B e l l u g i , 1969; Gelman a n d S h a t z ,
1975; Kolzm an, 1972; N ew port, 1975), w ith the p ro p o rtio n
of d eclarativ e statem en ts in c re a s in g w ith the in creasin g
age o f the ch ild (Brown a n d H a n l o n , 1970; N ew port, 1975)
There are s e v e ra l p h o n o lo g ical differences. Speech
to lan g u age-learning c h ild ren is p i tc h e d h ig h e r and has a
more e x a g g e r a t e d in to n atio n (B lount and Padgug, 19 7 7 ;
D rach, 1969; P h illip s, 1970; R em ick, 1971) and u se s a w ider
p itch range (G arnica, 1977). It is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f r e
quent red u p licatio n of sy llab les, clearer articu latio n ,
pauses betw een u t t e r a n c e s and an o v e r a l l slow er rate of
speech (D ePaulo an d B o n v i l l i a n , 1975; D rach, 1969;
Ferguson, 1964, 1977; N ew port, 1975). A dult speech to
tw o-year-old c h ild re n , for exam ple, was found to p ro c e e d
a t h alf the speed of speech to o th e r ad u lts in two s t u d i e s
(Broen, 1972; Rem ick, 1971).
In the sem an tic dom ain, v ocabulary is more r e
stricte d in speech to ch ild ren , a s m e a s u r e d by t h e type-
to k en ratio (TTR) (Broen, 1972; D rach, 1972; P h illip s,
1970, 1973; R em ick, 1976). Talk is firm ly anchored in the
"here a n d now" (C ross, 1977; M oerk, 1972; P h illip s, 1970),
and e x p r e s s e s a m ore lim ited range o f sem antic relatio n
sh ip s (Brown, 1973; Snow, 1977). The last tw o f a c t o r s
predicate em phasis o f c o n te n t nouns and th e p r e s e n t ten se
(P h illip s, 1973; Snow, A rlm an-Rupp, H assing, Jobse,
Jo o sten and V o rste r, 1976) .
From t h e s e and o t h e r f i n d i n g s we may f a i r l y con
clude th at lin g u istic in p u t to the language-learning
ch ild is both q u a n tita tiv e ly and q u a l i t a t i v e l y d ifferen t
from s p e e c h addressed to lin g u istically com petent a d u l t s .
It is also n o t a d eg en erate c o rp u s, alth o u g h some s c h o l a r s
(e.g . W exler and C u l c o v e r , 1980) s till d ispute th is.
F u rth er, at least in term s o f the lin g u istic com plexity
of its surface stru ctu re, speech • ch ild ren is sim p ler
i n m an y w a y s than speech to other ad u lts. It is also safe
to co n clude t h a t we d o n o t y e t know a l l th e ways i n w hich
speech to ch ild ren d iffers from a d u l t - d i r e c t e d language.
Whole v o l u m e s o f e m p i r i c a l stu d ies contin u e to appear
d irected to th is and r e l a t e d m atters (L ew is a n d Rosem blum ,
1977; S haffer, 1977; Snow a n d F e r g u s o n , 1977; W aterson
a n d Snow, 1977), as do u s e f u l review s of the litera tu re
(e.g . C lark and C la rk , 1977; de V i l l i e r s and de V i l l i e r s ,
1978; F arw ell, 1973; Landes, 1975; Snow, 1977, 1979;
V o r s te r , 1975).
A good d e a l is also now k n o w n a b o u t v a r i a b l e s re
lated to th e lin g u istic in p u t for f i r s t language acqui
sitio n . F irst, w ith regard to speaker, a ll classes of
ca re-tak ers, n o t j u s t m oth ers, are c a p a b le o f m odifying
th eir speech in t h e ways described e a rlie r. Thus, fathers
and even t h r e e - y e a r - o l d eld er sib lin g s make a p p r o p r i a t e
ad ju stm en ts (A nderson and Jo h n so n , 1973; G leason, 1973;
G leason and W e in tra u b , 1975; Sachs and D evin, 1976;
Shatz and Gelman, 1973, 1977), and e x p e rie n c e d m others
are only slig h tly m ore a d e p t a t p r o v i d i n g ap propriate
i n p u t th a n nonm others (Snow, 1972). There is some e v i d e n c e
th a t the ad ju stm en ts are more c o n s i s t e n t l y su p p lied and
m ore v a r i e d in fam ilies from h i g h e r socioeconom ic b ack
grounds (S chachter, 1973; S en tilh es, W insberg, d 'A n g le ja n ,
n .d .; Snow e t a l . , 1 9 7 6 ) , b u t also evidence t h a t m odified
input is provided to ch ild ren of a ll so cial classes. In
ad d itio n , a study o f two m i d d l e - c l a s s an d two l o w e r - c l a s s
m o th ers (Holzm an, 1974) found in d iv id u a l d ifferen ces but
none t h a t co u ld be a t t r i b u t e d to the so cial class v ari
ab les. The phen o m en o n a p p e a r s to occur in a v ariety of
cu ltu res, indeed a l l th o se stu d ied so far (B lo u n t and
Padgug, 1977; Ferguson, 1964; Jo cic, 1978), but there is
some e v i d e n c e o f v a r i a b i l i t y at th e lev el of in d ividual
m others (L ieven, 1978).
S itu atio n v ariab les have been m an ip u la te d in
sev eral stu d ies. Task d ifficu lty does n o t appear to
a f f e c t m others' speech (Snow, 1972), but the n atu re of
the activ ity in w hich c h i l d and c a r e t a k e r are engaged
does (Snow, 1977). Thus, m o th e r's speech has been found
to b e m ore com plex i n free situ atio n s (play, ch attin g and
b o o k -read in g ) than d u rin g caretak in g (bathing, d ressing
and e a tin g ) a s m e a s u r e d b y MLU a n d l e n g t h of paraphrase
(B akker-R enes and H o e fn a g e l-H o h le , 19 7 4 ) . The l a t t e r
stu d y found b o o k -re a d in g t h e m ost com plex in term s o f the
speech it elicited , a s d i d Snow e t al. (1976), who com
pared it w ith free play. Snow (1977) suggests the
follo w in g ex p lan atio n (p. 37):
I t m ig h t be t h a t t h e need t o com m unicate e f f i c i e n t l y
produces sim p le r speech in th e c a re ta k in g s i t u a t i o n , ,
and t h a t th e e x tr a s i t u a t i o n a l s u p p o rt o f p ic tu r e s
in th e b o o k -read in g s itu a tio n lim its th e p o ssib le
t o p i c s s u f f i c i e n t l y t h a t t h e com m ents c a n be m ore
e la b o ra te d than in less w e ll-d e fin e d s itu a tio n s .
L isten er v ariab les are th e th ird m ajor c la s s th at
have re c e iv e d a tten tio n . It is im p o rta n t to know w h i c h
c h a ra c te ristic s of ch ild ren and c h il d language e l i c i t
w hich m o d i f i c a t i o n in the in p u t, and when. Most o f u s ,
after a ll, have h eard m odified speech being addressed to
p ets, p lan ts and lo v e r s . There a re se v era l p o ssib le
can d id ates for th is fu nction, in clu d in g the c h ild 's age,
size, statu s, c o g n itiv e developm ent, lin g u istic p ro ficien cy ,
and even h i s or her ro le a s an o b j e c t o f a f f e c t i o n .
Age o f the c h ild has re c e iv e d co n sid erab le
atten tio n (A nderson and Johnson, 197 3; Broen, 1972;
N ew port, G leitm an and G leitm an, 1977; P h illip s, 1973;
R in g ler, Jarv ella, K ennell, N avojosky and K lau s, 1975;
Sn o w , 1972), w ith the fin d in g t h a t m ost f e a t u r e s of speech
addressed to ch ild ren in crease in com plexity as a f u n c tio n
of age. The one e x c e p t i o n is the drop in com plexity
once i n f a n t s b egin to respond v e r b a lly (P h illip s, 1973),
a fin d in g t o w h i c h we r e t u r n late r. The s y n t a c t i c com
p lex ity of caretak er sp eech seem s t o be o n ly roughly
tuned to the c h ild 's current lin g u istic a b ilities (C ross,
1977; N ew port, 1976; N ew port, G leitm an and G leitm an, 1977).
Fine tun in g is rarely found, and o th e r facto rs seem t o
10
e lic it the c a re g iv e r's speech m o d ificatio n , e .g . psycho
lo g ical sim p licity , in v o lv in g co g n itiv e, so cial and p e r
cep tu al as w ell as s y n ta c tic ease (S hatz and G elm an,
1977). S em antic r e l a t i o n s the ch ild expresses also seem
a factor in determ in in g the co m p lex ity of the i n p u t he
or she re c e iv e s. There i s evidence, f o r exam ple, th at
th is lim its th e m o th e r's own c h o i c e o f sem an tic r e l a t i o n s
(Snow, 1977; Van d e r G e e s t , 1977). Sex o f t h e ch ild has
been found to influence the q u an tity of speech addressed
to c h ild ren , w ith g i r l s ap p earin g to r e c e i v e m ore i n p u t
and p o s s ib l y of p ro p o rtio n ately d ifferen t k inds, e.g .
few er im p e r a tiv e d irectiv es an d m ore q u e s t i o n s (C herry
a n d L e w i s , 19 7 8 ) .
In teractio n in F i r s t Language A c q u is itio n
W h il e some o f t h e early stu d ies of in p u t to
ch ild ren looked e x c lu s iv e ly at the speech addressed to
the ch ild , several of them a l s o co n sid ered the function
of ad u lt u tteran ces in relatio n to the c h ild 's co n tri
b u tio n s to the c o n v e rsa tio n . Brown, Cazden and B e llu g i
(1964) noted the fre q u e n c y w ith w hich p a r e n ts expanded
c h ild r e n 's teleg rap h ic speech, u su ally su p p ly in g m issin g
functors in the p ro cess. E xpansions are, in turn, one
common f o r m o f r e p e t i t i o n of a previous s p e a k e r's u tte r
ance. T his has been found a p e rv a s iv e featu re of conver
satio n s w ith ch ild ren (e.g . Bloom , L i g h t b o w n a n d Hood
11
1975; B roen, 1972; Herman, 1978, 1972; Snow, 1972),
co m p lete and p a r t i a l rep etitio n s o ccu rrin g o f both the
c h ild 's o u tp u t and th e a d u lt's previous u tteran ce.
An e a r l y in d icatio n of the need to co n sid er the
c h ild 's co n v ersatio n al ro le in e lic itin g m o d ified speech
from c a r e t a k e r s d erived from th e finding th at speech to
p relin g u istic in fan ts c o u l d be m ore co m p lex t h a n t h a t
addressed to v e rb a l c h ild re n (P h illip s, 1973), a resu lt
c o n f i r m e d by L o rd (1975). W ith h i n d s i g h t it seems o b v io u s
th at careg iv ers m ust depend in p a r t on f e e d b a c k from th e
c h i l d when a d j u s t i n g th eir speech. F u rth er in d irect
ev id en ce o f t h i s came fro m p a r t o f a larg er study con
d u c t e d b y Snow (1972). M o t h e r s w e r e a s k e d t o make t a p e s
w hich th ey w ere to ld w ould l a t e r be p la y e d to th eir ch il
dren. W hile th eir s p e e c h was s l o w e r , s i m p l e r a n d more
redundant than it w ould have been to a d u lts, it was n o t
a s m arked in t h e s e ways a s when t h e m o th e r s w e re in con
v ersatio n s w ith the ch ild ren th em selv es.
A nother feature of p a re n t-c h ild in teractio n noted
by Brown, Cazden and B e llu g i (19 64) concerned what they
term ed "o ccasio n al q u e stio n s." These o c c u rr e d in two
situ atio n s. F irst, when p a r t o f a c h i l d ' s u tteran ce
was u n i n t e l l i g i b l e , th e m other r e p e a te d w h at she thought
the ch ild to have said , w hile su b stitu tin g an a p p r o p r i a t e
wh q u e s t i o n w o r d for the d o u b tfu l elem ent:
12
C hild: I want m ilk
M other: You w a n t w h a t ?
C hild: M ilk
(Br own e t a l., 1964, p. 150)
Second, when no r e s p o n s e was f o r t h c o m i n g a f t e r a norm al
q u estio n , t h e q u e s t i o n was r e f o r m u l a t e d w i t h t h e wh w o r d
in the place to b e o c c u p i e d by t h e c o n s t i t u e n t the ch ild
sho u ld su p p ly , i.e . as a statem en t u tte re d w ith risin g
in to n atio n :
M other: Where w i l l I put it?
C hild: (no a n s w e r )
M other: I w ill put i t w here?
(Brown e t a l., 19 6 4 , p. 151)
Brown e t al. drew a t t e n t i o n to the p o s s ib le d id actic
effect o f such exchanges in show ing th e ch ild t h e member
sh ip of d ifferen t sen ten ce co n stitu en ts. NP m e m b e r s , for
exam ple, are those ite m s w hich can be r e p l a c e d by w h a t ,
lo cativ es by w h e r e , and so on.
A n o th e r exam ple o f w hat lo o k s lik e a m i n i grammar
l e s s o n w a s r i o t s d b y Snow (19 7 2 ) . She fo u n d m o th e r s re
p eatin g iso lated co n stitu en ts after th eir own p r e v i o u s
u tteran ces con tain in g them , as in:
M other: Put the red tru ck in t h e b o x now.
No, the red truck. In th e box.
Th e r e d truck in the box.
Snow s u g g e s t e d that such sequences looked lik e sim ple
13
lessons in phrase stru ctu re. B o th Brown (1977) a n d Snow
(1977) have been c a r e f u l to po in t o u t, how ever, t h a t w hile
th e effect of s u c h e x c h a n g e s may b e t o make t h e ch ild aware
of aspects of t h e gram m ar he o r s h e is attem p tin g to learn ,
the sequences arise n atu rally from the p aren ts' d esire to
com m unicate w i t h the ch ild , n o t from an a tt e m p t t o teach
in any c o n s c io u s or form al sense. S im ilar kinds o f
"teach in g ep iso d es" have been d e s c rib e d by o t h e r re
searchers, e.g . M oerk (1972, 1976).
O ther freq u en tly noted ch aracteristics of ad u lt-
ch ild in teractio n include the high frequency of q u e stio n s
and im p e rativ e s by th e ad u lt (e.g . N ew port, 1975), the
use of a tten tio n -g ettin g d ev ices (K eenan, 1974), and th e
ro le of co o p erativ e d ialog. The l a s t of th ese takes
various form s. Shugar (1978) has an aly zed ad u lt-ch ild
co n v ersatio n s in term s of "tex t c re a tio n ." For the jo in t
co n stru ctio n of a dialo g , one p a r t n e r , u su ally the ad u lt,
and u s u a l l y w ith a q u e s t i o n , refers to a situ a tio n , focus
i n g on one a s p e c t o f it as to p ic. The o t h e r p a r t n e r ,
usu ally the ch ild , t h e n makes an u t t e r a n c e , u su ally re
ferrin g to the same s i t u a t i o n , w hich can be c o n s tr u e d as
a comment b y t h e ad u lt. A f t e r some i n d i c a t i o n of the
adequacy o f the c h ild 's response in th is sense, the "game"
may p r o c e e d , w ith each "p lay er" o ccasionally having to
s h if t his or her current fi& ld o f reference in order to
m a t c h a new one in tro d u ced by t h e other. In fact, of
14
course, it is u su ally the a d u l t who h a s to do t h e reference
m atching, and th e re b y su stain the d ia lo g 's coherence.
S im ila r u n d erstan d in g s of ad u lt-ch ild in teractio n
h a v e b e e n o f f e r e d by o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s (A tkinson, 19 7 4 ;
Keenan, 1974; Keenan and K le in , 1975; Keenan and
S h ieffelin , 1976; Keenan, S h ieffelin and P l a t t , 1979;
S co llo n , 1974). S tudying the acq u isitio n o f E n g l i s h by
a ch ild at t h e o n e an d two w o rd s t a g e s , S collon found
"v ertical stru c tu re s," ex em p lified in the fo llo w in g ex
changes :
(1) C h i l d : Kimby
A dult: W h a t a b o u t Ki m by ?
C hild: C lose
A dult: C losed. What d i d she c lo s e , hmmm?
and:
(2) C h ild : Tape c o r d e r
use i t (2x)
A dult: Use i t f o r w hat?
C hild: Talk
corder ta lk
Brenda (c h ild 's name ) talk
(A dapted from S c o l l o n , 1974)
S collon argues th at "h o rizo n tal stru ctu res" (e.g . Kimby
clo sed or tape recorder t a l k ) grow c u t o f v e r t i c a l ones,
and both from t h e c h ild 's p articip atio n in co n v ersatio n .
The i n i t i a l Kimby i n (1), f o r exam ple, is treated by th e
15
ad u lt in terlo cu to r as a to p ic n o m ination. The n a t i v e
speaker asks for a comment w i t h What a b o u t K im by?, and
the ch ild p ro v id es i t w ith clo se. In very rudim entary
form , in o th e r w ords, we h a v e t h e begin n in g s of a basic
to pic-com m ent d is c o u r s e p attern , w hich w i l l later p ro v id e
th e b a sis for such a d u lt form s as Kimby c l o s e d the door.
A nalyses such a s th e s e by S c o l l o n , Shugar, Keenan
and o th e r s im ply t h a t one lin e of research on c h i l d lan
guage developm ent i s m issin g an im p o rta n t p o i n t. R ather
than learn in g b asic sy n tax first, in order to p articip ate
in co n v ersatio n , the c h i l d may i n fact learn sy n tax
through co n v ersatio n . If th is is the case, we h a v e
a n o t h e r wa y i n w h i c h a d u l t - c h i l d in teractio n may p r o m o t e
first language a cq u isitio n and a n o th e r facto r, i.e . the
c h ild 's current co n v ersatio n al com petence, w h i c h may
pred ict the kind o f lin g u istic in p u t he o r she receiv es.
I n p u t, I n t e r a c t i o n , and F i r s t
The l a s t group o f stu d ies to be re p o r te d here
are th o se w hich a d d re ss the issue o f w hether m o d ified
in p u t and th e n atu re of ad u lt-ch ild in teractio n are
necessary for or at l e a s t prom ote first language acq u i
sitio n . S tu d ies th at speak d i r e c t l y to th is q u estio n are
s till few i n num ber, b u t some o t h e r s have in d ire ct bear
ing.
S ince the use o f sim p lified speech has been found
16
in a ll cases reported so f a r of i n t e r a c t i o n w ith norm al
ch ild ren , it fo llow s th at there are no d i r e c t tests in
n atu ral environm ents o f th e e f f e c t of w ith h o ld in g such
in p u t. Some c a s e s h a v e , how ever, been docum ented w ith
abnorm al p a r e n t - c h i ld relatio n sh ip s. F irst, and m ost
o bviously, extrem e c a s e s of early lin g u istic d ep riv atio n ,
such as th o se r e p o r t e d o f t h e w i l d boy o f Aveyron (Lane,
1975), G enie (C u rtiss, 1977), and o th e r feral ch ild ren
(C u rtiss, 19 80) suggest th a t absence o f i n p u t m akes
norm al lan g u ag e developm ent im p o s s ib le at a later d ate,
at least in c a s e s where th e ch ild has a tta in e d puberty
before access to input (and c a r e g i v e r s ) is obtain ed .
Normal d e v e lo p m e n t d o e s appear to be p o s s ib l e for c h ild ren
discovered before age 10, and abnorm al developm ent f o r
th o se discovered later, d a ta w hich s u p p o rt t h e weak
version o f L e n n e b e rg 's "critical period" hypothesis
(C u rtiss, 19 8 0 ) . O ther c a se s o f abnorm al language ex
posure a r e m ore s u g g e s t i v e o f the n ecessity sp ecifically
fo r m o d ified speech, how ever. Sachs and Johnson (1976)
report the case o f Jim , a h earing c h ild of deaf p aren ts.
At age 3, th e boy had o n ly a sm all v o cab u lary , probably
acq u ired from p la y m a te s and t e l e v i s i o n , and language
g en erally f a r behind ch ild ren of that age. A lthough Jim
had h eard ad u lt-ad u lt sp e e c h on t e l e v i s i o n , he h a d h a d no
d irect i n te r a c tio n w ith caretak ers and h en ce, no i n p u t
m o d ified for his b en efit. When h e b e g a n to receiv e th is,
17
h is la n g u a g e im proved r a p i d l y . Language d e f i c i t s are
freq u en tly reported for hearing ch ild ren of deaf parents,
unless altern ate sources of in teractio n ex ist fo r the
ch ild (Bard and S a c h s , 1977; Jones and Q u ig ley , 1979).
In stitu tio n alized ch ild ren also o ften show d e l a y e d lan
guage a c q u is itio n , p o ssib ly because o f the relativ e lack
of in te r a c tio n w ith concerned caretak ers (T izard , Cooperman,
Jo sep h and T iz a rd , 1972), and th e q u ality of lin g u istic
in p u t th is b rin g s. W hile s u g g e s t i n g t h a t m o d ified input
is indeed n e c e s s a ry f o r norm al lan g u ag e developm ent, none
of these stu d ies can be ta k e n as ev id en ce o f a ca u sa l
relatio n sh ip betw een in p u t, in teractio n and language
acq u isitio n .
Some i n v e s t i g a t o r s have attem p ted to estab lish
such a r e l a t i o n s h i p in o t h e r ways. Hess and Shipm an (1965)
and S h ip le y , Sm ith and G le itm a n (1969) conducted e x p e ri
m ental s tu d ie s . Both p r o v id e d e v id e n c e w hich su g g e ste d
th at input adapted to the c h ild 's c u rre n t pro cessin g
cap acity or p itch ed a little beyond i t was a t t e n d e d to
and u n d e rs to o d b e t t e r by th e ch ild , and t h a t language
easier o r too far in advance of h is or her current recep
tiv e a b ilities was n o t lik ely to be a tt e n d e d to or under
sto o d .
A ttem pts to s p e e d up a s p e c t s of language acqui
sitio n by m a n i p u l a t i n g featu res of in p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n
have m et w i t h m ixed r e s u l t s . Two e a r l y stu d ies (Cazden,
18
1965; Feldm an, 1971) fou n d no p o s i t i v e effects for ex
p erim ental treatm en ts co n sistin g of the p ro v isio n of in
ten siv e d aily sessions in w hich c h i l d r e n ' s incom plete
(teleg rap h ic) u tteran ces were s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e x p a n d ed by
ad u lts in one to one in teractio n s. The four ch ild ren in
C a z d e n 's s t u d y who r e c e i v e d fo rty m inutes o f exposure per
day for three m onths im proved less th an did a m atched
group of four c h i l d r e n whose t r e a t m e n t c o n s i s t e d to ex
posure to an e q u a l number o f w e l l - f o r m e d u tteran ces.
S tu d ies by N e ls o n (1977) and by N e lso n , C arskaddon and
B o n v illian (1973), on th e o th e r hand, did obtain e ffe c ts
for language train in g . N elson e t a l., f o r exam ple, found
that 22 d a i l y tw enty-m inute sessions co n sistin g both o f
expansions of incom plete u tteran ces and refo rm u latio n s of
com plete sen ten ces (sem antic r e p e t i t i o n s ) p r o d u c e d an
e f f e c t on th e c h ild re n 's language com pared to t h a t o f an
u n treated co n tro l group. The i m p r o v e m e n t s w e r e no g r e a t e r ,
how ever, than those a c h i e v e d by a t h i r d group w hich r e
c eiv ed the same am ount o f in teractio n (w ithout expansions
or recast sen ten ces) w ith an a d u l t . Sno w (1977) suggests
th at th ese stu d ies probably show t h a t expansions a re b u t
an index of th e g en erally b en eficial effects on c h i l d
lan g u ag e developm ent o f in teractio n w ith an i n t e r e s t e d
a d u lt.
O ther s tu d i e s have a tte m p te d to p red ict language
developm ent on th e b a s is of featu res of n atu rally occu rrin g
19
m o th er-ch ild in teractio n s. N elson (1973) found sig n ifi
cant co rrelatio n s betw een c e r t a i n fu n ctio n al and c o n te n t
ch aracteristics o f m others and th e acq u isitio n of sp ecific
lan g u ag e form s by th e m o th e r s ' ch ild ren . She c o n c lu d e d
th at language a c q u is i ti o n co u ld be re ta rd e d if the input
was "poor" in the sense o f n o t b e in g m atched to the
c h ild 's lev el of co g n itiv e developm ent. C ross (1978)
found sh e c o u ld p r e d i c t c h ild re n 's lin g u istic a b ility best
from t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f m o t h e r s ' u t t e r a n c e s w hich w ere
sem an tically related to p reced in g ch ild u tteran ces. Snow
(1979) in fers from t h i s fin d in g th at ch ild ren who l e a r n
to talk q u ic k ly have c o n sta n t access to such sem a n tic a lly
related m aternal u tte ra n c e s . She h y p o t h e s i z e s th at seman
tic in te rp re ta b ility and re le v a n c e are the two c a u s a l
facto rs in prom oting language acq u isitio n . S upporting
evidence for th is view can a ls o be found i n stu d ies by
Van d e r G e e s t (1977) and W ells (in p r e s s ) , the latte r
fin d in g m o th ers' im itatio n s, ex ten sio n s, and r e f e r e n c e s
to them selves and to the c h ild r e n w ere s i g n i f i c a n t l y
related to the c h ild r e n 's lin g u istic ab ility n i n e m onths
later.
Not a l l stu d ies have found such r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,
how ever. N ew port, G leitm an and G leitm a n (1977) sought
c o rrelatio n s betw een v a r i o u s sy n tactic and s t y l i s t i c
featu res of 15 m o t h e r s ' speech a t tim e one and m easures
of th eir d au g h ters' lan g u a g e developm ent in the follow ing
20
six-m o n th p e rio d , p artiallin g o u t the e ffects of age and
in itia l language a b ility - They c o n c lu d e d th a t w hile some
effects ex isted in certain "lan g u ag e sp ecific" asp ects of
surface stru ctu re (i.e . surface m orphological and syn
tac tic elem en ts, such as au x iliaries and noun i n f l e c t i o n s ,
having d ifferen t form s in v ario u s lan g u ag es), the acqui
sitio n of "lan g au g e g e n e ra l" featu res (i.e . form s such as
verbs and noun p h r a s e s , common t o a ll languages) "proceeds
in in d ifferen ce to the d e ta i ls of varying in d iv id u al
environm ents" (N ew port e t a l., 1977, p. 145).
T his f i n d i n g may, how ever, be due to the d esign
of the N ew port e t al. study. Furrow , N elson and B en ed ict
(1979) p o in t o u t th a t (1) ch aracteristics o f m others
change ov er tim e (P h illip s, 1973); (2) c h ild r e n 's compre
hension changes d u rin g the age ran g e (1-2, 3) s a m p le s by
N ew port e t a l . (B en ed ict, 1976); (3 ) co rrelatio n s w ith
ch ild speech ch aracteristics vary w ith age (N elson, 1973);
and (4) language developm ent i s not eq u ally lik ely at all
ages and s ta g e s (Brown, 1973). Furrow e t a l . rep licated
the N ew port e t a l . stu d y , co n tro llin g for age and s ta g e
of lan g u ag e d ev elopm ent, a n d f o u n d many s i g n i f i c a n t cor
relatio n s w ith la n g u a g e developm ent for such features in
the m aternal in p u t as the number o f u n i n v e r t e d yes-no
q u estio n s, to ta l number o f y e s - n o q u e s t i o n s and n o u r-
pronoun r a t i o (p o sitiv ely r e l a t e d ) , and th e num ber o f
w ords, pronouns, verbs and c o p u la s (n eg ativ ely related ).
21
These featu res w ere p a r t i c u l a r l y stro n g ly related to the
c h ild 's MLU, v e r b s per u tteran ce and noun p h ra s e s per
u tteran ce. Furrow e t al. co ncluded t h a t :
th e l i n g u i s t i c en v iro n m en t in language d e v e lo p
ment . . . m ust be c o n s id e r e d a s i g n i f i c a n t
c o n tr ib u to r to a l l a s p e c ts o f th e language
l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s . . . The f a c t t h a t m o t h e r s '
speech alo n e does n o t c o n s ti tu t e th e t o t a l l i n
g u i s t i c e n v i r o n m e n t o f t h e c h i l d . . . may r e f l e c t
the s tr e n g th o f th e a c tu a l r e l a ti o n s h ip s u n d er
ly in g th e c o r r e l a t i o n s found. (1 9 7 9 , p . 435)
A fin al a s p e c t on w h ic h r e s e a r c h has been c a r r ie d
out is the relatio n sh ip betw een frequency o f given lin
g u istic form s in the in p u t to ch ild ren and the appearance
of th o se form s i n the o u tp u t. Here a g a in , the litera tu re
is u n clear. Brown (1973) fo u n d no r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een
the freq u en cy o f o c c u rre n c e o f a s e t o f gram m atical
m orphemes in the speech addressed to Adam, Eve, and
S a r a h by t h e i r parents and th e o r d e r in w hich th o s e form s
appeared a c c u ra te ly su p p lied by th e ch ild ren . In d ices of
sy n tactic and se m a n tic co m p lex ity , on t h e o t h e r hand,
could account fo r the p ro d u ctio n o rd e rs. Block and K e s s e l
(1980) re e x a m in e d B ro w n 's d a t a and c o n firm e d h i s fin d in g
co n cern in g frequency, w hile show ing t h a t n eith er sy n ta c tic
n o r sem antic com plexity b u t a common u n d e r l y i n g sem an tico -
sy n tactic factor accounted fo r the order in w hich the
morphemes a p p e a r e d . B oth B ro w n 's o r i g i n a l an aly sis and
B lock and K e s s e l ' s rean aly sis, how ever, w ere c o n d u c te d on
d ata from c o n c u r r e n t s p e e c h s a m p le s. In an o th e r re c e n t
22
rean aly sis o f B ro w n 's d a t a (M oerk, 1980), sig n ifican t
c o r r e l a t i o n s were found betw een r e l a t i v e freq u en cies in
the input a t tim e one and th e c h ild re n 's o utput a t tim e
tw o. The p o s i t i o n w i l l rem ain u n c le a r u n til a th ird re
a n aly sis is conducted u sin g fre q u e n c y and B lock and
K e s s e l's sem an tico -sy n tactic facto rs in tim e-lag g ed
sam ples.
In the o n ly o th e r dom ain, surface word o r d e r , in
w hich a fre q u e n c y e f f e c t h a s been tested for, a fairly
cle a r relatio n sh ip has been found (Bowerman, 1973; K lein ,
1974), alth o u g h the d ata base is rath er lim ited . Bowerman
found t h a t in F in n ish , a la n g u a g e w here word o r d e r is
free in d eclarativ es, a ch ild chose the SVO o r d e r h e r
m other used m ost o f t e n and produced a ll the orders her
m other used in the same o r d e r o f r e l a t i v e frequency.
These resu lts fin d fu rth er in d irect support in a stu d y
by B a te s (1976), wh o r e p o r t e d th at Italian ch ild ren , whose
m others use the e m p h a t i c VOS o r d e r m o s t f r e q u e n t l y , are
relativ ely late in acq u irin g the norm al SVO o r d e r .
C onclusion
From t h i s survey o f litera tu re on i n p u t , in te r
actio n , and first language acq u isitio n , it w ould a p p e a r
th at there is some d e g r e e o f u n certain ty as to the
precise relatio n sh ip s among t h e three phenomena. Th e
follo w in g g en eralizatio n s m ay b e m a d e , how ever. F irst,
23
a ll n o r m a l c h i l d r e n who s u c c e s s f u l l y acq u ire a first lan
guage re c e iv e lin g u istic input from c a r e g i v e r s w hich i s
a co n sid erab ly red u ced and (on o b j e c t i v e lin g u istic
c riteria ) sim p ler form o f the language than th at used
among a d u l t s . Second, c a s e s where c h ild r e n do n o t a c q u i r e
language, o r do s o in a d elay ed o r r e ta rd e d m anner, are
ch aracterized , among o t h e r w a y s , by a n a b s e n c e o r s c a r c i t y
of such in p u t. T hird, the q u an tity and v a r i e t y of speech
m o d ific a tio n s vary w ith certain ch aracteristics o f the
speaker, th e activ ity i n w hich s p e a k e r and c h i l d are en
gaged, and w ith o n e o r m ore c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the ch ild ,
probably h is o r her age, stag e of co g n itiv e and lan g u ag e
developm ent and c o n v e r s a tio n a l com petence. F ourth, there
is some e v i d e n c e th at v ariatio n s in the n atu re of both
in p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n are related to the rate and seq u en ce
of lan g u ag e developm ent.
Input in Second Language A c q u is itio n
R e se a rc h on l i n g u i s t i c input to second language
learn ers, th o u g h o f m ore r e c e n t lin eag e, has a somewhat
broader focus t h a n m ost work i n first language a c q u i
sitio n . On o n e h a n d , it, too, seeks to d e t e r m i n e how
speech addressed to n o n -n ativ e speakers d iffers from
language used in a d u lt n ativ e-sp eak er in teractio n , and
w hether the differen ces aid or are n ecessary for language
acq u isitio n to take p la c e . The r o l e iu plays in th is
24
regard is indeed o f even g r e a te r p o ten tial im portance in
SLA, given t h a t m an y l e a r n e r s are ad u lts, and t h a t th ere
is some e v i d e n c e t o suggest th a t, w hatever its precise
n atu re and pow er, the i n n a t e human l a n g u a g e learn in g
cap acity d e c lin e s w ith age (C u rtiss, 1980; K rashen,
S carcella and Long, in p ress; Lenneberg, 19 6 7 ) . On t h e
other hand, much o f th e work i s m o t i v a t e d by b r o a d so cio -
lin g u istic in te rest in d escrib in g what Ferguson (1971) has
term ed one o f th e "co n v en tio n al v arieties of 's im p lif ie d '
speech av ailab le to a sp eech com m unity-" S till o ther
i n t e r e s t has arisen from th e search for c h a ra c te ristic s
common t o sim ple codes of various kinds, such as fo reig n er
talk , p id g in s, ch ild language and e a r l y second language,
and f o r common p r o c e s s e s in th eir creatio n (A ndersen,
1979; B ick erto n , 1979; C order, 1975; M eisel, 1977;
Schumann, 1976).
The s p e e c h o f n a t i v e speakers (NSs) of a language
to n o n-native speakers (NNSs) has o ften been re fe rre d to
as "fo reig n er talk " (Ferguson, 1971). I n some ways
analogous to talk to young c h il d r e n ("baby t a l k " ) ,
foreigner talk ( h e n c e f o r t h FT) has been defined as
a r e g i s t e r o f s i m p l i f i e d s p e e c h . . . u s e d by
s p e a k e r s o f a l a n g u a g e t o o u t s i d e r s who a r e
f e l t t o h a v e v e r y l i m i t e d co m m a n d o f t h e
l a n g u a g e o r no k n o w le d g e o f i t a t a l l .
( F e r g u s o n , 1 9 7 1 , p . 1)
In p r a c t i c e th e lin g u istic com m unity d i s t i n g u i s h e s two
phenomena w hich m ig h t q u a l i f y as FT u n d e r th is d efin itio n ,
25
reserv in g FT f o r u s e o f t h e reg iste r d uring o ccasional
b rief e n c o u n t e r s w i t h N N Ss , w h e n i t is o f t e n m a rk e d by
ungram m atical u tte r a n c e s b y t h e NSs, and "co n v en tio n alized
p id g in " for the v a rie ty spoken a f t e r a long c o n ta c t p e rio d
and th e occurrence of a learn in g process (H eid elb erg er
F orsch u n g sp ro jek t 'P id g in D eutch,' 1975; M eisel, 1977).
The v a l i d i t y o f such a d is tin c tio n w ill itse lf undoubtedly
p r o v o k e much f u t u r e research sin ce a t l e a s t some o f t h e
sim p lify in g processes, such as restric tiv e sim p lific a tio n ,
in v o lv ed in each case, and in the early stag es o f some
SLA, w o u l d a p p e a r t o be th e same (Ferguson, 1977a, 1977b;
Ferguson and Debose, 1976; M eisel, 1977; S tau b le, 1978;
Schumann and S t a u b l e , 1979).
In a m u ch c i t e d paper, Ferguson (1975) rep o rted
the fin d in g s o f an i n d i r e c t study of FT c o n d u c t e d in a
so c io lin g u istics class at S tanford. S tu d e n ts w ere asked
to rew rite ten E n g lish sen ten ces as th e y w ould u se them
in ad d ressin g a group o f illite ra te, n o n - E u r o p e a n s who
spoke a language o th e r than E n g lish . Based on h i s
an aly sis of th is corpus, a n d o f C. S. L ew is' p o rtray al
of an E n g lish m a n a d d r e s s i n g M a r tia n s in h is n eg lig ib le
co mm a n d o f t h e M a r t i a n language in the no v el, Out of the
S i l e n t P l a n e t , Ferguson produced a list of featu res he
s u g g e s te d w ere c h a racteristic o f E nglish FT.
Ferguson s p e c if ie d th ree areas of d ifferen ce be
tw een s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h a n d F T. In phonology, FT w a s
26
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a slow rate of d eliv ery , loudness, c lear
articu latio n , pauses, em phatic stre ss, ex ag g erated p ro
n u n ciatio n , occasional (although in frequent) ad d itio n of
a vowel a f t e r a w o rd -fin al consonant, a n d a few r e d u p l i
cated form s. In lex is, he found o c c a s i o n a l use o f w ords
from o th e r languages, su b stitu tio n s of ite m s by synonyms
o r paraphrases and a n a l y t i c paraphrases (w h i c h p l a c e for
w here) . In sy n tax , t h e r e was e v id e n c e o f t h r e e kinds of
m o d ificatio n : om issio n , expansion, and rep la ce m e n t o r r e
arrangem ent. O m ission was e x e m p lif ie d by d e l e t i o n of
articles, cop u la, in flectio n al m orphology, co n ju n ctio n s
and s u b je c t p ro n o u n s. E x p a n s io n was i l l u s t r a t e d by th e
ad d itio n of u n an aly zed ta g s to q u estio n s (OK? Yes? No?)
and i n s e r t i o n of s u b j e c t pronoun you b e fo re im p erativ es.
R eplacem ent and re a rra n g e m e n t inclu d ed such f e a tu re s as
f o r m i n g n e g a t i v e s w i t h no p l u s th e negated item (no l i k e ) ,
replacing s u b je c t w ith o b je c t pronouns (h i m g o ) , c o n v e r t i n g
possessive pronoun-plus-noun co n stru ctio n s to n o u n -p lu s-
o b je c t pronoun ( f o r my s i s t e r , s i s t e r me) , and p r e f e r e n c e
for uninverted q u estio n form s (w ith d e le t io n of the do
au x iliary ).
Very s i m i l a r fin d in g s to F e rg u so n 's have s in c e
been obtained in rep licatio n stu d ies in German, French
and F in n is h (M eisel, 1977) and E n g lish (McCurdy, 1980).
M e is e l's s u b j e c t s were asked to i m a g i n e how a m i d d l e -
c l a s s , m i d d l e - a g e d German w o u ld s a y the sentences given
27
to a T u r k i s h m i g r a n t w o r k e r who h a d a s k e d h i m t h e wa y
to the alien reg istratio n o ffice. McCurdy a s k e d stu d en ts
in th ree M.A. in Teaching E n g lish as a Second Language
(TESL) classes a t San F r a n c i s c o S tate U n iv ersity w hat they
(not a t h i r d person, as in the other stu d ies) w ould say
to a group o f n o n -E n g lish speakers (o m ittin g references
to "non-European and i l l i t e r a t e " in the Ferguson stu d y ).
Even i n M c C u rd y 's stu d y , w here i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d th at
th e absence of reference to the a d d re s s e e 's in ferio r
so cial statu s m ig h t enco u rag e w e ll-fo rm e d speech on th e
part of the NSs, o n ly 10 o f 27 s u b j e c t s su b m itted revised
sen ten ces w hich w ere g ra m m a tic a l; the m ajori produced
the same k in d o f ungram m atical "Me T a r z a n - you Jane"
v ariety o f FT f o u n d i n the e a rlie r stu d y .
One o t h e r e l i c i t a t i o n s t u d y o f FT h a s b e e n re
p o rted , in part of a larg er stu d y o f the developm ent o f
so cio lin g u istic sk ills in young c h ild r e n (A ndersen, 1977).
R o le-p lay in g the p arts of te a c h e r and s tu d e n t in a class
room s e t t i n g , and cu ed by d o l l pu p p ets, the ch ild ren m odi
fied th eir speech in add ressin g a th ird d o l l whom t h e y
w ere t o l d was a f o r e i g n e r . The c h i l d r e n spoke slo w e r,
louder, and w ith h ig h e r p i t c h in both teacher and s tu d e n t
ro les, deleted g ram m atical fu n cto rs, and u sed fram es
lik e Now a n d W e l l e v e n w h e n p l a y i n g the stu d en t ro le, not
just in th at of the teach er, as d u rin g o th e r ro le-p lay s
in w hich they perform ed. The c h i l d r e n also produced these
28
m o d ificatio n s when p l a y i n g the r o l e o f the fo reig n er.
The s t u d i e s reported so f a r were o f e l i c i t e d
d ata, and i n d i r e c t , in the sense of in v o lv in g in tro sp ectio n
and v a ry in g degrees of p ro jectio n by th e s u b j e c t s . Several
o b serv atio n s h a v e a l s o b e e n made o f s p e e c h a d d r e s s e d to
NNSs i n n atu ral settin g s. Some o f th ese have a ls o found
ev id en ce o f the k in d o f ungram m atical u tte r a n c e s charac
teristic o f FT i n F e r g u s o n ' s sense. Thus, the H eid elb erg er
F o rsch u n g sp ro jek t (1978) f o u n d NSs o f G e r m a n u s i n g hyper-
correct form s in t h e i r speech to fo reig n m igrant w o rk e rs ,
m arked by slo w r a t e and e x a g g e ra te d ly c le a r p ro n u n ciatio n .
H erself a NNS, Rem am urti (1977) was th e recip ien t of
slo w er speech co n tain in g sh o rter u tteran ces a nd some
d eletio n s of articles, p lu ral morphem es, and do i n Yes-No
q u estio n s. A D utch s t u d y (W orkgroup on F o r e i g n W o r k e r s '
Language, 1978) found h ig h e r a m o u n t s o f FT i n fairly long
co n v ersatio n s betw een m u n ic ip a l em ployees and fo reig n ers,
but rela tiv e ly f e w e r u n g r a m m a t i c a l FT u t t e r a n c e s in b rief
s t r e e t en co u n ters created by th e f o re ig n e r's req u estin g
d irectio n s to the p o st o f f ic e . Valdman (1976) reported
th at T a i Boy FT f r o m a S o u t h V i e t n a m e s e lycee co n tain ed
sequences of in fin itiv a l form s, no t e n s e - a s p e c t m a rk in g
of the au x iliary , and no p ro n o m in a l forms except those
bearing stre ss. F in ally , as p a r t of a larger p ro ject,
Clvne (1978) stu d ied the s p e e c h a d d r e s s e d by s e v e n
A u stralian factory forem en t o p l a n t w orkers from a v a r i e t y
29
of first-lan g u ag e backgrounds. T h e FT w a s m a r k e d b y
ellip sis, article-, co p u la-, su b ject-p ro n o u n - and
au x ilia ry -d e le tio n , and by o v e r g e n e r a l iz a t io n of in fin i
tiv a l form s, in 17.57 p ercen t, 8.11 p e r c e n t , 14.8 p e r c e n t,
18.92 p ercen t, 9 .4 6 p e r c e n t , and 23.07 p ercen t, respec
tiv ely , of the co n tex ts for th ese item s. T here were also
a few i n s t a n c e s of o b ject-p ro n o u n -d eletio n , one in stan ce
of n o n -in v ersio n of the verb, and t h r e e su b stitu tio n s of
for for to. C lyne (1977) reports th at two o f t h e forem en
u s e d FT t h a t w a s m a r k e d p h o n o l o g i c a l y w i t h the p attern s
of th e w orkers' first language (Greek and S e rb o -C ro a tia n ).
In the speech of S hapira to Z o ila, h e r own
S panish-speaking s u b je c t in a previous study, H atch,
S hapira a n d Gough (1975) f o u n d m an y i n s t a n c e s of it-
d e letio n , a few c a s e s o f co p u la d e le t io n , no u s e o f t e n s e -
m arking, "no p l u s verb" co n stru ctio n s, and a few o t h e r
"erro rs." O th e r m orphology (m ost c o p u l a s , p ro g ressiv e
-in g , and p o s s e s s iv e s ) was c o r r e c t l y su p p lied , how ever.
Many " e r r o r s " reflected th o se in Z o ila 's speech, but the
NS u s e d m u c h m o r p h o l o g y t h a t the NNS l a c k e d , m eaning h e r
sp e e c h was n o t sim p ly a copy o f the fo re ig n e r's . S hapira
was not very p r o f i c ie n t in S panish, the apparent source
o f m an y "reverse in terferen ce" errors, b u t had a g r e a t deal
of c o n ta c t w ith NNSs.
There have been two l o n g i t u d i n a l stu d ies of ch ild
SLA w h i c h h a v e reported d ata on t h e speech addressed to
30
the su b jects by o t h e r c h i l d NSs. K atz (1977) described
the speech addressed to a fiv e-an d -a-h alf-y ear-o ld
H ebrew -speaking c h il d , Tam ar, by an A m erican a g e - p e e r ,
L isa, o v e r an eleven-m onth p e r io d . L is a 's speech, as
observed in nine s e ss io n s , co n tain ed a relativ ely low p r o
p o rtio n (betw een 3 a n d 19%) o f u n g r a m m a t i c a l u t t e r a n c e s
an d few o f the "glo b al" ch aracteristics o f FT (e.g . slow
rate or ex aggeratedly clear articu latio n ). More f r e q u e n t
FT i t e m s in c lu d e d m onophthongal d ip h th o n g s , vowel d e -
ten sin g , ex ag g erated n a s a liz a tio n o f vow els, d eletio n of
co n stitu en ts, accu sativ e pronom inal su b jects (me g i v e ) ,
d eletio n of articles, p rep o sitio n s, to com plem entizers,
s_ m o r p h e m e s , copula and b£ a u x i l i a r i e s , and use o f s i m p l i
fied n eg ativ e co n stru ctio n s. K atz found t h a t the number
o f m orphosyntactic FT f e a t u r e s g rad u ally declin ed over
tim e, but th at the v ariety of such featu res increased,
as d id the v ariety o f com m unicative functions served
by L i s a ' s FT. Th e c h a n g e s a p p e a r e d n o t to be d i r e c t l y
related to im provem ents i n T a m ar's E n g lish . However,
K atz s u g g e s t s th at the p e r s is te n t in terlan g u ag e p a tte rn s
i n T a m a r ' s p h o n o l o g y may h a v e c o n t i n u e d to trig g er the
p e r s i s te n t ph o n o lo g ical features of L is a 's FT, w h i l e her
im provem ents i n m o r p h o s y n t a x may h a v e b e e n related to
the gradual d eclin e i n m o r p h o s y n t a c t i c FT f e a t u r e s in
L is a 's speech, th is decrease m ed iated by t h e increase in
the ran g e o f com m unicative fu n ctio n s the FT s e r v e d .
31
In p a r t o f a l a r g e r s tu d y co n tain in g o b serv atio n al
d a t a on c h i l d NS i n p u t t o ch ild NNSs, F i l l m o r e (1976)
found very few i n s t a n c e s o f o b v io u s ly ungram m atical sp e ec h ,
b u t the use of s h o rte r, sem an tically and s y n t a c t i c a l l y
sim p ler s tr u c tu r e s than those used w ith the ad u lt observer.
The o c c a s i o n a l ungram m atical u t te r a n c e s con tain ed co p u la-
d eletio n and a c c u s a tiv e pronom inal s u b j e c t s , and seemed t o
o c c u r when t h e need fo r u n d e r s ta n d in g was m ost im p o r ta n t
to the NS c h i l d , as in co m p etitiv e play.
In a n a t u r a l i s t i c stu d y of lin g u istic input to
a d u l t SL a c q u i r e r s , Snow, van Eden a n d Muysken (in p re ss)
recorded 28 c o n v e r s a t i o n s betw een fiv e NSs o f D u t c h a n d
28 f o r e i g n e r s in two g o v e rn m e n t o f f i c e s . U ngram m atical
utteran ces in in d iv id u al co n v ersatio n s ranged from z e ro
to 37.8 p e r c e n t w ith a mean o f 1 0.5 p ercen t. The f i v e
NSs v a r i e d co n sid erab ly in th eir use o f ungram m atical
speech, ranging fro m a mean o f 2 .2 p e rc e n t to 20.1 p e r c e n t.
FT f e a t u r e s observed in clu d e d a very high frequency of
p o s s e s s iv e pronoun and d e te r m in e r d e l e t i o n (p artly a ttrib
utable to the sp ecialized n a t u r e o f some o f t h e q u estio n s
asked), d eletio n of a u x iliaries, copulas and s u b j e c t pro
nouns, n o n - s ta n d a r d w ord o r d e r i n m ain and s u b o r d i n a t e
clau ses, su b stitu tio n s of in fin itiv al for ten se d verb
form s, and l e x i c a l su b stitu tio n s.
In by f a r t h e m ost e x te n s i v e stu d y to d a te u sing
n atu ralistic d ata, Freed (1978) com pared th e speech of
32
1 1 NSs o f E n g lish ad d ressin g a d u l t NNSs f r o m a v a r i e t y of
language backgrounds to the speech of the s a m e NSs t o
the in v estig ato r, and tc n a tu ra listic d a t a on 15 m o t h e r s '
speech to c h ild ren from a p r e v i o u s stu d y (N ew port, 1976).
T e n N S s , who w e r e p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a co n v ersatio n clu b for
foreign stu d e n ts, w ere s t u d i e d over tim e, and i n t e r n a l
c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e a l s o made o f th eir speech in e a rly and
late m eetin g s, and o f th at to NNSs o f two E n g l i s h p r o
ficien cy lev els. U nlike p re v io u s stu d ie s, Freed found n o t
one ungram m atical sen ten ce in the FT c o r p u s . She d id
fin d , how ever, th at speech to the NNSs s h a r e d m an y o f
th e form al p r o p e r t ie s of lin g u istic in p u t to ch ild ren .
I t was c l e a r l y a rticu la te d , u tteran ces w ere s h o r t e r and
sy n tactically less com plex, w ith h ig h er p ro p o rtio n s of
q u estio n s than s ta te m e n ts in t h e NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n than
in the NSs' speech to the in v estig ato r. I t did not vary
sig n ifican tly from tim e one to tim e tw o, except for a
l o w e r p r o p o r t i o n o f wh q u e s t i o n s on t h e second o ccasio n ,
b u t did d iffer as a function o f the N N S's p r o f i c i e n c y in
E n g lish . U tterances t o m o r e a d v a n c e d NNSs w e r e lo n g e r and
p ro p o sitio n ally and l e x i c a l l y m ore c o m p le x .
Some o t h e r s t u d i e s o f the lin g u istic inp u t for
SLA h a v e b e e n c a r r i e d out in q u asi-lab o rato ry co n d itio n s.
They h av e g e n e r a l l y in v o lv ed b rief a rra n g e d m eetings
betw een a d u l t s a n d NNSs, w here th e purpose of the en
co u n ter, kn ow n t o one o r b o th p arties, was to provide
33
d ata for research. U nlike any o f th e stu d ies, o th er than
Freed (1978), reported so f a r , th ree o f them have p r o v id e d
NS-NS c o n t r o l d ata and q u a n t i f i e d th eir fin d in g s, thereby
ob v iatin g the need fo r recourse to n ativ e speaker in tu i
tio n s in d efin in g the FT r e g i s t e r . However, as w ith all
stu d ies of th is kind, and p a r t i c u l a r l y th o se in v o lv in g
speech d ata, they have in c re a se d in tern al v alid ity a t some
cost to the g en eralizab ility of th e ir findings. N ot one
of th ese stu d ies has found any in stances o f ungram m atical
FT.
C am pbell, G ask ill and Vander Brook (1977) exam ined
15 f i v e - m i n u t e conv ersatio n s b e t w e e n s i x NSs a n d t h r e e
NNSs, each dyad d is c u s s in g one t o p ic they selected from
three p r o v id e d by th e researchers. The r e s e a r c h e r s found
no s y n t a c t i c adjustm ents o f the type d e s c r i b e d by F e rg u so n
(1975), very little to suggest th at the NSs' sy n tactic
o r m orphology p a t t e r n s w ere i n f l u e n c e d by those of the
NNSs, a n d no s y s t e m a t i c sy n tactic o r p h o n o lo g ical changes
i n NS s p e e c h tow ards a n y o f t h e NNSs s u g g e s t i v e of the
cu ltu ral bias p o sited by Valdman (1976).
A rthur, W einer, C ulver, L e e a n d Thomas (1980) had
six NSs a n d s i x NNSs e a c h c a l l 12 a i r l i n e tick et agents
w ith a p artially scrip ted d ialog. The t i c k e t ag en ts'
responses to one o f t h e same q u e s t i o n s a s k e d by e a c h c a l l e r
(Wha t k i n d o f p l a n e is a, e.g. 747?) in each of the 120
telephone co n v e rsa tio n s were a n a ly z e d in v a rio u s ways.
34
Speech a d d re s s e d to NNSs w a s found to be s i m p l e r th a n
th at to t h e NS c a l l e r s . Response le n g th i n w o rd s was
found to be s h o r te r , the number o f words p e r T -u n it low er,
schwa f i l l e r s and s i l e n t pauses p e r 100 w o rd s h i g h e r ,
type-token ratio and number and c o m p le x ity o f in fo rm atio n
b its low er, a ll at sig n ifican ce lev els beyond the .05
lev el. S im ilar, but n o n -sig n ifican t (p>.05) trends were
observed for the num bers of relativ e clau ses and a p p o s i-
tiv es p er T -u n it, rate of speech and f a l s e starts per
100 w o r d s . T here w ere no in stan ces o f ungram m atical
u tteran ces in the corpus.
In p a r t o f a larg er stu d y , Long (in p r e s s ) c om
pared v ario u s featu res of 36 f i v e - m i n u t e c o n v e r s a t i o n s be
t w e e n a d u l t NSs a n d e l e m e n t a r y - l e v e l ad u lt Japanese
stu d en ts of ESL a t UCLA w i t h d ata from a p r e v i o u s study
(C arterette and J o n e s, 1974) o n NS-N3 i n t e r a c t i o n in eig h t
triad s. Both s e t s o f d a ta w ere from c o n v e r s a t i o n s of
people m eeting for the first tim e fo r the purposes of the
stu d y . S ubjects in each s tu d y were allow ed to talk
about an y th in g they chose. Speech to NNSs w a s found to
co n tain sta tistic a lly sig n ific a n tly low er p r o p o r t i o n s of
statem en ts than of q u estio n s, and h ig h e r p r o p o r t i o n s of
u n inverted t h a n wh q u e s t i o n s .
In a study of input to ch ild and a d o le s c e n t LS
a cq u irers, S carcella and R iga (in p ress) com pared seven
a d u l t NSs o f E n g l i s h w o r k i n g o n a b l o c k - b u i l d i n g task
35
w ith 14 NNSs, seven c h ild re n and seven ad o lescen ts, w ith
another c o n tro l group o f s e v e n NSs d o i n g the same t a s k
w i t h o t h e r NSs. The s p e e c h addressed to both groups o f
NNSs w a s found to co n tain sta tistic a lly sig n ifican tly
m ore q u e s t i o n s and im p e r a tiv e s , few er s ta te m e n ts , sh o rter
MLU, few er r e l a t i v e clau ses (all at p<.001), and few er
d isflu en cies (p<.01). The s p e e c h w a s n o m o re o r less
g ram m atical, b o t h NS a n d NNS c o r p o r a c o n ta in in g betw een
94 a n d 97 p e r c e n t w e l l - f o r m e d u t t e r a n c e s .
A last group o f stu d ies o f the lin g u istic in p u t
to SL l e a r n e r s are th o se of the classroom speech of
teach ers to stu d en ts of a foreign or second language.
W hile d i f f e r i n g from o t h e r research in th at they describe
"pu b lic" speech to a large group o f p eo p le rath er than a
sin g le in terlo cu to r, th e fin d in g s from th e s e o b serv atio n s
h a ^ been c o n s is te n t w ith those alread y rep o rted . NS
teach ers use l i n g u i s t i c a l l y s i m p l e r l a n g u a g e w he n a d d r e s
s i n g NNSs i n a classroom , and th e degree of lin g u istic
sim p licity reflects the lin g u istic p ro ficien cy o f the
class, although it does not c o n s titu te a "m atch" in term s
of in co rp o ratin g the learn ers' errors; n eith er is it FT
in F e rg u so n 's sense c f ungram m atical input to NNSs.
Henzl (1974) h a d C z e c h NSs, who w e r e n o t t e a c h e r s
o f Czech, rete ll sto ries t o A m erican s tu d e n t s and to
C z e c h NSs. She found th e v ersions to NNSs w e r e s l o w e r ,
w ith pauses a t c o n s titu e n t boundaries, lo u d er, w ith overly
36
clear d ifferen tiatio n of p h o n o lo g ically relev an t featu res,
in sh o rter, w ell-fo rm ed s e n te n c e s w hich w ere sy n ta c tic a lly
less com plex i n th a t they co n tain ed few er su b o rd in a te
c l a u s e s , t e n s e s , moods and v o i c e s . T h e r e was a t e n d e n c y
to u se s ta n d a r d Czech to NNSs a n d c o l l o q u i a l Czech to NSs.
In a seco n d stu d y (H en zl, 1S75, 1979), Henzl had
11 p r o f e s s i o n a l language teachers (five o f Czech, three
o f German, and t h r e e of E nglish as a second language) tell
two s t o r i e s , b a s e d on p i c t u r e s of a p o litical anecdote
and a sim p le s t r e e t e v e n t, th ree tim es each, to classes
of b eginning and advanced s tu d e n t s , and o u ts id e the class
room t o NSs o f th eir l a n g u a g e w i t h whom t h e y ch atted in
fo rm ally . S ix re c o rd e d speech sam ples w ere analyzed for
each tea c h e r. Speech to NNSs w a s s l o w e r , lo u d er, more
clearly a rticu lated , w i t h m ore and l o n g e r p a u s e s a t con
s ti t u e n t boundaries. L e x is was draw n from a n a rro w e r
range concom itant w ith what the teachers knew t h e i r
stu d en ts understood, as reflected in low er ty p e -to k e n
ratio s. In d iv id u al lex ical item s w ere s u b s t i t u t e d by
sim p ler, m ore g e n e r a l synonyms and p a r a p h r a s e s (y o u n g g a l ->
woman) , few compound w o r d s w e r e u s e d , and idiom s te n d e d
to be "tran slated " in to non-id io m atic form (t i p t h e h a t -»
tak e the h a t o f f ) . S ty listic ally n eu tral v o c a b u l a r y v/as
preferred to so cially , reg io n ally o r e m o t io n a l ly marked
ex p ressio n s. S t o r i e s w e r e made m ore c o n c r e t e , as through
avoidance o f i n d e f i n i t e pronouns and a d v e r b i a l s and use
37
in stead o f im a g in a ry p r o p e r names and l o c a t i v e s . Thus,
f o r exam ple, "A g e n t l e m a n w a l k i n g in the s tr e e t n o ticed
a n o th e r one a p p ro a c h in g him fro m t h e o t h e r sid e" became
"M r. Brown i s w a l k i n g U n i v e r s i t y A venue. M r. Brown s e e s
M r. Johnson" (H enzl, 1979, p. 162). S y n tactic changes
included the use of w ell-fo rm ed , shorter, and s y n t a c t i c a l l y
less com plex s e n t e n c e s t o NN Ss , w i t h length d ecreasin g
s till fu rth er for th e b eg in n in g classes. T h ere was less
d iv ersity in case-m ark in g , and so less in flectio n al mor
phology, in speech to NNSs (esp ecially in th e Czech and
German s a m p l e s ) , preference f o r p r e s e n t tense.- in d icativ e,
and a c t i v e verb form s in speech to beginning s tu d e n ts ,
and a v o id a n c e o f c o n d itio n als and p a s s iv e co n stru ctio n s
in th at to both levels o f NN Ss . The s a m p l e s co n tain ed
no n o n - s t a n d a r d lex ical ite m s o r ungram m atical c o n s tr u c
tio n s, a f in d i n g w hich Henzl attrib u tes to the so cial con
stra in ts of the classro o m s e tt in g ,
A l t h o u g h no a n a l y s e s w ere conducted o f th eir
sta tistic a l sig n ifican ce, s e v e r a l of H e n z l's fin d in g s have
been confirm ed in subsequent stu d ies of classro o m second
language u se. G aies (19 77 ) found t h a t e ig h t t r a i n e e ESL
teach ers used s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ifican t (p<.0001) more
com plex la n g u a g e in speech in a TESL m e t h o d s c lass than
in th eir ESL p r a c t i c e teach in g . T his h e ld for all six
v ariab les exam ined: w ords p e r T -u n it, clauses per T -u n it,
w ords p e r c l a u s e , and a d je c ti v e , adverb and noun c la u s e s
38
p e r 100 T - u n i t s . F u rth er, th eir classro o m speech increased
in com plexity w ith the in creasin g p ro fic ie n c y lev el of
th e classes sam pled (p < .0 2 2 7 ). On e a c h o f the six de
pendent v a ria b le s, th e speech of the two t e a c h e r s at th at
l e v e l was m ore c o m p le x t h a n th at of the teachers at the
lev el im m ed ia te ly below i t , and l e s s com plex th a n th a t of
the teachers a t th e lev el im m ediately above it.
In a r e l a t e d study, S teyaert (1977) com pared
ESL t e a c h e r s rete llin g sto ries to ESL s t u d e n t s and to NSs,
w ith no v e r b a l feedback from th e listen ers (G a ie s1 sub
jects had re c e iv e d feedback d u rin g th eir teach in g ).
U sing G a ie s 1 v a r i a b l e s , S tey aert found no s t a t i s t i c a l l y
sig n ifican t differences in sy n tactic com plexity betw een
the two c o r p o r a , alth o u g h the speech to NNSs w a s s l o w e r
and c o n t a i n e d m ore r e p e t i t i o n s . T his fin d in g suggests
th at, a s s h o w n b y Snow (1972) fo r speech to c h ild ren ,
verbal f e e d b a c k m u st be p r e s e n t to trig g er some o f the
m o d ificatio n s norm ally found in the lin g u istic in p u t to
SL a c q u i r e r s .
S im ilar fin d in g s to th o se o f G aies are reported
by T rager (1978), who c o m p a r e d fiv e-m in u te segm ents from
14 l e s s o n s ta u g h t by fiv e ESL t e a c h e r s w i t h th eir speech
to the in v estig ato rs in in d iv id u al in terv iew s. The c l a s s
room l a n g u a g e w as w e l l - f o r m e d , a s was th at in the NS i n t e r
actio n , and c h a ra c te r iz e d by a s lo w e r rate, a slig h tly
l o w e r TTR, and a low er le v e l of com plexity a s m e a s u r e d by
39
S-nodes p e r u tte r a n c e . T h ere was l i t t l e difference betw een
th e two c o r p o r a in term s o f th e frequency of d e ic t ic and
ellip tical u tteran ces, or of the relativ e freq u en cies of
qu estio n s, statem en ts and im p e r a tiv e s , w ith statem en ts
predom inating in a ll 14 l e s s o n s observed. No s t a t i s t i c a l
a n a l y s i s was p e rfo rm e d on t h e d ata from t h i s study, and
some d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e s m a l l , w ith v ariab ility o v e r ESL
p ro ficien cy lev els o n some m e a s u r e s .
In a study of seven teachers' lesso n s i n ESL a n d
various o th er su b jects at th ree d ifferen t levels of in
stru ctio n , Chaudron (1978a, 1978b, 1979) confirm ed G aies'
fin d in g s for m o d ificatio n s in s y n ta c tic co m p lex ity , ex
cept f o r number o f noun clau ses per T -u n it, w hich d id not
change w ith the increasing p ro ficien cy lev el of the
stu d e n ts. He f o u n d , how ever, th at t h e r e was some v a r i a t i o n
among d i f f e r e n t teachers teach in g stu d e n ts at the same
lev el. In th e p h o n o lo g ic a l dom ain, the teach ers' speech
was o f t e n m a r k e d by e x t r a stre ss, "lev el-to n ed pauses"
betw een and w i t h in w ords, a n d some l a r g e r phrases and
segm ents w ere i s o l a t e d w ith a high risin g to n e seem ingly
frequent in teach ers' in stru ctio n al sty le. Chaudron a ls o
explored s e v e r a l aspects of lex ical change in the teach ers'
speech. He f o u n d many in stan ces of e x p lic it and i m p l i c i t
elab o ratio n , w hich w ere achieved through ap p o sitio n ,
p arallelism , paraphrase, the use o f v a rio u s cohesive
devices and, esp ecially at low er lev els and i n ESL c l a s s e s ,
40
rep etitio n . E x p l i c i t e l a b o r a t i o n was m o st f r e q u e n t in
co n ten t teach in g , im plying th at a g r e a t d e a l o f vocabulary
was o n ly m in im a lly c l a r i f i e d in ESL c l a s s e s . One i m a g i n e s ,
how ever, th at th is co u ld a lso have been due to the ESL
teachers' in itia l c h o i c e o f m ore l e x i c a l ite m s w ith w hich
they knew t h e i r stu d en ts to be fam iliar, thereby o b v iatin g
the need f o r a s m u ch v o c a b u l a r y ex p lan atio n , im p licit or
e x p licit.
There is one o t h e r r e p o r t o f classro o m speech by
a n ESL t e a c h e r . H atch e t al. (1975) o b s e rv e d one lesso n
by a m a le com m unity c o l l e g e teach er, "G," i n Los A n g e le s
to a class of 35 b e g i n n e r s . T his stu d y is t h e o n l y one
to d ate th a t has f o u n d u n g r a m m a t i c a l FT i n a classroom
se ttin g . Item s th e in v estig ato rs noted include d e le tio n
of it (Is im p o r ta n t) , copula (He h e r e ) , t e n s e - m a r k i n g
(L a s t t i m e . . . you w r ite on b o a r d ) , and p l u r a l m o rp h o lo g y
(I w rite all stu d en t i n o f f i c e ) , u s e o f No V c o n s t r u c t i o n s
( I no w a n t ) , a n d o f u n i n v e r t e d q u estio n s (W h e r e y o u g o
now?) . There i s no q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of d ata in th is study,
b u t we a r e to ld th at, d u ring the conversation rath er than
in stru ctio n al stag es of the lesson, the teach er "rarely"
p r o d u c e d g r a m m a t i c a l s e n t e n c e s when a d d r e s s i n g the (m ostly
S panish-speaking) stu d e n ts. Like Shapira, th is te a c h e r's
"errors" reflected S panish r e v e r s e - in te r f e r e n c e . A lso
lik e S hapira, we a r e to ld , he was n o t v e ry p r o f i c i e n t in
S panish, b u t had had a g r e a t deal of c o n ta c t w ith foreign
41
stu d en ts. G, the tea c h e r concerned, is cu rren tly the
U guisu o f the c l a s s r o o m SL i n p u t litera tu re .
A lthough th is (h o p efu lly exhaustive) review o f SLA
in p u t stu d ie s has inclu d ed 28 r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s , there is
s till a far s m a lle r amount o f d a ta on s p e e c h to NNSs t h a n
e x ists for in p u t to first-lan g u ag e acq u irers. A lso, m ost
of t h e SL s t u d i e s have lacked any k in d o f s y s t e m a t i c
d esig n , and a lm o st none a t a ll have p ro v id ed com parable
NS-NS c o n t r o l d ata. As a r e s u l t , know ledge about v ariab les
related to in p u t in SLA i s sk etch y . For exam ple, it is
not at a il c le a r what i t is a b o u t NNSs t h a t trig g ers
s p e e c h m o d i f i c a t i o n s b y NSs who a d d r e s s them . F u rth er
m ore, un lik e the ch ild language litera tu re , SL r e s e a r c h e r s
have a ls o to account fo r w hat, on th e surface at least,
w o u ld a p p e a r t o be two q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t kinds of
speech t o NNSs. It is n o t u n d e r s t o o d why u n g r a m m a t i c a l
language is f o u n d o n some o c c a s i o n s , b u t only sim pler,
w ell-fo rm ed i n p u t on o t h e r s . It seem s lik ely th at it is
not v ariab les connected w ith the NNS a l o n e th at are re
sp o n sib le for any o r a l l the m o d ificatio n s.
P rev io u s research has found e v id e n c e co n sisten t
w ith the h y p o th esis th at the lin g u istic a b ility of the
NNS i s at l e a s t one in terlo cu to r v ariab le relev an t in
d eterm in in g the e x te n t o f m o d ific a tio n s in NS s p e e c h .
T his c o u l d be a r g u e d on t h e b a s i s of stu d ies w hich have
com pared s p e e c h t o b o t h NSs a n d NNSs b y the same o r
42
e q u i v a l e n t NSs (A ndersen, 1977; A rthur e t a l., 1980;
C haudron, 1979; G aies, 1977; H enzl, 1975, 1979; Long, in
press; S carcella and H iga, in press). I t w o u ld be wrong
to make t h i s c la im on th e b a s i s of th ese stu d ies alo n e,
how ever, sin ce there is a p o ssib le confo u n d betw een p e r
ceiv ed lin g u istic ab ility and p erc e iv e d "foreignness"
i n h e r e n t i n much r e s e a r c h o n NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n . NSs may
in fact react d iffe re n tly lin g u istically ( a n d i n o t h e r ways)
to peo p le they p e r c e i v e as d iffe re n t eth n ically , cu l
tu ra lly , ed u catio n ally , and so on. F u rth er, of the few
stu d ies relevant here, th ree (C haudron, 1979; G aies,
19 7 7 ; and H enzl, 1975, 1979) concern the classro o m speech
o f ESL t e a c h e r s . It is not cle a r, therefore, w h eth er the
phenomena o b se rv e d a r e a s p e c t s o f FT, teacher talk , or a
h y b rid . One o f t h e others (A nderson, 19 77) involves a
foreign ch ild ( p u p p e t ) , a n d s o may i n v o l v e aspects o f FT,
baby talk , or ag ain a m ix tu re o f the two.
The s t u d i e s by A r th u r e t al. (1980) and Chaudron
(1979) are con seq u en tly p a r t i c u l a r l y in terestin g . The
form er o b tain ed its resu lts on t e l e p h o n e co n v ersatio n s,
w h ic h means t h a t at least all v isu al stim u li concerning
" f o r e ig n n e s s " w ere rem oved. The r e s e a r c h e r s in the study
also estab lish ed em p irically th at t h e NNS s u b j e c t s w e r e
id en tifiab le as such by t h e i r accentedness in E n g lish ,
the language o f com m unication. (T his is not, of course,
the same as sh o w in g th at it is accentedness t o w h i c h NSs
43
react, o r even reacted in th a t stu d y .) The fact th at
some o f C h a u d r o n ' s te a c h e r s w ere o b se rv e d te a c h in g both
NSs a n d NNSs t h e same s u b j e c t - m a t t e r is the m ost s u g g e s tiv e
ev id en ce so far th at some a s p e c t ( s ) of the NNS' s l i n g u i s t i c
ab ility is a rele v an t v ariab le. It sh o u ld be n o ted ,
how ever, th at C haudron o b se rv e d the lex ical "sim p lifi
catio n " processes in both kinds of classes (and d id n o t
treat h is d ata s t a t i s t i c a l l y ) , w h i c h c o u l d mean t h a t they
a re w holly o r p a r t l y phenomena r e l a t e d to teach in g rath er
than a d d re ssin g NNSs.
S tu d ie s w hich have m a n ip u la te d lin g u istic pro
ficien cy lev el of th e NNSs a r e few (C haudron, 1979;
Freed, 1967; G aies, 1977; H enzl, 1975, 1979; S tay aert,
1977; T rager, 1978) , b u t t h e i r fin d in g s are g en erally
su p p o rtiv e of the idea th at lev el of the NNSs1 p r o f i c i e n c y
is related to the degree o f s im p lic ity of t h e NS i n p u t .
It s h o u ld be rem em bered, how ever, t h a t one o f the six
(S tay aert, 1977) f o u n d no s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ifican t re
latio n sh ip s for p ro ficien cy lev el. Two o t h e r s (Chaudron,
1979; T rager, 1978) found n e i t h e r c le a r nor co n sisten t
changes. Three s tu d ie s (C haudron, 1979; H enzl, 1975, 1979;
T rager, 1978) did n o t have d a ta am enable to sta tistic a l
treatm en t, so th a t what d iffe re n c e s they did note for th is
v ariab le are im p ressio n istic and m ust be treated cau tio u sly .
The m o s t s e r i o u s problem w ith a c c e p t i n g NNS l i n
gu istic p ro ficien cy as the cru cial v ariab le d erives from
44
the fin d in g s c o n c e r n i n g u n g r a m m a t i c a l FT. One g r o u p o f
stu d ies has rep o rted th is phenomenon, b u t an o th e r group,
in clu d in g s e v e r a l w h i c h u s e d NNSs o f extrem ely poor a b ility
in the language o f com m unication, has found only w e ll-
form ed s im p le in p u t. W hile none o f the stu d ies in the
first group em ployed any c o n t r o l l e d m easures of the v ari
ab les lik ely to have been im p o rtan t, certain p attern s can
occasio n ally be g lim p sed in th eir fin d in g s.
Of t h e tw elve s tu d ie s w hich hav e found ungram
m atical FT, a ll eith er obtained data in n atu ral settin g s
(C lyne, 1977, 1978; D utch W orkgroup on F o r e i g n W o rk e rs '
Language, 1978 [ h e r e a f t e r DWFWL]; H a t c h e t a l ., 1975;
H e id e lb e rg e r F o r s c h u n g s p r o j e k t 1978 [ h e r e a f t e r HF] ; K a t z ,
1977; M eisel, 1977; R am am urti, 1977; Snow e t a l., in
press; V aldm an, 1976) o r asked the NS s u b j e c t s to im agine
them selves in such settin g s (A nderson, 1977; Ferguson,
1975; McCurdy, 1980; M eisel, 1977). In a l l tw elv e, the
non-native in te rlo c u to rs w ere, or pretended to be, of
relativ ely low l i n g u i s t i c ab ility in the language of com
m u n icatio n . In e i g h t s t u d i e s , the NSs w e r e , o r conceiv
ably felt them selves to be, of higher so cial statu s than
t h e NNSs (C lyne, 1977, 1978; DWFWL, 1978; Ferguson, 1975;
"G" in H atch e t a l., 1975; HF, 1978; M eisel, 1977; Snow
et a l., in p ress; V aldm an, 1976). In e i g h t cases, the
NSs h a d a l o t of ex p erience w ith ad d ressin g NNSs (C lyne,
1977, 1978; DWFWL, 1978; R ina in H atch et a l., 1975; HF,
45
1978; K atz, 1977; Snow e t a l., in p re ss; V aldm an, 1976).
M cC u rd y 's s u b j e c t s (TESL s t u d e n t s ) also i n c l u d e d some w i t h
ex ten siv e c o n t a c t w i t h NNSs, so t h a t stu d y , too, m ig h t be
included in th is latte r group.
On t h e b a s i s of these fin d in g s, i t w ould ap p e ar
t h a t u n g r a m m a t i c a l FT (degenerate in p u t) is m ore p r o b a b l e
if the follow ing co n d itio n s are m et:
(1) the NNS h a s v e r y l i m i t e d c o m m a nd o f the
language o f com m unication;
(2) the NS i s , or th in k s s/h e is, of h ig h e r
so cial statu s than t h e NNS;
(3 ) t h e NS h a s c o n s i d e r a b l e FT e x p e r i e n c e ; . a n d
(4) the co n v ersatio n occurs sp o n tan eo u sly .
There a r e , how ever, co u n ter-ex am p les to each o f these
co n d itio n s.
A gainst c o n d itio n (1), b eg in n in g ESL s t u d e n t s and
young c h ild r e n re c e iv e d only or alm ost e x c lu s iv e ly w ell-
form ed in p u t in five stu d ies (F illm ore, 196 5 ; G aies, 19 7 7 ;
the telephone c allers in H atch e t a l., 1975; Long, in press;
S tey aert, 1977). C oncerning c o n d itio n (2), u n g r a m m a t i c a l FT
h as been found in fo u r s t u d i e s where in terlo cu to rs w ere of
equal sta tu s ( A n d e r s o n , 1977; R ina in H atch e t a l . , 1975; Katz,
1977; M c C u r d y , 1980), yet not been found in some s t u d i e s
where t h e NSs h a v e h a d h i g h e r s t a t u s o r w ere p ro b a b ly con
strued a s s u c h by o n e o r b o t h p a r t i e s . Most o f these latte r
stu d ies, how ever, involved the teach er-stu d en t relatio n sh ip
46
in th e classroom (G aies, 1977; H enzl, 1975, 1979;
S tay aert, 1977; Trager, 1978), w hich i s a relativ ely
eg alitarian one f r o m t h e NS t e a c h e r ' s p ersp ectiv e in the
U .S .A ., w here th e r e s e a r c h was c o n d u c te d . One s t u d y
(Long, 1980), h o w ev er, was n o t o f c la s s r o o m la n g u a g e and
included teachers and n o n -te a c h e rs a mo ng t h e N S s , w i t h
m an y o f the latte r h aving h ig h e r statu s than the NSSs.
Re c o n d i t i o n (3), some s t u d i e s have f o u n d NSs w i t h co n sid
erab le FT e x p e r i e n c e n o t usin g u ngram m atical sp eech to
NNSs (C am pbell, G ask ill, and V ander Brook, 197 7 ; Freed,
1978; S tay aert, 1977), e v e n when a d d r e s s i n g stu d en ts of
low p r o f i c i e n c y in the second language (Long, 1980).
L astly , con d itio n (4) is w e a k e n e d by two s t u d i e s of spon
taneously occu rrin g NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n , both in v o lv in g
ch ild in terlo cu to rs (F illm o re, 1976; K atz, 1977) , w h ic h
found very little ungram m atical FT. It .seems l i k e l y th at
it is n o t one v a r i a b l e but several in c o m b in a tio n w hich
d eterm in e both the n atu re a n d a m o u n t o f NS s p e e c h m o d i
ficatio n s. F u rth er, the exact co m b in atio n s may w e l l b e
i n f l u e n c e d by t h r e e other facto rs: settin g , task, and th e
im portance a t t a c h e d by b o t h p a r t i e s to successful communi
c atio n of sp ecific info rm atio n .
w ith the exception of "G" i n H a t c h e t a l. (1975),
the classroom s e t t i n g has g en erally been conducive to
sim p lified but w ell-fo rm ed in p u t, the w ork-place to un
g r a m m a t i c a l FT. And i t s h o u ld be rem em bered t h a t the
co u n ter-ex am p le, "G," p r o d u c e d u n g r a m m a t ic a l u t t e r a n c e s
o n l y when i n a n o n -in stru ctio n al, "conversational" mode.
T h e r e h a v e b e e n no d i r e c t in v estig atio n s of the relatio n
s h ip s betw een ta s k - ty p e a n d SL i n p u t . However, Bakker-
Renee and H o efn ag el-H o h le (1974) a n d Snow e t al. (1976)
have a lre ad y shown t h i s to be a s i g n i f i c a n t v ariab le in
speech to lan g uage-learning ch ild ren , a n d SL s t u d i e s w hich
have involved c o n v e rsa tio n concerned w ith "g ettin g a job
done" in a n a t u r a l i s t i c settin g have fo u n d t h e more e x
trem e (ungram m atical) m o d ificatio n s (C lyne, 1977, 1978;
DWFWL, 1 9 7 8 ; HF, 1978; M eisel, 1977; Snow e t a l ., in p re ss
V aldm an, 1976) . T ask-oriented conversatio n s u su ally in
volve some g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f urgency and th e attach m en t
of g reater im portance to successful comm n i c a t i o n of a
certain m essage, how ever. It c o u ld be the case th at type
and amount o f m o d if ic a tio n s w i l l in c re a s e w ith the p e r
ceiv ed com m unicative im p o rta n c e o f the in teractio n . In
d irect evidence c o n s is te n t w ith th is hypothesis is per
haps to be found i n the absence o f ungram m atical FT i n
th e "co n triv ed " NS-NNS e n c o u n t e r s of q u asi-lab o rato ry
stu d ie s, where th e task s set su b jects ty p ically do n o t
req u ire both speakers tc exchange in fo rm atio n s o much a s
to engage in p h atic com m union.
48
In teractio n in Second Language A c q u is itio n
When r e v i e w i n g t h e litera tu re on i n p u t in ch ild
language a c q u is itio n , it was n o t e d th at research fin d in g s
c o u l d b e l i m i t e d by failu re to co n sid er "th e o th e r sid e
of the p ag e." It s h o u l d b y now b e o b v i o u s th at th is is
also a p r o b l e m w i t h s o m e SL s t u d i e s . Many o f th ese have'
n o t taken the NNSs' co n trib u tio n s in to account, o r have
h a d n o NNSs i n v o l v e d at a ll. O ccasio n ally , the absence
of f e e d b a c k h a s b e e n by d e s i g n , as in Henzl (1975, 1979),
but i t h a s m ore o f t e n b e e n a b y - p r o d u c t o f usin g d a ta -
g ath erin g te c h n iq u e s w hich in v o lv e e lic ite d in tro sp ectio n
a n d a g o o d d e a l o f NS i m a g i n a t i o n . Those SL s t u d i e s w hich
have looked a t in teractio n have found s e v e r a l o f the s am e
processes observed in co n v ersatio n s betw een young c h il d r e n
and t h e i r o ld e r caretak ers, but also some d i f f e r e n c e s .
NSs u s e a v a r i e t y o f d ev ices presum ably in ten d ed
to fac ilita te com prehension and p a r t i c i p a t i o n by th e NNS.
C o nversational to p ic s are not lim ited to the "here a n d now"
w ith a d u l t NNSs, as they are in ch ild language acq u isitio n ,
but in one stu d y have been f o u n d so m ew hat more c l o s e l y
tied to im m ediate c o n c e rn s, as in d icated by t h e p r o p o r t i o n s
of present and n o n - p r e s e n t te n s e m arking o f v e rb s (Long,
in p r e s s ) . T opics also tend to be d e a lt w ith sim ply and
b riefly com pared w i t h those i n NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n , as
in d icated by t h e num ber o f in fo rm atio n b its exchanged
(A rthur e t a l., 1980) or the ratio of to p ic-in itiatin g
49
to t o p i c - c o n t i n u i n g moves (Long, in press). They w i l l
also o f te n be dropped a lto g e th e r d u rin g inform al ch at if
a com m unication breakdow n o c c u r s , a s when t h e NNS u n i n
ten tio n ally sw itch es to p ic, and th e NS r e p a i r s the d is
c o u r s e by t r e a t i n g the in ap p ro p riate response as a to p ic
n o m ination.
NS: Are y o u g o in g t o v isit
San F r a n c is c o ? Or Las
Vegas?
NNS: Yes I went to D isn ey lan d and
to K no ttsb erry Farm.
NS: Oh y e a h ?
(Long, 1979, p. 6)
NSs s e e m t o try to allow th e NNSs t o determ ine what is
talked ab o u t, e.g . as in d icated above, and th ro u g h the
use o f "o r-ch o ice" q u estio n s (H atch, 1978) , s u c h as the
fo llo w in g :
NS: Do y o u s t u d y
or
do y o u w ork?
NNS: No
(Long, 1979, p. 8)
If they in tro d u ce a new t o p i c , NNSs o f t e n seem t o attem p t
t o make i t t r a n s p a r e n t through ad d itio n al stress and
left-d islo catio n (H atch, 1978; H atch e t a l. , 1975), in tra-
s e n te n tia l pauses before to p ic w ords, the use of q u estio n
50
form s fo r to p ic-n o m in atin g moves (Long, 1980; in press),
and th e use o f "fram es" (O k a y , Now, W e l l ) a s u tteran ce
boundary m arkers (S carcella and H iga, in p ress) and to
sig n al to p ic-ch an g e (Long, 1980).
NSs a l s o use a v ariety of techniques to h elp sus
tain co n v ersatio n and to lig h ten o th e r aspects o f the NNS’ s
in te r a c tio n a l burden. At l e a s t w ith ch ild ren and a d o le s
cent in terlo cu to rs, they en g ag e.in co o p erativ e dialo g ,
the NS s u p p l y i n g u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h , tak en w ith those of
the NNS, h e l p the latte r to com m unicate an i d e a across
u tteran ces:
NS: O ka y a n d t h e n an o th er square
NNS: lik e th at
NS: goes there
(S carcella and H ig a, in press,
p. 15)
In th is process, S carcella and H iga p o i n t o u t , NSs i n t r o
d u c e a n ew t o p i c and a llo w the NNS t o com m ent, ad d in g
n ew a n d r e l e v a n t in fo rm atio n . NSs a s k rh eto rical q u estio n s
(Peck, 1978; S carcella and H iga, in p r e s s ) , answer t h e i r
own q u e s t i o n s (H atch, 1978; Long, 1978), and o f te n use a
g en erally "in terro g ativ e" sty le (C am pbell, G ask ill, and
Vander Brook, 1977; Long, 1978). As found w ith ad u lt-
ch ild first language in teractio n , E nglish-speaking NSs,
at least, tend to favor s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ifican tly higher
p ro p o rtio n s of q u estio n s to s t a t e m e n t s when c o n v e r s i n g
51
w i t h NNSs (Long, in p ress; S carcella and H iga, in press).
T h i s may b e d u e t o the fact th at, in E n g lish -sp eak in g
cu ltu res, m ost ty p e s of q u estio n s u su ally "com pel" an
sw ers (Goody, 1978), an d so a r e m ore l i k e l y to produce
one from th e NNS, thereby su stain in g the in teractio n .
A lso, th e m arking q u e s tio n s r e c e iv e d in E n g lis h (WH m o r
phology, su b je c t-a u x iliary in v ersio n or risin g in to n atio n )
may m ak e i t easier for the NS t o sig n al, and f o r the NNS,
to recognize, a co n v ersatio n al tu rn for t h e NNS. Im pera
tiv es, also relativ ely m ore f r e q u e n t in ad u lt-ch ild
co n v ersatio n s, a re n o t so i n NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n betw een
ad u lts (Freed, 1978). Freed argues th at th is is due to
an im p o r ta n t functional d ifference b e t w e e n Baby T a l k and
FT. The f o r m e r , she p o in ts out, is u s u a l l y m ore c o n c e r n e d
w ith sh ap in g and a d a p tin g behav io r; the latte r u su ally
concerns the exchange o f in fo rm a tio n .
NSs d o a l o t o f work to av o id co n v ersatio n al
tro u b le, and to fix up t h e i n t e r a c t i o n when i t does occur.
Many o f the "clarificatio n " d ev ices m entioned a re exam ples
of th is. H atch (1978a, 1978b) has also drawn a t t e n t i o n to
t h e way i n w h i c h q u e s t i o n s are recoded in a ltern ativ e in
terro g ativ e form s. T he r e c a s t i n g o f q u estio n s o ften in
volves su b stitu tio n o f Y e s - N o f o r Wh q u e s t i o n s (H atch,
1978; H atch e t a l., 1975), b u t changes of o th er k inds,
i n c l u d i n g m an y i n the o p p o site d irectio n , are also frequent
(McCurdy, 1980). Several researchers (e.g . Chaudron, 1S79;
52
H atch e t a l . , 1975; H enzl, 1974) h a v e n o t e d many e x a m p l e s
of lex ical su b stitu tio n b y NSs w h i c h a p p e a r to be s i m i l a r l y
m o tiv ated . A g r e a t many c o n f i r m a t i o n checkr- a n d c la rifi
c atio n req u ests, too, are em ployed, to h elp ensure the NSs
u n d e r s t a n d w h a t t h e NNSs h a v e s a i d . S carcella and H iga
(in p r e s s ) found s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ifican tly more o f th e m
b ein g e m p l o y e d b y a d u l t NSs w i t h c h i l d NNSs t h a n w i t h
a d o l e s c e n t NNSs, and w ith b o th n o n - n a tiv e groups than w ith
NS c o n t r o l s .
A pparently for sim ilar reasons, NSs r e p e a t b o t h
th eir own a n d t h e NN Ss ' p revious u tteran ces, e i t h e r w holly
or in part (A rthur e t a l., 1930; Chaudron, 1979; H atch e t
a l., 1975; R am am urti, 1977). R ep etitio n is pervasive
w hether th e NS (C am pbell, G ask ill, a n d Va n d e r Brook, 19 7 7 ;
F illm o re, 1976; K atz, 1977; Peck, 1978) o r NNS (F illm o re,
1976; K atz, 1977; Peck, 1978; S carcella and H ig a, in
press) is an a d u lt o r a ch ild . C am pbell e t al. (1977)
found ex p an sio n s t o o c c u r m ore f r e q u e n t l y than red u ctio n s
in rep etitio n s, o fte n w ith an in c r e a s e in redundancy.
They also found r e s t a t e m e n t s to be freq u en t, o ften in v o lv
ing su b stitu tio n of a p p a re n tly p ro b lem atic lex ical item s
w ith d efin itio n s and synonyms, fin d in g s confirm ed in o th e r
stu d ies (C haudron, 1979; H atch e t a l., 1975; H enzl, 1975,
1979).
A n o th e r more co m p lex r e p a i r d e v i c e is "decompo
sitio n " (Long, 1978, 1980). D ecom position refers to
53
exchanges such as the fo llo w in g :
(i) NS: When do y o u w a n t t o go t o the
uh S a n t a M onica? (2) You s a y
y o u go f i s h i n g in S a n ta M onica,
rig h t?
NNS: Yeah
NS: When?
(ii) NS: Uh w h a t d o e s uh w h a t d o e s y o u r
fath er do i n uh y o u ' r e from
Kyoto r i g h t ?
NNS: Yeah
NS: Yeah What d o e s y o u r fath er
do i n K yoto?
(Long, 1978, pp. 10-11)
In each case, the NNS i s asked to c o m m e n t o n a ne w c o n
v ersatio n al to p ic or sub-topic in tro d u ced b y a Wh q u e s t i o n .
When t h i s ta sk proves or, as in the second case, is be
liev ed lik ely to prove too d iffic u lt, the task is broken
down (decom posed) in to tvc p arts. F irst, the (su b )to p ic
is esta b lish e d by i t s rep etitio n in iso latio n from th e
request for com m entary, o ften a c c o m p a n ie d by r i s i n g
(qu estio n ) in to n atio n , and o f te n w ith a tag (r i g h t ? )
ask in g for co n firm atio n th at the to p ic has been e s t a b
lish ed (cf. the "try-m arking" in to n atio n noted in Sachs
and S c h e g lo ff, 1974). Then, if the requested confirm atio n
is fo rthcom ing, the comm ent, in th e form o f a q u e s t i o n
54
about the ne w t o p i c , is restated .
W hile s e v e r a l stu d ies have d e sc rib e d features of
NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , very few h a v e q u a n t i f i e d t h e i r d ata
o r c o m p a r e d f i n d i n g s w i t h NS-NS c o n v e r s a t i o n . C onsequent
ly, little is known a b o u t t h e com m onality o f th e features
and p ro c e s s e s noted o r about w hether they o ccu r only in
NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n o r o n l y m ore freq u en tly so. A lm o s t no
w ork h a s b e e n done on v a r i a b l e s related to ch aracteristics
o f NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , but two s t u d i e s suggest th at th is
m ay b e a p r o f i t a b l e area for fu tu re in v estig atio n . As
rep o rted e a rlie r, S carcella and H iga (in p re ss) found
several of the d ev ices described u s e d m ore fre q u e n tly w ith
c h ild th an w ith a d o l e s c e n t NN Ss , again im plying t h a t s om e
features may b e related to com m unication w ith ch ild ren
rath er than (or as w e ll as) w ith NNSs. A nother stu d y
(Long, 1979, 1980) found t h a t it was r e l a t i v e frequency of
u s e o f some o f t h e d ev ices illu strate d fo r co n v ersatio n al
m anagement t h a t d istin g u ish ed NSs w i t h and w ith o u t p re v io u s
experience in c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h NNSs. A nother i n t e r e s t
ing s u g g e s t i o n made by H a tc h e t al. (1975) is t h a t NS
em pathy m ig h t p r e d i c t v a r i o u s asp ects o f NS c o n v e r s a t i o n a l
b eh av io r. T h is seems a p o ssib le v ariab le, as do s e v e r a l
o th er speaker a ttrib u te s .
55
I n p u t, I n t e r a c t i o n and Second
In a series of im p o rtan t p a p e rs, H atch (1974,
1978a, 1978b, 1979) has suggested th at SL r e s e a r c h e r s
focus a tten tio n on r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e tw e e n a n d among i n p u t ,
in teractio n and second language a c q u is i ti o n . S p ecifically ,
she argues for two i d e a s : (1) t h a t SL s y n t a x may e m e r g e ,
n o t auto n o m o u sly , b u t from p a r t i c i p a t i o n in co n v ersatio n
w i t h NSs o f t h e target language; and (2) th a t vario u s
featu res of th e in p u t derived through co n v ersatio n may
d eterm in e o r a t l e a s t be r e la te d to the o rd e r i n w hich
th o se features appear accu rately su p p lied in the le a rn e r's
in terlan g u ag e.
R eview ing d a ta fro m some p r e v i o u s w o r k , H a tc h
found h ig h ly su g g estiv e su pporting evidence (H atch, 1974;
G ou gh a n d H a t c h , 1975). For exam ple, a ch ild acq u irer,
Homer (Gough, 1975) seemed t o incorporate NS q u e s t i o n s
in to h is own s p e e c h , o ften in ap p ro p riately at first as
chunk-learned item s, and l a t e r began to analyze them u n t i l
th ey w ere b ein g used p ro d u c tiv e ly . The r e l a t i v e frequency
o f-certain q u estio n -ty p es in speech addressed to another
ch ild NNS, Paul (Huang, 1970), seem ed c l e a r l y related to the
order in w hich th e s e q u e s ti o n - t y p e s w ere acq u ired . H atch
(1978a) su spected th at the rath er lim ited range of poten
tia l to p ics fo r co n v e rsa tio n w ith ch ild ren d eterm in ed the
f r e q u e n c y o f d i f f e r e n t NS q u e s t i o n - t y p e s and o f related
56
m orphology in the in p u t, and t h a t t h e relativ e freq u en cies
m ight in tu rn help to explain the orders o b s e r v e d by
other research ers fo r accu rate p ro d u ctio n o f th o se form s.
W h ile no s t u d i e s have y e t been c o n d u c te d s p e c i f i
cally to test H a tc h 's ideas, there h a s b e e n some r e s e a r c h
on r e l a t i o n s h i p s betw een in p u t freq u en cies a n d SLA.
B utoyi (1978) found a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e co rrelatio n
betw een t h e relativ e fre q u en cy o f noun p h r a s e com plem ent
stru ctu res in speech addressed to ad u lt ESL s t u d e n t s and
the o r d e r i n w hich t h e y a p p e a re d a c c u r a t e l y s u p p l i e d by
the learn ers. In an a n a ly s is sim ilar to th at c o n d u c te d by
H atch (1974) , L ig h tb o w n (1980) found a c lo s e relatio n sh ip
betw een th e relativ e frequency o f c e r t a i n French q u e stio n
form s i n speech a d d re sse d to French SL l e a r n e r s and th e
order in w hich th o s e form s a p p e a r e d i n th e learn ers'
speech. Larsen-Freem an (1975a) found t h a t ad u lt ESL
s t u d e n t s ' morpheme a c c u r a c y o r d e r s w e re p o s i t i v e l y corre
la te d w ith the frequency of occurrence o f the same m or
phemes in th e sp eech o f the p a re n ts of the th ree ch ild ren
acq u irin g E n g lish as a f i r s t language s tu d ie d by B r ow n
(1973). Larsen-Freem an (19 76 b) a l s o found s t a t i s t i c a l l y
sig n ific a n t p o sitiv e co rrelatio n s betw een the relativ e
frequency o rd e r o f nine g r a m m a tic a l m orphemes i n the
c l a s s r o o m s p e e c h o f t w o ESL t e a c h e r s and th e accuracy
orders the r e s e a r c h e r had o b ta in e d in a previous study
o f a d u l t ESL s t u d e n t s (L arsen-Freem an, 1975b). As p a r t
57
of a la rg e r stu d y , L ightbow n (in p r e s s ) , how ever, found
no d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n betw een t e a c h e r s ' c l a s s r o o m morpheme
in p u t frequency and a c c u r a te production o f a s e t o f mor
phemes o v e r tim e . Long (in p re ss) com pared s e v e r a l
relativ e frequency orders fo r nine g ra m m a tic a l m orphem es.
I t was found t h a t th eir relativ e frequency in the NS-NS
i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o rr e la te d w ith K ra s h e n 's
(1977) "average order" (rho = .6 3 , p < .0 5 ); the frequency
o r d e r i n NS s p e e c h to 36 e l e m e n t a r y - l e v e l Japanese ESL
s t u d e n t s was a l s o sig n ific a n tly related (rho = .7 5 ,
p < .0 5 ). The r e l a t i v e frequency of o b lig a to ry co n tex ts
fo r production of the same morphem es by the NNSs d u r i n g
th e c o n v e r s a ti o n s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y related (rho = .5 8 ,
p > .05) ( a lth o u g h th is is not far short of sig n ifican ce
at the .05 lev el), c o n s is te n t w ith the idea that in p u t
frequency is m ore i m p o r t a n t f o r th ese item s, at least,
than are p ra c tic e o p p o rtu n ities.
D esp ite at l e a s t one c o u n te r - f in d i n g , th e r e ex ist,
it appears, prelim inary d ata su pporting the n o tio n th at
input ex erts some i n f l u e n c e on th e o r d e r in w hich c e r t a i n
stru ctu res appear in the SL l e a r n e r ' s speech, and t h a t
th e relativ e frequency of occurrence of these item s in the
i n p u t may b e t h e cru cial facto r. T his relatio n sh ip , w ere
it found to hold in a m ore c o n t r o l l e d and l a r g e r data
set than the sm all ones stu d ied so far, could h elp ex
p lain the relativ ely in v arian t order of a cq u isitio n found
58
in stu d ie s of lin g u istic product d ata. Indeed, w hile
such factors as p e rc e p tu a l salien cy , sem antic co m p lex ity ,
and th e influence of the le a rn e r's n ativ e language seem
t o p l a y some r o l e (Brown, 1973; H atch and Gough, 1975;
Larsen-Freem an, 1976a, 1 9 7 9 ), frequency o f o ccu rren ce is
th e only factor to have been s i g n i f i c a n t l y co rrelated
w ith acq u isitio n orders in the o n e SL s t u d y (Larsen-
Freem an, 1 9 7 6a ) w h i c h looked a t all the p o ssib le ex p la
n atio n s .
W hile L a rse n -F re e m a n is the stro n g e st proponent
of frequency th u s far, h e r view s d iffer sig n ifican tly
from t h o s e o f o t h e r researchers in one im p o rtan t re s p e c t.
W hile H atch (1979) and K rashen (1978) both argue th at the
re le v a n t data for SLA i s th at language addressed to the
l e a r n e r w hich he o r s h e makes c o m p r e h e n s i b l e through a
process of co n v ersatio n al n e g o tia tio n w ith NSs, L a rse n -
Freem an (1S79) claim s that a ll com prehensible language
h e a r d by t h e acq u irer can s e r v e for acq u isitio n to take
place, in clu d in g lan g u a g e w hich h a s n o t been sim p lified
through the n eg o tiatio n process involved in co n v ersatio n al
in teractio n . T his is an i s s u e am enable t o em p irical
in v estig atio n , but ap p aren tly n o t one th a t has yet re
ceiv ed the atten tio n it deserves.
59
C o n clu sio n
Com pared w i t h the amount o f work on f i r s t lan
guage developm ent, th e re has been relativ ely little re
s e a r c h on in p u t, in teractio n , and second language acqui
sitio n . Few g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s c a n b e made, and th o s e th at
are p o ssib le need to be su g g ested cau tio u sly , for too few
of the stu d ies to date have been o f c o n t r o l l e d NS-NNS
c o r p o r a o r have com pared t h e i r fin d in g s w ith eq u iv alen t
NS-NS b a s e l i n e d ata.
S tu d ies o f NS s p e e c h to NNS h a v e n e a r l y a l l found a
lin g u istically sim p ler v a rie ty o f the language being em
ployed. I n some c a s e s th is inclu d es ungram m atical speech;
in others alm ost a l l o r even 100 p e r c e n t o f the in p u t is
w ell-fo rm ed . It is cu rren tly im p o ssib le to determ ine
w hich factors are related to th e g r a m m a t i c a l i t y o f FT,
but i t a p p e a r s m ore l i k e l y to be a com bination of speaker,
listen er, task and s e t t i n g v ariab les than a sin g le charac
teristic of the in teractio n .
As w i t h first language acq u isitio n , speech m o d ifi
catio n s by t h e NS a p p e a r t o be m o tiv ate d by a n e e d t o com
m unicate rather t h a n by a c o n s c i o u s in ten tio n to teach
th e language. There has been a l m o s t no r e s e a r c h on v a r i
ab les related to m o d i f i c a t i o n s in the input tc NNSs o r
to d iffe re n c e s b e t w e e n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n . It
seems c l e a r that the e x te n t and n a tu re of th ese m o d ifi
catio n s and d i f f e r e n c e s are a product of n eg o tiatio n by
60
both c o n v e rs a tio n a l p a rtn e rs but, although o ften asserted ,
th is is n o t dem onstrated e m p iric a lly by s t u d i e s w h i c h show
th at th e phenomena c o -o c c u r . There i s p relim inary ev id en ce
c o n s is te n t w ith the id ea th at the relativ e frequency o f
certain lin g u istic item s in NS i n p u t is related to the
order in w hich th e y appear accu rately su p p lied in the NN S's
o u tp u t. There is no e v id e n c e b e a r i n g on th e cru cial issu e
o f w hether s im p lif ie d in p u t a ffects rate or sequence of
SLA o r is necessary for it to take p lace at a ll.
61
CHAPTER 2
THE STUDY
Purpose
As i n d i c a t e d b y t h e in tro d u cto ry review of the
literatu re, there is s till a need for d escrip tio n s of
m an y a s p e c t s of lin g u istic input and i n t e r a c t i o n in SLA,
and f o r research on v a r i a b l e s related to each. A f t e r 15
years of study in th is area, there are s t i l l surprisingly
few d a t a w h ic h h a v e b e e n d e r i v e d from s tu d y o f NS-NNS a n d
NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n . F u rth er, of the few s t u d i e s w hich
h a v e p r o v i d e d NS c o n t r o l d a t a , alm ost a l l have com pared
c o rp o r a w hich differed a l o n g one o r m ore o f the fo llo w in g
so cio lin g u istic param eters: speech ev en t, settin g , task ,
and k in d o f in te rlo c u to r.
Thus, some s t u d i e s have been of teachers talk in g
du rin g lessons in classroom s w h ile g iv in g in stru ctio n to
a larg e g r o u p o f NNS, a n d s o may b e p r o v i d i n g a s much
d escrip tio n s of a v ariety of teacher talk as o f FT. Con
tro l d ata have u su a lly co n sisted o f s p e e c h by t h e s e or
oth er in d iv id u als in some o t h e r ro le (e.g . stu d en t, re
search su b je c t or frie n d ), in teractin g d u rin g less form al
classro o m d iscu ssio n s or com pletely inform al co n v ersatio n s
62
o u tsid e classroom s w ith a sm all group o r a s in g le in ter
lo cu to r, som etim es th e researcher. The e f f e c t o f v a r i
ab les of th is n a tu re has been w ell-docum ented f o r NS-NS
in teractio n (cf. Hymes, 1967, 1974; Labov, 1966; W olfson,
1976, in press; Snow, 1977; Tarone, 1979). The o n l y
stu d y to d a te w hich h as a v o id e d a l l of th ese problem s
(A rthur e t a l . , 19 80) is o f NS-NS a n d NS-NNS t e l e p h o n e
co n v ersatio n s and, hence, perhaps of lesser g en eraliza-
b ility .
A nother i n t e r e s t i n g q u estio n in need o f stu d y is
th at p r o p o s e d by H a tc h c o n c e r n in g w h e th e r t h e n atu re of
NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n may s h a p e lin g u istic in p u t to the SL
acq u irer, and th e effect th is may h a v e o n t h e a cq u isitio n
process itse lf (Gough a n d H a t c h , 1975; H atch, 1974, 1978a,
1978b, 1979). One e x a m p l e s u g g e s t e d b y H a t c h and o t h e r s ,
notably L arsen-Freem an (1976a, 1976b, 1979) is the po ssib le
relatio n sh ip betw een frequency of p articu lar form s in the
lin g u istic in p u t to SL a c q u i r e r s and th e order i n w hich
th o se form s a p p e a r accu rately su p p lied in the le a rn e r's
in terlan g u ag e.
The p u r p o s e o f t h i s stu d y is to se e k d a ta w hich
speak to the fo llo w in g four general research q u estio n s:
(1) How d o NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n d iffer
in stru ctu re?
(2 ) How d o a n y d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n NS-NS a n d
NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n affect featu res of
63
lin g u istic in p u t to t h e NNSs?
(3) Are answ ers to questio n s (1) and (2 )
related to the purpose of the in teractio n ?
F o r exam ple, is there an e f f e c t for task
ty p e?
(4) Can a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e shown b e t w e e n any
d ifferen ces in the relativ e freq u en cies
of form s i n the lin g u istic i n p u t t o NSs
a n d NNSs a n d t h e o r d e r i n w h i c h t h o s e
form s appear accu rately su p p lied in
o b lig ato ry co n tex ts in the speech of
SL a c q u i r e r s ?
H ypotheses
A to ta l of 30 h y p o t h e s e s a r e made c o n c e r n i n g the
four general research q u estio n s.
R esearch q u e s tio n (1): How d o NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
in teractio n s d iffer in stru ctu re?
F o llo w in g p r e v i o u s work by A r th u r e t a l. (1980),
G ask ill e t al. (1977), H atch e t a l. (1975), Long (in
press) and S c a r c e l l a and H iga (in press), 11 h y p o t h e s e s
a r e made c o n c e r n i n g differen ces in the stru ctu re o f NS-NS
a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . It is h ypothesized t h a t NS s p e e c h
in t h e NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n s w ill em ploy:
(1) m ore r e f e r e n c e to p resen t concerns of
th e speakers;
64
( 2) p ro p o rtio n ately m ore q u e s t i o n s ;
(3) p ro p o rtio n ately m ore y e s - n o q u e s t i o n s ;
(4 ) m ore c o n v e r s a t i o n a l fram es;
(5) m ore c o n f i r m a t i o n checks;
(6) m ore c o m p re h e n s io n c h e c k s ;
(7) m ore c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests;
(8 ) m ore r e p e t i t i o n s o f t h e N S 1s own u t t e r a n c e s ;
(9) m ore r e p e t i t i o n s o f the in te r lo c u to r 's
u tteran ces;
(10) m ore e x p a n s i o n o f t h e in te rlo c u to r's
u t t e r a n c e s ; and
(11 ) a h ig h er to ta l of co n v ersatio n al fram es,
confirm ation checks, com prehension c h e c k s,
c la rific a tio n req u ests, rep etitio n s of the
in te rlo c u to r's a n d N S ' s own u t t e r a n c e s , and
expansions of the in te rlo c u to r's u tteran ces.
R esearch q u e s tio n (2): How d o a n y d i f f e r e n c e s b e tw e en
NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n affect featu res of
lin g u istic in p u t to the NNSs?
Follow ing p re v io u s r e s e a r c h by C haudron (1979),
Freed (1978), G aies (1977) and Henzl (1974, 1975, 1979),
fiv e hypotheses a r e made c o n c e r n i n g d ifferen ces betw een
th e NSs' sp eech to o th e r NSs a n d t o NNSs. It is hypothe
sized th at the i n p u t t o NNSs w i l l b e lin g u istically less
com plex, a s shown by:
55
(12) a sh o rter average len g th of T -u n it in w ords;
(13) a lo w e r a v e r a g e number o f S -n o d e s per T -u n it;
(14) a low er ty p e -to k e n ratio n ;
(15) use of nouns and v erb s o f h ig h er average
frequency p e r m il li o n words in spoken
A m erican E n g lis h ; and
(16) a h ig h er p ro p o rtio n of copulas in v e rb a l
ex p ressio n s.
F o l l o w i n g Long (in p r e s s ) , i t is a lso hypothesized th a t
(17) the relativ e freq u en cies o f nine gram
m a t i c a l morphemes w i l l d iffer in NS s p e e c h
t o o t h e r NSs a n d t o N N S s .
R esearch q u e stio n (3): Are answ ers to q u estio n s (1 ) and
(2) related to the purpose of the in teractio n ? For
exam ple, is there an e f f e c t for task ty p e?
It is hypothesized th at some a n s w e r s to q u estio n s
(1 ) and (2) w i l l vary w ith the kin d o f ta sk in w hich the
co n v ersatio n alists are engaged. In task s req u irin g the
exchange of in fo rm atio n by p a r t i c i p a n t s , the ex ten t of
the differences b e t w e e n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l
be g r e a t e r . The l e s s flex ib le n atu re of these tasks,
w h e r e more c o n t r o l ex ists on th e su b stan tiv e in fo rm atio n al
c o n te n t o f the exchange, w i l l m ak e i t less po ssib le for
e ith e r p arty in NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n to avoid com m unicative
tro u b le, in v o lv e them i n m ore c o n v e r s a t i o n a l n e g o tiatio n ,
and r e s u l t in sim p ler language and la n g u a g e u s e . T his
66
differen ce sh o u ld be v i s i b l e in m easures related to c larity
of co n v ersatio n al stru ctu re, c larity o f m eaning, and
sy n tactic sim p licity . In task s in v o lv in g the exchange of
in fo rm atio n , the e x te n t o f the d ifferen ces b e t w e e n NS
speech in NS-NS a n d NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n a re hypothesized
to prove g re a te r in freq u en cies in term s of:
(18) the p ro p o rtio n of q u e stio n s;
(19) t h e number of co n v ersatio n al fram es;
(20) t h e number of co n firm atio n checks;
(21) t h e number o f com prehension checks;
(22) t h e number of clarific a tio n requests;
(23) t h e number of rep etitio n s of the N S 1s own
u tteran ces;
(24) the number o f rep etitio n s of the in terlo cu
to r's u tteran ces;
(25) the number o f e x p a n s i o n s o f the in ter
l o c u t o r ’s u t t e r a n c e s ;
(26) the to tal number o f co n v ersatio n al fram es,
co n firm atio n checks, com prehension c h e ck s,
cla rificatio n req u ests, rep etitio n s of the
in te rlo c u to r's a n d N S ' s own u t t e r a n c e s , and
expansions o f the in te rlo c u to r's u tteran ces;
(27) the average length of T -u n it in w ords; and
(28) the a v e r a g e number o f S -n o d e s per T -u n it.
67
R esearch q u e s tio n (4): Can a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e shown b e
tw een any d i f f e r e n c e s in the rela tiv e freq u en cies of
form s i n the lin g u istic in p u t to NSs a n d NNSs a n d
t h e o r d e r i n w hich th o se form s appear accu rately
su p p lied in o b lig a to ry co n tex ts in the speech o f SL
acq u irers?
Follow ing p re lim in a ry fin d in g s by L a rse n -F re e m a n
(1976a, 1976b) and Long (in p r e s s ) , it is hypothesized
th at:
(29) the rank order of the relativ e freq u en cies
of nine g r a m m a t i c a l morphemes in NS s p e e c h
t o NNSs w i l l b e p o s i t i v e l y c o rre la te d w ith
th e o r d e r i n w hich t h o s e m orphem es appear
accu rately su p p lied in the speech o f SL
acq u irers.
F o l lo w in g Long (in p r e s s ) , it is fu rth e r hypothesized th a t
(30) th e m agnitude o f the first co rrelatio n co
efficien t (in 29 ) w ill be h ig h e r than th at
show ing th e relatio n sh ip betw een the relativ e
frequency order of t h o s e m orphem es in speech
t o o t h e r NSs a n d t h e s a m e SL a c c u r a c y order.
68
M ethod
S ubjects and D esign
The s u b j e c t s for th is study c o n sisted of 57 NSs
a n d 19 NNSs. T he NSs w e r e d r a w n f r o m 63 who r e p l i e d to
a w ritten request for assistan ce in the stu d y (A ppendix
A) , 200 c o p i e s o f w hich w ere d i s t r i b u t e d among s t u d e n t s
and f a c u l t y and t h e i r spouses a t UCLA i n the spring quar
ter of 1980= N ineteen p a ir s o f NSs w e r e form ed, m atched
oy s e x and th e number o f y e a r s of p rio r FT e x p e r i e n c e ,
the latte r in clu d in g previous residence in no n -E n g lish -
speaking c o u n trie s an d /o r previous TESL e x p e r i e n c e , as
r e p o r t e d by t h e respondents. The m em bers o f t h e 19
m atched p a i r s w ere then random ly assigned to o n e o f two
co n d itio n s: NS a n d NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . T he r e m a i n i n g NS
s u b je c ts w ere then random ly assigned to f o r m NS-NNS
dyads u n til 19 s u c h dyads had b een form ed.
T h e NNS s u b j e c t s com prised a l l stu d en ts reg istered
in two s e c t i o n s o f a UCLA E x t e n s i o n elem en tary -lev el ESL
course (EX 8 3 2 ) in th e spring q u a rte r, 1980. T h e y came
from a v a r i e t y of first language backgrounds: 1 A rab ic,
2 C antonese, 3 F arsi, 4 French, 2 Japanese, 1 M andarin,
1 P o rtu g u ese, 1 R ussian, and 4 S p a n is h . They w e re m o s t l y
in th eir tw en ties and t h i r t i e s and in c lu d e d a range of
occu p atio n s, b u t w ere c h ie f ly stu d en ts, businessm en, and
housew ives. T h e 19 NNSs a g r e e d v o lu n tarily to p a rtic ip a te
in the study, w hich th ey u n d e r s t o o d was n o t p a r t o f th eir
69
r e g u l a r program o f i n s t r u c t i o n . They w e r e recru ited by
the in v e s tig a to r durin g p r io r v i s i t s to th eir ESL c l a s s e s .
C o n tro llin g f o r s e x o f NNS a n d s e x o f N S , t h e y w e r e
random ly assigned to form th e NS-NNS d y a d s . In each con
d itio n , NS-NS a n d NS-NNS, th e r e w ere e ig h t fem ale, four
m ale, and s e v e n m ixed d y a d s , m aking a com bined t o t a l of
38 d y a d s .
Upo n t r a n s c r i p t i o n of the tapes it was d i s c o v e r e d
t h a t members o f t h r e e of th e NS-NS d y a d s h a d known e a c h
oth er p rio r to the stu d y . T his m eant t h a t th e y were ab le
to talk about to p ics and t h i r d p arties fam iliar to them ,
a n d made t h e i r co n v ersatio n s somewhat d i f f e r e n t in con
t e n t and s t y l e from t h o s e of o ther dyads. These three
tapes and th e corresp o n d in g dyads in the NS-NNS c o n d i t i o n
w ere therefore elim in ated from th e sam ple. Thus, the
fin al corpus co n sisted of a to ta l of 32 m a t c h e d p a i r s ,
16 NS-NS a n d 1 6 NS-NNS. N a tiv e -la n g u a g e backgrounds of
the 16 NNSs w e r e : 1 A rab ic, 2 C antonese, 2 F arsi, 3
French, 1 Japanese, 1 M andarin, 1 P o rtu g u ese, 1 R ussian,
and 4 S p an ish . In each c o n d itio n , NS a n d NNS i n t e r a c t i o n ,
th e r e w ere seven fem ale, two m a le , and s e v e n m ixed d y a d s .
The a m o u n t o f d istrib u tio n of previous FT e x p e r i e n c e am o n g
the m a t c h e d NSs i n e a c h c o n d i t i o n was i d e n t i c a l , w ith a
range of from 0 to 8 years o r m ore, a mean o f 3 .8 4 , and
a stan d ard d ev iatio n of 3.51.
70
T reatm ent
T he t r e a t m e n t i n th is study c o n s is te d of assig n
ment to one o f two c o n d i t i o n s , NS-NS o r NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n ,
and perform ance o f s i x task s ( A p p e n d i x B) . The t a s k s
w ere th e same i n both co n d itio n s and w ere c a r r i e d o u t in
the same (predeterm ined) order, w ith approxim ate tim e
lim its in d icated .
The t a s k s , as p r e s e n t e d to the s u b je c ts , w ere as
fo llo w s:
1. Spend 3 m in u tes g ettin g t o know y o u r p a r t n e r
and l e t t i n g him o r h e r g e t t o know y o u .
2. D escribe two m o v ie s you h a v e s e e n a n d
l i k e d — one m ovie e a ch p e r s o n . (About 3
m i n u t e s .)
3. Play the first game ("Odd man o u t " ) on
p a g e A. (5 m i n u t e s . )
4. Play the s e c o n d ga m e ("Spot the difference")
o n p a g e B. (5 m i n u t e s . )
5. D iscuss w ith y o u r p a r t n e r y o u r and h i s or
her ideas as to what th is research is
about. (About 3 m in u te s .)
In fact, for th e purpose of the an aly sis, t h e r e w ere s i x
task s of slig h tly d ifferen t duration, as the in stru ctio n s
for task s 3 and 4 w ere com bined to form a n o t h e r sam ple
u £ NS-NS a n d N S - n n S s p e e c h , and c e r t a i n segm ents o f all
s ix w ere th o se used in the an aly sis.
71
As u s e d in th e an aly sis, the six tasks w ere the
fo llo w in g :
1. The s p o n t a n e o u s co n v ersatio n (the second
and t h i r d m inutes)
2. The v i c a r i o u s n arrativ e, i.e . the d e scrip tio n
o f a m ovie, to ld by t h e m a t c h e d NS i n the
dyads in each co n d itio n (the e n tire n arrativ e)
3. The i n s t r u c t i o n s for tasks 4 and 5 (the en tire
sequences, pooled fo r an aly sis)
I 4. The f i r s t game, " O d d Man O u t " (the first
fiv e m inutes)
5. The s e c o n d gam e, "Spot the D ifference" (the
first fiv e m inutes)
6. The d i s c u s s i o n of the research (the first two
m in u tes)
In each d y a d b o t h members w e re a s k e d in the
in stru ctio n s to perform task 2, sin ce i t was h o p ed n o t
to in d icate eith er one o f t h e m ain focuses of the stu d y —
the speech o f o n e NS i n e a c h dyad— or a g reater sta tu s
an d /o r a b ility im balance than th at inherent in task s
w hich r e q u ir e one p e rs o n to perform in th e o th e r 's n ativ e
language. A pproxim ate tim e lim its were in d icated rather
than fix e d ones im posed i n an e f f o r t to relax su b jects
and t h e r e b y decrease the lik elih o o d of the in teractio n
' bein g p re ssu re d and less n atu ral than is in ev itab le in
pre-arranged en co u n ters of th is kind.
72
The s i x tasks fall in to two c a t e g o r i e s : t h o s e
whose c o m p le tio n r e q u i r e s both sp eak ers to exchange
info rm atio n (task s 1, 4, and 5 ), a n d t h o s e w h i c h may b e
accom plished in t h i s way b u t do n o t r e q u i r e it (task s 2,
3, and 6 ).
(a) T asks w hich r e q u i r e the exchange o f in fo rm atio n
Task 1: The s p o n t a n e o u s conversation
It is p o ssib le f o r one o r b o th p a r t i e s to a spon
taneous c o n v e rsa tio n both to a v o id v a rio u s problem s in
com m unication, e.g . by s k i r t i n g t o p i c s w ith w hich they
are u n fam iliar or f o r w hich they lack the lin g u istic
resources, and to a v o id s o l v i n g t h o s e w h ic h do a r i s e ,
e.g . by s w i t c h i n g to p ic. It is not p o ssib le for e ith e r
to hold a c o n v ersatio n alone, however. W h a t e v e r ijs
talk ed about requires co n trib u tio n s, even i f u n eq u al, from
both s id e s . C o n v ersatio n alists, th erefo re, have to
n eg o tiate m eaning and th e in teractio n itse lf, as is shown
by th e fact th at a c h a ra c te ristic w hich d i s t i n g u i s h e s a
co n v ersatio n from a s e r i e s of iso lated sen ten ces is the
rh eto rical coherence and c o h esio n o f u tte r a n c e s w ith in
and a c ro ss speaking tu rn s.
Task 4; Odd Man O u t
The f i r s t game r e q u i r e s p artn ers to d ecid e to
g e t h e r on o n e o r more ways o f c l a s s i f y i n g ten sets of
fo u r item s in such a manner a s to exclude one item (the
o d d man o u t ) from e a c h s e t . In teractio n is fu rth er
73
e n c o u r a g e d by inform ing s u b je c ts through the in stru ctio n
of the p o ssib le ex isten ce o f more t h a n o n e answer in each
case. The j o i n t d e c i s i o n (som etim es a d e c i s i o n to d is
agree) req u ires speakers to com m unicate th eir own s y s t e m s
of c la ssifica tio n and th e rationale for th ese to th eir
p artn ers, and to u nderstand those th at they h e a r. It
o ften also in v o lv es selectio n fro m among a l t e r n a t i v e
so lu tio n s and agreem ent (or disagreem ent) as to th is
fin al ch o ice.
Task 5: Spot the D ifference
T h e s e c o n d game a l s o requires the exchange of
in fo rm atio n , th is tim e m o stly o f a f a c t u a l n atu re. It
in v o lv es less tran sm issio n o f o p inions than the p rev io u s
task . That b o th p a r tie s are oblig ed to p ro v id e the o ther
w ith info rm atio n is e n s u r e d by c o n t r o l l i n g the kinds of
differen ces p ertain in g betw een th e two v e r s i o n s of the
p ictu re. Thus, of a to tal of 12 d i f f e r e n c e s , 10 i n v o l v e
item s p r e s e n t in one p i c t u r e but not in the o ther (5 e a c h
p i c t u r e ) , and tw o r e l a t e to item s p r e s e n t in each version,
but d ifferen tly arrayed in each (e.g . d ifferen t tim es on
the clo ck ). The p r e d e t e r m i n e d n a t u r e of th e p ro b le m 's
so lu tio n also means i t is less am enable to to p ic av o id an ce,
and co n seq u en tly the ta s k m ost l i k e l y to require m ost
co n v ersatio n al n eg o tiatio n by e a c h dyad.
74
(b) T a s k s w h ic h do n o t r e q u i r e the exchange of in fo rm atio n
Task 2: The v i c a r i o u s n arrativ e
U nlike th e tasks d escribed so far, a v icario u s
n arrativ e clearly does n o t re q u ire n eg o tiatio n , for it is
b asically a m onolog, embedded in co n v ersatio n b u t not i t
se lf a co n v ersatio n . Thus, lik e a personal n a rra tiv e
(cf. Labov, 1966; Labov and W a le ts k y , 1967; W olfson, 1976,
in p re s s ), it is to ld t o one o r m ore l i s t e n e r s , but is
u su ally perform ed w ith few o r no i n t e r r u p t i o n s from them .
(O bviously, th ere are certain ex cep tio n s, as w ith p e rs o n a l
or v icario u s n arrativ es related u n d e r d u r e s s .) N arrators
have co n tro l of a ll the relev an t in fo rm atio n , and do n o t
req u ire co n trib u tio n s from t h e i r listen ers in th is resp ect.
As l i s t e n e r s speak less, or not at a ll, there is less
o p p o rtu n ity for feedback as to the degree of com prehension,
and so less lik elih o o d t h a t what i s said w ill i n d e e d be
com prehensible to them t h a n is the case in n e g o tia te d
in teractio n . T his is not to say th at n arrativ es are not
n eg o tiated , sim ply th at t h e i r perform ance does not
require n eg o tiatio n , and t h a t n e g o t i a t i o n w hich does
tak e place is lik ely to be o f a lesser order than in
c o n v ersatio n al in teractio n .
Task 3: Instru ctio n s fo r the two games
Like the v icario u s n arrativ e, th is task does not
req u ire the exchange of in fo rm atio n , sin ce o n ly one p a r t y
has any at the o u tset. It can be accom plished in several
75
ways, i n c l u d i n g by r e a d i n g alo u d th e p r in te d in stru ctio n s,
but is r a t h e r m ore l i k e l y to in v o lv e ad ju stm en ts to the
lis te n e r 's p e r c e iv e d com petence s in c e the s p e a k e r knows
th a t h is o r h e r p erform ance on th e subsequent task s w ill
in part depend on th e e x p l a n a t i o n 's efficacy . Speakers
are lik ely , therefore, at least to ask w hether the listen er
has understood, and i f he o r she has n ot, to tr y again.
Task 6: D iscussion o f th e supposed purpose o f the
research
W hile p o t e n t i a l l y in v o lv in g both p arties in an
exchange o f op in io n s as to the research purpose o f th eir
p revious ac tiv itie s, th is task can s u c c e s s fu lly be com
p leted by s u b j e c t s g iv in g t h e i r own v i e w s and l i s t e n i n g
to th o se o f th e ir p artn er, or n ot, as they choose. Sub
jects are n o t asked to reach a consensus or to argue for
or ag ain st any o f t h e s u g g e s t i o n s . The t a s k d o e s n o t ,
th erefo re, req u ire inform ation to be exchanged, sim ply

t
*
th at opin io n s be o ffe red . S ubjects can even com plete the

4
ta s k w ith o u t u n d erstan d in g th eir p a rtn e r's v ie w s * a t a l l .
It is o f course lik ely th at the r e s e a r c h e r ' s percep
tio n o f the t a s k s ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w ill n o t alw ays be s h a r e d
by s u b je c ts in the stu d y . This can happen in two w a y s.
F irst, a d ifferen t task f r o m t h a t i n t e n d e d may b e u n d e r
s t o o d by p a r t i c i p a n t s . For exam ple, a request for a
d escrip tio n of a m o v i e may b e i n t e r p r e t e d by s o m e a s an
o p p o rtu n ity to discuss its tech n ical successes and
76
shortcom ings, as at least one p re v io u s stu d y has found
(Tannen, 1979). Second, the task may b e p e r f o r m e d , but
w ith g reater or less e ffo rt, by d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s . For
exam ple, the im portance a tta c h e d to securing com prehension
by t h e listen e r may v a r y among s p e a k e r s , as may t h e i r
effo rts to achieve th at und erstan d in g . V ariatio n of the
first kind w i l l produce u n u sab le d ata, for it w ill in v o lv e
co m p letio n o f a ta s k d ifferen t from t h a t u n d e r t a k e n by
o th er su b jects. V ariatio n of the second kind appears to
occur in research on a l l asp ects o f human b e h a v i o r . It
is, how ever, im p o ssib le to m easure r e l i a b l y , a n d may h e r e
by assum ed to have v a rie d eq u ally across dyads in both
NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n .
Procedures
P rio r to the reco rd in g sessions NS a n d NNS s u b
jec ts w ere to ld th at th ey w ould be m e e tin g a stu d en t of
ESL a n d a n A m e r i c a n , resp ectiv ely , for a b rie f (approxi
m ately 25-m inute) co n v ersatio n . They knew t h a t the con
v e r s a t i o n w ould be recorded for research purposes. Then
at a pre-arranged tim e d u rin g a two-week, p e r i o d in the
spring q u arter of 19 8 0 , m embers o f t h e 38 d y a d s met for
th e purpose o f the stu d y in a s m a l l room t y p i c a l in size,
c o n t e n t s , and la y o u t o f th o se in m ost public u n i v e r s i t i e s
in the U nited S ta te s . Upon a r r i v a l , th ey w ere g reeted by
the researcher in as inform al and r e l a x e d a m anner as
77
p o ssib le and th en in troduced to e a c h o t h e r by f i r s t name
("M aria, th is is John. John— M aria.") A gain, the n atu re
of the i n t r o d u c t i o n was i n t e n d e d n o t t o accord higher
statu s to e i t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t .
S u b je cts w ere th en s e a te d fa c in g one an o th er over
a sm all tab le, p o sitio n ed in th e m iddle o f the room i n such
a way a s n o t t o suggest hig h er s ta tu s o f one p a r t i c i p a n t
through the seatin g arran g em en ts. A sm all c a s s e tte tape-
recorder, in fu ll view o f t h e su b jects, was a l r e a d y
run n in g . The o n l y o t h e r item s on th e t a b l e w ere two
fo ld ers, one f o r each s u b je c t, co n tain in g in stru ctio n s
and p i c t u r e s f o r com pleting the tasks, and a sm a ll s c re e n .
T h e m a t c h e d NS i n e a ch dyad was a s k e d to place the screen
in p o sitio n p rio r to commencing the s e c o n d game, "Spot
the D ifference" (a f a c t o r w h i c h u n fo rtu n ately may h a v e
im p lied h ig h er s t a t u s ) .
S u b je c ts w ere to ld to read through a ll the in
stru c tio n s at th eir leisu re and th e n w ere inform ed th at
th e t a p e r e c o r d e r was alread y running. They w ere a s k e d
to co m e o u t s i d e after th ey had com pleted a ll "fiv e". The
in v estig ato r then left the room, clo sin g th e door.
F o llow ing a s e t o f p red eterm in ed conventions
(A ppendix C ) , t h e tape-recorded conv ersatio n s w ere sub
sequently tran scrib ed and v e r i f i e d by t h e in v estig ato r,
yield in g a to tal of ap proxim ately 9 00 p a g e s of d ata.
78
A nalysis
The f o l l o w i n g m e a s u r e s w e r e u s e d i n the an aly sis.
They a r e listed acco rd in g to the general research q u estio n
and h y p o th e s is (H#) to w hich they relate. They a r e fo l
lowed by d e f i n i t i o n s a n d /o r coding co nventions (D & C C ) ,
w here a p p r o p r ia te , and r e f e r e n c e to the data (D ata)to
w hich th e y w ere a p p lie d .
R esearch q u e s tio n (1): How d o NS-MS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r
a ctio n s d iffer in stru c tu re ?
H#(1 ): p ro p o rtio n of p resen t and n o n -p re s e n t
tem p o ral m arking o f verbs
D & CC: a ll verbs marked for te n s e were included in
the an aly sis. "G oing to" fu tu re and p r e s e n t
pro g ressiv e and p r e s e n t sim p le v e rb a l ex
pressions in d icatin g fu tu re tim e reference
w ere coded as n o n - p r e s e n t.
D ata: a ll s p e e c h b y NSs o n t a s k 1. (In th is and
subsequent m easures, " s p e e c h b y NS" r e f e r s
to t h a t by t h e m a t c h e d NSs i n NS-NS a n d NS-
NNS d y a d s ; it does not include sp eech by th e
NS i n t e r l o c u t o r s in t h e NS-NS d y a d s . )
H# (2) p ro p o rtio n s of q u estio n s, statem en ts and
im p erativ es in T -u n its
D & CC: a ll q u estio n -ty p es (wh, y e s - n o , u n inverted
in to n atio n , and t a g q u e s tio n s ) /ere inclu d ed .
L e t 1s p l u s in fin itiv e" c o n s tr u c ti o n s w ere
79
included in the count of im p erativ es. A
T -u n it (H unt, 1970) is "a m ain c l a u s e p l u s a ll
su bordinate clau ses and n o n c la u sa l s tr u c tu r e s
attach ed to o r embedded in it."
D ata: s p e e c h by NSs i n T -u n its on a l l tasks
H# (2) : p ro p o rtio n s o f wh, y e s - n o , uninverted in to n a
tio n , and ta g q u e s t i o n s to to tal num bers of
q u estio n s asked in T -u n its. In th is and su b
sequent an aly ses, chi square a n a ly se s w ere
co n d u cted on th e relativ e freq u en cies of ju st
those item s h a v in g s u f f i c i e n t l y high frequency
to be e n te re d in to the sta tistic a l com putation.
Where i t e m s had to be ex cluded b ecau se ex
p ected freq u en cies were in su fficien t, ad jacen t
cells were c o lla p s e d where ju stifiab le
before the ne w c e l l freq u en cies were tested
for s ta tis tic a l sig n ifican ce,
D ata: s p e e c h b y NSs i n T -u n its on a l l tasks
ilirti/ . number o f co n v ersatio n al fram es
D & CC: boundary m a rk e rs, such a s w e l l , s o , OK, n o w ,
hrom, r i g h t , a l r i g h t , and t h e n , w hich p re c e d e
or follow u t t e r a n c e s , b u t w hich are n o t seman
tic a lly related to th at u tteran ce. Thus, now
i n Now w h a t a b o u t t h e man? i s coded as a con
v ersatio n al fram e, b u t now i n Nov/ we h a v e to
80
do t h e o t h e r game i s not, unless f o l l o w e d by
an u n f i l l e d p au se and m arked by fallin g in
to n atio n .
D ata: a ll s p e e c h b y NSs o n a l l tasks. (In th is and
subsequent an aly ses in v o lv in g d ata from t a s k s
2 and 3, a d j u s t e d s c o r e s w ere em ployed w hich
took account o f th e varying lengths and tim e
s p e n t on r e c o u n t in g the n arrativ e and g iv in g
in stru ctio n s. M easures for th ese t a s k s w ere
recalcu lated acco rd in g to t h e mean n u m b e r o f
T -u n its in the NSs' s p e e c h on t h o s e task s
in each p a ir o f m atched d y ad s.)
H# ( 5) : number o f c o n f i r m a t i o n checks
D & CC: a d i s t i n c t i o n was made i n th is study betw een
confirm atio n checks, c la rific a tio n req u ests,
and com p reh en sio n ch eck s (se e b e l o w ) , w hich
are u su ally co n flated in research of th is kind.
A co n firm atio n c h e c k was any e x p r e s s i o n by t h e
NS i m m e d i a t e l y fo llo w in g an u t t e r a n c e by t h e
i n t e r l o c u t o r w h ic h was d e s ig n e d to e lic it
co n firm atio n th at th e u t t e r a n c e had. b e e n c o r
rectly understood o r c o r r e c tly h e a r d by t h e
speaker. T h u s , t h e man? fo llo w in g Next to the
man b y t h e o t h e r s p e a k e r is a co n firm atio n
check. C onfirm ation checks are alw ays
form ed by r i s i n g in to n atio n q u estio n s, w ith
81
o r w ithout a tag (t h e man? o r the man, rig h t?) .
They a lw a y s in v o lv e rep e titio n of a il or part
of the i n t e r l o c u t o r 's p reced in g u tte ra n c e .
They a r e a n s w e ra b le by a s im p le co n firm atio n
(Y e s , Mmhm) i n the event th at the p receding
u t t e r a n c e was c o r r e c t l y understood or heard,
and r e q u i r e n o new i n f o r m a t i o n from th e in ter
lo cu to r.
D ata: all s p e e c h b y NSs, o n a l l tasks
' H# ( 6) : number o f c o m p re h e n s io n c h e c k s
D & CC: a n y e x p r e s s i o n b y a NS d e s i g n e d t o estab lish
w hether th a t s p e a k e r's preced in g u tteran ce(s)
h a d b e e n u n d e r s t o o d by t h e in terlo cu to r.
These a re ty p ically fo rm e d by tag q u e stio n s,
by r e p e t i t i o n s of a ll or p art of the same
s p e a k e r's p receding u tteran ce(s) u tte r e d w ith
risin g q u estio n in to n atio n , o r by u t t e r a n c e s
lik e Do y o u u n d e r s t a n d ? w h i c h e x p l i c i t l y check
c o m p r e h e n s io n by the in te rlo c u to r,
D ata: a ll s p e e c h b y NSs o n a l l task s
H # (7) : number o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests
D & CC: a n y e x p r e s s i o n b y a NS d e s i g n e d to elic it
cla rific a tio n of the in te rlo c u to r's p receding
u tteran ce(s). C larificatio n requests are
m ostly fo rm e d by q u e s t i o n s , b u t may c o n s i s t
o f wh o r y e s - n o q u e s t i o n s (u n lik e co n firm atio n
82
checks) as w ell as uninverted in to n atio n and
tag q u e s tio n s , for they req u ire th at the in te r
lo cu to r e ith e r furnish new i n f o r m a t i o n o r re
code in fo rm a tio n p rev io u sly given. U nlike con
firm atio n ch eck s, in o th e r w o rd s, th e re is no
p resu p p o sitio n on the s p e a k e r 's p a r t t h a t he
or she has und ersto o d o r h eard th e in ter
lo c u to r's previous u tteran ce. W hile q u e s t i o n s
are th e m ost f r e q u e n t form o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n
req u est in these d ata, they are also effected
by s t a t e m e n t s lik e I d o n 't u n d e r s t a n d , and
i m p e r a t i v e s , s u c h a s Try ag ain ,
H #(8) ; number o f s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s
D & CC: a g r o s s e r m easure than in some p r e v i o u s re
search, a self-rep etitio n in th is s t u d y was
any rep etitio n by th e NS, e i t h e r p a r t i a l or
com plete, of any o f h i s or her u tteran ce(s)
w hich occurred w ith in fiv e co n v ersatio n al
turns of the tu rn co n tain in g the item now
b ein g rep eated . The r e p e t i t i o n co u ld use the
same w o rd s o r b e a paraphrase of the previous
version, i.e . a "sem antic rep etitio n " (Snow,
1973). The fiv e co n v ersatio n al tu rn s in clu d e
those by b o th speakers. A turn at con v ersatio n
refers here to any s p e e c h by one s p e a k e r
83
preceded and f o llo w e d by s p e e c h by th e oth er.
O v erlapping s p e e c h by t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r was
n o t co u n ted as ending a s p e a k e r 's tu rn , un less,
of course, the f i r s t speaker rep aired the con
v e r s a t i o n by g i v i n g up h i s or her turn,
thereby ced in g the flo o r,
D ata: a ll s p e e c h b y NSs o n a l l tasks
H# ( 9 ) : number o f o th er-rep etitio n s
D & CC: any r e p e t i t i o n , p artial o r com plete, exact
o r sem an tic, o f s p e e c h by t h e in terlo cu to r
w hich o c c u rre d d u rin g the preced in g fiv e
c o n v ersatio n al t u r n s by b o th speakers,
H #(10): number o f e x p a n s io n s of the in te r lo c u to r 's
u tteran ces
D & CC: any u t t e r a n c e b y a NS w h i c h rephrased and /o r
rep eated a ll or part of the in te rlo c u to r's
p reced in g u tteran ce and w hich co n tain ed gram
m atical fu n cto rs not supplied by th e in ter
locutor in o b lig ato ry co n tex ts created by t h a t
p receding u tteran ce,
H# ( 1 1 ) : number o f co n v ersatio n al fram es, co n firm atio n
checks, com prehension checks, c la rific a tio n
requests, se lf- and o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s , and
expansions
84
D & CC: see H# (4) through H# ( 1 0 ) .
R esearch q u e s tio n (2): How d o a n y d i f f e r e n c e s betw een
NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n affect features of
lin g u istic input to the NNSs?
H# ( 1 2 ) : average l e n g t h o f T - u n i t i n words
D & CC: the to tal number o f w o rd s i n T - u n i t s [see
H#(2) ] d i v i d e d by t h e to ta l number o f T - u n i t s .
F o llo w in g A ndersen and Johnson (1973, p . 151),
a word was d e f i n e d as any o r t h o g r a p h i c u n i t
bounded by s p a c e s , and in c lu d e d p ro p e r nouns,
and cronym s (e.g . UCLA c o u n t i n g a s one w o rd ).
C oncatenated form s (g o n n a , w a n n a , s o r t a ) w e r e
counted as two w o r d s , as were c o n tr a c t e d
form s ( I ' m , we 1 r e ) .
D ata: s p e e c h b y NSs in T -u n its on a l l task s
H# ( 1 3 ) : average number o f S -n o d e s p e r T - u n i t
D & CC: number o f ten sed verbs in T -u n its d i v i d e d by
the number o f T -u n its contain in g them
D ata: s p e e c h b y NSs i n T -u n its on a l l task s
H# ( 1 4 ) : type-token ratio (TTR)
D & CC: num ber o f w o r d s d i v i d e d by t h e num ber o f
d i f f e r e n t w ords
D ata: the first fifty r u n n i n g w o r d s by NSs o n t a s k s
1 and 2 in odd-num bered t r a n s c r i p t s
85
H # (15): frequency per million words of nouns and verbs
D & CC: th e average frequency of nouns and v e rb s per
m i l l i o n w ords in a c o r p u s o f modern sp o k en
A m erican E n g lis h (D ahl, 1979) an aly zed for
word fre q u e n c y . A u x iliaries, proper nouns,
pronouns and acronym s w ere excluded from th e
an aly sis, and co n tractio n s cou n ted as fu ll
form s. The D a h l corpus com prises 15 r a n d o m l y
selected sessio n s from e a c h o f 15 s e p a r a t e
psych o an aly sis cases, in clu d in g s p e e c h by b o th
p atien ts and p s y c h o a n a l y s ts . Cases came f ro m
e i g h t U .S. c itie s. Speakers included eig h t
m ale and sev en fem ale p atien ts whose a v e r a g e
age was in the late tw en ties, a n d 13 m a l e and
one fem ale p s y c h o a n a l y s t . (One p s y c h o a n a l y s t
p articip ated in tw o t h e r a p y se ssio n s.) The
30 s p e a k e r s em ployed 17,871 d i f f e r e n t w ords
(types) in a corpus o f 1 ,0 5 8 ,8 8 8 words (tokens)
in the 2 25 s e s s i o n s .
D ata: the first ten nouns and th e first ten verbs
i n s p e e c h b y NSs o n t a s k s 1, 2 and 6 in odd-
num bered t r a n s c r i p t s , i.e . a to tal o f some
9 00 i t e m s .
H# ( 1 6 ) : p ro p o rtio n s o f copulas and o t h e r verbs
D & CC: copulas included any form o f b £ , in clu d in g
the in fin itiv e and a l l ten sed versions. Verbs
86
w ere a l l o th er tensed or in fin itiv a l verb
form s, except a u x ilia rie s.
D ata: a ll speech b y NSs o n t a s k 1
H # (17) : relativ e frequencies o f n in e g ram m atical
m orphem es
D & CC: m orphem es c o u n te d w e re th o se in F re sh e n 's
"average order" (K rashen, 1977) , i . e . (in
descending o rd e r o f frequency according to
Krashen) p ro g ressiv e - in g ,(lo n g and s h o rt)
p lu ral, copula, au x iliary , (d efin ite and
in d efin ite) article, irre g u la r p ast, regular
p ast, th ird person sin g u lar -s , and p o s s e s s iv e
' s_.
D ata: a ll speech b y NSs o n t a s k s 1 and 6
R esearch q u e s tio n (3): Are a n sw e rs to q u estio n s (1) a n d
(2) related to the p u rp o se o f the in teractio n ? For
exam ple, is there an e f f e c t for task type?
H#(18): p ro p o rtio n of q u e stio n s, statem en ts and
im p erativ es in T -u n its
D & CC: see H#(2). Tc t e s t th is and a l l subsequent
hypotheses related to R esearch q u e s tio n (3),
raw s c o r e s were com bined for task s 1, 4 and
5, and th e s e to tals compared w i t h those from
the com bined scores on t a s k s 2, 3 and 6. As
ex p lain ed in the o rig in al d escrip tio n of the
task s, these two c o m b i n a t i o n s reflected the
87
presence and a b sen c e , resp ectiv ely , of a need
fo r the exchange of in fo rm atio n in the task-
related co n v ersatio n s,
D ata: s p e e c h b y NSs i n T -u n its on a l l task s
H# ( 1 9 ) ; number o f co n v ersatio n al fram es
D & CC: s e e H# ( 4 ) . S c o r e s on t a s k s 1, 4 a n d 5 com
p ared w ith those on 2 , 3 a n d 6.
D ata: all s p e e c h b y NSs o n a l l task s
H# ( 2 0 ) : number o f co n firm atio n checks
D & CC: s e e H# (5) . Scores on t a s k s 1, 4 a n d 5 com
pared w ith th o s e on 2, 3 and 6.
H# ( 2 1 ) : num ber o f co m p reh en sio n checks
D & CC: see H# (6) . S c o r e s on t a s k s 1, 4 a n d 5 com
pared w ith th o se on 2, 3 and 6.
H# ( 2 2 ) : number o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests
D & CC: s e e H# ( 7 ) . Scores on t a s k s 1, 4 a n d 5 com
pared w ith th o se on 2, 3 a n d 6.
H# ( 2 3 ) : number o f s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s
D & CC: see H # (8) . Scores on t a s k s 1, 4 a n d 5 com
pared w ith th o s e on 2, 3 and 6.
H# ( 2 4 ) : number o f o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s
D & CC: see H# ( 9 ) . S c o r e s on t a s k s 1, 4 and 5
88
com pared w ith th o se on 2, 3 an d 6.
H# ( 2 5 ) : number o f e x p a n s io n s
S & CC: s e e H# ( 1 0 ) . S c o r e s on ta s k s 1, 4 and 5 co m
pared w ith th o se on 2, 3 and 6.
H# ( 2 6 ) : number o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l fram es, confirm ation
checks, com prehension ch e ck s, clarificatio n
req u ests, self- and o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s , and
expansions
D & CC: s e e H# (4) through H# ( 1 0 ) . S c o r e s on t a s k s 1,
4 and 5 com pared w i t h those on 2, 3 and 6.
H# ( 2 7 ) : average len g th of T -u n it i n w ords
D & CC: see H# ( 1 2 ) . A v e ra g es on t a s k s 1, 4 and 5
com pared w ith th o se on 2, 3 a n d 6.
D ata: s p e e c h b y NSs i n T -u n its on all task s
H# ( 2 8 ) : average number o f S -n o d es p e r T - u n i t
D & CC: S e e H# ( 1 3 ) . A v e r a g e s o n t a s k s 1, 4 and 5
com pared w ith th o se on 2, 3 and 6.
D ata: aH T -u n its in a ll NNS s p e e c h o n a l l tasks
R esearch q u e s tio n (4): Can a r e l a t i o n s h i p be shown b e
tw een any d i f f e r e n c e s in the rela tiv e freq u en cies of
form s i n the lin g u istic in p u t t o NCs a n d NNSs a n d t h e
order in w hich th o se form s a p p e a r a c c u r a t e l y su p p lied
in o b lig ato ry co n tex ts in the speech of SL a c q u i r e r s ?
89
H# (29): relative frequencies of nine grammatical
m orphem es in speech to NNSs
D & CC: s e e H# ( 1 7 ) f o r t h e morphemes c o u n t e d . The
relativ e frequency o rd er in s p e e c h t o NNSs
was t e s t e d for its stren g th of asso ciatio n
w ith K ra s h e n 's "average order" (K rashen, 1977).
The "average order" is one a g re g a te d from a
series of stu d ies p rio r to 1977 o f the order
i n w hich th e n i n e m orpaem es c o n c e r n e d a p p e a r
accu rately su p p lied in o b lig a to ry co n tex ts in
th e speech o f SL l e a r n e r s from a w id e v a r i e t y
of first language backgrounds,
D ata: all speech b y NSs o n t a s k s 1 and 6
H# ( 3 0 ) : relativ e freq u en cies o f n in e g r a m m a tic a l mor
phemes i n speech to NSs
D & CC s e e H# ( 1 7 ) for t h e m orphemes c o u n t e d . Rank
order c o rre la tio n co efficien ts were calcu
lated for the s tr e n g th of a sso ciatio n betw een
the relativ e frequency order in speech to the
other NSs a n d K r a s h e n ' s "average o r d e r ," and
th is c o e f f i c i e n t com pared w ith t h a t o b t a i n e d
in th e an aly sis fo r H#(29).
D ata: all s p e e c h b y NSs o n t a s k s 1 through 6
90
S ta tistica l A nalysis
C hi-square tests were perform ed on those o f the
above com putations w hich r e s u l t e d in p ro p o rtio n a l relativ e
frequency d ata (hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 16, and 18). O ther
non-param etric tests, W ilc o x o n 's m atch ed -p air sig n ed -
ranks test for two r e l a t e d sam ples (S ieg el, 1956, pp.
75-83) and th e sig n test (S ieg el, 1956, pp. 68-75) were
em ployed for a ll other v a ria b le s. The m o re c o n v e r s a t i v o
non-param etric version o f c o rrelated t tests w ere chosen
due to : (1) the sm all sam ple-size; (2) the low o b s e r v e d
freq u en cies o n m an y m e a s u r e s , and (3) the non-norm al
(skewed) d istrib u tio n s on th o s e v ariab les. F u rth er, due
to the l a r g e num bers o f tests b e in g p e rfo rm e d on the same
corpus, and th e p ro b ab ility th at fiv e tests in one
h u n d re d w ould a t t a i n sta tistic a l sig n ifican ce at the .05
l e v e l by c h a n g e , a m ore s t r i n g e n t p r o b a b i l i t y lev el of
S .005 was s e t for re je c tio n of the n u ll hypothesis for
I th ese tests. Spearm an r a n k o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n c o efficien ts
w ere com puted f o r c o m p a riso n s o f the rank o rd ers of teh
relativ e freq u en cies of g r a m m a tic a l m orphem es in the
tests fo r h y p othesis 29 (29) and h y p o th e s is (30) . A
ty p e/erro r lev el of .05 was s e t for te s tin g th ese two
hypotheses sin ce th e m orphology d a ta b e in g exam ined had
n o t been used in p re v io u s an aly ses and so c o u l d be
co n sid ered independent.
91
In ter-rater reliab ility checks b e tw e e n two r a t e r s
at tim e one were co nducted f o r ea ch m easure em ployed in
the an aly ses. A ll o b tain e d co efficien ts w hich were
co n sid ered satisfacto ry , and w hich are reproduced in
T a b l e A.
92
Table A
In te r-ra te r R e lia b ility C o efficien ts for

M easures in th e A n a ly s is
M easure C o efficien t
1. P r e s e n t and n o n - p re s e n t tem p o ral

m arking o f v erb s -97
2. P ro p o rtio n s o f q u e stio n s, im p erativ es

and sta te m e n ts in T - u n its • "
3. P r o p o r t i o n s o f wh, y e s - n o , u n i n v e r t e d
i n to n a tio n and ta g q u e s tio n s in T - u n its -95
4. Number o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l fram es .92
5. Number o f c o n f i r m a t i o n checks .93
6. Number o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n c h e c k s .99
7. Number o f clarific a tio n requests .96
8. Number o f s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s .92
9. Number o f o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s .91
10. Number o f e x p a n s i o n s .94
11. Number o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l f r a m e s , c o n f i r
m atio n c h e ck s, com prehension c h e ck s,
c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s ts , s e l f - and
o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s , and e x p a n sio n s .99
12. Average length of T -u n it in words .95
13. A verage number o f S -n o d e s p e r T - u n i t .96
14. T ype-token r a t i o .98
15. F requency p e r m i l l i o n words o f nouns

and verbs 1.00
16. P ro p o rtio n s o f copulas and o t h e r v e rb s -98
17. R e la tiv e freq u en cies o f n in e gram m atical

morphemes
93
CHAPTEP 3
RESULTS
The r e s u l t s of th is study are presented in four
sectio n s, one each for the four general research q u estio n s.
For ease o f reference, all tab les h a v e b e e n num bered
acco rd in g to the h y p o th esis to w hich th e y rela te , w ith
lette r su b scrip ts u s e d w here m ore t h a n one tab le per
h y pothesis is required.
R esearch q u e s tio n (1): How d o NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r
actio n s d iffer in stru ctu re?
H# (1)
T able 1 shows raw frequencies and p e r c e n ta g e s of
p r e s e n t and n o n -p re se n t t e m p o r a l m a r k i n g o f v e r b s on
task 1, the spontaneous co n v ersatio n . P ro p o rtio n ately
m ore p r e s e n t t h a n n o n - p r e s e n t te m p o ra l m arking o f v erb s
was found i n NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n than i n NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n
( X1= 1 1 .5 8 , d f = 1, pC.001).
H# (2)
T ables 2a th ro u g h 2 f show frequencies and p e r
centages of q u estio n s, statem ents and im p e ra tiv e s in
T -u n its on t a s k s 1 through 6, resp ectiv ely . W ith the
number o f im peratives bein g zero o r alm o st i d e n t i c a l in
each c ase, th e r e w ere s i g n i f i c a n t l y more q u e s t i o n s than
94
Table 1
Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s of P r e s e n t and N o n -p re s e n t
Tem poral M arking o f V erbs i n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
In teractio n on T a s k 1
1
Present N on-present T otal
n % n % n %
'NS-NS (n=16) 245 6 8 . 06 115 31.94 3 60 100
NS-NNS (n=16) 26 4 79.76 67 20.24 331 10 0
i
j X 1 = 1 1 .5 8 , d f = 1, p < .001
i
95
Table 2a
Numbers and Proportions of Questions, Statements
and Imperatives in T-units on Task 1
1 Q S I T otal
i i
i ; n % n % n % n %
i i
‘NS-NS i 61 2 4 .30 190 75.70 0 0 251 100
! i
jNS-NNS I 121 4 7 .64 133 52.36 0 0 254 100
i i
i i
iQ uestions x S tatem en ts J? = 2 8 .8 2 , d f = 1, p < .001
i .. .
T able 2b
Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s of Q u estio n s, S tatem ents
and Im p erativ es in T -u n its on Task 2
Q S I T otal
n % n % n O.
"O n %
NS-NS 8 3.08 252 96.92 0 0 260 100
NS-NNS 20 5.2 3 30 1 9 3 . 77 0 0 32 1 100

1
i 1
1
^Q uestions x S tatem en ts = 2.47 , d f = 1 p y .10 , n . s .
i »
96
Table 2c
r 1 ----- -------1
Q S I T otal I
1
Q. Q.
n % n t> n O n % j
NS-NS 47 15.82 243 8 1 . 82 7 2 . 36 297 10 0 |

[ I
|n s - nns 68 16.67 3 12 76,47 28 6 . 86 408 100 !

i 1
i 1
i i
[Q uestions x S tatem ents x Im p erativ es = 7 .7 3 , d f = 2,

I
|p < . 0 2 5 , n .s.
T able 2d
Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u estio n s, S tatem ents
and Im p e r a tiv e s in T -u n its on Task 4
T oral
i n % n n n
NS-NS j 89 14.93 488 81.88 19 3.19 59 6 100

I
NS-NNS I 1 48 22.49 488 74.16 22 3.34 6 58 10 0
Q uestions x S tatem ents x Im p erativ es ■</• = 1 1 . 8 6 , d f = 2,1
p < .005
97
Table 2e
r ...............T
] Q S I T otal
| n % n % n Q.
"O n %
i
' j
!NS-NS 200 31.40 429 67.35 8 1.26 637 100 |
1NS-NNS 302 50.25 290 48.25 9 1.50 601 100 i

|
I
Q uestions x S tatem ents x Im p erativ es •xa = 5 0 . 8 6 ,
jdf = 2, p < .001

1
T able 2f
Numbers a nd P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q u estio n s, S tatem en ts
and Im p e rativ e s in T -u n its on Task 6
......... )
1 Q S I T otal j
1 ! n % n % n % n i
° !
i
!n s - ns ( 44 24.04 138 75.41 1 .55 183 io o :
'NS-NNS 69 30.40 155 68.28 3 1 . 32 227 100

!
1
’Q u e s t i o n s x S tatem ents X 2 = 2 .1 3 , df = 1, P > .1 0 / n • s •
i . 1
98
statem en ts em ployed i n NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n than in NS-NS
in teractio n on t a s k 1 ( X2= 2 8.82, d f = 1 , p <£ . 0 0 1 ) , on
task 4 ( X* = 1 1 .8 6 , df = 2, p < £ .0 0 5 ), a n d on t a s k 5 ( X* =
5 0 .6 8 , d f = 2, p 4 -001). The s a m e t e n d e n c y a p p e a r s on a l l
other task s, but differen ces do n o t a t t a i n sig n ifican ce
at th e .0 0 5 lev el. T able 2g s u m m a r i z e s resu lts across
all six task s. Q uestions are a g a i n m ore f a v o r e d than
statem en ts and i m p e r a t i v e s in the NNS c o n d i t i o n ( 2 9 .4 9 % )
com pared w ith the NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n (20.19%) ( %z = 6 2 . 1 2 ,
d f = 2, p .001) .
H# (3)
T ables 3a th r o u g h 3f show f r e q u e n c i e s and p e rc e n
tages of four q u estion-types in T -u n its on task s 1 through
6. For the purposes of the ch i-sq u are an aly ses, expected
cell-freq u en cies w ere less than fiv e for tag -q u estio n s on
task s 1, 5 and 6. O bserved freq u en cies for tags, th ere
fore, were com bined w ith those for other in teractio n
q u estio n s on th e s e tasks. E xpected freq u en cies for a ll
q u estio n -ty p es w ere too low t o p e r m i t c a l c u l a t i o n of
on task 2. E xpected freq u en cies f o r wh q u e s t i o n s were
too low o n t a s k 3, and no sta tistic w a s c o m p u t e d on
th at task sin ce no r a t i o n a l e co u ld be p ro v id e d for co l
l a p s i n g wh c e l l s w ith any o t h e r s . T he d i s t r i b u t i o n of
q u estio n -ty p es b e t w e e n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n did
not d iffe r sig n ifican tly on any o f th e in d iv id u al tasks.
99
Table 2g
and Imperatives in T-units on All Tasks
Q S I T o tal
n % n % n % n %
NS-NS 449 20.19 1740 78.24 35 1.57 2224 10 0
NS-NNS 723 29.49 1679 68.00 62 2.51 2469 10 0
Q uestions x S tatem ents x Im p erativ es = 6 2 .1 2 ,
d f = 2 , p <. .001.
100
O o
o
oo
LO
cn
«3
Eh
G
O CN
•^r
cn oo
■P
■H
(0
m
I
Eh *H
ja G N*
(0 •H CN
E-i
cn
a)
a,
>1 m
Eh
I
G
O
•H
•P
ui
m 00
3 00
O
vo
VO
i—I ro
101
o
i-H
00 O
CN
o o
o
CN m
O
LO
in
o o
o
CN
CN
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
o
CO
ID
00
iH
ro
C
O
O
tfl
•P
•rH 00 <Tv
CM CM
<V EH
iH
X) c O
(0 -rH CM
Eh
W
Q)
Cu CM
in
£I in
c
0
•H
4J
CO
<D oo
0 CM
a
00
rH
CN
1 03
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
o
i—{
ON 00
CO
CO
ro ro
w
<0 CN o
CN
G
0
r-
u: cn
-P
•rH r—
i
TJ G ro CN
ro 3
1
Eh
ja G O
(0 •H ro
eh
(fl
<U
a in
>1
Eh
I o
G CN
O
•H
4J
W
cu
a
VO
oo ro
in r^
CN ro
ro
CN in ro
104
o
rH
CN
O
ro
ON
in <T»
ro
in
y
w
tt3
c
0
o
cn in
-M
•rH
aj c ro
cn 3
1
<U Eh
rH in O'*
a c
(0 *H
Eh
cn
CD
cu
£
I CN
c in
0
•H
4J
cn
o
a
o
o CN
CN
cr>
CN
ro
105
o
rH
<T*
vo
LO
co
X
CO
ro in
Eh in
o
C
0
ro
CO in
-p
•H CN
4-1 c CN CN
ro 3
1
Eh
•H
J3 C O 00
<0 ■H rH
Eh
CO
(U
Qj in 00
in in
£?
I cn
c CN
o
■H
-P
CO
0) ro co
3 CN
a
oo
ro
<*p
^o kO
ro
CN
ro
106
T able 3g show s t h a t the d istrib u tio n of
q u estio n -ty p es did d i f f e r sig n ifican tly across a ll six
task s com bined (7-4' = 1 6 .7 7 , df =3 , p < . 0 1 ) . C ontrary to the
p red ictio n in H #(3), how ever, exam ination of the percen
tages in 3g s h o w s t h a t , w hile p ro p o rtio n s of yes-no,
in to n atio n a n d t a g q u e s t i o n s was v e r y s i m i l a r in both NS
a n d NNS c o n d i t i o n s , Wh (not yes-no) q u estio n s w ere p r o
p o r t i o n a t e l y m ore f r e q u e n t i n NS-NNS (24.30%) t h a n NS-NS
in teractio n (14.70% ).
T able 3g
Q uestion-T ypes in T -u n its on A ll Tasks
Q uestion-T ype
WH yes-no Inton. Tag T otal
n % n % n % ««
n Q-
o n %
NS-NS 66 14.70 214 47.66 137 30.51 32 7.13 449 100
NS-NNS 177 24.30 313 43.00 202 27.75 36 4.95 728 100
WH x Y e s - N o x I n t o n . x Tag
= 1 6.77, d f = 3, p .001
107
H# (4)
T able 4 shows f r e q u e n c i e s , means, and r e s u l t s of
ap p licatio n of th e W ilcoxon m a tc h e d - p a ir s sig n ed -ran k s
test for two r e l a t e d sam ples (henceforth, W) fo r conver
satio n al fram es o c c u rr in g in NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n
on ta s k s 1 through 6, and on a l l task s com bined. The n o n
sig n ifican t W s ta tis tic s show t h a t in each c ase, NSs em
ployed in sig n ifican tly d i f f e r e n t num bers o f co n v ersatio n al
fram es in the two c o n d i t i o n s .
H# (5)
T able 5 shows freq u en cies, m eans, and W s t a t i s t i c s
f o r num bers o f c o n f ir m a tio n c h e c k s on t a s k s 1 through 6,
a n d on a l l task s. NSs u s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m ore c o n v e r s a t i o n
c h e c k s w i t h NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs o n t a s k s 4 and 5, and
on a l l tasks com bined, a ll beyond the .005 lev el of s ig n if
icance. Dashes i n these and su b seq u e n t t a b l e s in d icate
an i n s u f f i c i e n t r e d e f in e d N fo r ap p licatio n o f W.
H# ( 6)
T able 6 shows freq u en cies, means, and W s t a t i s t i c s
f o r num bers o f c o m p re h e n s io n c h e c k s on t a s k s 1 through 6,
and on a l l tasks. NSs u s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m ore com pre
h en sio n checks w ith NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs o n t a s k 4
(p < .0 0 5 ), and on a l l task s com bined (p < .0 0 5 ).
H# (7)
T able 7 shows f r e q u e n c i e s , m eans, and W s t a t i s t i c s
f o r num bers o f clarific a tio n requests on t a s k s 1 through
108
o
•H
in
oo co
in •
vo CM 0 )
r-H
in
CO
in
in
VO cm CO
in
CP cm
D VO
O CM
in
JO VO
CO CM
-P
CO
to in o
in •
to CM CO
<3 LO in in
Eh co in
co
C CO r-!
0 *
co
to 03 CO
VO
CO
r-H
0) E-»
E
(0 m •
p
T a b le
cm w
Cm in o •
C
(0 O rH
c
0 'O o CO
•H c
cn <J\
4J
03
W m •
CM(0
0) CO CO
o o •
> in
c
0
u
4-1 oo
o
co in •
<n w
Q> r-f o •
CO
CO CM
3 CM
53
LO
00
o in in •
cm co
co
CM
CO CO
CM
10 9
ro
oo
co
in •
o cn
in o
o
o in
10
vo
o oo
vo
in rH in *
o co
o o •
o
cn
vo in •
rH O CO
ro
o ro
rH
in
oo
cn in
oo
ro
VO o
o
CN
V
CN
<4 -1
ftS z
110
in
O H
^ 00
IX rH in
o
rH .—* o
<0 Id <H O tn in •
-P II in O'*
0 c H V
E-i co
C CN O
rH
*£> ^
IX o
• •
kC o o
rH
Id II l l I
c
•W'
C rH
IX r- in •
o oo CN U3
in # • O •
i—i o o
n
in ||
C V
—- ro
c rH rH
tn
IX O CN
-—» • m •
id ro o in
iH CN O O •
^ II i—1 • c
c
CN V
G o tn
o in
IX O <T\
% • * in •
ID rH rH cn in
i—1 o o •
m || O r-l CN . C
CN
C
V
rH
c rH CO
m kd
!X CN CN
«—N • •
o o
rH
CN 1! rH O 1 1 1
C in
* a
C ro ro
IX <Ts ro
rH rH
• «
rH o o
__i II 1 ! 1
C>’
*w
c ro cn T3
0)
C
cn •H
cn z CM
z z Q)
C/3 i i t3
rd cn cn <D
Eh z z IX 2 E-c Qj
Ill
ro in
oo ro
in
O'!
O
pH
o
to
in O O
3
O
}-l
s: ro ro
4J
in
U1 CN o
X in o
cn ro
ctJ in
ro
C ro
O
tn cn
•p as \D oo
cn £h O CO
r" <D O
rH
0) D1
i—I <V
Si (X
itj C rH
Ei C o
O
•H xs
■p c O
a flj
0 O
■H
M-4 ro
•H
P
(0
rH
u
M-t
0
o
tn
s-t CN
<u
1O O o
2
in .
cn cn
o •
V
a; 2
112
6, and on all tasks. NSs used significantly more
clarification requests with NNSs than with other NSs on
task 5 (p < .005) , and on all tasks combined (p < .005) .
H# (8)
T able 8 shows freq u en cies, m eans, and W s t a t i s t i c s
f o r num bers o f s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s on t a s k s 1 through 6, and
on a l l tasks. NSs u s e d sig n ifican tly m ore s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s
w i t h NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs o n t a s k s 3, 4, 5, and 6,
and on a l l task s com bined ( p < ^00 5) i n a ll cases
H# (9)
Table 9 shows freq u en cies, m eans, and W s t a t i s t i c s
f o r num bers o f o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s on ta s k s 1 through 6,
a n d on a l l tasks. NSs used s i g n i f i c a n t l y m ore o t h e r -
rep etitio n s w ith NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs o n t a s k 4 (p<
.0 0 5 ), and on a l l task s com bined (p< .0 0 5 ).
H# (10 )
T able 10 s h o w s f r e q u e n c i e s , means, and W s t a t i s t i c s
f o r num bers o f e x p a n s io n s on t a s k s 1 through 6, a n d on a l l
tasks. NSs u s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m ore e x p a n s i o n s w i t h NNSs
t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs o n task 5 (p < . 0 0 5 ) , and on a l l tasks
com bined (p < . 0 0 5 ) .
H# (11)
T able 11 s h o w s freq u en cies, m eans, and W s t a t i s t i c s
f o r num bers o f co n v ersatio n al fram es, co n firm atio n checks,
com prehension c h e ck s, clarific a tio n requests, self- and
o th er-rep etitio n s, and e x p a n sio n s on t a s k s 1 through 6,
113
<y>
in
in
o
io o
00 rH
in
ro in
CM
o>
ro iH
CM
VO in o
£
O' in
p ro
o
u
5 ro
cm ro in
rH
o
cn in
x
cn
G
Eh CO
C cn
O <a ro
cn in
in
00 cn o ro o
G in CM
0) 0
iH •H
JO 4J in oo
<0 c in
Eh o
0)
04 in co
0) c ro
(X ctJ in
1 o o
o o
r—I
0 ro CM
cn oo
■w
o
cn o
u in
in •
0 o cm cn
o o -
00 CM
ro
o
rH cn
in a>
rH
« Z
114
vo in
LO
in
in
o
oo rH
rH m in •
CM 0)
o
in
CN in
m in •
00 00
CN U)
o
CJ\ /s
CN
00
00
in
pH a\ o
00
CN
00
o
ro
<y>
rr
CN
oo
o
CN
00
in CM c/3
o o o •
CO
ro
•H
115
CO
O LO
in
rH O
ro
o
o
in
oo
o
LO
o
LO CO o
o
o in
o CO
o CN
O
ro
<T\
CO
00
o
o
<N
ro
rH
o CN
OS z
116
CD
■o
O
Q_
Q.
T able 11
Numbers o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l Fram es, C o n firm atio n C h e c k s , C om prehension
Checks, C la r if ic a tio n R eq u ests, S e lf- and O th e r R e p e t i t i o n s ,
and E xpansions on T asks 1 through 6 a n d On A l l Tasks
Task 1 2 3 4 5 6 T o tal
(n=16)_ (n=14) (n=16) (n=16) (n=15) (n=16) (n=6)
n x n x n x n x n x n x n x
NS-NS 43 2.69 27 .7 0 1.98 191 .22 1 1 .9 5 121 7.56 215 1 4 .3 3 47 2.94 644.92 107.4 9
NS-NNS 31 5.06 26.69 1.91 25 4 .4 4 1 5 . 4 4 301 18.81 424 2.8.27 84 5.25 1171.13 195.19
R edefined
N 16 11 16 16 15 15 16
T 35. 5 23 44 0 3.5 21 5
P > .0 2 5 > .025 > .025 < .005 < .005 < . 025 < .005
n. s . n. s . n .s . n .s .
and on a l l tasks. NSs u s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m ore o f t h e s e
d e v i c e s w i t h NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs o n t a s k s 4 (p K . 0 0 5 )
and 5 (p < . 0 0 5 ) , and on a l l task s com bined (p < .0 0 5 ).
R esearch q u e s tio n (2): How d o a n y d i f f e r e n c e s betw een
lin g u istic in p u t to the NNSs?
H # (12)
T able 12 s h o w s the average length of T -u n its in
w ords on t a s k s 1 through 6, and on a l l t a s k s , and W
sta tistic s fo r these v alu es. NSs u s e d sig n ifican tly
sh o rter T - u n i t s w i t h NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs o n t a s k 1
(p 4 . 0 0 5 ) , a n d o n a l l task s com bined (p< .0 0 5 ). A lthough
differences in the sa me d i r e c t i o n w e re o b s e r v e d on t a s k s
2 through 6 in t h e NNS c o n d i t i o n , none o f the difference
on th o se task s attain ed sta tistic a l sig n ifican ce at
the .005 lev el.
H # ( 1 3)
T able 13 shows the average number o f S -n o d e s p e r
T - u n i t on t a s k s 1 through 6, and on a l l tasks, and W
statistics for these v alu es. As m e a s u r e d b y S-nodes p e r
T -u n it, sy n tactic c o m p le x ity was lo w e r on t a s k s 1 through
5, and on a l l tasks com bined i n t h e NNS c o n d i t i o n , but
these differen ces failed to reach sig n ifican ce at the .005
lev el. Speech t o NNSs w a s s l i g h t l y m ore c o m p le x on t a s k
5, b u t a g a i n n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y so.
118
vo
ro
in
oo o
vo o o
cH CM
CM
CN
O
o in .
cn tn
vo a> o •
VO rH • c
ro A
oo
tn
co m •
cn cn
in o •
in CM • G
oo A
vo
oo m •
o CN 03
o .
• G
CO A
tn
vo
tn in •
' N cn
00 VO tn o •
ro in • c
A
o
•^r
o
in •
cn cn
r*" o •
cm • c
o A
vo
CN
ro
in
co o
in o o
r-i
in
cn
T3
0)
C
•H
4-1
0)
"d
0)
« z
119
tn •
CN U1
00 o •
o\ CN
vo
ro
CN
10
in
-C co
Cn
3 vo
o rH
P CO
X CO
■P
tn 00
* (N rH tn in •
tn CN (fl
to in
eh in co
n-
c CO
vo
0
tn
-u
•H in
c to
m 3 Eh in
ro CN in .
c n cn
o o •
rH
< 00
XI <v in
S3, c vo
Eri o
tn
<u TJ
TD a co
0 03 in in •
c cn cn
1 rH o •
cn
00
ip o
o
P
0)
o
00 in in .
3 (N cn
2 ro o •
<U
Cn vo CN
tC CN 00
u
<D
>
<
ro in
<N cn
o •
rH CO
m
CN
« Z
120
H # (14)
T able 14 s h o w s m ea n t y p e - t o k e n ratio s f o r NS
speech on ta s k s 1 and 2, and on th e s e two t a s k s com bined,
w ith W s t a t i s t i c s fo r th ese v alu es. TTRs i n the NNS
c o n d i t i o n w ere low er on t a s k s 1 and 2, and on b o t h task s
com bined, but not sig n ifican tly so at the .005 lev el.
H# ( 1 5 )
T able 15 s h o w s m e a n l e x i c a l frequency values for
nouns and v erb s on t a s k s 1, 2 and 6, and on a l l task s
and * v alu es fo r the sig n te s t of d ifferen ces betw een
the raw s c o r e s in the two i n t e r a c t i o n co n d itio n s. There
w e re no d i f f e r e n c e s in the lex ical frequency v alu es o f
nouns o r verbs em ployes i n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n
sig n ifican t at the .005 lev el.
H# ( 1 6 )
T able 16 s h o w s t h e num bers and p r o p o r tio n s of verbs
and c o p u la s on ta s k 1, the spontaneous co n v ersatio n . The
p ro p o rtio n o f copulas to the o th e r verbs i n NS-NNS i n t e r
actio n , w hile higher than th at in the NS c o n d i t i o n , w a s
not sig n ifican tly so ( X-i = 3 . 2 8 , d f = 1, p > . 0 5 n.s.).
H# ( 1 7 )
T able 17 s h o w s t h e rank o rd e rs of the relativ e
f r e q u e n c i e s o f n i n e g r a m m a t ic a l m orphem es i n NS s p e e c h
t o NS a n d NNS i n t e r l o c u t o r s on t a s k s 1 and 6. The
Spearm an ra n k o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n c o efficien t of .97 shows
that the relativ e frequency o rd e rs are h ig h ly sig n ifican tly
121
Table 14
Type-Token R a tio s f o r NS S p e e c h
on Tasks 1, 2, and 1 & 2
Task 1 (n=8) 2 (n=8) 1 & 2 (n=8)
NS-NS x = 72.75 x = 70.50 x = 71.63
NS-NNS x = 66.25 x = 64.25 x = 65.25
R edefined
N 7 8 8
T 7 8 4.5
P > . 025 >.025 >.025

n. s . n. s . n .s .
122
CD
■o
3
Q.
C
Table 15
L e x ic a l Frequency o f Nouns and V erbs on T a sk s 1, 2 and 6
a n d On A l l Tasks
Task 1 2 6 1, 2 & 6
nouns verbs nouns verbs nouns verbs nouns verbs
NS-NS 55=475.60 55=3601.61 55=279.26 55=4309.36 55=446.92 55=2911.91 55=426.68 55=3886.91
NS-NNS 35= 2 21 .5 1 x=3199.50 55=3-87.67 35=6170.45 35=532.10 55= 3958.98 jf=313.76 se=4192.96
R edefined
N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
7 6 5 1 3 1 6 3
P .996 .965 . 855 . 0 35 . 365 .035 .965 . 36 3

Table 16
Numbers and Proportions of Verbs and
Copulas on Task 1
V erbs C opulas T otal
n % n o.
'o n %
NS-NS
(n=16) 89 47.59 98 52.41 187 100
NS-NNS
(n=16) 61 37.42 1 02 62.58 163 10 0
Xz = 2. 2 8 , a j_ — JL, • 1/^ ; n. s .
124
CD
■o
O
Q.
Q.
T able 17
Rank O r d e r s o f R e l a t i v e F requencies o f N ine G ra m m a tic al M orphemes
in S p e e c h b y NSs t o O t h e r NSs a n d To NSSs o n T a s k s 1 and 6
NS-NS i n p u t f r e q u e n c y order MS-NSS i n p u t frequency order
Rank Morpheme Frequency Rank Morpheme Frequency
1 cop 18 1 1 cop 205
2 art 165 2 art 140
plu 12 1 3 ing 99
4 ing 57 4 plu 94
5 .5 aux 52 5 aux 92
5.5 i . ps t 52 6 3 sin g 34
7 3 s ing 34 7 i . pst 25
8 r . pst 20 8 r . pst 22
9 poss 4 9 poss 4
rs — *97 p < .001

co rrelated (p<C . 0 0 1 ) .
R esearch q u e s tio n (3): Are a n s w e rs to q u estio n ? (1) and
(3) related to the purpose o f the in teractio n ? For
exam ple, is th ere an e f f e c t for task type?
H# ( 1 8 )
T ables 1 8 a a n d 18b show t h e freq u en cies and p e r
cen tag es o f q u e s tio n s , statem en ts and im p e r a tiv e in T -u n it
on ta s k s 1, 4 and 5 com pared w ith 2, 3 and 6, resp ectiv ely .
It can be seen th at the d istrib u tio n o f the three types
o f u tteran ce d iffered sig n ifican tly in NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
in teractio n on th e two g r o u p s o f task s, w ith the difference
b e t w e e n t h e NS a n d NNS c o n d i t i o n s b ein g g r e a t e r on t a s k s
1, 4 and 5 ( X 2, = 7 2 . 04 , d f = 2 , p < .001) than, on t a s k s 2,
3 and 6 ( = 1 1 .7 9 , d f = 2, p < .0 0 5 ). E xam ination o f the
d ata in 18 a a n d 18b show s t h a t i m p e r a t i v e s were relativ ely
infrequent across a ll task s in both co n d itio n s and t h a t
NSs in both c o n d itio n s used a c o n s id e ra b ly higher p ro
p o rtio n of statem en ts than q u e s tio n on b o th groups of
tasks (betw een 60% a n d 8 6 % ) , but th a t p ro p o rtio n ately more
q u e s tio n s w ere used in NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n on t a s k s 1, 4
and 5 (37.74%) com pared w ith NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n on t h e same
task s (23.59% ) and compared w ith the p ro p o rtio n of ques
tio n s used in NS a n d NNS c o n d i t i o n s on th e second group
of task s (13.78% a n d 1 6 .48% , resp ectiv ely ).
126
o
ro
00
m
r- i
*0
G
rd
tn
CN in
G 00
CN
CD
•P
rd in
■P
CO id
% C
rd
cn CN ro
C rr O
0
•rH
•P rH
cn
id CD cn CN
CO p
rH a cn O
<d o\o l£>
CO Cp Eh
0
a c
a cn o
Eh c
0 cn
'H CD
-P >
P •rH
0 •P
a, id
0 p
p a)
G. a. •H
e
TS r-H ro
C CN ro
f0
cn
p
o
_Q
| in
ro in
2
127
CD
"O -5
o
a.
Q.
I
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T able 18b
Num bers and P r o p o r t i o n s o f Q uestions, S tatem en ts and
Im peratives on T a s k s 2, 3 and 6
Q S I T otal
n % n % n % n %
NS-NS 99 1 3 . 38 633 85.54 8 1.08 74 0 100
NS-NNS 157 16.42 768 8 0 . 34 31 3.24 956 100
Q uestions x statem en ts x im p erativ es 1 1 .7 9 , d f = 2, p < .005

H# (19)
T able 19 s h o w s t h e relativ e frequency of occurrence
of co n v ersatio n al fram es in the tw o c o n d i t i o n s on t a s k s
1, 4 and 5, and 2, 3 and 6. In t h i s case, t h e r e was no
d ifference b e t w e e n NS a n d NNS c o n d i t ! o : u s in the frequency
of fram es on th e two s e t s of task s, a s i n d i c a t e d by t h e
n o n - s ig n if ic a n t v alu es o f the W s t a t i s t i c .
H# ( 2 0 )
T able 20 s h o w s the relativ e frequency o f o ccu rren ce
o f c o n firm a tio n checks in the two c o n d i t i o n s on t a s k s 1,
4 and 5, and 2, 3 and 6. The d i f f e r e n c e betw een the NS
a n d NNS c o n d i t i o n s in the relativ e f r e q u e n c y o f NS u s e o f
co n firm atio n c h e c k s was g r e a t e r on th e first s e t of task s
than on th e second, a s shown by t h e sig n ific a n ce lev els
of th e resp ectiv e W s ta t is t ic s , a sig n ific a n t p lev el of
.005 on 1, 4 and 5, and a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t .0 1 on t a s k s
2, 3 a n d 6.
H# ( 2 1 )
T able 21 s h o w s the relativ e frequency o f occurrence
o f com prehension checks in the two c o n d i t i o n s on t a s k s 1,
4 and 5, and 2, 3 and 6. The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the NS
a n d NNS c o n d i t i o n s in the relativ e frequency o f occurrence
of com prehension c h e c k s was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t on
tasks 1, 4 and 5 (p < .0 0 5 ), but not so (p > .0 2 5 ) on t h e
second s e t of tasks, w i t h m ore checks being used w ith
NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs in each case.
129
Table 19
Numbers of Conversational Frames on Tasks 1,
4 a^d 5 Compared with Tasks 2, 3 and 6
Tasks 1, 4 & 5 2, 3 & 6 T otal

(n=16) (n=16) (n=6)
n x n x n
NS-NS 277 17.31 233.59 14.60 510.59
NS-NNS 262 1 6 .3 8 223.97 14.00 435.97
R edefined
N 15 16
T 62 71
P ? .025 > .025

n .s. n .s.
130
Table 20
Numbers of Confirmation Checks on Tasks 1,
4 and 5 Compared with Tasks 2, 3 and 6
Tasks 1, 4 & 5 2, 3 & 6 T otal

(n=16)_ (n=16;_ ( n =6 )
n x n x n
NS-NS 23 1 .4 4 0 0 23
NS-NNS 12 4 7.75 14.54 0.85 138.54 !
R edefined
N 16 7
T 0 0
i
P < .005 < .01
n .s.
13 1
Table 21
Numbers of Comprehension Checks on Tasks 1,
Tasks 1, 4 & 5 2, 3 & 6 T otal

(n=16) (n=16) (n=6)
n x n x n
NS-NS 4 0.25 20.51 1.28 24.51
NS-NNS 67 4.19 41.90 2.62 108.90
R edefined
N 14 15
T 0 33
P < .005 >.025

n .s.
L_.
1 32
H # (22)
T able 22 s h o w s the relativ e frequency of occurrence
of clarificatio n requests in the two c o n d i t i o n s on ta s k s
1, 4 and 5, and 2, 3 and 6. The d i f f e r e n c e betw een the NS
a n d NNS c o n d i t i o n s in the relativ e frequency of occurrence
of c la rific a tio n requests was s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ifican t
(p < . 0 0 5 ) on t a s k s 1, 4 and 5 , w i t h m ore c h e c k s b ein g used
w ith NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs, b u t n o t so (p > . 0 2 5 ) on
the second set of tasks.
H# ( 2 3 )
T able 23 s h o w s the relativ e frequency of occurrence
of self-rep etitio n s in the two c o n d i t i o n s on t a s k s 1, 4
and 5, and 2, 3 and 5. C ontrary to the p red ictio n in
hypothesis (23), th e d i f f e r e n c e betw een the NS a n d NNS
co n d itio n s in the relativ e frequency of occurrence of self
rep etitio n s was s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ifican t at the same
level (p < .005) in both cases, w ith more s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s
b e in g used w ith NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs.
H # (24)
T able 24 s h o w s the relativ e frequency o f occurrence
of o th er-rep etitio n s in the two c o n d i t i o n s on t a s k s 1, 4
and 5, and 2, 3 and 6. The d i f f e r e n c e betw een the NS
a n d NNS c o n d i t i o n s in the relativ e frequency of occurrence
of o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s was sta tistic a lly sig n ifican t (p < .005)
on tasks 1, 4 a nd 5, w i t h m ore o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s bein g used
w i t h NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs, b u t n o t so (p > . 0 2 5 ) on th e
13 3
Table 22
Numbers of Clarification Requests on Tasks 1,
Tasks 1, 4 and 5 2, 3 and 6 T otal

(n=16) (n=16) (n =6 )
n x n x n
NS-NS 8 0.50 3 0.19 11
NS-NNS 57 3.56 5.09 0.32 62.09
R edefined
N 14 7
T 0 11
P < .005 > .025

n .s.
- -
134
Table 23
Numbers of Self-Repetitions on Tasks 1,
Tasks 1, 4 & 5 2, 3 & 6 T otal

(n=16)_ (n=16)_ (n=6)
n x n x n
NS-NS 29 1.81 6.81 0.43 3 5 . 81
NS-NNS 187 11.69 64.14 4.01 251.14
R edefined
N 16 16
M
.L 1.5 5
P < .005 < .005
135
Table 24
Numbers of Other-Repetitions on Tasks 1,
Task 1, 4 & 5 2, 3 & 6 T otal

(n=16) ( n = 16) (n=6)
n x n x n
NS-NS 38 2.38 2 0 .13 40
NS-NNS 82 5.13 8.55 0 .5 3 90.55
R edefined
N 13 7
T 9 5
P < .005 > .025

n .s .
136
second set of tasks.
H # (25)
Table 25 s h o w s th e relativ e frequency o f occurrence
o f expansions in the two c o n d i t i o n s on t a s k s 1, 4 and 5,
and 2, 3 and 6. The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the NS a n d NNS
co n d itio n s in the relativ e frequency o f o ccu rren ce of
o th er-rep etitio n s was s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ifican t (p < .0 0 5 )
on ta s k s 1, 4 an d 5 , w i t h more e x p a n s i o n s b ein g used w ith
NNSs t h a n w i t h o t h e r NSs. The r e d e f i n e d N of 5 was too
sm all t o m ake a p p l i c a t i o n of W p o ssib le.
H# (2 6)
Table 26 s h o w s the r e l a t i v e frequency of occurrence
of a ll d ev ices (co n v ersatio n al fram es, co n firm atio n checks,
o th er-rep etitio n s, and e x p a n s io n s ), observed in h y p o th esis
(19) through h y p o th e s is (25) com bined i n the two c o n d i t i o n s
on t a s k s 1, 4 and 5, and 2, 3 and 6. The d i f f e r e n c e be
t w e e n t h e NS a n d NNS c o n d i t i o n s in the relativ e frequency
o f occurrence of these d e v i c e s was sta tistic a lly sig n ifi
c a n t , w i t h m ore d e v i c e s being used w ith NNSs t h a n w i t h
o t h e r NSs, b u t n o t s o ( p > .025) on t h e second s e t of
tasks.
H # (27)
Table 27 s h o w s the average length of T -u n its in
words i n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n on t a s k s 1, 4 and
5, and 2, 3 and 6. W hile the d ifference in the average
length of T -u n its i n w o r d s b e t w e e n NS a n d NNS i n t e r a c t i o n ,
137
Table 25
Numbers of Expansion on Tasks 1,
4 an d 5 Com pared w i t h Tasks 2, 3 and 6
Task 1, 4 & 5 2, 3 & 6 T o tal

(n= 16) ( n= 1 6 ) (n=6)
n x n X n
NS-NS 0 0 0 0 0
NS-NNS 27 1.69 7.95 0.50 34.95
R edefined
N 10 5
T 0 0
P < .005 -
_
13 8
Table 26
Numbers o f C o n v e r s a t i o n a l Fram es, C onfirm ation
Checks, C om prehension C h eck s, C larificatio n
R equests, S elf- and O t h e r - R e p e t i t i o n , and E xp an sio n s
On T a s k s 1, 4 and 5 Compared w i t h Tasks 2, 3 and 6
Tasks 1, 4 & 5 2, 3 & 6 . T otal

(n=16)_ (n=16) (n=6)
n x n X n
NS-NS 379 23.69 265.92 1 6 . 62 644.92
NS-NNS 806 50.38 365.13 2 2 . 82 1171.13
R edefined
N 16 16
T 0 36
P < .005 > .025

n .s.
1 39
Table 27
Average Length of T-units in Words on
Tasks 1, 4 and 5 Compared with Tasks 2, 3 and 6
Task 1, 4 and 5 2, 3 and 6
NS-NS x = 7.51 x = 9.94
NS-NNS x = 6.82 x = 8.70
R edefined
N 16 16
T 25 34
P < .025 > .025

n.s . n.s .
L ..
140
as p r e d i c t e d , was g r e a t e r on t a s k s 1, 4 and 5 ( p < .025)
t h a n on t a s k s 2, 3 and 6 ( p > . 0 2 5 ) , w ith s h o rte r T -u n its
bein g u s e d w i t h NNSs t h a n w i t h o th er NSs, the d ifference
on n e i t h e r sets of task s a tta in e d sig n ifican ce at the
.005 lev el.
H# ( 2 8 )
T able 28 s h o w s the average number o f S-nodes p e r
T -un.it i n the two i n t e r a c t i o n co n d itio n s on t a s k s 1, 4
and 5, and 2, 3 a n d 6. W hile the d ifferen ce in the
average s y n ta c tic com plexity o f T -u n its betw een the NS
a n d NNS r e n d i t i o n s , as p re d ic te d , was g r e a t e r on t a s k s
1, 4 and 5 (p ^ .O l) th a n on tasks 2, 3 and 6 (p < . 0 2 5 ) ,
th e d ifferen ce on n e i t h e r set of tables attain ed sig n ifi
cance a t the .00 5 l e v e l .
R esearch q u e stio n (4): Can a r e l a t i o n s h i p be shown b e
tw een any d i f f e r e n c e s in the relativ e frequencies
o f form s in the lin g u istic in p u t t o NSs a n d NNSs a n d
th e o r d e r i n w hich those form s a p p e a r accu rately
su p p lied in o b lig ato ry co n tex ts in t h e s p e e c h o f SL
acq u irers?
H# ( 2 9 )
T able 29 s h o w s the Spearm an ra n k order c o rre la tio n
c o e f f i c i e n t betw een K ra s h e n 's "average order" and the
rank o rd er of r e l a ti v e frequency o f the same morphemes
in NS s p e e c h to NNSs o n t a s k s 1 and 6 com bined. The
co efficien t ( ft; = .77) a ttain ed sig n ifican ce at the
141
Table 28
A v e r a g e Number o f S - n o d e s p e r T - u n i t on
Tasks 1, 4 an d 5 Com pared w i t h Tasks 2, 3 and 6
Task 1, 4 and 5 2, 3 and 6
NS-NS x = 1.35 x = 1 .9 1
NS-NNS x = 1.25 x = 1.69
R edefined
N 16 16
T 23. 5 25. 5
P < .01 < .025
142
Table 29
C o rrelatio n B e t w e e n NNS I n p u t Frequency
Rank O r d e r o n T a s k s 1 & 6 Combined and
K ra s h e n 's "A verage O rd er" f o r Nine
G r a m m a ti c a l M orphemes
K ra s h e n 's NNS I n p u t
"A verage O rder" Frequency O rder Frequency
1. prog, -in g 1. copula 205
2. p lu ral 2. article 140
3. copula 3. prog, -in g 99
4. aux 4. p lu ral 94
5. article 5. aux 92
6, irreg. past 6. 3rd p . sin g . 34
7. reg. past 7. irreg . past 25
8. 3rd p. sin g . 8. reg. past 22
9. p o ssessive 9. possessive 4
< .05
II
143
.05 level.
H# ( 3 0 )
Table 30 s h o w s the Spearm an ran k order co rrelatio n
co efficien ts betw een K ra s h e n 's "average order" and the NNS
input relativ e frequency order, and betw een the "average
order" and th e NNS i n p u t relativ e frequency order. The
co efficien ts were id en tical ( Y~s = . 7 7 , p < .0 5 ).
144
T able 30
R elativ e F requencies o f Nine G r a m m a t i c a l Morphemes in
NS-NS a n d NS-NNS C o n v e r s a t i o n
K r a s h e n 's (1977) NS-NS i n p u t NS-NNS i n p u t

"A verage O rd e r" frequency o rd er frequency o rd er
(n=16) (n=16)
1. prog, -in g 1. co p u la 181 1. copula 205
2. p lu ral 2. article 165 2. article 14 0
3. copula 3. p lu ral 121 3. prog, -in g 99
4. aux. 4. prog, -in g 57 4. p lu ral 94
5. article 5 .5 aux. 52 5. aux. 92
6: irreg . past 5.5 irreg . past 52 6. 3rd p. sin g . 34
7. reg. past 7. 3rd p. sin g . 34 7. irreg . past 25
8. 3rd p. sin g . 8. reg. past 20 8. rag. past 22
9. p o ssessive 9. p o ssessive 4 9. p ossessive 4
T otal 68 6 T otal 71 5
K rashen' s NS-NS i n p u t NS-NNS i n p u t

"average ord er" frequency o rd er frequency o rd er
. 7 7* . 7 7* *o < . 0 5
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
In keeping w ith the p reced en t s e t in e arlier chap
ters, r e s u lts w ill be d isc u sse d in term s o f the f o u r general
r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s w hich m o tiv a te d the stu d y .
R esearch q u e s tio n (1): How d o NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r
a ctio n d iffer in stru c tu re ?
The r e s u l t s obtained in th is stu d y w ere generally
c o n s is te n t w ith the hypotheses form ulated to address
R esearch Q uestion (1). I t was p r e d i c t e d th at NS-NS a n d
NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n w o u l d d i f f e r , a n d w o u l d do s o in
e le v e n ways. Nine o f the hypotheses found s u p p o r t in
the data; two d i d n o t .
H ypothesis (1) p red icted t h a t NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n
w o u ld b e more o r i e n t e d to the "now" o f t h e "here a n d now"
of caretak er-ch ild in te ra c tio n in first language acq u isi
tio n . T h is h y p o t h e s i s was tested on o n ly one ta s k , sp o n
taneous con v ersatio n (task 1), w here l e a s t c o n t r o l was
e x e r t e d by th e r e s e a r c h e r on th e content of the in teractio n .
I t was found t h a t , as m easu red by p r o p o r t i o n s of present
versus non-present tem p o ral m arking of verbs, NS-NNS
i n t e r a c t i o n was focused s ig n if ic a n tly more on t h e speakers'
im m ed iate c o n c e rn s t h a n w a s NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n (p< .0 0 1 ).
146
A previous test of th is h y pothesis u sin g th e same m easu re
on a r r a n g e d c o n v e rs a tio n s betw een s tr a n g e r s (Long, in press)
found th e same d i r e c t i o n of d ifference, but not at a
sta tistic a lly sig n ifican t lev el (p > .1 0 ). The e a r l i e r
stu d y used a n o n -d ire c tio n a l (2 -tailed ) test, b u t had a
la rg e r N -size (36 d y a d s ) and a l a r g e r number o f tem p o rally
m arked v e rb s in th e corpus an aly zed , the last tw o facto rs
b e in g o n es w hich sho u ld , if an y th in g , have favored a
sig n ifican t fin d in g then rath er than now. At l e a s t , two
p o ssib le explan atio n s e x ist for the discrepancy. F irst,
what is talk ed a b o u t may, in g en eral, be a h ig h ly v ariab le
feature o f NS-NS a n d NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n of th is kind.
Second, sp ontaneous co n v ersatio n may v a r y over tim e in
th is regard, fo r w hile the first stu d y looked a t the first
f iv e m inutes o f m eetin g s betw een s t r a n g e r s , data for the
v ariab le in th is stu d y w ere tak en from the second and
th ird m inute of the en co u n ters. F u rth er research w ill
clarify th is issue. M eanw hile, d esp ite the fact th at,
u n lik e young c h ild re n , a d u l t NNSs s u f f e r no c o g n i t i v e
lim itatio n s on t h e i r a b ility to discuss tem p o rally d is
placed m a tte rs, both stu d ies so far are co n sisten t in
show ing a te n d e n c y f o r NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n to r e l a t e more
to present concerns of the sp e a k e rs, or at least to to p ics
w hich can be talk ed about usin g verbs marked te m p o r a lly
for p resen t. T his sh o u ld , in turn, tend to increase the
relativ e frequency o f g ra m m a tic a l m orphology related to
1 47
present tim e (3rd person-sO and d e c re a s e the frequency of
"non-present" m orphology ( r e g u l a r and i r r e g u l a r p a s t) in
the lin g u istic in p u t to acq u irers of E n glish as a second
language.
H ypothesis (2 ) p red icted a relativ ely higher
frequency o f q u e stio n s than sta te m e n ts o r im p erativ es in
NNS t h a n i n NS i n t e r a c t i o n . E xam ination o f the C hi-square
sta tistic s (62.12) sig n ifican t at the .001 p r o b a b i l i t y
lev el, and p e rc e n ta g e s of q u estio n s, statem en ts and
im peratives used acro ss all six task s (T able 2g) showed
th at t h i s was th e case in th is study. T he fin d in g is
c o n s is te n t w ith th a t of previous stu d ies (Freed, 1978;
Long, 1980, in press). Several p o ssib le ex p lan atio n s e x ist
for the h ig h e r frequency o f q u e s t i o n i n g b e h a v i o r b y NSs
in co n v ersatio n w ith NNSs. H atch (1978a, 1979) and Long
(1978, 1980, in press) have both observed th a t q u e stio n s
a r e m ore l i k e l y to b rin g the NNS i n t o the co n v ersatio n ,
sin ce m ost q u e s tio n s "com pel" answ ers in m ost E n g lis h -
speaking cu ltu res (Goody, 1978), and a r e more l i k e l y to
su stain co n v ersatio n f o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n o n c e NNS p a r t i
c ip a tio n has been se cu re d . C e rta in kinds of q u e stio n s,
e.g . "o r-ch o ice" q u e stio n s (H atch, 1 9 7 8 a ) , f u r t h e r make
the o th e r's p articip atio n e a s i e r by p r e s e n tin g a v ariety
of co n v ersatio n al to p ics from w h ich the NNS may c h o o s e ,
and y e s - n o q u e s t i o n s in g e n e r a l make t h e form o f that
p articip atio n lin g u istically undem anding in that they
148
m inim ally r e q u ir e only an e x p re s s io n o f co n firm atio n or
d en ial. Long (in p re ss) found q u e s ti o n s favored for the
en co d in g of to p ic-in itiatin g moves i n NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n ,
and s u g g e s te d th at th is m ight be due to t h e i r presum ed
relativ ely g re a te r p ercep tu al salien cy compared w ith
statem en ts. F in ally , confirm atio n checks, com prehension
checks, clarific a tio n req u ests, a n d many i n s t a n c e s of
o th er-rep etitio n take the form o f q u e s t i o n s , and a l l of
th ese are f r e q u e n t i n NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . M ischler (1976),
how ever, has lin k ed q u estio n in g b eh av io r to the s u p e r io r
statu s o f one sp eak er in a co n v ersatio n , as e x e m p lif ie d
by t e a c h e r - s tu d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n in classroom s. It is
en tirely p o ssib le th at the high frequency of q u estio n s
found in th is and p re v io u s stu d ies o f NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n
can be e x p la in e d in t h i s way w i t h o u t i n v o k i n g ad d itio n al
facto rs, thereby u ltim ately creatin g a more c o m p le x
theory. C onsciously o r u n co n scio u sly , both p a r t i e s to
NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n probably o fte n feel t h e NS t o have
higher s ta tu s , if only because talk is in h is or her lan
guage, a n d NSs a r e u su ally observed to "manage" conver
satio n s (cf. Long, 1978, 1979), i f only for a ltr u is tic
m o tiv es. Q uestions can a f f e c t the form o f lin g u istic
in p u t to language acq u irers in at least two w a y s .
E n glish y e s-n o q u e s tio n s front au x iliaries, thereby
p o ten tially adding to the p e rc e p tu a l salien cy of au x iliary
m orphem es, a f a c t o r w h ich New port e t a l. (1977) have
149
s u g g e s t e d may h e l p ex p lain the la tte r 's early appearance
in ch ild language. E n g l i s h wh a n d y e s - n o q u e s t i o n s "mask"
the tensed form s o f v e r b s , sin ce they are f o r m e d by
a u x iliary plus in fin itiv e , a f a c t o r w hich c o u ld delay
acq u isitio n of 3 r d p e r s o n s_, regular and i r r e g u l a r p a s t
m orphology i n the acq u isitio n o f E n glish as a first or
second language.
H ypothesis (3) p red icted a higher relativ e frequen
cy o f y e s - n o o v e r o t h e r q u e s t i o n form s i n NS-NNS c o m p a r e d
w ith NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n . This hypothesis fo u n d no s u p p o r t
w hatsoever in th is study, w here, as the percen tag es in
T able 3g r e v e a l , a hig h er frequency o f wh q u e s t i o n s in
the NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n s in fact larg ely accounted for
a sig n ifican tly d ifferen t d istrib u tio n of q u estio n types
in the two c o n d i t i o n s on a l l task s com bined ( X“ = 1 6 . 7 7 ,
p 4 .0 0 1 ). W hile the ab so lu te freq u en cies of yes-no ques
tio n s a ls o w ere indeed c o n sid e ra b ly higher in the NNS
s p e a k e r c o n d itio n on a l l task s (T ables 3a t h r o u g h 3g),
T ables 3a a n d 3c t h r o u g h 3 f s h o w t h a t wh q u e s t i o n s w e r e
relativ ely more frequent in NS-NNS t h a n NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n
across v arious ty p es of task s. T able 3g s h o w s th at the
ab so lu te to ta l number o f q u e s t i o n s was far higher in NS-
NNS i n t e r a c t i o n (728) com pared w ith NS i n t e r a c t i o n (449),
a fact alread y estab lish ed in T able 2g. T his suggests
th at, w hile the o r i g i n a l h y p o t h e s i s was n o t e n t i r e l y un
founded, there is a need to d istin g u ish ab so lu te and
1 50
relativ e freq u en cies of th ese (and p ro b a b ly o t h e r )
i t e m s when c o m p a rin g the tw o t y p e s of c o n v e rsa tio n .
H ypotheses (4) through (11) p red icted hig h er
fre q u e n c ie s o f various kinds of in te rac tio n a l d ev ices
in NS-NNS t h a n i n NS-NS c o n v e r s a t i o n . W ith one e x c e p t i o n
th e s e hypotheses found s u p p o r t i n the d a ta . Th e e x c e p t i o n ,
the number o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l fram es e m p lo y e d by N S s, had
p rev io u sly b e e n fo u n d t o b e m ore f r e q u e n t in in teractio n
w i t h NNSs i n a s tu d y i n w hich c h ild a n d a d o l e s c e n t NNSs
w ere in v olved (S carcella and H iga, in p r e s s ) . In the
p rese n t stu d y , fram es w ere p e r v a s i v e i n b o t h NS a n d NNS
in teractio n , indeed s l i g h t l y more so i n NS-NS c o n v e r
satio n s. The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two f i n d i n g s may
derive from th e fact th at the NNSs h e r e w e r e a d u l t s . The
h ig h er frequency of fram es in NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n in the
S carcella and Higa s tu d y is perhaps to be a t t r i b u t e d to
th e NSs t h e r e h a v i n g b e e n attem p tin g to ad ju st to the age
of th eir in terlo cu to rs in stead o f or as w e ll as to th eir
lin g u istic a b ilities. Support for th is ex p lan atio n may
perhaps be found i n the ad d itio n al resu lt in the S carcella
and H iga s tu d y t h a t m ore (although not s ig n if ic a n tly more)
fram es w ere used w ith ch ild th an w ith a d o l e s c e n t NNS
in terlo cu to rs (as w e l l as betw een b o th groups o f NSs).
In th is regard, it sh o u ld a ls o be noted t h a t the NS c o n -
I tro ls in t h a t stu d y w ere a d u lts, not c h ild and a d o le s c e n t
NSs .
15 1
In the p re s e n t stu d y , co n firm atio n checks, com
prehension checks, c la rific a tio n requests, self- and
o th er-re p e titio n s, expansions, and th e to tal num bers of
s u c h moves (H ypotheses 5 through 11) w e r e all sig n ifican tly
m ore f r e q u e n t (p< .0 0 5 i n all cases) in NS-NS t h a n in
NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . As s h o w n b y T a b l e s 5 through 10,
sig n ific a n t resu lts w ere a ls o o btained for th ese m easures
on s e v e r a l o f the in d iv id u al tasks, p articu larly 4 and
5, the two c o m m u n i c a t i o n g a m e s . These fin d in g s are not
d iffic u lt to ex p lain . NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n is ch aracterized ,
a m on g o t h e r w a y s , b y c o m m u n i c a t i o n b r e a k d o w n s . C onfirm
atio n checks, clarific a tio n req u ests, self- and o t h e r -
rep e titio n are a ll in teractio n al reso u rc e'- av ailab le to
the NS (and to NNSs) to rep air th e d i s c o u r s e when b r e a k
downs o c c u r . C om prehension checks, self- and o t h e r -
rep etitio n s are among t h e d evices NSs c a n u s e to avoid
breakdow ns, a n d s o may b e e x p e c t e d t o b e more f r e q u e n t in
c o n v e r s a tio n s w here com m unicative trouble is an ticip ated ,
as i s the case w ith much NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . O ther-
rep etitio n s, already estab lish ed as m ore f r e q u e n t in NS-
NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , o ften c o n s is t of or in clu d e expansions
of the NNSs1 u t t e r a n c e s . S ince they are here ch aracter
ized p a rtly by t h e i r fu n ctio n o f su p p ly in g gram m atical
m orphology, expansions should for two r e a s o n s be ex p ected
t o b e more f r e q u e n t i n NS s p e e c h to NNSs. The s i g n i f i c a n t
ly higher to ta l of these repair and tro u b le -a v o id a n c e
152
d ev ices on Tasks 1 th ro u g h 6 com bined (H ypothesis 11) is
sim ply a r e f l e c t i o n of th e g re a te r freq u en cies of a ll
these in d iv id u al devices other than co n v ersatio n al fram es.
I n sum m ary, on t h e b a s i s of these fin d in g s, NS-NS
a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n s a m p l e d in th is stu d y do d i f f e r in
stru ctu re. NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n is lik ely t o b e more
o rien ted tow ards im m ediate co n cern s of the speakers, to
co n tain relativ ely h ig h er p ro p o rtio n s of q u estio n s than
statem en ts and im p e ra tiv e s in the N S 's c o n t r i b u t i o n s , and
p ro p o rtio n ately m o r e wh t h a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n types among
those q u e stio n s. P robably due to th eir u sefulness in
attem p ts to a v o id breakdow ns i n com m unication, there w ill
b e m ore c o m p re h e n s io n c h e c k s and s e l f - and o t h e r -
rep etitio n s. P robably due to th eir u s e f u l n e s s when s u c h
breakdow ns do o c c u r , there are lik ely t o b e more c o n
firm atio n checks, c la rificatio n req u ests and s e l f - and
o th er-rep etitio n s. E xpansions are also lik ely to be
m ore f r e q u e n t , and so a re com bined t o t a l s of a ll these
in te rac tio n a l dev ices. If t h e NNSs a r e a d u lts, there
w i l l p r o b a b l y b e no d i f f e r e n c e in the number o f conver
satio n al f r a m e s e m p l o y e d b y NSs in t h e NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
in teractio n .
R esearch Q u estio n (2): How do a n y d i f f e r e n c e s betw een
the lin g u istic in p u t to NNSs?
S ix hypotheses (11 t h r o u g h 17) were fo rm u lated to
153
address research q u estio n (2). E v id e n c e was found c o n s is
te n t w ith only one, H ypothesis (12).
H ypothesis (12) p red icted th at the average length
of T -u n its in words w ould be low er in NS s p e e c h to NNSs
than to NSs. T h is p r e d i c t i o n was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the
d a t a on Task 1 ( p < .005) and on Tasks 1 th ro u g h 6 com
bined (p < . 0 0 5 ) , the l a t t e r b ein g t h e m ore i m p o r t a n t t e s t
of the h ypothesis because o f the global n atu re of the
m easure. As f o u n d i n previous stu d ies of in p u t to second
language learn ers, T -u n it l e n g t h was s h o r t e r in speech
addressed t o NNSs, w h i c h , d esp ite some e x c e p t i o n a l cases
(cf. Chaudron, in press), may g e n e r a l l y be taken as one
index o f lin g u istic sim p licity .
H ypothesis (13 ) had p r e d i c te d th at lin g u istic
s i m p l i c i t y w ould a l s o be g r e a te r i n NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n
as re f le c te d by a lo w er number o f S -n o d es p e r T - u n i t .
T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e s e d ata, although
a tendency tow ards l o w e r c o m p l e x i t y was v isib le on th e
com parison f o r Tasks 1 through 6 com bined, w here S-ncdes
in T -u n its i n NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n w e r e less frequent at a
n o n -sig n ifican t lev el (p < .0 2 5 ). W hile somewhat c o u n t e r
in tu itiv e , th is n u ll fin d in g is n ot in c o n s is te n t w ith
previous research. One p r e v i o u s stu d y (S tay aert, 19 7 7 )
also f o u n d no s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ific a n t difference in
sy n tactic c o m p le x ity betw een NS-NS a n d n S-NNS in teractio n
on t h i s m easure, and o f th o se few s t u d i e s w hich have
15 4
reported sig n ific a n t fin d in g s, m o s t w e r e b a s e d o n a com
pariso n of teach ers' classroom speech d u rin g second la n
guage i n s t r u c t i o n a n d NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n in inform al
(n o n -in stru ctio n al) co n v ersatio n .
The n u l l fin d in g s fo r the two h y p o t h e s e s (14 a n d
15) concerning lexis in speech t o NSs a n d NNSs r e q u i r e
som ew hat m ore d i s c u s s i o n . W hile s e v e r a l researchers have
reported t h a t NSs u s e h i g h e r f r e q u e n c y vo cab u lary item s
in F o reig n er Talk (cf. Chaudron, 1979; H enzl, 1979), and
low er ty p e -to k e n ratio s, the p re s e n t stu d y is b eliev ed to
be the f i r s t to q u a n tify th ese v ariab les for in p u t to
NNSs. To a c c e p t t h e n u ll fin d in g s as evidence th at NSs
do n o t u s e h i g h e r frequency lex ical item s and lo w e r
type-token ratio s co u ld be u n j u s t i f i e d , how ever, and q u i te
probably u n tru e , for at least tw o r e a s o n s .
F irst, in order to insure th at eq u iv alen t and,
th erefo re, com parable segm ents of the discourse in each
c o n d it io n w ere s a m p le s, it w ill be recalled th at the
m easures w ere ap p lied to the first 50 r u n n i n g w o r d s on
Tasks 1 and 2 f o r H y p o th e sis (14) , an d t o the first ten
nouns and th e first ten verbs i n NS s p e e c h o n T a s k s 1, 2,
and 6 f o r H y p o th e sis (15) . These d i s c o u r s e s e g m e n ts were
sh o rt, and seem ed m ore d i r e c t l y task -sp ecific (e.g .,
estab lish in g the name, tim e, and p la c e of the m ovie on
Task 2) th an w ere later stretch es of discourse on th e
same tasks. I t was p r e c i s e l y th is com m onality of substance
155
and c o n v e rs a tio n a l p u rp o se t h a t was s o u g h t , yet i t m ight
w e ll have been t h i s f a c t o r w hich p re c lu d e d s i g n i f i c a n t
fin d in g s fo r th ese v ariab les. Choice o f lex ical item s
is p r e s u m a b ly more f e a s i b l e the less tied a speaker is to
any s p e c i f i c c o n v e r s a t i o n a l to p ic. Thus, once p a s t the
prelim in aries of estab lish in g the same g e n e r a l to p ic
(e.g ., on T ask 2 , the fact th at they had seen a m ovie,
d i r e c t e d b y X, a given p e rio d b e fo re the co n v ersatio n ,
e tc .), lex ical choice sh o u ld have increased and lex ical
f r e q u e n c y h a d m ore s c o p e to vary (e .g ., not least through
av o id a n c e o f com plex p a r t s of a m o v ie 's p l o t ) . F u rth er
a n a ly s is w ill be needed to test th is h y p othesis.
Second, w hile differen ces in TTRs b e t w e e n NS-NS
a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n did not atta in sta tistic a l sig n if
icance, Table 14 s h o w s th a t a clear trend tow ards low er
TTRs e m e r g e d i n the resu lts. A nalysis of a larg er corpus
m ight produce s i g n i f i c a n t fin d in g s for th is m easure. It
is a ls o w orth n o tin g th at the d ifference in freq u en cies,
w hile s t i l l n o n -sig n ifican t, was g r e a t e r fo r verbs than
for nouns (T able 1 5 ) , and it may t h a t th is is an i n d i
catio n t h a t w hatever a sp e c ts of lex ical choice are m odi
f i e d by NSs i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h NNSs a r e to be found w i t h in
certain form c l a s s e s a n d /o r sem antic netw orks rath er than
at t h e m ore g l o b a l lev el analyzed h ere.
H yp o th esis (16) p red icted th at c o p u la s w ould be
relativ ely m ore frequent in p ro p o rtio n to o th er verbs in
156
NS-NNS t h a n m NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n - A lthough a clear ten
dency in th is d i r e c t i o n was o b s e r v e d (T able 16), d if
ferences be twe en t h e two in teractio n co n d itio n s did not
a ttain sta tistic a l sig n ifican ce ( X* = 3.28, p > ,25) .
W hile sh o rter T -u n its in NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n o ften com prise
NP c o p NP u t t e r a n c e s , o ften in in v erted yes-no q u estio n
form , the frequency o f th ese form s does not appear to be
su fficien t to p re d ic a te a sig n ifican tly hig h er incidence
of copulas in NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , even of the k in d sam pled
in th is stu d y , in w hich, un lik e some fo rm s of FT, copulas
and o th e r g ram m atical f u n c to r s are not d eleted .
The l a s t hypothesis in th is sectio n ( 17 ) also
fo u n d no s u p p o r t i n the d a ta . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d th at,
due to differen ces in the stru ctu re o f NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
in teractio n (fo r w hich e v id e n c e has a lre a d y been p rovided
in th is s tu d y ), th e relativ e freq u en cies o f nine gram
m a t i c a l m orphem es in the in p u t to NSs a n d NNSs w o u l d
d iffer. In fact, the rank o rd ers of relativ e freq u en cies
of these i t e m s we re f o u n d t o b e h i g h l y sig n ifican tly
related ( r s = ,9 7 , p < .0 0 1 ). E xam ination o f the ranks
a n d raw frequency data for in d iv id u al item s (T able 17)
occasionally suggests effects of the kind ex p ected . For
exam ple, t h e NNS i n p u t r a n k and fre q u e n c y for irreg u lar
past is low er, as m ight be e x p e c te d g iv en the h ig h e r
p ro p o rtio n s of q u estio n s in NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n (cf. the
d iscu ssio n of H ypothesis 2). The a b s o l u t e freq u en cies
157
(but n o t the rank) of aux and - in g are higher in NS-NNS
in teractio n . However, th ese d ifferen ces are sm all and
do n o t s e r i o u s l y affect the o v e r a l l NNS r a n k o r d e r .
F u rth er, 3rd p e rs o n s , an o th er item t h a t sho u ld be affected
in the same way, h a s i d e n t i c a l ab so lu te freq u en cies in
both co n d itio n s, and i s clo ser than ir r e g u la r p a s t in
term s o f its p o sitio n s in the two r a n k orders. W hile
featu res o f NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n h a v e b e e n shown
to vary, th is study, at least, has fo u n d no e v i d e n c e to
su p p o rt the idea t h a t the d ifferen ces in in teractio n are
related to one a s p e c t of form al features of the lin g u istic
inp u t to NSs a n d N N S s , t h e relativ e frequency of occur
ren ce o f nine g r a m m a tic a l m orphemes i n that in p u t.
In summ ary, p r e v i o u s l y estab lish ed differen ces in
the stru ctu re o f NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n have in th is
stu d y been found to co-occur w ith few c h a n g e s in features
o f the lin g u istic in p u t to NSs a n d NNSs. The a v e r a g e
length o f T -units in w o rd s was found to be low er in speech
addressed to NNSs. On t h e o th er hand, the average number
o f S-nodes per T -u n it, TTR, lex ical frequency, p ro p o rtio n s
of co p u las and o t h e r v e r b s , and th e relativ e freq u en cies
of n in e g ra m m a tic a l m orphem es, did not d iffe r sig n ifican tly
in NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n .
R esearch Q uestion (3): Are t h e answ ers to q u e stio n s (1)
and (2) rela te d to the purpose of the in teractio n ?
For exam ple, i s chere an e f f e c t for task type?
158
There w ere e le v e n h y p o th ese s related to research
q u estio n (3). Nine o f th ese f o u n d some s u p p o r t i n the
d ata; two d i d n o t . T ab le B sum m arizes resu lts in th is
sectio n by i n d i c a t i n g the lev els of sig n ifican ce o btained
on t a s k s 1, 4, and 5 com pared w ith 2, 3, and 6, for d if
ferences b e t w e e n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . A ll
hypotheses in th is sectio n p red icted th at the e x te n t of
the d ifferen ce (or degree o f d iffe re n c e ) fo r these
v a r i a b l e s w ould be g r e a t e r i n NS-NS t h a n i n .NS-NNS i n t e r
a c t i o n on t a s k s req u irin g the exchange of in fo rm atio n .
H igher s i g n i f i c a n c e levels fo r d ifferen ces on t h e m easures
on t a s k s 1, 4, and 5 th an on 2, 3, and 6 a re taken as
ev idence c o n s is te n t w ith th ese h ypotheses. Equal s i g
n ifican ce lev els are in terp reted as p ro v id in g no s u p p o r t
for a hypothesis.
T a b le B sum m arizes resu lts from T a b les 18 t h r o u g h
28 w h i c h g en erally show a c l e a r relatio n sh ip betw een task-
type and v a r io u s d ifferen ces b e t w e e n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
in teractio n , and betw een task -ty p e and c e r t a i n differences
betw een featu res o f the lin g u istic in p u t to NSs a n d NNSs
during th o se two k i n d s c f in teractio n . D ifferences in the
stru c tu re o f NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n (H ypotheses 18
through 26 ) are g r e a t e r on th o se tasks req u irin g the
exchange of inform ation (1, 4, a n d 5) than they a re on
task s (2, 3, a n d 6) not req u irin g in fo rm atio n to be e x
changed. The o n l y ex cep tio n s to th is g en eralizatio n are
159
Table B
R elatio n sh ip s Between T ask -T y p e and I n t e r a c t i o n
and I n p u t D if fe r e n c e s in NS-NS a n d
NS-NNS I n t e r a c t i o n
H# V ariab le Tasks Tasks E vidence

1, 4 & 5 2, 3 & 6 co n sisten t
(+ i n f o , (- in fo , w ith
exchange) exchange) hypothesis?
18 D iffe re n t propns. p < .001 p < .0 0 5 yes

o f Q s, S s , & Is
in T - u n its
19 More c o n v e r - p > .025 p > .025 no

l a tio n a l fram es n .s. n .s.
20 More c o n f i r p < .005 p < .01 yes

m atio n checks n .s.
21 M o re c o m p r e p < .005 p > .025 yes

h ension checks n .s.
22 More c l a r i f i p < . 005 p > .025 yes

c a tio n requests n .s.
23 More s e l f p < -h05 p < .00 5 no I

rep etitio n s
24 M o re c t h e r - p < .005 p > .025 yes

rep etitio n s n .s.
25 M o re e x p a n s i o n s p < .005 yes

n .s.
26 More t o t a l i n t e r
a c tio n a l d ev ices p < .005 p > . 0 25 yes
n .s.
27 S h o rte r average
len g th o f T -u n it p < .025 p > .025 yes
n .s. n .s.
28 Fewer S-nodes
p er T -u n it p < .01 p < .025 yes
n .s. n .s.
160
the num bers o f c o n v ersatio n al fram es (H ypothesis 19 ) and
self-rep etitio n s (H ypothesis 23), f o r w hich there is no
such r e la tio n s h ip w ith task -ty p e. D ifferences in two
aspects of the lin g u istic input t o NSs a n d N S S s , average
length o f T -u n its in w ords (H ypothesis 27), and av erag e
number o f S -n o d e s p e r T -u n it (H ypothesis 28) also s ho w
t h e same r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h task -ty p e.
These findings have at l e a s t one p o s s ib le lo g ical
ex p lan atio n . W here s p e a k e r s need to exchange in fo rm atio n
f o r some p u r p o s e , they do n o t h a v e the o p tio n of allow ing
lin g u istic d iffic u ltie s to p rev en t com m unication. In
c ases w here com m unicative trouble occurs or is lik ely to
occur, as in NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , one o r b o th speakers w ill,
th erefo re, use v a rio u s devices to p rev e n t, and r e p a i r such
tro u b le. T his is u su ally the N S 's resp o n sib ility in con
v ersatio n s w ith NN Ss . It is co n seq u en tly to be expected
th at the v ariab les in H ypothesis 18 t h r o u g h H ypothesis 26
w ill be m ore f r e q u e n t in NS s p e e c h to NNSs o n t a s k s req u ir
ing inform ation exchange th a n on t a s k s where the exchange
of in fo rm atio n is o p tio n al.
The n u l l fin d in g s in th is respect for the number
of co n v ersatio n al fram es and num ber o f s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s
may b e e x p l a i n e d b y the fact t h a t b o th were e a rlie r shown,
to be used p e r v a s i v e l y i n b o t h NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r
actio n on task s req u irin g and n o t req u irin g the exchange
of in fo rm atio n (cf. T ables 4 and 8 and th e d iscu ssio n of
1 61
H ypothesis 4 and H y p o th e sis 8). That i s , th is study has
n o t found e i t h e r to be a d is tin g u is h in g featu re o f NS-NNS
in teractio n . They n e e d n o t , th erefo re, be co n sid ered
co unterexam ples to the fin d in g th at task -ty p e is related
to the d e g r e e o f d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n NS-NS a n d NS-NNS
in teractio n of the frequency of occurrence o f th o se in ter
actio n al d e v ic e s w hich are ch aracteristic o f NS-NNS
co n v ersatio n s in t h a t they occur s ig n ific a n tly m ore fre
qu en tly there.
The f i n d i n g s f o r H ypothesis 27 c o n c e r n i n g two
features of the lin g u istic i n p u t t o NSs a n d NNSs a r e con
s i s t e n t w ith the above findings on d i f f e r e n c e s betw een
NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . D ifferences betw een the two
types of in teractio n f o r both in d ices of lin g u istic sim
p licity are g reater on T asks 1, 4, and 5 t h a n on T ask s
2, 3, and 6. These findings suggest th at certain features
of the lin g u istic in p u t to NNSs a r e m o r e clo sely related
to certain features of task -ty p e, o f w hich the need for
in fo rm atio n -ex ch an g e appears to be one, than are those
same f e a t u r e s in in p u t to NSs. The r e l a t i o n s h i p may a g a i n
b e t h a t c o n v e rs a tio n s whose p u rp o se is the exchange of
in fo rm atio n req u ire ad d itio n al NS s p e e c h m o d ificatio n s to
acco m p lish th a t purpose. F eatu res fu rth er sim p lified
lin g u istically may r e g u l a r l y inclu d e length of T -u n its in
w ords and a v e ra g e number o f S -nodes p e r T -u n it.
I n sum m ary, the fin d in g s f o r H ypotheses 18 t h r o u g h
16 2
28 s u g g e s t t h e follo w in g g e n e ra liz a tio n : where d i f f e r e n c e s
e x i s t betw een featu res of the s tr u c tu r e o f NS-NS a n d NS-
NNS i n t e r a c t i o n o r betw een c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the lin
g u istic input t o NSs a n d N N S s , these differences w ill be
g r e a t e r when t h e p u r p o s e of the in teractio n involves the
exchange o f in fo rm atio n t h a n when i t does not. There
d oes seem to be a relatio n sh ip betw een ta s k - ty p e and
various features o f NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , and betw een task-
type and f e a tu r e s of the lin g u istic i n p u t t o NSs a n d NNSs.
R esearch Q uestio n (4): Can a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e shown b e
tw een any d i f f e r e n c e s in the relativ e freq u en cies of
form s in the lin g u istic input to NSs a n d NNSs a n d
the order in w hich those form s appear accu rately
su p p lied in o b lig a to ry contexts in the speech of
SL a c q u i r e r s ?
H ypothesis (29) p red icted th at th e r e w ould be a
sta tistic a lly sig n ifican t relatio n sh ip betw een the rank
order of the rela tiv e freq u en cies o f nine gram m atical
m orphem es i n the lin g u istic input t o NNSs a n d t h e
"average o rd er" (K rashen, 1977) of appearance of the same
m orphem es a c c u r a t e l y su p p lied in the lin g u istic product
o f second-language acq u irers. T his h y p o th e sis found
support in the p o sitiv e relatio n sh ip betw een the two ra n k
orders, as assessed by t h e Spearm an r a n k - o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n
co efficien t (rs = .7 7 , p<.05). T his fin d in g , one o f
co rrelatio n , not cau sality , lends support to previous
16 3
fin d in g s of relatio n sh ip s of sim ilar stren g th betw een
lin g u istic in p u t frequency and se c o n d language accuracy
orders (Larsen-Freem an, 1976a, b; Long, in p re s s ) .
C ontrary to H ypothesis (30), no d i f f e r e n c e was
found betw een the stren g th of a s s o c i a t i o n betw een the
"average o rd er" a n d t h e NS i n p u t frequency order, and
th a t e stab lish ed fo r the "average order" and th e NNS
input freq u en cy o rd e r under H ypothesis (20). T h e NS i n p u t
order also co rrelated p o sitiv ely w ith the "average o rd e r,"
and at t h e same l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e as the NNS o r d e r
(rs = .7 7 , p < .0 5 ). T his f i n d i n g was l i k e l y , given the
very h ig h degree of sim ilarity found betw een the NS a n d
NNS in p u t frequency o rd e rs p r e v io u s ly e s ta b lis h e d under
H yp o th esis (17) (rs = .9 7 , p < . 0 0 1 ) . I t p ro v id es no
su pport, how ever, for the idea t h a t one e f f e c t o f the
n eg o tiatio n of co n v ersatio n in NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n is to
m odify the frequency o f o ccu rren ce of the n in e gram m atical
m orphemes i n the lin g u istic in p u t to NNSs s u c h tah t there
is a clo ser relatio n sh ip betw een th is "m odified o rd e r"
and th e se c o n d language accuracy order estab lish ed by
K rashen. It seems th at the n e g o tia tio n process m o d ifies
o th er aspects of the input (cf. H ypotheses 27 a n d 28),
but not the relativ e frequency o f occurrence of these
m orp h o lo g ical item s. W hile th is hypothesis m ust c u r r e n t l y
be r e je c te d w ith respect to m orphology, therefore, it may
s till be th e case th a t other featu res of m odified
164
lin g u istic in p u t to second language acq u irers are related
to the rate or order of th e ir acq u isitio n .
I n summary, tests o f H ypotheses (29) and (30)
on th e d a t a for th is stu d y lend fu rth er support to the
n o tio n th at frequency of occurrence of certain form s in
th e lin g u istic input is related to the order of th e ir
appearance in the speech o f the second language learn ers.
The d a t a do n o t , however, support the idea th at, w ith
g r a m m a t i c a l morphem es, at least, the relativ e frequency
order is m o d i f i e d by n e g o t i a t i o n of co n v ersatio n . Given
the h ig h degree of s i m i l a r i t y betw een th e NS-NS a n d
"m odified" NS-NNS f r e q u e n c y o r d e r s in th ese d ata, i t was
n o t to be expected t h a t a clo ser relatio n sh ip w ould be
shown for a "m odified" NNS i n p u t o r d e r and the accuracy
order.
165
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
B efore draw ing c o n c lu s io n s and s u g g e s tin g s om e
im p licatio n s of th is research, it is im p o rtan t to p o in t
out certain lim itatio n s of the stu d y . F irst, the d ata
w ere d e riv e d from a rra n g e d co n v ersatio n s in a q u asi
lab o rato ry settin g . F i n d i n g s may n o t g en eralize, there
fore, to o th e r n a tu r a l en v iro n m en ts, such as the facto ry
flo o r, w here c o n d i t i o n s , e .g . the so cial statu s of the
in terlo cu to rs, u su ally d iffer. Second, alth o u g h larg er
than in previous stu d ies o f NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , the
sam ple s i z e (3 2 d y a d s ) is s till relativ ely s m a l l w hen com
pared w ith research in oth er so c ia l scien ces. T hird, the
same h o l d s fo r the size o f the NS-NS a n d NS-NNS c o r p o r a ,
app ro x im ately 1 6 x 20 m i n u t e s each, w ith a to ta l of about
10 h o u r s and 40 m i n u t e s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n . F o u rth , by
gro u p in g d a ta from 16 d y a d s in each in teractio n co n d itio n ,
in d iv id u al v a ria tio n has been lo st. F ifth , lack of
fam iliarity w ith the i n t e r l o c u t o r was a c o n t r o l v ariab le
in th is stu d y . W hile s t r e n g t h e n i n g in tern al v alid ity ,
th is is a lim itatio n on e x t e r n a l v alid ity , or g cn eraliz-
a b ility , sin ce it is p o ssib le th at some f e a t u r e s of con
v ersatio n change w ith the ex ten t of p a rtic ip a n ts ' p rio r
166
acq u aintance. W ith t h e above l i m i t a t i o n s in m ind, th is
stu d y can be s a id to have p ro v id e d p re lim in a ry answ ers to
the four g en eral research q u estio n s w hich w ere its m oti
v atio n .
F irst, NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n do d i f f e r
in stru ctu re, the l a t t e r b ein g c h a ra c te riz e d , among
o th e r ways, by the N S 1s u s e o f v a r i o u s co n v ersatio n al
management d e v ic e s , such as co n firm atio n checks, oth er-
rep etitio n s and clarific a tio n req u ests, in order to p re
v e n t and r e p a i r breakdow ns in com m unication. Q u estio n s
of various k i n d s , and a te n d e n c y tow ard s a f o c u s on the
im m ediate concerns of speakers, s u g g e s t o t h e r NS t a c t i c s
d esigned to fac ilita te NS p a r t i ' c i p a t i o n and to su stain ,
the co n v ersatio n . W ith th e ex cep tio n o f ex p an sio n s,
th ese are not featu res unique t o NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , but
thev occur sig n ific a n tly more f r e q u e n t l y th erein .
Second, probably at le a st p artly as a corollary
of d ifferen ces in in teractio n , some e v i d e n c e h as been
found w hich s u g g e s ts th at certain features o f the lin
g u istic i n p u t t o NNS s p e a k e r s d iffer from th o s e in speech
to NSs. In t h i s stu d y , o n ly one d i f f e r e n c e , the average
len g th of T -u n its in w ords, was s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig n ifican tly
d ifferen t in the two k i n d s of in teractio n , T -u n its to
NNSs b e i n g s h o r t e r . O ther m easures, how ever, relatin g
to sy n tactic com plexity and the d en sity and freq u en cy of
lex ical item s, showed n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in the
167
same d i r e c t i o n (sim pler input to NNSs) reported in e a r l i e r
research. A nother feature o f the in p u t, the rela tiv e
freq u en cies of nine g r a m m a tic a l m orphem es, was v e ry
sim ila r in speech to NSs a n d NNSs, su g gesting th at th is
m ay b e a f e a t u r e less affected o r u n a f f e c t e d by d i f f e r e n c e s
in in teractio n .
T hird, a co n sisten t re la tio n sh ip has been found
betw een both the s tr u c tu r e o f NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n and
lin g u istic in p u t t o NNSs a n d t h e type o f task on w hich
speakers are engaged. For the tasks sam pled h e r e , a clear
p attern has been e s ta b lis h e d such th a t those task s re
quirin g a two-way e x c h a n g e o f in fo rm atio n produce input
and i n t e r a c t i o n w hich a r e more m o d i f i e d in th e ways d e
scrib ed e arlier than are i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n on t a s k s not
req u irin g such an i n f o r m a t i o n exchange. Th e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b etw een task -ty p e and v a rio u s features o f v erb al b eh av io r
shown h e r e suggests that fu tu re research o n NS-NS a n d
NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n , and p e rh a p s o t h e r k in d s of SLA
research, needs to co n tro l for task if it is w ished to
a ttrib u te o th e r kinds of lin g u istic v a riatio n to v a ria b le s
w hich a re those stu d ie s' p rim ary focus.
F o u rth , th is study has p ro v id e d fu rth er support
for the n o tio n th at the relativ e frequency of lin g u istic
form s in the in p u t t o SL a c q u i r e r s is related to the
o rd e r of appearance of those form s accu rately su p p lied
in the s p e e c h o f SL l e a r n e r s . F uture research needs to
163
.l o o k n o t o n l y a t g ram m atical m orphology, how ever, if the
tru e scope o f t h is relatio n sh ip is to be a s c e r t a i n e d .
The s t u d y h a s n o t f o u n d e v i d e n c e c o n s is te n t w ith the idea
th at the o rd e r fo r a c c u ra te p ro d u c tio n o f these item s i s
m ore c l o s e l y related to the relativ e frequency o f t h e i r
occurrence in in p u t to NN Ss , w h i c h h a s b e e n m o d i f i e d by
the process of co n v ersatio n al n e g o tia tio n , than it is to
th eir frequency in NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n . It s h o u l d b e empha
sized , how ever, th at the test of th is h y p o t h e s i s was w e a k ,
given th e high degree o f a s s o c ia tio n betw een th e m odified
and u n m o d ified relativ e frequency o rd e rs o f the m orpho
lo g ical item s concerned. It may w e l l b e the case th at
other featu res of in p u t t o NNSs a r e m odified to a g reater
ex ten t, and t h a t such a relatio n sh ip betw een n e g o t i a t e d
in p u t and r a t e an d /o r sequence o f a c q u is itio n w i l l be
estab lish ed .
A co n sid erab le amount o f a d d i t i o n a l research in
th is a r e a seems ju stified , th erefo re. F uture stu d ies
m ight w e ll co n sid er o th e r speaker v a ria b le s , such as s o c io
econom ic s t a t u s , age, sex, p revious fo reig n er-talk ex
perience, len g th of acq u ain tan ce of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , and
in d iv id u al v a ria tio n . F u rth er m an ip u latio n o f task and
se ttin g v ariab les could h elp d istin g u ish features related
t o NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n as opposed to teach er-stu d en t
in te rac tio n in classroom s and c a r e t a k e r - i n f a n t in teractio n
w here s t u d e n t o r c h i l d are NNSs. F in ally , through true
169
e x p e rim e n tal d esigns u sin g a d u lt v o lu n teer su b je c ts,
SLA r e s e a r c h e r s m i g h t a d d r e s s the crucial issue of neces
sity and e f f i c i e n c y of n eg o tiated input and i n t e r a c t i o n
in language acq u isitio n . T his is an o p p o r tu n i ty w hich for
eth ical reasons is never av ailab le to researchers in
first language a c q u i s i t i o n o r to those involved in lan
guage i n t e r v e n t i o n program s for the m entally retard ed ,
and o n ly r a r e l y to languag e-teach in g p ro fe s s io n a ls.
170
A P P E N D IC E S
17 1
APPENDIX A
Request fo r A ssistance in the Study
Dear ,
T his is a b rief note req u estin g your co o p eratio n
in a research p ro je c t I am c o n d u c t i n g in co n n ectio n w ith
a Ph.D . d issertatio n in ap p lied lin g u istics. I am l o o k
ing for p o ten tial s u b j e c t s who a r e (a) n ativ e speakers
of (any v a r i e t y of) E n g lish , and (b) w illin g to devote
30 m i n u t e s t o the study at so me t i m e d u r i n g the p e rio d
June 2 - 13.
The t a s k is short (approxim ately 25 m i n u t e s ) and,
acco rd in g to p rev io u s p a r t i c i p a n t s , en jo y ab le. It re
q uires th at, at a co n v en ien t tim e, you m eet w ith an o th er
person t o h o l d an i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n , d u rin g the course
o f w hich you w i l l work t o g e t h e r to so lv e a sim ple com
m u n ic a tio n problem o f ab o u t te n m in u te s ' d uration.
Your c o n v e r s a t i o n w i l l be tape-recorded and l a t e r
tran scrib ed , bu t your ab so lu te anonym ity and c o n fid e n
tia lity is guaranteed. Names o f any p e r s o n s m e n tio n e d
on th e tapes, i n c l u d i n g y o u r own, w i l l be d e l e t e d from
the tran scrip ts. No o t h e r in fo rm atio n th at could p o s s ib ly
id en tify you to o th e rs w ill appear in a p u b licatio n of
any k in d . The t a p e s and t r a n s c r i p t s w ill be used s o le ly
f o r th e purpose o f th is research, and w i l l be made a v a i l
able to you i f you w ish .
If you a re w i l li n g to p a rtic ip a te in th is stu d y ,
172
Appendix A - Continued
I w ould ask you to p ro v id e the in fo rm atio n r e q u e s t e d on
the attach ed form , and th e n r e t u r n it t o me p e r s o n a l l y ,
o r by l e a v i n g i n my m a i l b o x i n the E n g lish D epartm ent
(2nd F l o o r , R o l f e H a l l ) , o r my TA b o x i n the TESL s e c t i o n
(R olfe 3303). A ltern ativ ely , y o u may c a l l me (m essage -
825-4647, h om e - 934-5282), and I w i l l p ic k up t h e form
from y o u . I w ill then c o n ta c t you w ith d etails o f the
tim e and p l a c e (probably R olfe H all) of your reco rd in g
session.
Thank y o u f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n .
; S in cerely ,
M i c h a e l H. Long
A pplied L in g u is tic s Program
UCLA
17 3
N a m e : ______________________________________________________
Age (check o n e ) : / 7 / 7 / 7 / 7
17-21 22-26 27-31 over 31
H ighest degree earned (circle o n e ): b a c h e l o r s
m asters
d o cto rate
O c c u p a t i o n __________________________________________________________
I have had e x te n s iv e c o n ta c t w ith non-native speakers
of E nglish (e.g . through residence overseas or teach in g
E ng lish as a second language) for:
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
le s s than 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 over 8
1 year years years years years years
I can be c o n ta c te d in Room n u m b e r ________ , o r b y telephone
at ( o f f i c e ) _______________________ o r (home) .
I w ould be a v a i l a b l e for the taping se ssio n a t one o f
the fo llo w in g tim es. (To f a c i l i t a t e m atching o f p e o p le 's
schedules, p le ase c ir c le a s many t i m e p e r i o d s as p o s s i b l e .
You w i l l o n l y b e asked to p articip ate d uring one h a l f - h o u r
p erio d . Evening s l o t s are esp ecially u sefu l.

8-9 9-10 1JF1T U -T 2 ' 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9
M on da y 2
Tues day 3
W ednes. 4
Thursday 5
F riday 6
Monday 9
T u e s d a y 10
W e d n e s . 11
T h u r s . 12
F r i d a y 13
174
P lease return th is f o r m t o M i c h a e l H. Long:
M ail box: E n g lish D ep artm en t, 2nd F l o o r , R olfe
H all
TA b o x : TESL S e c t i o n , R olfe H all 3303
or call 825-4647 o r 934-5282. Thank y ou.
175
APPENDIX B
Instructions and Tasks for the Matched NSs
Tasks
P lease do a l l o f the fo llo w in g fiv e th in g s w ith
your p artn er, and p le a s e do them i n the follo w in g o rd e r,
1 through 5. Try to spend th e tim e i n d i c a t e d on e ach
t a s k .Don’t w orry if you spend a l i t t l e m ore or a
little less tim e on each .
1. Spend 3 m in u tes g e t t i n g to know y o u r p a r t n e r
and l e t t i n g him o r h e r g e t t o kn o w y o u .
2. D e s c r i b e tw o m o v ies y o u h a v e s e e n and lik e d -
one m ovie e a ch p e r s o n . (About 3 m in u tes)
3. Play the first ga m e ( " O d d Man O u t " ) on page
A. (5 m i n u t e s )
4. Play the s e c o n d game ("Spot the D ifferen ce")
on page B. (5 m i n u t e s )
5. D iscuss w ith y o u r p a r tn e r y o u r and h i s or her
id eas as to what th is research is about. (About 3
m in u tes)
P l e a s e do n o t s w i t c h o f f the tap e-reco rd er at any
tim e d u rin g y o u r c o n v e rs a tio n . The r e s e a r c h e r w i l l
sw itch it on and o f f fo r you.
176
Appendix B - Continued
Page A: "Odd Man Out"
In stru ctio n s
Y ou a n d y o u r p a r t n e r e a c h h a v e the same t e n s e t s
o f w ords (see b e lo w ). Your jo b is t o work t o g e t h e r t o
fin d the " o d d man o u t " in each set. To d o t h i s , first
d ecide w ith your p a r t n e r w hat c a te g o ry of th in g s th e words
in each s e t belong to , and th e n s e e w hich word does n o t
belong. There is som etim es more t h a n one p o s s i b l e answ er.
E xam ple: square circ le trian g le rectangle
A nsw er: They a r e a ll geom etrical fig u res, but the
circle does not have s t r a i g h t sid es.
Your p a r t n e r does n o t have any in stru ctio n s. F irst
ex p lain the game t o him o r h e r . Then sp e n d a b o u t 5 m in u tes
fin d in g the answ ers. I f you g e t s t u c k , go o n t o the next
one. D o n 't w r ite - y o u r answ ers are on th e tape.
1. b aseb all b ask etb all soccer swimming
2. polar hear lio n elep h an t fox
3. B o liv ia C zechoslovakia S w itzerlan d . Y ugoslavia
4. w hale kangaroo d olphin man
5. B u rt R eynolds Woody A l l e n C l i n t Eastw ood
M ichael C aine
6. 7 27 39 14
7. Peru S w itzerlan d Canada Italy
177
8. John F. Kennedy M artin L uther-K ing
A l d o M o ro Che G u e v a r a
9. man chim panzee beaver cat
10. P eter D avid Sam antha P atricia
178
Page B: "Spot the Difference"
Instru ctio n s
You a n d y o u r p a r t n e r e a c h h a v e a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l
pictu res (see b elo w ). There a r e seme s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s
betw een them , however. Your jo b is to fin d out what
th o se differen ces are w ith o u t looking a t each o t h e r 's
p ictu res. D o n 't w r ite a n y t h i n g down - y o u r a n s w e r s are
on th e tape. Your f i r s t job is to e x p la in the task to
your p artn er. He o r s h e h a s a p ictu re, b u t no i n s t r u c
tio n s. Spend ab o u t f iv e m inutes on t h i s task . Your
p ictu re is on th e attach ed sheet.
179
Tasks
P le a s e do a l l of the follo w in g th in g s w ith your
partn er, and p le a s e do them i n the follo w in g order, 1
th ro u g h 5. Try t o spend the tim e in d icated on e a c h task.
D o n 't w orry if you spend a l i t t l e m ore o r a little less
tim e on e a c h .
1. Spend 3 m in u tes g ettin g to kn ow y o u r p a r t n e r
and l e t t i n g him o r h e r g e t to know y o u .
2. D escribe tw o m o v ie s you h a v e s e e n and lik e d -
o n e m ovie e a c h p e r s o n . (About 3 m inutes)
3. P lay th e first game ( " O d d Man O u t " ) o n p a g e A.
(5 m i n u t e s )
4. Play the s e c o n d game ("Spot the D ifference")
o n p a g e B. (5 m i n u t e s )
5. D iscuss w ith yo u r p a r tn e r your and h is or her
id eas as to what th is research is ab o u t. (About 3
m inutes)
P lease do n o t s w i t c h o f f the tap e-reco rd er at any
tim e d u rin g your c o n v e rs a tio n . The r e s e a r c h e r w i l l
sw itch it on and o f f fo r you.
180
Page A: "Odd Man Out"
N ote: Your p a r t n e r w i l l ex p lain the game t o y o u .
Exam ple: square circ le trian g le rectangle
1. baseb all b ask etb all soccer swimming
2. polarbear lio n elep h an t fox
3. B o liv ia C zechoslovakia S w itzerlan d Y ugoslavia
4. w hale kangaroo d o lphin man
5. B u rt R eynolds Woody A l l e n C lin t Eastw ood
M ich ael C aine
6. 7 27 39 14
7. Peru S w itzerlan d Canada Italy
8. John F. KennedyM a rtin L u th e r- K in g
A i d o Mo ro Che G u e v a ra
3. man chim panzee beaver cat
10. P eter D avid Sam antha P atricia
181
APPENDIX C
Transcription Conventions and Symbols
1. S p e e c h b y m a t c h e d NSs w r i t t e n on t h e left-hand
sid e of the page, s p e e c h b y NNSs a n d NS c o n t r o l s on th e
rig h t.
2. S i m u l t a n e o u s s p e e c h by two s p e a k e r s (overlap)
w ritten o n same lin e.
3. (xx ) U n in tellig ib le speech.
4. (words) u n clear but p o s s ib le w ords.
5. . One b e a t (pause of a b o u t one second)
6. H alf b e a t (pause o f ab o u t h a l f a second)
7. (number) Pause o f th is number o f seconds.
8. Two s p a c e s after a word (and b e f o r e ano th er
word b e g in n in g w ith a cap ital letter) in d icates the end
of an u t t e r a n c e (i.e . the e x tr a space replaces the period
symbol in co n v en tio n al w r itin g ) .
9. w ord^jw ord Two u t t e r a n c e s spoken w ith no
p a u s e betw een them .
10. w ord- C u t-o ff,s e lf - in te r r u p tio n (if
f o l l o w e d by s p e e c h by th e same s p e a k e r ) .
11. word- In terru p tio n ( i f f o l l o w e d by speech
by the o th e r s p e a k e r ) .
12. :h In b reath
13. h: O utbreath.
182
Appendix C - Continued
14. w ord: Sound h e l d (prolonged)
15.w ord T T ry-m arking in to n a tio n .
16. w ord E xtra s tr e s s , em phasis, volum e.
17. word Increasing in speed (u n til y return
to norm al p a c e ) .
18. Uh F illed pause.
19. Mmhm, A h a E xpression of u n d erstan d in g or
agreem ent.
2 0 . Mm? E xpression o f lack of u n d erstan d in g ?
21. ((R)) Speaker is reading aloud (u n til //)
22. (( )) T ra n s c rib e r's comm ent.
183
B iblio g rap h y
A n d e r s e n - E. S . 1977. L earning to speak w ith s t y l e :

A stu d y o f the s o c io lin g u is tic s k i l l s o f c h ild r e n .
U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l ’d i s s e r t a t i o n " , S t a n f o r d
U n iv ersity .
A n d e r s e n , E . S . a n d C. E . J o h n s o n 1977. M o d ificatio n s in
t h e s p e e c h o f an e i g h t - y e a r - o l d t o y o u n g e r c h i l
dren. S tan fo rd O ccasio n al Papers in L in g u is tic s
no. 3, p p. 149-60.
A n d e r s e n , R . W. 1979. E x p a n d in g S ch u m an n 's p i d g i n i z a t i o n
hypothesis. Language L e a r n i n g , 29, 1, p p . 1 0 5 -1 9 .
A n d e r s e n , R. W. 1980. D eterm in in g th e l i n g u i s t i c
a t t r i b u t e s o f language a t t r i t i o n . Paper p re
s e n te d a t th e U n iv e r s ity o f P e n n s y lv a n ia Language
S k i l l s A t t r i t i o n C o n f e r e n c e , P h i l a d e l p h i a , PA.
d ' A n g l e j a n , A. 1 9 7 8 . Language l e a r n i n g in and o u t o f

classro o m s. I n J . C. R i c h a r d s ( e d . ) , U n d e r
s t a n d i n g second and f o r e i g n la n g u a g e l e a r n i n g :
Is s u e s and a p p ro a c h e s . R o w le y , M a s s . : Newbury
House, 1978, pp. 218-237.
A rthur, B . , R. W e i n e r , M. C u l v e r , Y. J . L e e a n d D.
Th o m a s 19 8 0 . The r e g i s t e r o f i m p e r s o n a l d i s
course to fo re ig n e rs: V erbal ad ju stm en ts to
fo reig n accent. I n D. L a r s e n - F r e e m a n ( e d . ) ,
D isco u rse a n a ly s is in second language r e s e a r c h .
R o w le y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u s e , 1980, p p . 1 1 1 - 1 2 4 .
A t k i n s o n , M. 197 9. P rerequisites for reference. In

E. O c h s a n d B. S c h i e f f e l i n ( e d s . ) , D e v e l o p m e n t a l
p r a g m a t i c s . New Y o r k , New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s .
B a k k e r - R e n n e s , H. a n d M. H o e f n a g e l - H o h l e 1974.
S itu a tic v e rs c h ille n in ta a lg e b ru ik (S itu atio n
d i f f e r e n c e s in langauge u s e ) . U npublished
m a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f A m sterdam .
3ard, B. and J . Sachs 1977. L a n g u a g e a c u i s i t i o n i n two

norm al c h ild r e n o f d e a f p a r e n ts . Paper presen ted
t o t h e S e c o n d A nnual B o s to n C o n f e r e n c e on
L anguage D evelopm ent. (ERIC # 1 5 0 8 6 8 )
184
B ates, E. 1976. La n g u a g e a n d c o n t e x t : The a c q u i s i t i o n
of p rag m atics. New Y o r k : A cadem ic P r e s s .
B i c k e r t o n , D. 1979. B eg in n in g s. I n K. C. K i l l ( e d . ) ,
The g e n e s is o f la n g u a g e . Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n :
Karoma P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , p p . 1 - 2 2 .
B lock, E. M. a n d F . S.' K e s s e l . 19 8 0 . D eterm inants

o f th e a c q u is i ti o n o r d e r o f gram m atical
m orphem es: A r e - a n a ly s is and r e - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
J o u r n a l o f C h i l d L a n g u a g e 7, 1, 1 8 1 - 1 8 8 .
Bloom , L . , P . L i g h t b o w n a n d L . H oo d . 1 9 7 5 . S tru ctu re

and v a r ia tio n in c h ild language. M onographs
o f th e S o c ie ty f o r R e s e a rc h in C h ild D evelopm ent
n o . 160, 40, no. 2.
B lount, B. G. 1972. P a r e n ta l sp e e c h and language a c q u i

s i t i o n : Some L u o a n d S a m o a n e x a m p l e s . A nthro
p o lo g ic a l L in g u is tic s 14, pp. 119-30.
B lount, B. G. a n d E . J . P a d g u g . 19 7 7 . P ro so d ic, p a ra -
l i n g u i s t i c , and i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a tu r e s in
p a r e n t - c h i l d sp e ec h : E n g lish and S p an ish .
J o u r n a l o f C h ild Language 4, p p . 67-86.
B o w e r m a n , M. 19 7 3 . E a rly s y n t a c t i c d evelopm ent: A

c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c stu d y w ith s p e c i a l re fe re n c e
to F in n is h . London: C am bridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
B roen, P. 1972. The v e r b a l e n v i r o n m e n t o f the

language-learning c h ild . M onograph o f t h e A m erican
S p eech and H e a r in g A s s o c i a t i o n n o . 17, December.
Brown, R. W. 1973. A f i r s t l a n g u a g e : The e a r l y s t a g e s .

Cam bridge, M ass.: H arvard U n iv e r s ity P re s s .
Brown, R. W. 1977. In tro d u ctio n . I n C . E . Snow a n d

C . A. F e r g u s o n ( e d s . ) , T a l k i n g t o c h i l d r e n . Lan
guage in p u t and a c q u i s i t i o n . C a m b rid g e : Cam bridge
U n iv e rsity P re ss , pp. 1-27.
Brown, R. W. a n d V. B e l l u g i . 1964. Three p ro c e s s e s in

th e c h i l d 's a c q u is itio n o f sy n ta x . H arvard
E d u c a t i o n a l Review 34, 1 3 3 -5 1 .
Brown, R. W . , C . C a z d e n , a n d V. B e l l u g i . 1969. The

c h i l d ' s gram m ar from I t o I I I . I n J . P. H i l l
( e d . ) , M in n e s o ta sym posium on c h i l d p s y c h o l o g y .
M in n e a p o lis: U n iv e rs ity o f M innesota P re ss.
18 5
Brown, R. W. a n d C. H a n l o n . 1970. D e r iv a tio n a l com plexity
and o rd er o f a c q u is itio n in c h ild speech. In
J . R. H a y e s ( e d . ) , Co g n i t i o n a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t
o f lan g u ag e. New Y o r k , N . Y . : W iley and Sons.
B utoyi, C . A. 1978. The a c c u r a c y o r d e r o f s e n t e n t i a l

c o m p l e m e n t s b y ESL l e a r n e r s . U n p u b l i s h e d M.A.
t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Los A n g e l e s .
C a m p b e l l , C . , W. G a s k i l l , a n d S . V a n d e r b r o o k . 1977.
Some a s p e c t s o f f o r e i g n e r t a l k . I n C. R. H e n n i n g
( e d . ) , P r o c e e d in g s o f th e F i r s t Los A n g e le s
Second Language R esearch Forum , U n iv e r s ity o f
C a l i f o r n i a , Los A n g e le s.
C a r t e r e t t e , E . a n d M. J o n e s . 1974. Inform al sp e e c h .
B erk eley , C a . : U n iv e rsity o f C a lif o r n ia P re ss .
Cazden, C. B. 1965. E n v iro n m e n ta l a s s i s t a n c e t o the

c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n o f gram m ar. U npublished
d o c to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , H arvard U n iv e rs ity .
C a z d e n , C . B . , H. C a n c i n o , E. J . R o s a n s k y a n d J . H.
Schumann. 1975. Second lan g u ag e a c q u i s i t i o n
se q u en c e s in c h i l d r e n , a d o l e s c e n t s and a d u l t s .
F i n a l r e p o r t , NI E G r a n t No. NE 6 - 0 0 - 3 - 0 0 1 4 , H a r v a r d .
C h a u d r o n , C. 19 7 8 a . E n g l i s h a s a medium o f i n s t r u c t i o n
i n ESL c l a s s e s : An i n i t i a l r e p o r t o f a p i l o t
stu d y o f th e com p lex ity o f t e a c h e r s ' sp e ec h .
T o ronto, O n ta rio I n s t i t u t e f o r S tu d ie s in
E ducation.
C h a u d ro n , C. 1978b. How t o e x p l a i n v o c a b u l a r y , o r w o r d s .
U npublished p a p e r, T o ronto, O n ta rio I n s t i t u t e
f o r S tu d ies in E ducation.
C h a u d r o n , C. 1979. C om p lex ity o f t e a c h e r sp eech and

vocabulary e x p la n a tio n /e la b o r a tio n . P aper presented
a t t h e 1 3 t h A n n u a l TESOL C o n v e n t i o n , B o s t o n ,
M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M arch 2.
C h a u d r o n , C. In p r e s s . F oreig n er ta lk in the classro o m —

An a i d t o l e a r n i n g ? I n H. W. S e l i g e r a n d M. H.
Long ( e d s . ) , C la s sro o m la n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n and
u s e : New p e r s p e c t i v e s . R ow ley, M a s s . : Newbury
House, in p r e s s .
C herry, L . a n d M. L e w i s . 1978. D iffe re n tia l so c ia liz a tio n

o f g i r l s and b o y s: I m p lic a tio n s f o r se x d i f f e r e n c e
in language developm ent. I n N. W a t e r s o n a n d
C. Snow ( e d s . ) , p p . 1 8 9 - 1 9 7 .
186
Chomsky, N. 1965. A spects o f th e th e o ry of sy n tax .
C am bridge, M a s s . : MIT P r e s s .
C lark, H. H. a n d E . V. C l a r k . 1977. Psychology and

Language. New Y o r k , N . Y . : H a r c o u r t B r a c e
Jovanovich.
C lvne, M. 1 9 7 7 . M u ltilin g u a lis m and p i d g i n i z a t i o n in

A .u stralian in d u s try . E th n ic S tu d ie s 1, p p. 40-55.
C lyne, M. 1 9 7 8 . Some r e m a r k s o n f o r e i g n e r t a l k . In
N. D i t t m a r , H. H a b e r l a n d , T. S k u t r a b b k a n g o s a n d
U. T e l e m a n ( e d s . ) , P a p e r s f r o m t h e F i r s t
S c a n d i n a v i a n German Sym posium on t h e L a n g u a g e
o f Im m igrant W orkers and T h e ir C h i l d r e n .
R o s k i l d e , 19 -2 3 M arch, 1978. R oskilde U n iv e r s ite t-
sc en te r, L in g u istg ru p p er.
Cohan, A. 1 9 7 7 . S u c c e s s f u l s e c o n d - l a n g u a g e s p e a k e r s :
A review o f re s e a rc h l i t e r a t u r e . B alsharut
S h i m u s h i t No. 1 , S p r i n g , 1 9 7 7 , p p . 3 - 2 2 .
C o r d e s , S. P i t . 1975. "Sim ple c o d e s" and th e s o u r c e

o f th e second language l e a r n e r 's i n i t i a l
h e u ris tic hy p o th esis. Paper p re s e n te d a t the
C o llo q u e " T h e o r e t i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s M odels in
A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s " IV , Uni v e r s i t e de N e u c h a t e l .
C ross, T. G. 1977. M o t h e r s ' s p e e c h a d j u s t m e n t s : The

co n trib u tio n of selected ch ild lis te n e r v a ria b le s.
I n C. E. Snow a n d C. A. F e r g u s o n ( e d s . ) , p p . 151-183.
C ross, T. G. 1978. M others' sp e ec h and i t s a s s o c i a t i o n

w ith r a t e o f l i n g u i s t i c developm ent in young
ch ild ren . I n N. W a t e r s o n a n d C. Snow ( e d s . ) ,
pp. 199-216.
C u rtiss, S. 1977. G enie: A p s y c h o li n g u is t ! c stu d y of

a m odern-day "w ild c h i l d . " New Y o r k , N.Y.:
Academ ic P r e s s .
C u rtiss, S. 1980. The c r i t i c a l p e r i o d a n d f e r a l c h i l d r e n .

UCLA W o r k i n g P a p e r s i n C o g n i t i v e L i n g u i s t i c s 2 ,
summ er, 1 9 8 0 , p p . 2 1 - 3 6 .
D ahl, H. 1979. W o rd f r e q u e n c i e s o f s p o k e n A m e r i c a n
E n g lish . E ssex, C o n n e c tic u t: V erbatim .
187
d e V i l l i e r s , J . G. a n d P . A. d e V i l l i e r s . 1978. Language
a c q u is itio n. C am bridge. M ass.: H arvard U n iv e rs ity
Press.
D u tch W orkgroup on F o r e i g n W o r k e r s ' L a n g u a g e . 1978.

N ederlands te g e n b u i t l e n l a n d e r s . (Dutch a d d r e s s e d
to fo re ig n e rs). P u b l ic a ti o n no. 18, I n s t i t u t e
f o r G e n e r a l L i n g u i s t i c s , U n i v e r s i t y o f A m sterdam .
D rach, K. 1969. The l a n g u a g e o f t h e p a r e n t : A p i l o t

stu d y . W orking P a p e r 14, L a n g u a g e-B e h a v io r
R esearch L a b o ra to ry , U n iv e rs ity o f C a lif o r n ia ,
B erkeley.
F arw ell, C. 1973. The l a n g u a g e s p o k e n t o c h i l d r e n .

P a p e rs and R e p o rts on C h ild Language D evelopm ent
5, pp. 31-62. S tan fo rd U n iv ersity .
Feldm an, C. 1971. The e f f e c t s o f v a r i o u s t y p e s o f a d u l t

r e p o n s e s i n t h e s y n t a c t i c a c q u i s i t i o n o f tw o
to th re e y ear o ld s. U npublished p a p e r, U n iv e rs ity
o f C hicago.
F e r g u s o n , C - k A. 196 4. ,-Baby t a l k i n s i x l a n g u a g e s .
A m e r i c a n A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66 (6 p a r t 2 ) , p p . 1 0 3 - 1 1 4
F e r g u s o n , C. A. 1971. A bsence o f c o p u la and the n o tio n

of sim p licity . I n D. Hymes ( e d . ) , P i d g i n i z a t i o n
and c r e o l i z a t i o n o f la n g u a g e . London: C am bridge
U n iv ersity P ress.
F e r g u s o n , C. A. 19 7 5 . Towards a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of
E nglish fo re ig n e r t a l k . A nthro p o lo g ical
L i n g u i s t i c s 17, p p . 1 -1 4 .
F e r g u s o n , C. A. 1977a. S im p lif ie d r e g i s t e r , broken

lan g u a g e and g a s t a b e i k e r d e u t c h . I n C . Mahony
e t a l . ( e d s . ) , German i n c o n t a c t w i t h o t h e r
lan g u ag es. K ronberg L t s .: S c r i p t o r V erlag.
F e r g u s o n , C . A. 1977b. Baby t a l k a s a s i m p l i f i e d
reg ister. I n C. E . Snow a n d C. A. F e r g u s o n
( e d s . ) , p p . 209-235.
F e r g u s o n , C . A. a n d C. E . D e B o s e , 1 9 7 6 . S im p lified
r e g i s t e r s , broken lan g u ag e and p i d g i n i z a t i o n
I n A. V a l d m a n ( e d . ) , P i d g i n a n d C r e o l e
L in g u istics. B loom ington, In d ia n a : In d ian a
U n i v e r s i ty P r e s s , p p . 99-125
188
F i l l m o r e , L . W ong. 19 7 6 . The s e c o n d t i m e a r o u n d .
U npublished d o c to r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , S ta n fo rd
U n iv ersity .
Fodor, J . A. 1966. How t o l e a r n t o t a l k : Some s i m p l e

ways. I n F . S m i t h a n d G. A. M i l l e r ( e d s . ) ,
The g e n e s i s o f l a n g u a g e . Cam bridge, M ass.:
MIT P r e s s .
Freed, B. F . 1978. F o re ig n e r t a l k : A stu d y o f speech

a n d a d j u s t m e n t s m ad e b y n a t i v e s p e a k e r s o f
E n g lish in c o n v e rsa tio n w ith n o n -n ativ e sp e a k e rs.
U npublished d o c to r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e rs ity
o f P ennsylvania.
Furrow , D . , K. N e l s o n a n d H. B e n e d i c t . 1979. M others'

sp e e c h t o c h il d r e n and s y n t a c t i c d ev elo p m en t:
Some s i m p l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Jo u rn a l of C hild
L anguage 6, p p . 4 2 3 - 4 4 2 .
G a i e s , S. 1977. The n a t u r e o f l i n g u i s t i c i n p u t i n
fo rm a l second lan g u ag e l e a r n in g : L i n g u i s t i c and
com m unicative s t r a t e g i e s in t e a c h e r s ' c la s s ro o m
language. I n H. D. B r o w n , C. A. Yo ri o a n d R. H.
C r y m e s ( e d s . ) , On TESOL ' 7 7 . T e a c h in g and
l e a r n i n g E n g lis h as a second la n g u a g e : Trends
in r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e . W ashington, D.C.:
TESOL.
G arnica, 0. 1977. Some p r o s o d i c a n d p a r a l i n g u i s t i c

f e a tu r e s o f speech to young c h ild r e n . I n C.
Snow a n d C. F e r g u s o n ( e d s . ) , p p . 6 3 - 8 8 .
G elman, R. a n d M. S h a t z . 1975. R ule-governed v a r ia tio n

in c h ild re n 's c o n v e rsa tio n s. U npublished p a p e r,
U n iv e rsity of P en n sy lv an ia.
G leason, J . B. 19 7 3. C ode-sw itching in c h il d r e n 's

language. I n T . E. M o o re ( e d . ) , C o g n i t i v e
developm ent and the a c q u i s i t i o n o f la n g u a g e .
New Y o r k , N . Y . : A c a d e m i c P r e s s .
G leason, J . B. a n d S . W e i n t r a u b . 19 7 8 . In p u t language
and th e a c q u i s i t i o n o f com m unicative co m p eten ce.
I n K. N e l s o n ( e d . ) , C h i l d r e n ' s l a n g u a g e . New
Y o rk , N. Y. : Academ ic P r e s s , 1 7 1 -1 2 2 .
Goody, E. N. 1978. Towards a th e o r y o f q u e s t i o n s .

I n E. N. Goody ( e d . ) , Q u e s t i o n s a n d P o l i t e n e s s :
S tra te g ie s in s o c ia l i n t e r a c t i o n . Cam bridge:
C am bridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , p p . 17-43.
18 9
Gough, J . W. 1975. C om parative s tu d i e s in second
language le a r n in g . U n p u b l i s h e d M. A. t h e s i s ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Los A n g e l e s ,
Gough, J . W. a n d E . M. H a t c h . 1975. The i m p o r t a n c e of

in p u t d a ta in second language a c q u is itio n
stu d ies. L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g 2 5 , 2 , 29 7 - 3 0 8 .
H akuta, K. a n d H. C a n c i n o . 1977. Trends in second

language a c q u is itio n re s e a rc h . H arvard
E d u c a tio n a l R eview , 47, 3, A ugust 1977, p p . 294-
315.
H atch, E . M. 19 7 4 . Second language le a r n in g - u n iv e r s a ls

W orking P a p e rs on B i l i n g u a l i s m 3, p p . 1 -1 7 .
H atch, E . M. 1978a. D is c o u r s e a n a l y s i s and seco n d

language a c q u i s i t i o n . I n E . M. H a t c h ( e d . ) ,
Second la n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n : A book o f r e a d i n g s .
R o w le y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u s e , p p . 4 0 1 - 4 3 5 .
H atch, E. M. D iscourse a n a ly s is , speech a c ts , and second

language a c q u is itio n . In W. R i t c h i e ( e d . ) ,
Second language a c q u i s i t i o n research. New Y o r k ,
N . Y . : A cadem ic P r e s s , p p . 137-156.
H atch, E . M. 1979. S i m p l if i e d in p u t and second language

acq u isitio n . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e LSA w i n t e r
m e e t i n g , D ecem ber, 19 7 9 , Los A n g e le s .
H atch, E. M. a n d J . W. G o u g h . 1975. Second language

acq u isitio n . I n M. C e l c e - M u r c i a ( e d . ) , R e a d i n g s
i n th e t e a c h i n g o f E n g lis h as a seco n d l a n g u a g e ,
volum e I I . R e p u b licatio n v e rsio n , U n iv ersity
o f C a l i f o r n i a , Los A n g e le s (R ow ley, M a s s .:
Newbury H o u s e , i n p r e s s ) .
H atch, E . M . , R. S h a p i r a a n d J . W. G o u g h , 1 9 7 5 .
F o reig n er ta lk d isc o u rse . Paper p re s e n te d a t
t h e S eco n d Language A c q u i s i t i o n Forum, U n i v e r s i t y
o f C a l i f o r n i a , Los A n g e le s, 1975. A lso i n IT L :
Review o f a p p l i e d l i n g u i s t i c s , 1978, p p . 3 9 -6 0 .
H e i d e l b e r g e r F o r s c h u n g s p r o j e k t " P id g in D eutch." 1975.

Sprac'ne und K o m m u n ic a tio n a u s l a n d i s c h e r A r b e i t e r .
K ronberg L t s .: S c r i p t o r V e rla g .
H e id e lb e rg e r F o rs c h u n g s p ro je k t "P id g in D eutch." 1978.

The u n g u i d e d l e a r n i n g o f German by S p a n i s h a n d
I ta l ia n w orkers. A “s o c l o l i n g u i s t i c s t u d y .
P a r i s : UNESCO.
190
H enzl, V. M. 1974. L in g u istic r e g is te r of foreign
language i n s t r u c t i o n . Language L earn in g 23,
2, pp. 207-222.
H enzl, \ r. M. 1975. Speech o f f o r e ig n language te a c h e r s :

A so c io lin g u istic re g is te r an aly sis. Paper
p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 4 t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l AILA C o n g r e s s ,
S tu ttg art.
H enzl, \ J. M. F o r e i g n e r t a l k i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . In ter
n a t i o n a l Review o f A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s XV II, 2,
M ay, 1 9 7 9 , p p . . 1 5 9 - 1 6 7 .
H ess, R, . a n d V, S h i p m a n . 1965. E a rly e x p e rie n c e and

t h e s o c i a l i z a t i o n o f c o g n i t i v e modes i n c h i l d r e n .
C h i l d D ev elo p m en t 36, p p . 8 6 9 -8 8 6 .
H o l z n u ’n , M. 1972. The u s e o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e f o rm s i n
th e v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h r e e m oth ers and
th e ir ch ild ren . Journal of P sy ch o lin g u istic
R esearch 1, pp. 311-336.
H o l z m a n , M. 1974. The v e r b a l e n v i r o n m e n t p r o v i d e d by
m others f o r t h e i r v ery young c h il d r e n . M errill-
Palnier Q u a r t e r l y 20, p p . 3 1 -4 2 .
H u a n g , .J . 1970. A C hinese c h i l d 's a c q u is i ti o n of

E n g lish sy n tax . U n p u b l i s h e d M. A. t h e s i s ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Los A n g e l e s .
H unt, K 1970. S y n ta c tic m atu rity in school ch ild ren

and a d u lt s . M onographs o f th e S o c i e t y f o r
R e se a rc h in C h ild D evelopm ent 53, 1 (S erial.
No. 1 3 4 ) .
H y m e s , D. H. 1967. M odels o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f
language and s o c i a l s e t t i n g . Jo urnal o f S ocial
I s s u e s 23, 2, p p . 8-28.
H y m e s , D. G. 1972a. M odels o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f
la n g u a g e and s o c i a l l i f e . In J . J . Gumperz and
D. Hymes ( e d s . ) , D i r e c t i o n s i n s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s .
New Y o r k , N . Y . : H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n .
H y m e s , D. H. 1972b. E d i t o r i a l i n t r o d u c t i o n to "Language
S o ciety ." Lan g u a g e i n S o c i e t y , 1, 1, 1 - 1 4 .
H y m e s , D. H. 19 7 4 . F oundations in s o c io lin g u is tic s .

P h ila d e lp h ia : U n iv ersity o f P ennsylvania P ress.
191
Jo cic, M. 19 7 8 . A d ap tatio n in a d u lt speech d u ring
com m unication w ith c h i l d r e n . I n N. W a t e r s o n and
C . Snow ( e d s . ) , p p . 1 5 9 - 1 7 1 .
Jones, M. a n d S . Q u i g l e y . 1979. The a c q u i s i t i o n o f

q u e s t i o n f o rm a tio n in spoken S p a n ish and A m erican
s i g n l a n g u a g e b y two h e a r i n g c h i l d r e n o f d e a f
parents. J o u r n a l o f Speech and H earing D is o rd e rs
44, pp. 196-208.
K atz, J. T. 1977. F o reig n er t a l k in p u t in c h ild second

language a c q u is i ti o n : I t s form and f u n c t i o n
o v er tim e. I n C. A. H e n n i n g ( e d . ) , P r o c e e d i n g s
o f t h e F i r s t Los A n g e le s S e c o n d L a n g u ag e
R e s e a r c h F o ru m , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Los
A ngeles.
Keenan, E. 0 . 1974. C o n v e r s a tio n a l com petence in

ch ild ren . J o u rn a l o f C h ild Language 1 ,, pp.
163-183.
Keenan, E . 0 . a n d E. K l e i n . 1975. C oherency in c h i l d r e n '

discourse. Jo u rn a l of P s y c h o lin g u is tic R esearch
4, pp. 365-378.
Keenan, E. 0 . a n d B. S h i e f f e l i n . 1976. Topic as a

d is c o u rs e n o tio n : A stu d y o f to p ic in the con
v e r s a t io n s o f c h ild r e n and a d u l t s . I n C. L i
( e d . ) , S u b j e c t and t o p i c . New Y o r k , N . Y . :
Academ ic P r e s s , p p . 3 3 7 -3 8 5 .
Keenan, E. 0 . , B. S c h i e f f e l i n a n d M. P l a t t . 1978.
Q u e s tio n s o f im m ediate c o n c e r n . I n E. N. G o o d y
( e d . ) , Q u e stio n s and p o l i t e n e s s . C am bridge:
C am bridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
K lein , R. 1974. Word o r d e r : D u t c h c h i l d r e n a n d t h e i r

m others. P u b l i c a t i o n 9, I n s t i t u t e f o r G e n e ra l
L i n g u i s t i c s , U n i v e r s i t y o f A m sterdam .
K rashen, S . D. 1977. Some i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e

m o n ito r m odel. I n H. D. B r o w n , C . Y o r i o a n d R.
Crymes ( e d s . ) , On TESOL ' 7 7 . T e a c h i n g a n d
le a r n in g E n g lish as a second lan g u ag e : Trends
i n r e s e a r c h a n d p r a c t i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : TESOL
19 2
K rashen,. S . D. 1978. The m o n i t o r m o d e l f o r s e c o n d l a n
guage a c q u i s i t i o n . I n R. G i n g r a s ( e d . ) , S e c o n d
lan g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n and f o r e i g n lan g u ag e t e a c h i n g .
A rlin g to n , V a . : C enter fo r A pplied L in g u is tic s .
K rashen, S . D. In p r e s s . A ccounting f o r c h i l d - a d u l t
d i f f e r e n c e s in se co n d lan g u a g e r a t e and a t t a i n
m ent. I n S . D. K r a s h e n , R. S c a r c e l l a a n d M. H.
Long ( e d s . )
K rashen, S . D . , R. S c a r c e l l a a n d M. H. L o n g . In p r e s s .
C h ild -A d u lt d if f e r e n c e s in seco n d language
a c q u is ition. R o w le y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u se .
L a b o v , W. 1966. The s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f E n g l i s h
i n New Y o r k C i t y . W ashington, D .C .: C e n te r f o r
A pplied L in g u is tic s .
L a b o v , W. a n d J . W a l e t z s k y . 1977. N arrativ e a n a ly sis:

O ral v e rsio n s of p e rso n a l e x p e rie n c e . I n J..
He lm ( e d . ) , E s s a y s o n t h e v e r b a l a n d v i s u a l
arts. P ro c e e d in g s o f th e A m erican E th n o lo g ic a l
So c i e t y . S e a t t l e : U n i v e r s i t y o f W ashington P r e s s .
L a m e n d e l l a , J . a n d T. S c o v e l . 1978. A ty p o lo g y o f
o n to lo g ic a l f a c to r s in second language a c q u is i ti o n .
P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 2nd Los A n g e l e s S e c o n d
L an g u ag e R e s e a r c h Forum, Los A n g e l e s .
Landes, J. 1975. Speech a d d re sse d to c h ild r e n : Issu e s

and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p a r e n t a l in p u t. Language
L e a rn in g 25, 2, p p . 355-379.
Lane, J. 1976. Th e w i l d b o y o f A v e y r o n . Cam bridge, Ma.:

H arvard U n iv e rs ity P re ss.
L arsen-Freem an, D. 1975a. The a c q u i s i t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l

m orphem es by a d u l t l e a r n e r s o f E n g lis h as a
second language. U npublished d o c to r a l d i s s e r
t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , Ann A r b o r .
L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D. 1975b. The a c q u i s i t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l
m o r p h e m e s b y a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y
9, 4, p p . 409-419.
L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D. 1976a. An e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e m o r
pheme a c c u r a c y o r d e r o f l e a r n e r s o f E n g l i s h as
a second language. Language L e a rn in g 26, 1, pp.
125-135.
193
L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D. 1976b. ESL t e a c h e r s p e e c h a s i n p u t
t o t h e ESL l e a r n e r . UCLA W o r k p a p e r s i n T e a c h i n g
E n g lish as a Second Language 10, pp. 45-49.
L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e morpheme s t u d i e s
f o r second language a c q u i s i t i o n s . ITL: Review
o f A p p lie d L i n g u i s t i c s , p p . 39-40 and 9 3 -1 0 2 .
L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D. 1979. The i m p o r ta n c e o f i n p u t i n
second language a c q u is i ti o n . Paper p re se n te d
a t t h e LSA w i n t e r m e e t i n g , D ecem b er, 1979 ,
Los A n g e le s .
L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D. 1980. Second language a c q u i s i t i o n :

G e t ti n g t h e w hole p i c t u r e . P lenary a d d re ss,
3 rd Los A n g e le s S e c o n d L an g u ag e R e s e a rc h Forum ,
Los A n g e l e s , M a rc h , 198 0.
L e n n e b e r g , E . H. 1967. B io lo g ic a l foundations of
language. Nev.7 Y o r k , N . Y . : W i l e y a n d S o n s .
Lew is, M. M. a n d L. R o s e n b l u m . 1977. In teractio n ,

c o n v e rs a tio n , and th e developm ent o f la n g u a g e .
New Y o r k , N . Y . : W i l e y a n d S o n s .
L ieven, E . V. M. 1978. C o n v e r s a tio n s betw een m others

and young c h i l d r e n : I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and
t h e i r p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s tu d y o f
language le a r n in g . I n N. W a t e r s o n a n d C. Snow
( e d s .) , pp. 173-187.
L ig h tb o w n , P. 1980. The a c q u i s i t i o n a n d u s e o f q u e s t i o n s
b y F r e n c h L2 l e a r n e r s . I n S . W. F e l i x ( e d . ) ,
Second lan g u ag e d e v e lo p m en t: Trends and i s s u e s .
Tubrnger: G unter N arr V erlag .
L i g h t b o w n , P. In p re s s . E x p lain in g r e la tio n s h ip s b etv een

d e v e l o p m e n t a l a n d i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e q u e n c e s i n L2
acq u isitio n . I n H. W. S e l i g e r a n d M. H. L o n g
(e d s . ) , C l a s s r o o m l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n a n d u s e :
New p e r s p e c t i v e s . R o w le y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u s e .
Long, M. H. 1978. H e lp in g o u t : D isco u rse management

in c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h tw o f o r e i g n e r s . U npublished
p a p e r , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Los A n g e l e s .
Long, M. H. 1979. I n t e r a c t i o n , i n p u t , and " i + 1".

U npublished p a p e r, U n iv e r s ity of C a l i f o r n i a ,
Los A n g e l e s .
19 4
Long, M. H. 1980. P r i o r f o r e i g n e r - t a l k e x p e rie n c e and
the n e g o tia tio n o f c o n v e rsa tio n w ith n o n -n a tiv e
speakers. U npublished p a p e r, U n iv e rs ity o f
C a l i f o r n i a , Los A n g e le s .
L o n g , M. H. In p r e s s . Q u estio n s in f o r e i g n e r - t a l k d is
course. L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g 3 1 , 1.
Lord, C. 19 7 5 . I s t a l k i n g t o b ab y more t h a n b a b y t a l k ?
P ap er p r e s e n t e d a t m eeting o f th e S o c ie ty f o r
R e s e a rc h i n C h ild D evelopm ent, D enver, C o lo ra d o .
McCurdy,, P . L. 19 8 0 . T a l k i n g t o f o r e i g n e r s : T he r o l e
of rap p o rt. U npublished d o c to r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n iv e rs ity of C a l if o r n ia , B erkeley.
M eisel, J . M. 1977. L in g u is tic s im p lif ic a tio n : A stu d y

o f im m ig ra n t w o r k e r s ' sp e ec h and f o r e i g n e r t a l k .
A c t e s d u 5eme d e l i n g u i s t i g u e a p p l i q u e e d e
N eu ch atel. E d i t e d by S. P. C o r d e r a n d E. R o u l e t .
M e i s e l , J . , H. C l a h s e n a n d M. P e i n e m a n n . On d e t e r m i n i n g
d ev elo p m en tal s ta g e s in n a tu r a l second language
acq u isitio n . Paper p re s e n te d a t the S can d in av ian
German Sym posium on M i g r a n t W o r k e r s , R o s k i l d e
U n i v e r s i t y , D enm ark, March 2 0 - 2 4 .
M i s h l e r , E. G. 1975. S tudies in d ia lo g u e and d i s c o u r s e .

Language i n S o c i e t y 4, 1, p p . 31-51.
M oerk, :E. L . 1 9 7 2 . P r i n c i p l e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n i n l a n g u a g e
learn in g . M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r te r ly 18, pp. 229-25
Moe r k , E. L . 1 9 7 4 . C h a n g e s i n v e r b a l c h i l d - m o t h e r
i n t e r a c t i o n s w ith i n c r e a s i n g language s k i l l s ,
o f the c h ild . J o u rn a l of Psych o l i n g u i s t i c
R e s e a r c h 3, p p . 1 0 1 - 1 1 6 .
M o e r k , E . L. 1 9 8 0 . R e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n p a r e n t a l
in p u t f r e q u e n c ie s and c h i l d r e n 's lan g u a g e
a c q u i s i t i o n : A r e a n a l y s i s o f B ro w n 's d a t a .
J o u r n a l o f C h i l d Language 7, pp. 1 0 5 -1 1 8 .
N e I s o n , K. 1973. S t r u c t u r e and s t r a t e g y in l e a r n in g
to talk . M onographs o f th e S o c i e t y f o r R e s e a rc h
in C h i l d D e v e lo p m e n t 149, 38, n o s . 1 and 2.
19 5
N elson, K. E . 1977. F a c il it a ti n g c h ild r e n 's sy n tax
acq u isitio n . D evelopm ental P sy ch o lo g y 13, p p .
101-107.
N elson, K. E . , G. C a r s k a d d o n a n d J . B o n v i i i i a n . 1977.
S y n ta x a c q u i s i t i o n : Im pact o f e x p e rim e n ta l
v a r i a t i o n in a d u lt v e rb a l i n t e r a c t i o n w ith the
c h ild . C h ild D evelopm ent 44, p p . 497-504.
N ew port, E. L. 1975. M o t h e r e s e : The s p e e c h o f m o th e r s

to young c h ild r e n . T ech n ical r e p o r t no. 52,
C e n t e r f o r Human I n f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s i n g . San
Diego: U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a .
N ew port, E. 1976. M o t h e r e s e : The s p e e c h o f m o t h e r s t o

young c h ild re n . I n N. C a s t e l l a n , D. P i s o n i a n d
G. P o t t s ( e d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e t h e o r y : v o l . I I .
H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m
A sso ciates.
N ew port, E . , H. G l i c k m a n a n d L . G l i c k m a n . 1977. M other,

I ' d r a t h e r d o i t m y s e l f : Some e f f e c t s a n d n o n
e f f e c t s o f m ate rn a l speech s t y l e . I n E.. Snow
a n d C. F e r g u s o n ( e d s . ) , p p . 1 0 9 - 1 4 9 .
Peck, S. 1973. C h ild - c h ild d is c o u rs e in second language

acq u isitio n . I n E . M. H a t c h ( e d . ) , S e c o n d
la n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n : A book o f r e a d i n g s .
R o w le y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u se , p p . 3 8 3 - 4 0 0 .
P f u d e r e r , C. 1969. Some s u g g e s t i o n s f o r a s y n t a c t i c
c h a ra c te riz a tio n of b ab y -talk s ty le . W orking
P a p e r 14, L a n g u ag e-B eh av io r R e se a rc h L a b o r a to r y ,
U n iv e rs ity o f C a lif o r n ia , B erkeley.
P h illip s, J. 1970. Form al c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f sp e ec h

w hich m o thers a d d re s s to t h e i r young c h i l d r e n .
U n p u b lis h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Johns H opkins
U n iv ersity .
P h illip s, J. S y n ta x and v o c a b u la r y o f m o th e r s ' s p e e c h

t o y o u n g c h i l d r e n : Ag e a n d s e x c o m p a r i s o n s .
C h ild D evelopm ent 44, pp. 1 8 2 -185.
R a m a m u r t i , R. 1977. How d o A m e r i c a n s t a l k t o me?

C lassroom p a p e r, F o lk lo r e , S p rin g , 1977,
U n iv e rs ity o f P ennsylvania.
196
R em ick, H. 1971. Th e m a t e r n a l e n v i r o n m e n t o f l i n g u i s t i c
developm ent. U npublished d o c to r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n iv e rs ity o f C a l if o r n ia , D avis.
Rem ick, H. 1976. M aternal speech to c h il d r e n d u rin g

language a c q u is itio n . I n W. v o n R a f f l e r - E n g e l
a n d Y. L e b r u n ( e d s . ) , B a b y t a l k a n d i n f a n t s p e e c h .
L i s s e , N e t t e r l a n d s : Sw ets and Z e i t l i n g e r .
R ingler, N . , K. K e n n e l , R. J a r v e l l a , B. N e v a j o r s k y , a n d
M. K l a u s . 19 7 5 . M o th e r-to -c h ild speech a t 2
y e a rs— e ffe c ts of early p o s t-n a ta l co n tact.
J o u rn a l of P e d i a t r ic s 86, pp. 141-146.
Sachs, J . and J . D evin. 19 7 6 . Young c h i l d r e n ' s u s e of

a g e -a p p ro p ria te speech s t y l e s . Journal of
C h i l d L a n g u a g e 3, p p . 8 1 - 9 8 .
Sachs, J . a n d M. J o h n s o n . 1976. Language developm ent

in a h earin g c h ild of deaf p a re n ts . I n W. von
R a f f l e r - E n g e l a n d Y. L e b r u n ( e d s . ) , B a b y t a l k
and i n f a n t s p e e c h . L i s s e , N e t t e r l a n d s : Sw ets
and Z e i t l i n g e r .
Sacks, J . , D. E. S c h e g l o f f . 1974. Two p r e f e r e n c e s i n

the o r g a n iz a tio n of re fe re n c e to p erso n s in
c o n v e r s a tio n and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s . I n N. H.
A v i s o n a n d R. J . W i l s o n ( e d s . ) , E t h n o m e t h o d o l o g y ,
l a b e l i n g th e o r y and d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r . London:
R o u t l e d g e an d Kegen P a u l .
S c a r c e l l a , R. a n d C. H i g a . In p r e s s . I n p u t and age
d if f e r e n c e s in second language a c q u is i ti o n .
I n S . D. K r a s h e n , R, S c a r c e l l a a n d M. H. L o n g
( e d s . ), C h ild -a d u lt d if f e r e n c e s in second language
acq u isitio n . R o w le y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u s e .
S c h a c h t e r , F. F. 1979. Everyday m other balk to to d d lers.

New Y o r k , N.Y.: Academic P r e s s .
S c h u m a n n , J . H. 1976. S o c ia l d i s t a n c e as a f a c t o r in
second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Language L e a rn in g
25, 1, p p . 1 3 5 -1 4 3 .
S c h u m a n n , J . H. 1978. The a c c u l t u r a t i o n m o d e l f o r
second language a c q u i s i t i o n . I n R. G i n g r a s ( e d . ) ,
Second language a c q u is i ti o n and f o re ig n language
tra in in g . W ashington, D.C.: C e n te r f o r A p p lied
L in g u istics.
197
S c h u m a n n . J . H. a n d A-M. S t a m b l e . 1979. Toward a
d e s c r ip tio n of the S p a n ish -E n g lish b a s ila n g .
P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e LSA i n t e r n a t i o n a l m e e t i n g ,
Los A n g e le s.
S co llo n , R. T . 1974. One c h i l d ' s l a n g u a g e f r o m o n e t o

tw o: The o r i g i n s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . U n iv ersity of
H aw aii W orking P a p e rs i n L i n g u i s t i c s 6 (5).
S e l i n k e r , L . a n d J . T. L a m e n d e l l a . 1978. Two p e r s p e c t i v e s
on f o r m a l i z a t i o n i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g .
I n te r la n g u a g e S tu d ie s B u l l e t i n , pp. 144-191.
S e n t i i n e s , I . , j . W i n s b u r g a n d A. d ' A n g l e j a n . N.d. E arly

m o t h e r - c h i l d c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s : An
a n a ly s is o f q u a lita tiv e m u ltip le response d a ta
f o r two s o c io - e c o n o m ic g r o u p s . U n i v e r s i t e de
M o n treal.
S c h a f f e r , J . R. 1977. S tu d ies in m o th e r-in fa n t in te r

actio n . London: A cadem ic P r e s s .
S hatz, M. a n d R. G e l m a n . 1973. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c om
m u n ic a tio n s k i l l s : m o d if ic a ti o n s in the sp eech
o f young c h ild re n as a f u n c tio n o f l i s t e n e r s .
M onographs o f th e S o c i e t y f o r R e s e a rc h in C h ild
D e v elo p m en t 152, 38, n o . 5.
Shugar, G. W. 1978. Text a n a ly s is as an approach to

* the stu d y of e a rly l i n g u i s t i c o p e ra tio n s . In
M. W a t e r s o n a n d C. E. Snow ( e d s . ) , p p . 2 2 7 - 2 5 1 .
j
S h ip ley , E. S . , C. S . S m i t h a n d L . R. G l e i k m a n . 1969.
A stu d y in the a c q u is itio n o f language: Free
r e s p o n s e s t o commands. Language 45, pp. 322-342.
S ieg el, S. 1956. N o n param etric s t a t i s t i c s f o r the

b eh av io ral scien ces. New Y o r k , N . Y . : McGraw-
H ill.
Snow, Cl. E. 1971, Language a c q u i s i t i o n and m o th e rs ’

speech to c h ild re n . U npublished d o c to ra l
d i s s e r t a t i o n , M cG ill U n i v e r s i t y .
Snow, C. E. 1972. M others' sp eech t o c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g

language. C h ild D evelopm ent 43, p p . 549-565.
Snow, C. E. 1977. The d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o n v e r s a t i o n b e

tw een m o th e rs and b a b i e s . Jo u rn al o f C hild
Language 4, pp. 1-22.
19 8
Snow. C. E. 1979. C on ve j. s a. i- io .u S w i t h c h i l d r e n . In
P . F l e t c h e r a n d M. G a r r n a n ( e d s . ) , L a n g u a g e
a c q u i s i t i o n : S tu d ie s in f i r s t language d e v e lo p m en t,
C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , p p . 36.3-
375.
Snow, C. E. In p r e s s . P a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n and the

d e v elo p m en t o f com m unicative a b i l i t y . I n R. E.
S c h i e f e lb u s c h ( e d . ) , C om m unicative co m p e ten c e :
A c q u i s it io n and r e t a r d a t i o n . U n iv e r s ity Park
Press.
Snow, C. E . , A. A r l m a n - R u p p , Y. H a s s i n g , J . J o b s e ,
J . J o o s te n and J . V o rste i:. 19 7 6 . M others'
speech in th re e s o c ia l c la s s e s . Journal of
P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c R e s e a rc h 5, p p . 1 -2 0 .
Snow, C. E. a n d C. A. F e r g u s o n ( e d s . ) , 1 9 7 7 . T alking to
ch ild ren . Language in p u t and a c q u i s i t i o n .
Cam bridge: C am bridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977.
Snow, C. E . , R. v a n E e d e n , a n d P . M u y s k e n . In p re s s .
The i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r i g i n s o f F T : M unicipal
em ployees and f o r e i g n w o rk e rs . In tern atio n al
J o u rn a l o f the S o c io lo g y o f L anguage.
S tau b le, A. M. 1978. A c c u ltu r a tio n and seco n d language

acq u isitio n . I n S . K r a s h e n a n d R. S c a r c e l l a
( e d s . ), R esearch in second language a c q u i s i t i o n .
R o w le y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u s e .
S t a y a e r t , M. 1977. A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e s p e e c h o f ESL
te a c h e rs to n a tiv e and n o n -n a tiv e sp eak ers of
E n g lish . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e LSA w i n t e r
m ee tin g , C hicago.
Sw ain, M. 1979. T a rg e t lan g u a g e use in th e w id e r

environm ent as a f a c t o r in i t s a c q u is i ti o n . To
a p p e a r i n R. W. A n d e r s e n ( e d . ) , New d i m e n s i o n s
in second language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h . R ow ley,
M a s s . : Newbury H o u s e .
T anner, D. 1979. E t h n ic ity and c o n v e rs a tio n a l s t y l e .

S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c W o r k i n g P a p e r Number 5 5 . A ustin,
T ex as: S o u th w e st E d u c a tio n a l D evelopm ent L ab o ra
to ry .
19 9
Tarone, E. 1979. I n te r l a n g u a g e a s cham eleon. Language
L earn in g 29, 1, pp. 181-192.
Tizem an, B . , D. C o o p e r m a n , A. J o s e p h a n d J . T i z a r d . 1972.

E n v iro n m en tal e f f e c t s on language dev elo p m en t:
A study o f young c h ild r e n in lo n g -s ta y r e s i d e n t i a l
n u rseries. C h ild D evelopm ent 43, pp. 337-358.
Trager, S. 1978. The l a n g u a g e o f t e a c h i n g : D i s c o u r s e

a n a ly s i s in b e g in n in g , in te r m e d ia te and advanced
ESL s t u d e n t s . U n p u b l i s h e d M. A. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y
o f S outhern C a l if o r n ia .
Tucker, G. R . , E . H a n a y a n a n d F . H. G e n e s s e e . 1976.
A f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e , and s o c i a l f a c t o r s in
second language a c q u i s i t i o n . C a n a d i a n M odern
L anguage Review 32, p p . 2 1 4 -2 2 6 .
Valdm an, A. 1976. L ' e f f e t de m odeles c u l t u r e l s s u r

1 ' e l a b o r a t i o n du la n g u a g e s i m p l i f i e ( F o r e i g n e r
Talk). P ap er p r e s e n te d a t C olloque " T h e o re tic a l
M o d e l s i n A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s " V. U n i v e r s i t e
de N e u c h a t e l , Mai 1 9 - 2 2 .
V a n d e r G e e s t , T. 1977. Some i n t e r a c t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f
language a c q u i s i t i o n . I n C. E. Snow a n d C. A.
Ferguson ( e d s . ) , pp. 89-107.
V o rster, J. 1974. M o t h e r s ' s p e e c h t o c h i l d r e n : Some

m ethodological c o n s id e ra tio n s . P u b licatio n s of
th e I n s t i t u t e f o r G e n e ra l L i n g u i s t i c s , no. 8.
A m sterdam : U n i v e r s i t y o f Am sterdam .
V orster, J. 1975. Mommy l i n g u i s t : The c a s e f o r

m otherese. Lingua 37, p p . 2 8 1 -3 1 2 .
W a t e r s o n , N. a n d C. E. Snow ( e d s . ) . 1978. The D e v e lo p

m ent o f C o m m unication. C hichester: J o h n W iley"
and S o n s.
W ells, G. In p r e s s . A djustm ents in a d u l t - c h i l d

c o n v e r s a t i o n : Some e f f e c t s o f i n t o n a t i o n . In
P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e B r i s t o l C o n f e r e n c e on t h e
S o c ia l P sychology o f L anguage. London: Pergamon
Press.
W exler, K. a n d P . W. C n l i c o v e r . 1980. Form al p r i n c i p l e s

o f language a c q u is i ti o n . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : MIT
Press.
200
Wod e, J. 1976. D evelopm ental sequences in n a t u r a l i s t i c
L2 a c q u i s i t i o n . W orking P a p e rs on B i l i n g u a l i s m
11, pp. 1-31.
Wod e, H. 1980. P h o n o l o g y i n L2 a c q u i s i t i o n . A rb eits-

p ap iere zum S p r a c h e r w e r k 2 2 , p p . 1 - 2 7 .
W olfson, N. 1976. Speech e v e n t s and m a te r n a l s p e e c h :

Some i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c m e t h o
dology. L a n g u a g e i n S o c i e t y 5, 2, p p . 1 8 9 - 2 0 9 .
W olfson, N. In p r e s s . R ules o f s p e a k in g . I n J . C.
R i c h a r d s a rid R. S c h m i d t ( e d s . ) , C o m m u n i c a t i v e
com petence. London: O xford U n iv e rs ity P re s s .
W orkgroup o n F o r e i g n W o r k e r s ' L a n g u a g e . 1978.

N e d e rla n d s t e g e n b u i t e r l a n d e r s (Dutch a d d r e s s e d
to fo re ig n e rs ). P u b l ic a ti o n no. 18, I n s t i t u t e
f o r G e n e r a l L i n g u i s t i c s , U n i v e r s i t y o f A m sterdam
Zobl, H. 198 0 . The f o r m a l a n d d e v e l o p m e n t a l s e l e c t i v i t

o f L I i n f l u e n c e o n L2 a c q u i s i t i o n . Language
L e a rn in g 30, 1, pp . 43-5 7 .
201

Long 1981 INPUT, - INTERACTION, - AND - SECOND

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Long 1981 INPUT, - INTERACTION, - AND - SECOND

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by

INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

University o f California, Los Angeles PH.D. 1980

In p u t, In teractio n , and Second

A d issertatio n su b m itted in p artial satisfactio n of the

req u irem en ts fo r the degree D octor o f P hilosophy

U n iv ersity of C alifo rn ia, Los A n g eles

VITA AND P U B L I C A T I O N S ............................................................................ x ii

ABSTRACT OF THE D I S S E R T A T I O N .................................................................. x i i i

1. INPUT, INTERACTION AMD LANGUAGE

In tro d u ctio n .................................................................................. 1

4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 146

5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................... 166

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 184

3a. Q uestion-T ypes i n T - u n i t s on T a s k 1 .............................. 1 01

3b. Q uestion-T ypes in T - u n its on T a s k 2 ........................10 2

3c. Q uestion-T ypes i n T - u n it s on T a s k 3 ........................10 3

3d Q uestion-T ypes in T - u n i t s on T a s k 4 ...............................104

3e. Q uestion-T ypes i n T - u n i t s on T a s k 5 ............................... 105

3f. Q uestion-T ypes i n T - u n i t s on T a s k 6 ............................... 106

3g. Q uestion-T ypes in T -u n its on A ll Tasks . . . 107

12. A verage L ength o f T - u n it s in W o rd s o n

15. L e x i c a l F re q u e n c y o f Nouns and V erbs

16. Numbers a n d P r o p o r t i o n s o f V e rb s and

21. Numbers o f C o m p r e h e n s i o n Checks on T ask s

25. Numbers o f E x p a n s i o n on T a s k s 1 , 4 and 5

27. A verage Length o f T - u n i t s i n Words on

30. R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c i e s o f Nine G ra m m a tic al

A. I n te r - r a te r R e lia b ility C o efficien ts

B. R e l a t i o n s h i p s Betw een T ask-T ype and

For th eir co n stru ctiv e c riticism and s u p p o rt

thro u g h o u t the w r itin g of th is d issertatio n , my s i n c e r e

Roger A ndersen, R u ssell C am pbell, Susan C u r t is s , Evelyn

H atch, G e rry Mahoney, Jo h n Schumann, a n d N o r e e n Webb.

I am p a r t i c u l a r l y indebted to P r o fe s s o r E velyn H atch,

ratio n t o me, as it w ill surely co n tin u e to be to suc­

cessive g en eratio n s of stu d en ts in the field of second

I w ould a l s o lik e to express my g r a t i t u d e to

P rofessors S tephen K rashen, D iane L arsen-Freem an, and

H erbert S e lig e r, who h a v e had a s tro n g influence o n my

ideas about second language acq u isitio n and ab o u t s c ie n c e .

Over th e past few y e a r s each has also become a good f r i e n d .

The same i s tru e of fiv e fellow stu d en ts: K athi B ailey ,

H ossein F a r h a d y , Bob O c h s n e r , C h arlie S ato, and Robin

S carcella. I was fo rtu n ate enough t o work w i t h e a c h o f

t h e m d u r i n g my y e a r s a t UCLA ; earned a great deal

from them i n the process.

have a g ain e n te re d a stim u latin g academ ic e n v iro n m e n t.

P rofessors D e ll Hymes, C y n th ia W atson, a n d W essa W o l f s o n ,

and T eresa P ica and Harvey W olfson have a ll been suppor­

tiv e co lleag u es and f r ie n d s along the last stretch .

D ecem ber 2, 1945— B orn, Beckenham, K ent, E ngland

1956— L L .B . , U n iv ersity of B irm ingham

1969-1970— G raduate C e r t i f i c a t e in E d u catio n ,

1 9 7 3 - 1 9 7 4 —-M.A. , A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , U n iv ersity of Essex

K rash en , S . D., Age, r a t e and e v e n t u a l a t t a i n m e n t in

H atch , E. & D iscourse a n a ly s is , w h a t's th a t?

Long, M ichael H. In sid e the "b lack box": m eth o d o lo g ical

S e l i g e r , H. D. & C la ssro o m la n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n and

Long, M i c h a e l H. Q u estio n s in f o re ig n e r ta lk discourse,

ratio n t o me, as it w ill surely co n tin u e to be to suc

and T eresa P ica and Harvey W olfson have a ll been suppor

T his stu d y in v estig ated relatio n sh ip s a mo ng l i n

(3 ) relatio n sh ip s betw een task -ty p e and d if f e r e n c e s ascer

(2) a v icario u s n arrativ e, (3 ) in stru ctio n s, (4 ) a communi

5), and th o se w hich d id n o t (task s 2, 3 and 6 ). A udio

found for the fo llo w in g featu res. NSs i n NS-NNS i n t e r

actio n used (1) p ro p o rtio n ately more v e r b s m arked tem por