Foreign Language Learning and Use: Interaction in Informal Social Networks

Foreign Language Learning and Use Interaction in Informal Social Networks

Also available from Continuum Second Language Identities, David Block

Foreign Language Learning and Use Interaction in Informal Social Networks

Naomi Kurata

Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane 11 York Road Suite 704 London New York SE1 7NX NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com © Naomi Kurata 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Author has asserted his/her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 9780826424303 (hardcover) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kurata, Naomi. Foreign language learning and use : interaction in informal social networks / Naomi Kurata. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978–0–8264–2430–3 (hardcover) 1. Language and languages—Study and teaching—Technological innovations. 2. Language and languages—Computer assisted instruction. 3. Intercultural communication—Study and teaching—Data processing. 4. Web-based instruction. 5. Educational technology. I. Title. P53.28.K87 2010 428.0078⬘5 – dc22 2010010988

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India Printed and bound in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group

For Eric, Ami and Mia

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Acknowledgements

xi

Introduction

1

Chapter 1: Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning Informal Social Networks as Contexts for L2 Use and Learning Research Questions L2 Learners in English-dominant Settings: Learners of Japanese in Australia Language Learning as Social Practice Sociocultural theory Post-structural perspectives Language Selection Theories Research into Social Influence on Language Selection Social factors influencing language choice in classroom settings L1/L2 use in learning settings outside the classroom Research into Social Factors Affecting Opportunities for L2 Learning Socioculturally oriented research on L2 learning in natural settings Social networks and their relevance to L2 learning The Participants Methodology Data Collection Interaction interviews Interaction data for a micro-discourse analysis Diary entries Stimulated recall interviews Transcription Transcription of oral interaction data

5 6 7 8 10 11 16 19 21 22 23 25 26 29 34 35 36 36 38 39 40 42 42

viii

Contents Transcription of interviews Analysis Summary

Chapter 2: Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks The Participants’ General Backgrounds Cindy Linguistic background Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Grace Linguistic background Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Patty Linguistic background Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Jim Linguistic background Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Simon Linguistic background Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Max Linguistic background Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Summary and Discussion Chapter 3: Changes in L1/L2 Use Case One: Grace Self-image as an L2 user or learner formed during the learner’s in-country experience Language negotiation with a Japanese network member in Australia Language negotiation with a Japanese network member in Japan Case Two: Jim An NS’s corrective behaviour and impoverishment of opportunities to use L2

43 44 45 47 47 50 50 52 54 54 56 58 58 60 62 62 63 66 66 67 69 69 70 73 75 76 76 79 83 87 88

Contents Awareness about the learner’s self-image as an L2 user and co-construction of opportunities to use L2 Case Three: Simon Transition of language use patterns Negotiating goals of interactions Summary

ix

91 97 98 99 102

Chapter 4: Language Selection and Its Negotiation Situations of Conversations Max’s chat with Riku and Yuki Simon’s private lessons with Eri Cindy’s private lessons with Mie Patty’s language exchange with Nami Overall Language Use Language use patterns Learners’ use of Japanese Micro-discourse Analysis of L1/L2 Use Max’s conversations Two activities: socialization and language learning Contradictions between goals Languages as mediational artifacts Social roles and rules/norms within the community Opportunities for L2 use in learning activities Summary and Discussion

103 104 104 105 105 106 106 107 108 111 111

Chapter 5: Opportunities for L2 Learning Learner-NS Conversation in an Informal Setting Interactional resources available for the learner The NS’s corrective feedback and its uptake by the learner The learner’s discourse strategies Learner-NS Conversations in Semi-instructional Contexts Major types of assistance provided by NSs The learner’s active orientation to learning items Learner-NS Informal Written Discourse Online The NS’s assistance in the learner’s ZPD The learner’s interactional resources The NS’s corrective feedback and the learner’s orientation to it

137 137 139

118 119 120 122 123 134

140 142 143 144 145 147 147 150 151

x

Contents Learner-Learner Informal Written Discourse Online Mutual assistance in lexical knowledge Assisted performance in the ZPD and interpersonal space Major Factors Contributing to Learning Opportunities in the Four Different Settings Social roles History as an L2 user or learner Norms in communities Summary

Chapter 6: Access to L2 Social Interaction: Implications for Language Teaching and Learning The Dynamic and Complex Nature of Language Selection Social Relationships in L2 Use and Learning Situations Overcoming the Obstacles to Opportunities for L2 Use and Learning Directions for Future Research

153 154 156 156 157 159 161 163

165 165 167 168 171

Appendix I: Questionnaire for the First Year Students

175

Appendix II: Interaction Interviews

177

Appendix III: Diary About Exposure to Japanese Outside Classrooms

179

References Index

181 193

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge that there are many people who have made valuable contributions to the production of this book. The book has developed from my PhD thesis, supervised by Associate Professor Helen Marriott and Dr. Robyn Spence-Brown of Monash University. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to them. Helen has believed in the importance of my research topic, and has constantly helped me with her invaluable comments and suggestions. Her encouragement and profound insights in the field of applied/sociolinguistics have steered me towards the completion of my PhD research. Robyn has also guided me with her constructive criticism and supportive feedback. Her enthusiasm for second language learning research and profound knowledge in this field have greatly inspired me throughout the development of my research. I am also grateful to Professor Tony Liddicoat of University of South Australia, Professor Patricia Duff of University of British Columbia and Associate Professor Amy Ohta of University of Washington for their valuable comments and generous support. My sincere gratitude goes to my participants who generously co-operated with my research and shared their time and insights during the 9-month data collection period. My friends and colleagues at Monash University also deserve thanks for their support since I commenced undertaking postgraduate study and teaching Japanese in 2000. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of Ms Yuko Masuda who provided me with her generous assistance in transcribing some conversation data. As well, I appreciate Ms Colleen Coalter and other professionals at Continuum. They have been co-operative and worked hard to expedite the publication of this book. I also wish to thank my family in Japan as well as my parents-in-law for their support and encouragement. Last, but not least, I am thankful to my husband, Eric, and twin daughters, Ami and Mia, for creating a supportive environment. Without such an environment, I could not have completed this work.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

This book aims to examine opportunities for second language (L2) use and L2 learning in foreign language (FL) learners’ social networks through a longitudinal case study of six intermediate students of Japanese at an Australian university. The book is intended for researchers whose interests include language learning in out-of-class contexts, sociolinguistics and FL education. It is also designed for language teachers and course developers, who are interested in improving learning environments for students of an FL. During the data-collection period of my research in 2004, I was surprised to discover that some of my participants had difficulty gaining access to informal interactions in Japanese in their social networks with Japanese friends, despite their eagerness to pursue social contact with these friends and to use Japanese with them. This finding motivated me to explore the major factors that contribute to this difficulty by analysing how first/second language use is socially structured and negotiated in some of the actual interactions that occurred in the participants’ social networks. The finding also made me realize that it is not enough for language teachers to encourage students to make friends with native speakers (NSs) and to communicate with them using an L2 as one of the ways to promote L2 learning. They further need to give students some guidelines for overcoming obstacles to opportunities for L2 use and L2 learning, some of which I identified in my research. I hope that the readers of this book will understand what factors facilitate or constrain the use of L2 in learners’ informal social networks, which, in turn, will help the readers to consider how they assist learners to improve their out-of-class learning environments. In an FL environment where the L2 is not normally used for daily communication, exposure to the L2 is usually limited to the classroom.

2

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Many FL teachers therefore attempt to encourage students to be involved in the L2 community in various ways. Some examples include inviting NSs to the class and implementing projects in which students are required to have interactions with NSs outside class. It can be said that these activities and projects are conducted in semi-naturalistic settings since they are arranged mainly by teachers in order to bridge the gap between formal classroom instruction and authentic L2 use. How these activities and projects are structured and their benefits have been extensively reported in the previous literature (Imura, 2004; Leaver, 1989; Miyazoe-Wong, 1997; Miyazoe-Wong, Ueda, & Watanabe, 2003; Neustupný, 1991a, 1995; Ogawa, 1998; Ozaki & Neustupný, 1986; Thomson Kinoshita, 1997). Nonetheless, to date, few studies are available demonstrating the construction and benefits of opportunities of FL use in totally natural settings, where there is no teachers’ or researchers’ control or supervision. These natural settings, however, should be given consideration as they seem to provide an opportunity for the learners to use or practise L2/FL through meaningful and authentic interactions. They also tend to offer more comfortable or non-threatening environments than semi-naturalistic settings since the learners may be concerned about the teachers’ or NSs’ evaluation of their performance during interactions in the latter cases. Therefore, examining carefully how opportunities of FL use and learning in learners’ informal social networks are socially constructed seemed very important to me in helping learners as well as educators to find effective ways to create and maintain improved out-of-class learning environments. In Chapter 1, I introduce the settings of my research, and then explain the theoretical framework in which the analysis of the research will be conducted. This chapter then reviews the relevant literature that focuses on the social dimensions of L1/L2 use and L2 learning. It also outlines the background of the six participants of the study as well as the methodology that was employed in it. The analysis and discussion in the study has been divided into four chapters, Chapters 2 to 5. Chapter 2 provides detailed information about each of the participants’ informal social networks as well as their linguistic backgrounds. This chapter also examines the patterns

Introduction

3

of L1/L2 use within these networks. I found that there are two salient features in these patterns. One is that these patterns changed according to contexts as well as across time between the participants and some of their network members. The other feature is that opportunities to use Japanese were relatively rare in the great majority of the interactions in which the participants engaged with Japanese students at the university. In Chapters 3 and 4, I analyse what kind of factors contributed to these two features based on the participants’ actual interaction and interview data. These interaction data include online communication, such as online chat scripts and email messages that I analyse in Chapter 3, and conversation data that are examined in Chapter 4. More specifically, drawing upon some concepts from sociocultural and post-structural approaches, Chapter 3 considers why and how the patterns of L1/L2 use changed across time. In Chapter 4, the focus of analysis will be narrowed down to L1/L2 use within specific contexts at a particular time. Utilizing activity theory and Auer’s model of bilingual interaction, Chapter 4 explores the major factors that contribute to the limited use of L2 in the university domain by analysing how L1/L2 use is socially and contextually structured and negotiated in some of the actual interactions at a micro-level. In Chapter 5, attention is paid to opportunities to learn L2, with a particular focus on the ways in which natural interactions in these contexts provide or do not provide these opportunities. The chapter first examines what types of learning opportunities are found in the four major social settings in which the participants and their network interactants were situated: learner-NSs informal conversations in noninstructional settings, learner-NS conversations in semi-instructional contexts, learner-NS informal written interactions online and online interactions between learners. This examination also includes an analysis of how learners orient to these learning opportunities, where such analysis is possible, based on these learners’ actual interactional or interview data. The chapter then explores the major factors that seem to contribute to the characteristics of the learning opportunities that arise in these four settings.

4

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Finally, Chapter 6 discusses theoretical and pedagogical issues and ideas that have emerged from my research. I discuss how educators might help language learners to overcome the obstacles to opportunities for L2 use and learning that I identified in my study. Finally, this chapter provides suggestions for future research.

Chapter 1

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

Over the past decade, there has been a notable increase in an awareness of social and contextual perspectives in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Firth & Wagner, 2007; Norton, 2000; Swain & Deters, 2007; Tarone, 1997; Tarone, 2000; Tarone, 2007; van Lier, 1996, 2000; Yanagimachi, 2003). Some of these perspectives address Firth and Wagner’s (1997) call for a reconceptualization of SLA theory and methodology by offering alternative understandings of L2 learning, including post-structural approaches and situated learning. These understandings are different from those found in the psycholinguistic approach of the 1990s in which learning is considered as an individual and a cognitive operation performed by ‘decontextualized learners’, that is, mechanistic and idealized learners who are removed from the surrounding social context (Tarone, 1997). Firth and Wagner (1997, 2007) argue that such a cognitive-oriented approach skewed our view of language users and learners. They therefore highlight the necessity of a more holistic approach to SLA that places a greater priority on social and contextual orientations. Such a holistic approach was adopted in my research that focuses on social and contextual factors that affect the construction of opportunities to use and learn L2 in learners’ social networks, utilizing some concepts from sociocultural theory and post-structural perspectives. Auer’s (1984, 1988) model of bilingual interaction is also applied to conduct an in-depth examination of L1/L2 selection at a micro-level. This chapter begins with the settings in which my research is situated. More specifically, I intend to outline how informal social networks

6

Foreign Language Learning and Use

as contexts for language use and learning have been investigated as well as to describe the actual environments in which my participants were situated. This environment consisted of an Australian university where my participants studied Japanese and the Japanese community where this university was located. The chapter then explains the above-mentioned theories that my research employs. It also reviews the relevant literature that focuses on the social dimensions of L1/L2 use and L2 learning. This is followed by the description of the methodology of my research. The account of these theories and research studies provides a foundation for the analysis and discussion in the following chapters.

Informal Social Networks as Contexts for L2 Use and Learning Some people believe that one of the best ways to learn an L2 is to make friends with NSs and to communicate with them using the language. There are, in fact, a significant number of studies that highlight the importance for students of moving beyond the classroom and participating in social interactions in the L2 in real-life situations (Savignon, 1997; van Lier, 1996). The possible benefits of outof-class interactions with NSs include enhancing learners’ sensitivity to the target culture and increasing their self-confidence as well as willingness to use the L2, which, in turn, has a positive effect on L2 learning processes (Archangeli, 1999; Stoller, Hodges, & Kimbrough, 1995; Yorozu, 2001). However, few of these studies address the issue of access to such opportunities, and many seem to assume that as long as contact with NSs is available, target language (TL) use will be unproblematic. There are, however, an increasing number of studies that discuss this issue of access from post-structural perspectives (Miller, 1999, 2000, 2004; Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995; Norton & Gao, 2008; Norton & Toohey, 2001; Pavlenko, 2002). They argue that although the learners actively shape their own L2 use and learning experiences, they can construct such experience only to the extent that their sociocultural contexts allow them to do so, and that the

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

7

construction of this experience is pertinent to that of the learners’ identities. As Neustupný (1987: 7) rightly maintains, there will be no practice and no learning unless language learners can find speakers of the L2 who agree to communicate with them. One of the principal ways to find such speakers in out-of-class contexts is through the learners’ personal social networks. Linguistic behaviour occurring within speakers’ social networks has been one of the major concerns in the field of sociolinguistics. Despite the increasing importance of the concepts of social networks in this field as well as in other disciplines, learners’ social networks in SLA settings have received little empirical attention to date, compared to network research relating to other sociolinguistic topics (de Bot & Stoessel, 2002; Preston, 1989). In sociolinguistics, as Milroy (1987) maintains, the network concept is a valuable tool, which allows for the analysis of the manner in which individuals utilize the resources of linguistic diversity available to them. A number of different terms pertinent to this concept, such as ‘social networks’, ‘personal networks’, and ‘relational networks’, have been used by different researchers. Milroy (1987: 178), for instance, defines ‘social network’ as ‘the informal social relationships contracted by an individual’. Preston (1989: 152), on the other hand, explains that the number and type of relations that an individual has with others compose his or her ‘network’ and groups of such interrelated individuals are ‘social networks’. In this book, I employ Milroy’s (1987: 178) above-mentioned definition of social networks, namely, ‘the informal social relationships contracted by an individual’.

Research Questions This book aims to examine the construction of opportunities for L2 use and L2 learning in FL learners’ informal social networks. To attain this aim, the research specifically addresses three questions. First, I examine informal social networks of Japanese language learners studying at an Australian university and the patterns of L1/ L2 use within these networks. Second, I investigate how this L1/L2 use is socially and contextually constructed and negotiated. Finally,

8

Foreign Language Learning and Use

I analyse the opportunities for L2 learning occurring in these networks and the factors contributing to the characteristics of these opportunities. Even though the L2 under consideration is Japanese, the results presented here should be relevant more widely, as will be discussed in some later chapters.

L2 Learners in English-dominant Settings: Learners of Japanese in Australia It is reported that there are over 360,000 learners of Japanese in Australia, that is, one in every 55 Australian resident (Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute, 2006). Australia has the second highest number of learners of Japanese in the world in terms of percentage of population. Although students who study Japanese at the primary and secondary levels account for 96.3 per cent of these learners, there are approximately 9400 students studying at the tertiary level. The number of these students increased by approximately 18 per cent between 2004 and 2006 (Japan Foundation JapaneseLanguage Institute, 2004, 2006). Japanese is one of the ‘big three’ Asian languages, followed by Mandarin Chinese and Indonesian, whose availability increased between 1988 and 2001 at Australian universities and it attracts the highest number of students (Fitzgerald, Jeffrey, Maclean, & Morris-Suzuki, 2002). According to the survey report on Japanese-language education abroad conducted by the Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute (2004, 2006), the main purposes of learning Japanese at all levels of educational institutions in Australia are ‘to be able to communicate in Japanese’, ‘interest in the language itself’ and ‘to obtain knowledge about Japanese culture’. Compared with the other countries that this institute surveyed, the proportion of students interested in ‘intercultural understandings/understanding other cultures’ is relatively high in Australia, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. Not surprisingly, more academic and practical reasons are dominant at the tertiary level, including ‘for better employment opportunities’ and ‘to obtain knowledge regarding Japanese politics, economics and society’. In addition, more and more students at

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

9

this level have a strong interest in Japanese popular culture, such as Japanese animation and music. To meet this demand, a number of universities are now offering subjects related to Japanese pop culture. The university where the participants studied Japanese is located in Melbourne, Australia. Since this study explores how opportunities for these learners to use and learn Japanese in their social networks are socially structured, it is necessary to briefly describe the Japanese community in Melbourne as well as in this university. According to the 2006 census of population and housing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008), there were 5780 Japanese-born residents in Victoria, the state of which Melbourne is the capital city. This number accounts for approximately 0.1 per cent of the total population in Victoria and shows an increase of 23 per cent over the previous census in 2001. The Japanese community in Victoria thus seems relatively small compared with those of other countries, such as Italy and Greece, but its size has recently increased. However, it is reasonable to assume that most of these Japanese reside in the metropolitan region of Victoria. This, in turn, would result in the increased proportion of the Japanese population in this region. The census in 2006 also indicates that about 62 per cent of the Japanese-born residents claim that they speak English very well or well. Another distinct feature of this group is that about twothirds of it is female. Also, approximately 18 per cent of the group belongs to the age bracket of 15–25 years, within which the majority of the participants of my study also fall. Based on the statistics regarding student enrolments at the university campus where the participants studied, there were 170 Japaneseborn students who studied at this campus in 2004 (the data collection year). This number accounts for about 0.7 per cent of the total number of students enrolled at that campus in the same year. Being consistent with the female dominance of the Japanese-born population in Victoria, 125 of these 170 students were female. The statistics also show that over 65 per cent of these females were postgraduate students. In this university, a social club for students who share an interest in Japan, called the Japan Club, was established over 10 years ago.

10

Foreign Language Learning and Use

According to the website of this club, they aim to create a friendly atmosphere where students with an interest in Japan have an enjoyable time by experiencing everyday Japanese culture. There are about 250–400 members in the club every year and approximately 10–14 per cent of them are Japanese students. The club committee organizes weekly gatherings for informal conversations as well as other activities, such as a karaoke night and manga workshops. As I will explain in Chapter 2, all the participants of my study belonged to this club. Based on my observation of the club activities during the data collection period, about one-third of the participants of these activities on average were Japanese students, the majority of whom were international female students. This university, moreover, offers a language exchange program in which international students provide local students studying FLs, including Japanese, with linguistic help, and in exchange, they receive assistance with their own English communication. To summarize, despite the relatively small proportion of the Japanese population in Victoria, the potential for opportunities for university students of Japanese to become acquainted with Japanese students or people seems good. This is partly due to the availability of the university club and the language exchange program as well as the number of Japanese residents in Victoria, in particular, those in the same age group as the majority of university students of Japanese.

Language Learning as Social Practice There are several perspectives on L2 learning as social practice, including sociocultural theory (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) and language socialization (Duff, 1995, 2003; Zuengler & Cole, 2005). These perspectives commonly regard L2 learning as socially constructed in and through interaction in situated activities. This book draws on a number of concepts mainly from two of these perspectives, namely, sociocultural theory and post-structural approaches (Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004; Weedon, 1987).

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

11

Sociocultural theory Vygotsky is regarded as providing the basis for sociocultural approaches to learning with an emphasis on the social construction of learning (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). For him and his colleagues in the post-revolutionary Soviet Union, the social world is constitutive of humans, not just a surrounding context for them. This idea of the relationship between individuals and their social worlds makes Vygotsky’s work different from much Western psychology, which tended to view individual development as independent of social relations (Wertsch, 1991). The most central concept of sociocultural theory is that the human mind is mediated (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Vygotsky (1978) argued that humans use symbolic as well as physical tools or means in order to mediate and regulate relationships with the external environment. One of the most important symbolic tools is language, through which humans direct and organize mental activity, including thinking and learning. Vygotsky further explains that human development occurs in two ways, first between a child and more capable others, which he labelled interpsychological, and second within the child, which was named intrapsychological (Wertsch, 1981). Although Vygotsky was concerned with the development of children, this construct can be applied to L2 learning settings. Through social interaction, interactive processes that were initially social become a resource for the individual, in other words, social processes enable language to become a cognitive tool for learners (Ohta, 2000). This enabling process is called internalization. More specifically, internalization is considered as the process by which the L2 changes from being primarily external or unfamiliar for learners as they gradually make steps toward utilizing the L2 as an interactive and cognitive resource for themselves. The more learners have internalized the L2, the more independently they can participate in interactive settings. The notion of internalization involves an increasing level of control, or the ability to regulate interaction in the L2, and a developing ability to use the L2 itself as a tool of thought.

12

Foreign Language Learning and Use

van Lier (2000) develops an ecological approach of language learning and teaching grounded in the work of Vygotsky. This approach views language learning processes as part of the dynamic interrelationship between learners and their environment. van Lier also suggests that the notion of input can be replaced by the ecological notion of affordance, which is defined as the relationship between properties of the environment and the active learner. He further claims that if language learners are active and engaged, they will perceive linguistic affordances and use them for linguistic action. This ecological approach connects cognitive processes with social processes and provides a window into how language is acquired through collaborative interaction.

Activity theory Activity theory was constructed by Leont’ev (1978), one of Vygotsky’s colleagues, following Vygotsky’s ideas about social mediation. In this theoretical framework, activity is taken as the unit of analysis and analysed as a three-level construct, namely, activity, action and operation. The highest level is the activity, which is referred to as any human activity in a specific social setting, such as play and learning. This activity is linked to motive, which is the individual’s underlying purpose for engaging in the activity. The second level of analysis is the action, which is goal directed. Actions refer to the specific meditational means or strategies used to attain a goal, and this goal serves to operationalize motives into more specific objectives. At the third level of analysis, the actions at the second level are carried out under the influence of concrete conditions. This is the operation scheme and the observable level of behaviour. These three levels are thus hierarchical and all the elements in this construct influence each other, hence the activity is inherently dynamic. Engeström (1999, 2001) extended the above-mentioned activity theory to a graphically represented model of a collective activity system by incorporating the socially constructed context as part of an activity. Within this system, the actions of individuals take place at the nexus of three elements: the meditating/mediational artifacts/ means, the community and its rules/norms and the division of labour

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

13

in this community. In this model, furthermore, the activity system itself is the unit of analysis rather than goal-directed action, as was the case in classic activity theory. In other words, the relations between all the elements in the system constitute the analysis. This model thus allows for a more comprehensive analysis and understanding of human behaviour. At the same time, however, the model of an activity system implies the importance of individual agency in explaining behaviour when applied in L2 use/learning settings (Lantolf & Pavlenko 2001). In activity theory, agency is not a property of an individual, such as free will, but a relationship that is constantly co-constructed and renegotiated with those around him/her as well as with the larger social, cultural and historical structures (Lantolf & Thorne 2006). As Lantolf and Pavlonko (2001) suggest, a way to examine the relational construction of agency is provided by the model of the activity system in which an individual is enabled/constrained by social structures as well as material and symbolic means/tools. The model, furthermore, has a strong historical dimension as well. Each individual or subject develops through his/her specific social and psychological history, and each of the other components of the system has an evolutional history as well. Given that activity theory provides a powerful framework to examine the dynamic relationship among the personal, social and historical contexts, this theory has been increasingly drawn on in educational psychology and applied linguistics (Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Gillette, 1994; Lantolf & Genung, 2002; Roebuck, 2000; Storch, 2004; Thorne, 1999, 2003; Wertsch, Minick, & Arns, 1984). One of the most influential early studies utilizing this framework in applied linguistics was conducted by Coughlan and Duff (1994). Through their examination of ESL (English as a second language) students’ performance on an elicitation task that required them to orally describe pictures, Coughlan and Duff revealed how individual and social factors, including the students’ personal histories and the conditions pertinent to the setting, affected the way in which the students engaged with the task. More specifically, the researchers demonstrated that while the task, or the ‘behavioural blueprint’, was the same, the ‘activity’ that it generated was unique from student to student.

14

Foreign Language Learning and Use

The above literature thus stresses the importance of accounting for learners’ perspectives in relation to their interpretation of the situated context, which can be analysed by utilizing activity theory. In other words, the theory allows for an examination of an activity through the learner’s eyes. In addition to such a strength, the theory offers a framework for understanding how learners engage in various activities through interactions with others and how they develop their way of participation in the activity, which is enabled or constrained by the situated contexts.

The zone of proximal development The concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) has become one of the most well-known and widely adopted constructs of the sociocultural approach. van Lier, for example, regards this concept as a particularly promising way of organizing teaching or learning activities (van Lier, 2000). He highlights the importance of the concept of the ZPD by explaining that the ZPD was created as a context in which careful intervention would stimulate internalization. In other words, teaching and learning in the ZPD means developing a sensitivity to learners’ current abilities and their potential development (van Lier, 2000). This construct was originally proposed by Vygotsky and defined as ‘the distance between the child’s developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the higher level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978: 86). Ohta applied this definition of the ZPD to SLA settings, reformulating it as ‘the distance between the L2 learner’s developmental level as determined by independent language use, and the higher level of potential development as determined by how language is used in collaboration with a more capable interlocutor’ (Ohta, 1995: 96). Considered from the perspective of the ZPD, L2 acquisition occurs in the gap between what learners can do by themselves and what they can do with assistance through collaborative interaction. Furthermore, this construct specifies that development is impeded both by assisting the learner with what she/he is already

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

15

able to do and by not withdrawing help so that the learner develops the ability to work independently. In the ZPD, language acquisition occurs through a dynamic transformative process called microgenesis (Wertsch, 1985). Microgenesis is one of four genetic domains for the study of higher mental functions proposed by Vygotsky (1978) and it is the cognitive development that occurs moment by moment in social interaction (Wertsch, 1985). Microanalysis of learners’ interaction in context enables researchers to examine the process of microgenesis, which is happening in the ZPD. Lantolf and Aljaafreh (1995), for instance, investigated interaction between adult ESL learners and a tutor, who was not a NS but more an expert on English writing. Their microanalysis of the interaction revealed the learner’s progress in the ZPD through developmentally sensitive assistance in tutoring sessions. They maintain that determining a learners’ ZPD is an act of negotiated discovery that is realized through dialogic interaction between the learner and the expert. Moreover, they claim that the assistance negotiated between them is graduated and contingent in the sense that it moves from more explicit to more implicit, and that it is provided only when needed and is withdrawn once the novice indicates signs of self-control or ability to operate independently. A number of researchers have referred to the assistance in the ZPD as scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976; Rogoff & Gardner, 1984). Research utilizing this concept in language learning settings has shown that assistance is provided from person to person so that an interlocutor is enabled to reach a higher level of performance through the process of scaffolding. Donato (1994), for example, investigated how scaffolding occurred when learners engaged in small group interactive tasks. According to his analysis, the group of learners working together created a collaborative scaffold as they each contributed their strengths to a problem-solving activity. Similarly, some other researchers were concerned with learners’ collaboration while doing tasks or activities, and concluded that mutual assistance in the learners’ ZPD resulted in their increased accuracy or performance at a higher level of competence (Ohta, 1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Such research has shown that examining the learner’s interaction in the ZPD provides a rich picture of L2 development, enabling researchers

16

Foreign Language Learning and Use

to examine how language development occurs in moment-by-moment interaction. It also exhibits how the ZPD operates in different L2 learning settings using different sorts of tasks.

Post-structural perspectives Post-structural perspectives have emerged in the field of SLA in response to the calls of a number of researchers to reconceptualize the relationship between the individual learner and the language learning contexts with a focus on the learner’s social identity and power relations (Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995; Norton & Toohey, 2001; Pennycook, 1990). As mentioned earlier, these perspectives include empirical examination of L2 learning and theoretical attempts to reconceptualize SLA within the post-structuralist framework (Pavlenko, 2002).

Identities of L2 learners and interpersonal space One of the most influential studies in the post-structuralist approaches to L2 learning is Norton’s examination of investment in L2 learning by immigrant women in Canada (Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995). In these works, Norton argues for the necessity of a comprehensive theory of identity that integrates language learners and the language learning context. Norton defines identity as how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space and how the person understands future possibilities (Norton, 2000: 5). Drawing upon Weedon’s (1987) theory of subjectivity, Norton then proposes a theory of social identity by explaining three defining characteristics of learners’ social identity: identity as non-unitary and contradictory, identity as a site of struggle and identity as changing over time. Norton maintains that these three conceptions of identity carry important implications for how the immigrant women in her study responded to and created opportunities to practice English. Furthermore, her studies indicate that learning L2 is a social practice that engages the identities of learners in complex and sometimes contradictory ways as well as a skill that is acquired with dedication (Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995).

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

17

Similar to Norton, Cummins points out that identities are not static or fixed but are constantly being shaped through experiences and interactions, and that there are multiple facets to identities (Cummins, 1996, 2000a, 2000b). He divides identities into two types: one type that is difficult or impossible to change, such as gender and ethnicity, and the other type that may be more malleable or subject to modification as a result of experiences. The latter type includes a sense of self-worth in relation to intelligence, academic achievements and talents. Cummins (1996) states that children’s sense of self-worth is usually cultivated through interactions with caregivers at home and that interactions at school should further consolidate their sense of self-worth. By contrasting two sets of school-community interactions, however, Cummins (1996) found that identities of the students whose cultural background and communities are regarded as inferior or deviant in the wider society are not frequently affirmed or extended through their interactions with their teachers. Cummins (1996) argues that this devaluation of their identities convinces many students that academic effort is futile and they resist further devaluation by mentally withdrawing from participation in school life. Cummins (1966, 2000a, 2000b) also proposed the concept of interpersonal space, which extends the notion of ZPD beyond the cognitive area into that of affective development and power relationships. He explains that this space is established between individuals involved in a communicative relationship and is constantly shaped by one’s interactions. He suggests that within this space the dual processes of reciprocal negotiation of identity and collaborative generation of knowledge take place, and he views these processes as being closely related to each other. In addition, he maintains that teacher-student collaboration in the construction of knowledge will occur effectively only when students’ identities are affirmed in their interpersonal space, and that this space can also be a constriction zone where students’ identities and learning are constricted rather than developed.

Learners’ agency In common with a sociocultural perspective that highlights the importance of individual agency in L2 learning, a number of

18

Foreign Language Learning and Use

post-structuralist researchers assert that L2 learners are not passive, being subject to relations of power within a certain situation or community, but are agents in charge of shaping their own learning experiences, who may resist this subject position (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001; McKay & Wong, 1996; Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995). These researchers, furthermore, argue for the co-constructed nature of human agency. The process of this co-construction is that agencies are first shaped by particular sociocultural environments, and second they are co-constructed with those around the L2 learners. These learners thus act on their desires only if their current environments allow for such agency. Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001) likewise maintain that the co-constructed nature of human agency is of great importance for how they understand the outcomes of learning and development, and eventually identity.

The concept of investment There has been an increasing interest in connecting the post-structuralist views of identity and human agency that were introduced earlier with the notion of investment (Angelil-Carter, 1997; McKay & Wong, 1996; Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995). Norton points out that in the past, motivation in SLA theory has often been conceived of as a fixed personal trait and this notion does not adequately capture the complex relationship among power, identity and language learning that she examines in her studies of immigrant women (Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995). She proposes the concept of investment instead, which refers to ‘the socially and historically constructed relationship of learners to the target language, and their often ambivalent desire to learn and practice it’ (Norton, 2000: 10). Drawing upon Bourdieu’s use of the economic metaphor, ‘cultural capital’, Norton explains that learners hope or expect that their investment in L2 may yield a return and give them access to a broad range of resources, which will, in turn, increase the value of their cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). These resources include symbolic resources, such as language, education and friendships as well as material resources, for instance, capital goods, real estate, and money. Norton furthermore argues that an

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

19

investment in L2 is an investment in a learner’s own identity, which is constantly changing across time and space. She also suggests that the return that learners receive on their investment must be seen as commensurate with their effort expended on L2 learning.

Language Selection Theories Theories about language selection and code-switching have been mostly developed based on empirical studies conducted in bilingual community settings. These studies have been carried out mainly from two perspectives: the macro-societal and the micro-interactional (Li Wei, 1994). The former perspective presupposes that there are societal norms of language selection, which are associated with types of activity (cf. Breitborde, 1983; Fishman, 1965, 1972). The microperspective, on the other hand, focuses on speakers’ capacity to make use of linguistic and social resources available to them in constructing social structures and social relations. Gumperz is one of the most influential researchers who investigated the interactional aspects of language selection (Blom & Gumperz, 1972; Gumperz, 1971, 1982). Specifically, Blom and Gumperz (1972) identified two types of code choices: situational and metaphorical. Situational code-switching refers to the change of code which corresponds to changes in the situation, including participant and setting. On the other hand, they regard metaphorical switching as symbolic of alternative interpersonal relationships. Gumperz (1982) has further elaborated on the social symbolism of metaphorical switching by distinguishing between the ‘we code’ and the ‘they code’, which are associated with in-group and informal activities, and with the more formal and less personal out-group relations, respectively. Auer has developed Gumperz’s interactional perspective by utilizing conversation analysis (CA) techniques (Auer, 1984, 1988, 1995, 1998). He highlights the necessity to consider the sequential embeddedness of code-alternation in conversation and proposes that codealternation is effectively analysed as a contextualization cue. He regards context as what is shaped, maintained and changed by participants continually over the course of an interaction. He further

20

Foreign Language Learning and Use

proposes a distinction between discourse-related and participantrelated code-switching. Discourse-related code-switching provides cues for the organization of the on-going interaction (e.g., shift in topic and change in participant constellation). In other words, this type of code-switching serves as a contextualization cue. On the other hand, participant-related switching allows for assessment by participants of the speaker’s preference for and competence in one language or another. A number of researchers argue that this approach developed by Auer is too isolated from the macro-level factors affecting language choice (cf. Boztepe, 2003; Myers-Scotton & Bolonyai, 2001). In fact, Auer (1995) states that the sequential embeddedness of codeswitching in bilingual conversations is ‘relatively independent’ of the social meaning of code-switching for a bilingual community. Li Wei (2005) also explains that little attention is paid to social variables, including the speaker’s backgrounds, his/her relations with other participants in a conversation, or the formality of the context, within the framework of CA. Hence, the need to incorporate the micro- and the macro-perspectives into code-switching research has been stressed by some researchers (Li Wei, 1994; Boztepe, 2003). Myers-Scotton’s Markedness Model as well as an extension of this model called the rational choice model is an attempt to link the macro-level factors with those at a micro-level in code-switching research (Scotton, 1986; Myers-Scotton, 1993, 1998, 1999; MyersScotton & Bolonyai, 2001). Scotton (1986) argues that bilingual speakers use language choice to negotiate interpersonal relationships within a normative framework, although norms only have an impact on the relative markedness of choices rather than the choices themselves. Both models, however, have been criticized by a number of researchers (cf. Li Wei, 1994, 2005; Meeuwis & Blommaert, 1994). For example, Meeuwis and Blommaert (1994) question the Markedness Model’s static view of language choice as social behaviour where speakers simply follow or do not follow already existing norms as well as its ignorance of the nature of talk as constitutive of the social structure. As previously stated, this book is concerned with how opportunities to use L2 are socially constructed in actual interaction within

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

21

the participants’ bilingual social network contexts. In order to illuminate the processes of the construction of these opportunities at a micro-level, it is necessary to examine how the participants and their interlocutors utilize L1/L2 as resources as well as how they switch between L1 and L2 as a strategic tool. For this examination, the micro-interactional perspective, in particular, the sequential analytic approach to language selection proposed by Auer appears to be useful (Auer, 1984, 1988, 1995, 1998). This is because, as Li Wei (2005) asserts, this approach allows researchers to discover ‘the underlying procedural apparatus by which conversation participants themselves arrive at local interpretations of language choice’ rather than depend on analysts’ own classificatory frameworks of language choice. However, it is important to note that in the case of the conversation data, I conducted a micro-discourse analysis, not a CA, although I draw on Auer’s (1984, 1988, 1995, 1998) approach that utilizes CA.

Research into Social Influence on Language Selection The previous research that examines language selection and/or code-switching has been dominantly conducted either in non-institutional bilingual communities or in formal language learning settings. In the latter settings, the previous studies have primarily focused on the role of L1/L2 use, debating the pros and cons of the use of students’ L1. Therefore, the social construction of L1/L2 use has received scant attention in these studies. Language selection of L2 learners outside the classroom has also provoked little interest because of the monolingual communities in which much of the research into out-of-class L2 use/learning has been conducted. There are, however, some exceptions that examine the larger social and interactional structure of L1/L2 use in educational settings, including FL classrooms and immersion or bilingual programs. In addition, a few studies have examined the social significance of language choice between L2 learners and NSs of their L2 in learning contexts outside the classroom.

22

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Social factors influencing language choice in classroom settings Recently, a number of studies have begun to analyse actual classroom interactions in order to examine the social and contextual factors that affect learners’ language choice or code-switching (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005; Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005; Volk & Angelova, 2007). Utilizing the CA method of sequential analysis, for example, Üstünel and Seedhouse (2005) conducted a micro-analysis of the organization of code-switching in beginner-level English classes at a Turkish university. Their study demonstrates that in L2 classrooms code-switching that is teacher-initiated and teacher-induced is related to the pedagogical focus in an evolving sequence and to the institutional goals at large. They furthermore indicated that students may display their alignment or misalignment with the teacher’s pedagogical focus through their language choice. The study thus suggests that language choice is embedded in the interactional and social structure of the language classroom. Drawing upon the notion of ‘community of practice’ proposed by Wenger (1998) as well as Auer’s (1984, 1995, 1998) approach to bilingual interaction, Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2005) analysed the patterns of code-switching of advanced learners engaged in content-based discussion in a German language classroom at a Canadian university. It was found that the learners code-switch not only for participant-related functions, such as a momentary lack of their L2 knowledge, but also for various discourse-related functions that contextualize the interactional meaning of their utterances. The latter functions include organizing turn-taking, attracting attention when asserting the speaker’s opinion and making the speaker’s subject position stronger, that is, exercizing agency. Their study also showed that these discourse-related uses remarkably resemble bilingual practices outside classroom settings. By regarding the classroom as a community of practice, furthermore, Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain suggest that learners orient to the classroom as a bilingual space through their code-switching patterns as manifestations of a shared understanding about the purpose of their interaction and about themselves as a member of that community.

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

23

There is one recent study which is concerned with the impact of sociocultural factors on language choice in a dual-language program at an elementary bilingual school in America. Grounded in sociocultural theory, Volk and Angelova (2007) explore how language ideologies, defined as shared beliefs about language forms and practices embedded in social conflicts over power, influence the language choice of children whose home language was English or Spanish, all learning in both languages. They argue that patterns in the children’s language choice to speak English or Spanish were particularly affected by the mediating role of a dominant language ideology that privileges English. More importantly, however, they found that the children did not seem to merely copy such ideology supported by the dominant society and the program, but they actively appropriated aspects of this ideology and brought them to their language choice in complex ways. They claim that this finding corroborates the previous studies that maintain that language ideologies are not fixed but continually negotiated (Martin-Jones & Heller, 1996; Freeman, 2004). Furthermore, they highlight the children’s agency with respect to this ideology as they negotiated language choice in the multiple contexts where they were situated, such as the Spanish-speaking children’s resistance to the encroachment of English.

L1/L2 use in learning settings outside the classroom Several studies have explored the social and interactional significance of language selection in out-of-class learning settings as well. Kasper (2004), for example, examined the participants’ orientations to the activity called Gesprächsrunde, a dyadic conversation that was arranged with the object of L2 learning in a German course at a university. This conversation was individually conducted between a beginning learner of German as an FL and a NS of German, who was a fluent German-English bilingual speaker. Although this activity was an assignment to be assessed, the participants had no instruction other than to talk about anything that they liked, using German as much as possible. Utilizing the CA approach, Kasper found that the learner’s code-switching from L2 to L1 served as one device by which the learner as a novice speaker of L2 requested an

24

Foreign Language Learning and Use

occasion for L2 learning from the NS who acted as an L2 expert. In addition, Kasper revealed another function of the learner’s codeswitching to L1 as one of the techniques that enable the learner to display interactional competence, including achieving strong agreement, without disrupting the flow of the on-going interaction. Holtzer (2003: 44), likewise, explored the function of code-alternation between an L2 learner and a NS in a similar ‘semi-natural’ setting, which was informal in nature but organized within an institutional framework as a research project as well as a component of a language learning program. This program, called SCOTLANG, aimed to examine the learner’s development of L2 interactive skills and sociocultural competence in the natural contact situations of telephone interaction between Scottish learners of French and their respective matched French learners of English. With this aim, a list of conversation topics to encourage exchanges of opinions was set before their conversations began. Despite the prescribed structure in which the first half of the session had to be in French and the latter in English, Holtzer (2003) identified the use of codeswitching to the learner’s L1 by a NS to assist the learner. Drawing upon Tarone’s (1980) concept of communication strategies, Holtzer interpreted this code-switching behaviour as a communication strategy that interactants employ in an attempt to solve communication problems that occur due to the lack of the learner’s L2 comprehension. A detailed analysis of language selection in another L2 learning setting outside the classroom was conducted by Masuda (2006). This setting is a language exchange partnership in which a learner of an FL is paired with a NS student studying at the same institution and they informally meet to practise their language skills and share knowledge about their respective languages and cultures. Applying Auer’s (1984, 1988, 1998) approach to this setting, Masuda identified various factors that contribute to the language alternation by the participants who were learners of Japanese and their Japanese partners at an Australian university. She claimed that the determinant of the participants’ L1 selection was often interpreted not only as the lack of their L2 proficiency but also as their active organization of the on-going discourse. The use of L2, on the other hand, also

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

25

seemed to have multiple functions, including self-preference of the speaker, consideration for interlocutor’s L2 competence and temporary unconsciousness of the interlocutor’s position as a language learner. Although it was beyond the scope of her study to explore the larger social factors that contributed to her participants’ language selection, she touched upon the possible influence of the fact that one of the partners is situated in an L2 context (a Japanese student studying in Australia where his/her L2, English, is dominantly used in the society) on their language selection and its negotiation in this setting. The recent studies discussed earlier in two different contexts, namely the classroom and semi-natural settings, have contributed to our current knowledge about the social and interactional significance of language selection. They also illustrated the complex nature of language selection in bilingual interactive settings. The majority of these studies utilized a CA approach, an approach that has proven to be useful for revealing the micro-interactional factors that affect code-alternation in such language learning settings. In addition, drawing upon socioculturally oriented frameworks, including the notion of ‘community of practice’, several of these studies illustrated the significant impact of some macro-level social factors as well as that of the learner’s agency on language selection. What is needed, however, is an in-depth examination of language selection at both micro- and macro-levels in L2 learners’ natural interactions outside the classroom, something which has been highly under-investigated in the field of language selection. Such an examination will reveal how opportunities to use L2 are socially and contextually structured, which, in turn, will carry important implications for the construction of improved L2 use/learning environments for the learners.

Research into Social Factors Affecting Opportunities for L2 Learning The following sections will present a review of some other relevant literature that considers the social construction of opportunities to learn L2 in natural or semi-natural interactions.

26

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Socioculturally oriented research on L2 learning in natural settings The majority of the research that adopts activity theory and/or the concept of the ZPD was conducted in educational settings (e.g., Lantolf & Genung, 2002; Ohta, 2000, 2001; Storch, 2004; Thorne, 2003) or in other settings in which the elicitation devices were employed (e.g., Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Roebuck, 2000). Among this research, of great relevance to the current study is a case reported by Thorne (2003), who focused on the impact of relationship building through intercultural communication on an FL learner’s L2 development. Since the setting of this case is an internet-mediated intercultural communication exchange between students of American and French universities, the learner (female) engaged in informal interactions with her French partner in the same age bracket on an equal footing. Such interactions seem to be relatively close to those in which the participants of the current study engaged with their social network members. Specifically, Thorne (2003) examined Instant Messenger (IM) and email transcripts between this learner, who enrolled in a fourthsemester French grammar course at an American university, and a French student (male), with whom she was paired, at a French university. In addition, a post-semester interview was conducted with her. The analysis of these data revealed that changes in material and social conditions were pertinent to a significant increase in her exposure to French and consequent pragmatic and linguistic development in French. Thorne, more specifically, explained that the shift of internet communication tools from email to IM was a major determinant of this increase and development. With respect to changes in social conditions, the learner’s L2 use for the building of a meaningful social relationship rather than L2 study as an educational activity was also highlighted as another determinant. Thorne furthermore claimed that the learner’s self-image as a speaker of French was enhanced considerably through her first authentic L2 interactions in which she became aware of her capacity to communicate in French as well as to self-regulate in it. This case suggests that motivation is not a fixed property that learners own, but is constructed in relation to prior and ongoing activity and influenced by

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

27

changing social and material conditions in which the learners are situated. As regards the L2 learner’s self-image or identity as an L2 learner or user, an increasing number of studies have dealt with its negotiation and relevance to L2 learning from post-structural or language socialization perspectives, some of which I have introduced earlier (Angelil-Carter, 1997; Blackledge, 2004; Block, 2007; Canagarajah, 2004; Duff, 2002a, 2002b; Goldstein, 1996; Harklau, 2000; Kanno, 2004; Kinginger, 2004; McKay & Wong, 1996; Miller, 2000, 2004; Morgan, 1997; Norton, 1998, 2000, 2001; Norton Peirce, 1995; Norton & Gao, 2008; Norton & Toohey, 2001; Pavlenko, 2004; Rampton, 1995; Siegal, 1996; Toohey, 2000). A lot of these studies examined the natural discourse of immigrants and are concerned with the learner’s ability to claim a voice as an L2 speaker. Among these studies, there is one case study that investigated a learner’s negotiation of identity in FL settings (Kinginger, 2004). In this study, Kinginger examines the characteristics of an American student’s dispositions toward learning French in terms of claims to a renegotiated identity. Dealing with a range of data, including interviews and journals, this study traces the learner’s experience of FL learning at home and abroad over a period of 4 years. Kinginger found that the learner’s French learning experience involved negotiation of many facets of her identity, such as social, linguistic, gender and class. Drawing upon Norton’s (2000) concept of investment, Kinginger’s (2004) study suggests that this learner’s investment in language learning and the meaning she attributes to FL competence can only be understood by examining the sociocultural worlds from which they emerge, and their dynamism over time. Kinginger further argues that FL learners’ history, their dispositions toward language learning and access to sociocultural worlds influence the qualities of their achievements. She finally proposes that the categories emerging from research on language learning as social practice, such as an investment in social identity of the immigrant women in Norton’s (2000) study, are relevant to the FL area. Some research taking socioculturally oriented approaches underscores the idea that the conditions for the establishment of communication in L2 should not be taken for granted (Duff, 2003; Pavlenko,

28

Foreign Language Learning and Use

2002). A number of studies demonstrate that some TL speakers regard L2 learners as incompetent interactants and refuse to interact with them (Kanno, 2000; Miller, 1999; Siegal, 1996). Siegal’s (1996) case study of a white western woman learning Japanese in Japan, for instance, shows that NSs of Japanese may refuse to interact with western learners in Japanese and furthermore, even if they do so, they are unlikely to provide feedback about instances of inappropriate pragmatic usage. An analysis of a conversation between this western woman and her professor reveals that the professor was not offended by her pragmatic failures, whereas non-western foreign students in Japan report that their pragmatic inappropriateness caused them some discomfort in their interaction with their professors. Siegal (1996) attributes this difference to low expectations concerning the Japanese language ability of western learners that are historically apparent in Japan and argues that ignoring pragmatic inappropriateness in the classroom as well as in everyday interaction disables learners in the amount of linguistic capital with which they become proficient in Japanese. Noting that to claim the right to speak in an L2 requires the collaboration of the listener, who must not only hear but also believe, Miller proposes the notion of audibility (Miller, 1999, 2000, 2004). She refers to this notion as ‘the degree to which speakers sound like, and are legitimated by, users of the dominant discourse’ (Miller, 2004: 291). She explains that in spoken interactions both a listener and a speaker share the responsibility for keeping the communication alive, but at times the dominant speaker may refuse to assume any of this responsibility. Audibility is thus co-constructed and requires collaboration between the speaker and the listener. Miller’s ethnographic studies of ESL students’ transitions to mainstream classrooms in an Australian high school explore the relationship between the audibility of some immigrant students and the construction of their identity as they are learning English (Miller, 1999, 2000, 2004). Miller claims that transferring to a mainstream high school actually limited the chances for a number of the students in her research to use English and they found themselves neither heard nor understood. She further argues that being audible to others as a speaker of L2 determines the extent to which a student may participate in social interaction, negotiation

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

29

and practices in a range of social contexts, which, in turn, provides the means of self-representation, negotiation of identities and the crucial underlying condition for on-going L2 learning. Her research thus highlights the necessity for institutional practices to assist linguistic minority students in becoming audible and to maximize their chances to use the TL and to renegotiate their identities. In sum, the socioculturally oriented research mentioned earlier views social contexts as crucial in understanding L2 learning, and explores how various factors, including personal, interpersonal and social, have a strong influence on access to linguistic resources and interactional opportunities, and, ultimately L2 learning outcomes. The development of SLA theory from socioculturally oriented perspectives, such as the concept of ZPD and learners’ identities, allows researchers to capture the complex relationship between social contexts and L2 learning.

Social networks and their relevance to L2 learning Most of the studies dealing with L2 learning in learners’ social networks have been carried out in in-country settings, such as in host countries of immigrants (e.g., Yum, 1982; Wiklund, 2002) or sojourners (e.g., Marriott, 1984; Segawa, 1998). Two studies in the former settings that are directly concerned with the relationships between characteristics of social networks and L2 language learning have been undertaken by Smith (2002) and Wiklund (2002). Wiklund (2002) examined the characteristics of the social networks of bilingual (immigrant) adolescents in Sweden and assessed the role of networks in the development of L2 proficiency and school success. Smith (2002), on the other hand, presents a multiple-case study of expatriates living in Southeast Asian cultures and explores the correlation between their network properties and communicative competence. The results of these two studies overlap regarding the characteristics that are positively related to L2 learning. Both studies found that ‘frequency of interaction with hosts’ and ‘percentage of host nationals in the network’ are positively related to communicative competence or L2 proficiency. In addition, Smith found a weak correlation between the size of the networks and competence. Smith

30

Foreign Language Learning and Use

also claims that the factors of ‘density’ and ‘closeness’ may negatively affect the participants’ communicative competence since dense networks, where close relationships are often formed, may seclude the expatriates enough to prevent exposure to new lexicon and sociolinguistic situations, thereby impeding language learning. Both Smith (2002) and Wiklund (2002) were interested in the correlations between the characteristics of social networks and L2 proficiency. In order to measure this proficiency, they required their participants to produce written texts or to take oral tests. Given an increasing awareness of contextual and social aspects in language learning research, it is also important to investigate how actual interactions with network members influences SLA. Tarone (1997) suggests that the way NSs and learners behave in a formal, task-oriented context cannot be assumed to be the way they behave in the real world and highlights the necessity to study L2 learning processes in natural settings for everyday communication. My previous research takes up in part Tarone’s (1997) suggestion of the significance of examining authentic interactions in natural settings (Kurata, 2002, 2004a, 2004b). This research presents a case study of the social networks of upper-intermediate level language learners studying Japanese at an Australian university. Dealing with a wide range of data, including interactive discourse occurring in naturalistic environments as well as introspective reports and interviews, the study examined the relationship between the learners’ networks and SLA in their home country. Utilizing Boissevain’s (1974) criteria for network analysis, I compared the characteristics of the participants’ current networks with those that existed prior to their in-country experiences. In addition, the study applied Swain and Lapkin’s (Swain & Lapkin, 1995) model of ‘output and second language learning’ and the framework of communicative competence developed by Neustupný (1987) to analyse the participants’ language learning in their actual interactions within their networks. The results of my previous research indicated that a number of characteristics, such as ‘multiplexity’, the variety of backgrounds of their network members and the close relationships between the participants and their network members, were probably related to the raising of their non-linguistic as well as linguistic awareness. Moreover,

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

31

I found that the learners of Japanese in this research made significant investments in interaction in ‘clusters’ (segments of networks which have relatively high density), and, in turn, they were exposed to Japanese culture as well as Japanese language usage in natural settings. It was argued that this exposure would facilitate opportunities for L2 learning. Furthermore, the analysis of some naturally occurring interactions within the learners’ social networks revealed that these interactions provide a very valuable source of comprehensible input and output, which possibly leads to language learning. As regards Japanese learning in host-country settings, there are a number of case studies that have examined the links between learners’ social networks and L2 learning. The concept of network was first employed in this setting by Haruhara (1992), who investigated the ‘networking strategy’. In this study, Haruhara stressed the importance for learners to consider their daily life situations as learning. Subsequent to Haruhara’s study, the Committee of Network Research in the Japanese Language Education Society carried out research into learners’ Japanese language acquisition from a network perspective (Nihongo Kyooiku Gakkai Nettowaaku Choosa Kenkyuu Iinkai (The Network Research Committee of the Japanese Language Education Society), 1997). Their research includes several case studies that focus on the effect of learners’ networks on Japanese language acquisition, the learners’ evaluation of their networks and the linkage between their learning strategies and the maintenance of their networks. The participants of these studies were foreign residents of Japan with a variety of backgrounds, such as refugees, foreign wives with Japanese husbands and overseas students. The researchers employed ethnographic methods, for example, participant observation, and interviews with learners, their partners and their teachers. The results of these case studies revealed some important factors that facilitate Japanese learning, including learners’ active participation in networks where they can engage in a variety of activities and can develop mutual and close relationships with NSs, and the existence of key persons who support the establishment and the maintenance of networks or encourage learners to participate in different networks. On the other hand, there are a few negative factors affecting Japanese learning. A number of participants in this research believed

32

Foreign Language Learning and Use

that networks with co-nationals hindered them from establishing networks with NSs and impeded the improvement of their Japanese skills. Moreover, some other cases in this research demonstrated that a lack of active participation in networks with either co-nationals or Japanese NSs resulted in a lack of information about Japanese learning and of opportunities to communicate with NSs. Within English as a foreign language (EFL) settings, two more recent studies explored the relevance of learners’ social networks to their L2 learning (Ferenz, 2005; Palfreyman, 2006). Ferenz (2005) investigated the types of social networks in which six graduate students at an Israeli university discussed their L2 disciplinary writing tasks and the impact of these networks on the development in their L2 academic literacy. Ferenz identified two types of social networks, namely, academic-oriented and non-academic-oriented networks. Her analysis further indicated that the members in the former social networks assisted the students in promoting their L2 advanced academic literacy, among others, by developing their disciplinary knowledge as well as modelling L2 literacy practices. The students’ non-academic-oriented social networks, in contrast, were claimed to promote general literacy skills. Ferenz also suggests that students develop academic-oriented networks in order to pursue academic identity as well as academic goals whereas non-academic social networks reflect the students’ other types of identities and goals, such as those of a professional nature. Ferenz finally recommends that students’ identities, goals and access to supportive social and academic environments should be taken into consideration for the learners’ L2 literacy development. Focusing on social and material L2 resources outside formal learning settings, Palfreyman (2006) examined how the use of these resources by female university students in the United Arab Emirates was shaped by social contexts. Based on an online survey as well as interview data, Palfreyman found that the students utilized a wide variety of resources in these settings to practise L2 as well as to clarify their understanding of the language. Viewing social networks as a key concept in understanding the ecology of social resources, Palfreyman claimed that gender and perceived expertise in English affected the students’ use of these resources. Relatively high English proficiency of the students’

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

33

older sisters, for example, was found to contribute to an available source of expert help. Palfreyman thus suggests that social networks influence the accessibility and use of social resources. In addition, the findings demonstrate that the students themselves acted as sources of English expertise, which, in turn, might strengthen their status and/ or social identity in their family as well as community. A significant multiple-case study concerned with the effect of social networks on academic literacy socialization in an ESL setting was conducted by Zappa-Hollman (2007). Combining the notions of social networks (Milroy, 1987) and communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), she proposes the concept of ‘individual network of practice’ (INoP). This concept is defined as ‘all the social ties of any given individual, whether weak/distant or strong/close, relevant to the phenomenon under study’ (Zappa-Hollman, 2007: 21). The researcher found INoP useful as an analytical construct to examine the nature and impact of six Mexican exchange students’ interpersonal relationships on their L2 academic literacy development and performance at a Canadian university. More specifically, one of the participants’ (female) investment in INoP ties provided her with affective and academic returns, both of which were positively related to her socialization into the academic culture of her host university, including its attendant literacy practices. In addition, this study reveals that the network members from whom this participant mostly received such returns were characterized by multiplex ties, such as friends, classmates and sometimes also team mates at university. With the spread of the internet, learners now have the opportunity to use an L2 outside of the classroom in many more ways than were previously possible. However, researchers have only recently begun to explore how the new technologies, including online chat and social networking services, affect the maintenance and development of learners’ informal social networks with L2 speakers as well as their actual language use and L2 learning within these networks (PasfieldNeofitou, 2007a, 2007b, 2009). Pasfield-Neofitou (2007a, 2007b, 2009), for example, examines the features of intercultural internet chat between learners of Japanese and their Japanese friends and how these learners use this medium as an opportunity for communication and informal language learning. She found that chat was

34

Foreign Language Learning and Use

a vehicle for cementing or continuing social interactions between some learners and their Japanese friends despite their geographic separation. In terms of L2 learning, her analysis revealed that repair was more frequent when learners had a primary goal of language learning rather than social interaction, and that the visual nature of text-based chat seemed to facilitate repair. The above literature on social factors affecting L2 learning outside the classroom provides insights into the complex nature of L2 learners’ engagement in specific social settings. As some of this literature maintains, this engagement is closely related to the learners’ social identity as well as large sociocultural and/or socio-political contexts, and such relationships exert an influence on L2 learning in complex ways. With respect to the above-mentioned network-related research, it has contributed information to our current knowledge that the way people learn outside educational settings is to draw upon networks of other people who act as models for the learner and/or as sources of support in L2. Nevertheless, it tends to regard access to such networks as unproblematic, as mentioned previously. In other words, it tells us little about the processes of constructing opportunities for L2 use and L2 learning in the learners’ social networks.

The Participants The participants for my study were recruited at the beginning of semester one in 2004 at a university in Australia. In the first week of the semester, I visited the lectures of the two intermediate courses of Japanese and distributed a brief questionnaire (cf. Appendix I) to the first-year students. The reasons for selecting these intermediate courses and the first-year students will be explained in the following chapter. The aim of this questionnaire was to obtain information regarding the demographic and linguistic backgrounds of the students as well as their social contact with NSs of Japanese. In the questionnaire, I also explained the aim of the study briefly and asked whether they were willing to undertake interviews with me. Fifteen students from the higher level course and 47 students from the lower level course returned the questionnaires and the majority of them filled in their contact numbers for further co-operation for my

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

35

study. I selected 12 of them, on the basis of obtaining a spread of demographic characteristics, such as gender and age and that of linguistic backgrounds including home language(s) and in-country experience in Japan. Whether they had social contact with NSs of Japanese who resided in Australia or Japan was also taken into account. In other words, one-half of these 12 learners had already had frequent contact with a significant number of Japanese friends or acquaintances and the rest of them had no or very limited social contact with NSs. One of the participants withdrew from the study due to her busy schedule at an early stage of the data collection and another participant was available to be interviewed only for the first semester. After initial analysis, six participants out of ten were selected for the case studies, on the basis of the quality of data, such as how conscious and candid the participants were about their linguistic behaviour, and the availability of actual interactional data. The detailed description of each participant’s backgrounds will be given in Chapter 2.

Methodology I employed a longitudinal multiple case study approach to gain an in-depth understanding of the participants’ learning experiences and perspectives (Duff, 2008; Merriam, 1998; Nunan, 1992). Nunan (1992) explains that case studies in the SLA field often take a longitudinal approach and this approach is naturalistic, in the sense that it usually utilizes learners’ spontaneous discourse, and it is process oriented (examining the linguistic behaviour or development over a period of time). In following this tradition of the case study approach in the SLA field, my research aims at the detailed description and analysis of how opportunities for L2 use and L2 learning are constructed in FL learners’ social network contexts. In other words, a longitudinal case study approach allows for a focus on the process of the construction of L2 use and learning opportunities in the interactions that naturally occur in the learners’ social networks. Furthermore, by dealing with multiple cases, the study identifies some general trends and salient patterns among them, while it attempts to develop a thick explanation of the individual cases.

36

Foreign Language Learning and Use

To attain the aim that was described earlier, I adopted a number of qualitative methods. As stated earlier, relatively little network research has been carried out in Japanese language learning settings. Moreover, while most of this research has employed ethnographic methods, the majority of it has only utilized the interview technique. Internal validity, which Silverman (2005) refers to as the extent to which findings correctly map the phenomenon in question, is one of the strengths of ethnographic research. Nevertheless, employing a single method prevents the cross-checking of data collected from other methods, which is necessary to minimize the possibility of results being a product of the data-collection procedure. Methodological triangulation, therefore, is a way to utilize different methods or sources to corroborate each other, thereby improving further internal validity. Furthermore, it is essential to consider learners’ interaction in the natural context of their social networks rather than as an artifact of elicitation devices because network research in L2 learning settings should also be concerned with the contexts in which L2 learning occurs. Duff (2006) rightly maintains that the more controlled SLA studies are, the less generalizable the findings are, either to larger populations or to broader understandings of language learning and use in natural settings. Consequently, to enhance the validity of this study and to advance our understanding of the social contexts that affect the construction of L2 use and learning opportunities, my research incorporates a triangulation of qualitative methodological procedures, including the collection of samples of interactive discourse occurring in natural social settings, as well as interviews. The interviews for this study consist of two types of formats, namely, interaction interviews and stimulated recall interviews. In addition, the participants were also requested to record details associated with their exposure to Japanese in out-of-class contexts in a diary.

Data Collection Interaction interviews I used semi-structured interviews to elicit detailed information regarding the participants’ language use and learning in their social

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

37

networks. Specifically, in order to examine the participants’ actual linguistic behaviour within their social networks, I employed an ‘interaction interview’ format. This format was proposed by Neustupný and it avoids general questions about what participants usually do and concentrates on specific questions to find out what actually happened in a particular situation, usually within a set period of time (Neustupný, 1994; Neustupný & Miyazaki, 2002). Neustupný suggests that such a style of questioning can reveal human behaviour more accurately than can general questions. This methodology can be thus described as a kind of retrospective method. In addition, Muraoka (2002) explains that this interview method is particularly useful when it is difficult for researchers to record or observe their participants’ linguistic behaviour and when investigating, among other things, speech events and interactions that occurred in participants’ social networks. In my study, therefore, the majority of the questions asked in the interviews focused on the participants’ most recent interactions that naturally occurred within their social networks. These questions were broadly divided into four parts (cf. Appendix II). In the first part, I asked the participants about their current networks with NSs of Japanese and other learners of Japanese in order to compare with those that they reported in their previous interview. The second, third and fourth parts focused on the detailed description of the language use between the participants and their network members, namely NSs of Japanese in Australia, other learners of Japanese and NSs of Japanese in Japan, respectively. In addition, these parts also included questions that required the participants to give detailed explanation of the contexts in which their interactions occurred. I conducted interviews with each participant five or six times over a period of 9 months (two university semesters from March to November in 2004) to closely examine in what ways their language use changed as well as what social and contextual factors affected this language use. The first interviews with each participant were held in March for the purpose of eliciting information about the social networks in which they had used Japanese then as well as about their language learning background, including details about their stay in Japan and their formal Japanese study. I commenced the interaction interview format from the second interviews with them from April.

38

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Depending on the participants’ availability, these interaction interviews were scheduled at 2- to 3-month intervals. All the interviews were conducted in English except for those with Grace and Patty, who were eager to use Japanese in their interviews and who exhibited a high level of Japanese oral proficiency. The duration of the interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 1.8 hours, depending upon how much they had to report, which, in turn, depended on how conscious the participants were about their language use as well as how much social contact they recently had with their network members. Each interview was tape-recorded and notes were also taken. The recorded tapes for each interview were fully transcribed as soon as possible. The unclear parts or questions based on these transcripts were clarified by email or in the following interviews. Table 1.1 summarizes the data collection methods, the time period and the data available for each participant.

Interaction data for a micro-discourse analysis With the aim of the micro-analysis of the processes of the participants’ language selection as well as those of constructing L2 learning opportunities, a number of samples of each participant’s natural interactions were collected. These include email messages, online chat scripts, SMS messages and recorded conversations that were produced by the participants and their social network members. The participants’ social network members’ permission to allow me to use these data for research purpose was sought through the participants. The availability of these data for each participant is shown in Table 1.1. Regarding the electronic discourse that was mentioned earlier, I requested the participants to show me the recent messages and scripts that were composed by them and their social network members. In the case of spoken discourse, I provided the participants with a small tape recorder for their use and instructed them to attempt to capture a natural conversation at a time when they normally talked with their network members. I explained to them that the choice of topics was open and not a focus of my study. I also assured them that my purpose in collecting both electronic and spoken discourse had nothing to do with their grammatical accuracy or assessment of their

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

39

Table 1.1 Data for each participant

Cindy

Grace

Interaction interviews

Interaction data

Diaries

Stimulated recall interviews

1. Mar., 2. May, 3. June, 4. Sept., 5. Nov., 6. Email interviews in Feb. 05 1. Mar., 2. Apr., 3. June, 4. Sept., 5. Nov., 6. Email interviews in Nov. and Jan. 05

One case of spoken discourse One session of online chat

N/A

1. Sept.: for online chat script and spoken discourse

Five sessions of online chat Seven email messages

N/A

1. June: for online chat scripts 2. Sept.: for email messages 3. Nov.: for online chat scripts and email messages 1. June: for email messages 2. Aug.: for diary entries and email messages 1. Sept.: for online chat and diary entries

Patty

1. Mar., 2. Apr., 3. June, 4. Aug., 5. Nov.

One case of spoken discourse 13 email messages

11 days in Aug.

Jim

1. Mar., 2. Mar., 3. June, 4. Sept., 5. Nov. 6. Email interview in Jan. 05 1. Mar., 2. Apr., 3. June, 4. Sept., 5. Nov. 6. Email interviews in Nov. and Feb. 05

One session of online chat

4 days in Sept.

One SMS message Four cases of spoken discourse

14 days in Aug. and Sept.

Two cases of spoken discourse

6 days in Aug.

Simon

Max

1. Mar., 2. Apr., 3. June, 4. Aug., 5. Nov., 6. Email interviews in Nov. and Feb. 05

1. Sept.: for diary entries, one case of spoken discourse and SMS message 2. Nov.: for one case of spoken discourse 1. Sept: for diary entries

linguistic abilities. A total of 36 cases of interactions became the corpus of discourse data.

Diary entries In order to illuminate the social and contextual factors influencing the participants’ language learning and use, the participants were

40

Foreign Language Learning and Use

given some sheets of paper to keep diaries in English regarding their exposure to Japanese outside classrooms (cf. Appendix III). However, two of the participants, Grace and Cindy, were unable to submit their diaries due to the former’s busy schedule and the latter’s loss of her diaries. The period of the participants’ diary entries ranged from 4 days to 2 weeks, depending on their convenience. They mainly recorded their interactions with their network members, but they also entered other types of exposure to Japanese, such as listening to Japanese music. More specifically, they noted such details as time and place of interactions, in what situation they had contact with their network members, what language(s) they used and on what topics they interacted. Furthermore, they were requested to write about their noticing in terms of language use as well as to reflect on their satisfaction or problems about their language use in each of the situations where they were exposed to Japanese.

Stimulated recall interviews Subsequent to the collection of the samples of the participants’ interactions and their diary entries, stimulated recall interviews were also undertaken in order to elicit their reflections on their language use in these data in more depth. Stimulated recall is one of the introspective (specifically, retrospective) methods and it has been utilized increasingly in the field of SLA since the 1980s. It provides an important research tool that helps uncover what is not observable on the surface of human behaviour (Gass & Mackey, 2000). The main aim of this methodology is to explore learners’ cognitive processes at the time of an activity or a task. However, this method is also used to reveal things other than these processes, such as learners’ impressions of social interactions and their focus of attention (Gass & Mackey, 2000; Polio, Gass, & Chapin, 2006). Gass & Mackey (2000) also note that this method is frequently employed together with other methodologies, as a means of triangulation or further examination. The main aim of stimulated recall is shared by a similar methodological procedure called ‘follow-up interview’ (Neustupný, 1990,

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

41

1994; Neustupný & Miyazaki, 2002). Neustupný (1990, 1994) established this methodology in the 1970s and he employed it in association with his theory of language management. He explains that this method allows us to investigate the processes of participants’ language management that are not usually observable, including self-monitoring and evaluations of their linguistic behaviours. Similar to Gass & Mackey (2000), Neustupný highlights the necessity of employing other methodologies in order to fully examine what happens in a particular event. My study concerns not only the interactive processes of the participants during their social interactions with their network members but also their affective reactions to social interactions. Therefore, it employs stimulated recall interviews as supplements for the data gathered by the other methods that I explained earlier. With respect to the participants’ diary entries, stimulated recall interviews were conducted on the day after they completed their diaries. The participants were asked to describe the situations in which they were exposed to Japanese in detail, based on the entries that they made in the diaries. I specifically asked them whether they were aware of any factors affecting their language selection in each situation, and if they were, I asked for a detailed description of these factors. In addition, they were requested to explain what they noticed and why in terms of language use as well as the reasons for their satisfaction/dissatisfaction with their interactions. Each stimulated recall interview for both discourse data and diary entries was audio-taped and notes were also taken. The interviews ranged from 10 to 30 minutes in duration. In the case of discourse data, the participants were asked to recall what they were thinking during the course of their interactions as they retrospectively reviewed the written samples, such as email messages, or the audiotapes. I specifically requested them to inform me when they remembered that they had noticed or discovered something in terms of language(s) at the time of their interactions, including the reasons for their language selection and any problems of which they had been aware. In addition, they were asked to explain how they had noticed these problems and what they had done after noticing.

42

Foreign Language Learning and Use

In order to increase the reliability of the data elicited through stimulated recall interviews, it is ideal to conduct the interviews as soon as possible after the participants engaged in their interactions (Nunan, 1992; Gass & Mackey, 2000; Neustupný & Miyazaki, 2002; Polio et al., 2006). However, it was not always possible to conduct these interviews immediately after their interactions because some participants were occasionally unavailable for immediate interviews or they forgot to provide me with their interaction data immediately. Therefore, a number of interviews took place a few days or a week after the date of the interactions. Although the level of recall depended upon individual participants, the majority of them seemed to be able to recall their thought processes and behaviours at the time of the interactions by using their samples as a stimulus. However, they might be reconstructing their behaviour and their explanations might not always accurately reflect their thought processes at the time (cf. Neustupný, 1990; Matsumoto, 1994). Despite these possible problems, I consider retrospective methods including interaction interviews as well as stimulated recall as beneficial because of the usefulness of the retrospective data for issues that may be left unanswered in the data obtained through other methodologies.

Transcription Transcription of oral interaction data I originally intended to fully transcribe the tapes that the participants recorded of their conversations with their network members. However, as the participants captured a natural conversation, some of the recordings were conducted in relatively noisy environments, such as a café at their university and the kitchen where one participant and his network members were cooking. Therefore there were some incomprehensible or unclear parts to transcribe accurately for the purpose of linguistic analysis. I thus first listened to all the tapes to summarize the patterns of language use as well as some other important points. I then transcribed all the segments that were intelligible or audible enough to transcribe in detail.

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

43

Table 1.2 Transcription symbols for the oral interaction data ? , . : CAPITALS _________ (.) (number) <> << >> [] (hhh) (word) () (())

Rising intonation Low-rising intonation suggesting continuation Falling (final) intonation Lengthening of preceding sound Capitals indicate the speaker’s emphasis in utterances in English Underlined parts indicate the speaker’s emphasis in utterances in Japanese Pause less than a second Pause more than a second Reduced volume – soft voice Reduced volume – whispered Overlapping with portion in the next turn that is similarly bracketed Laughter Unclear or probable utterance Incomprehensible utterance, no transcription attempted Researcher’s comment on situation, non-verbal behaviour and so on

The segments of the oral interaction data were transcribed according to CA conventions, with some modifications (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Markee, 2000). These transcription conventions are listed in Table 1.2. Utterances in Japanese are transcribed in hiragana, katakana and characters and are provided with English translation. Japanese proper nouns and English loanwords in English translation are indicated by the Romanized spelling with italics. For this spelling, the Hepburn system of Romanization of Japanese is employed, and modified according to Neustupný’s (1991b) guidelines. English utterances, including those close to English pronunciation are written in alphabetic script. Japanese loanwords used in English utterances are also indicated by the Romanized spelling in the same way as English loanwords in the English translation.

Transcription of interviews Both the interaction interviews and the stimulated recall interviews that I conducted with the participants were fully transcribed. During the course of this transcription, unclear or unintelligible parts were marked. If these parts were important for analysis, the participants

44

Foreign Language Learning and Use

were asked to recall what they had said by email or in the next interviews. However, if they could not do so, I requested them to explain what they meant in the contexts which included these parts. The symbols used in these transcriptions were the same as for the oral interaction data, shown in Table 1.2.

Analysis The interview data and transcripts were analysed for observable patterns and other points of interest. This process generated salient themes and tentative categories, such as the role of new technologies in L2 use and L2 use among learners. After the data collection, I reviewed the transcripts of the interaction interviews and the diary entries multiple times. At this stage, significant patterns and themes that were common among some or all of the participants were identified. Utilizing activity theory, some other socioculturally oriented concepts and Auer’s (1984, 1988) approach to bilingual interaction, more theoretical categories and constructs were then generated from the relevant literature as well as these data. Such categories included discourse-related language selection and social roles that interactants seemed to play in their interactions. The interview data and diary entries were then coded according to these categories. Further analysis involved exploring how the theoretical constructs and categories that were mentioned earlier interacted with each other. The analysis of interaction data went through a similar process to that of the interaction interviews and diary entries. The process included repeated reading of interaction data and of the transcripts of the stimulated recall interviews based on them, combining the evidence from the interaction interview data and the diary entries, and noting patterns and salient points. These interaction data were also coded according to the theoretical categories and constructs that were generated from the interaction interview data. Further analysis also followed the same procedure as that of interaction interviews, which has been described earlier. It is important to note that in the case of conversation data, I conducted a micro-discourse analysis, not a CA analysis, although I utilize some concepts of Auer’s conversation analytic model of bilingual interaction, which I outlined earlier.

Social Contexts of Language Use and Learning

45

As mentioned earlier, my study employs the concept of the ZPD in order to examine what opportunities for L2 learning occurred in the participants’ social networks. I identified the segments that include assistance supplied by the participants’ network members or the participants themselves and categorized the methods of this assistance in the interaction data. Further attention was paid to sequential organization of these episodes in terms of what preceded and followed the provision or non-provision of assistance. More specifically, analysis focused on learners’ changes in utterances after the provision of assistance and how these changes related to this assistance. Moreover, the analysis of the characteristics of bilingual social networks of the participants and the detailed discourse analysis of their interaction allowed me to examine how opportunities for L2 learning and use occur in these networks, and in turn, what social and contextual factors affect the construction of these opportunities.

Summary This chapter has first outlined how my research area is located and the settings in which my participants were situated. I then explained the theories that this book employs and also discussed their importance and usefulness in providing a framework to explore the social construction of opportunities for L2 use/learning. The chapter has also reviewed the relevant literature that focuses on social dimensions of L1/L2 use and L2 learning. Based upon the review of recent studies on the social and interactional significance of language selection in L2 learning settings, it has become apparent that an in-depth examination of L1/L2 selection at both micro- and macro-levels in L2 learners’ natural interactions outside the classroom would be a valuable contribution to the field. In order to conduct such a duallevel examination, the current research utilizes sociocultural theory alongside of Auer’s approach to bilingual interaction. The literature on social factors affecting L2 learning outside the classroom, on the other hand, provides insights into the complex relationship between social contexts and L2 learning. With respect to the network-related research, however, it tells us little about the

46

Foreign Language Learning and Use

processes of constructing opportunities for L2 use and L2 learning in the learners’ social networks. My study, therefore, was motivated by the desire to illuminate these processes by drawing upon socioculturally oriented theories that attach great importance to the social dimensions of L2 learning. The explanations about the theories and literature in this chapter have laid the groundwork for the analysis and discussion in the following chapters. The chapter has finally outlined the methodologies that I employed, and includes a discussion about the significance of adopting a multiple case study approach. It also describes the four types of data collection procedures, transcription methods and analytical procedures.

Chapter 2

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

This chapter first gives further information on the participants’ linguistic backgrounds that were briefly explained in Chapter 1, including their language learning history and their investment in L2 learning. More specifically, I describe their exposure to Japanese and their dispositions towards L2 learning based on their diary entries and interview data. The chapter also examines their social network contexts as well as the patterns of L1/L2 use within these contexts. The following two chapters then explore what factors affect this L1/ L2 use in the participants’ social interactions with some of their network members.

The Participants’ General Backgrounds As mentioned in Chapter 1, this study involves first-year undergraduate students who were enrolled in the intermediate courses of Japanese at a university in Melbourne. These courses were called Level C and Level D. First-year students who commence these courses are those who have studied Japanese at secondary school, another tertiary institution or in Japan and have achieved a level of competence appropriate to the level before entering this university. The students are supposed to complete approximately 200 hours of Japanese language study prior to Level C and 300 hours of study to start Level D. The first-year students were selected because it was expected that following their entrance to the university some would become acquainted with NSs of Japanese or other learners of Japanese and thereby would have established and developed social networks in which they used Japanese. In other words, they were selected in order to investigate the

Foreign Language Learning and Use

48

features of the social networks that they established in the first year of their university as well as those of their L1/L2 use in these networks. The reason why the Level C and D courses have been chosen is that intermediate learners would be more likely to pursue informal out-ofclass contacts, which might result in their social network development, compared with those in beginners’ language courses. Freed (1990) demonstrated the fact that students at higher levels tended to engage in more interactive contact in the TL community than did those at the beginner levels. Therefore, it could be assumed that intermediate learners would seek to establish and maintain networks with NSs. As shown in Table 2.1, the six participants consisted of three females and three males, three students studying Level C and three from Level D. They have been assigned pseudonyms for the purpose of anonymity. The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 27 years and all except for one were NSs of English who had been born in Australia. I selected three students who had had in-country Table 2.1 Background of the participants Background details Age Gender Nationality Home language Time in Australia Time in Japan Purpose of stay in Japan

Cindy

Grace

Patty

Jim

Simon

Max

25 Female Australian English

19 Female Australian English

27 Female Australian English

18 Male Australian English

18 Male Australian English

21 Male Austrian German

25 years

19 years

27 years

18 years

18 years

3 weeks

1 year 10-month university exchange program, 2-month holiday

1 year 10-month high school exchange program, 2-month cultural exchange program 9 years

2.5 years 1-year high school exchange program, 1.5-year working holiday

2 weeks 2-week high school trip

3 weeks 3-week high school trip

N/A N/A

4 years

10 years

7 years

1.5 years

Level D

Level C

Level C

Level D

Level C

Length of 2 years formal Japanese study Japanese level Level D at university

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

49

experience of more than 10 months and three who had very limited or no in-country experience, based on the results of a previous study (Kurata, 2001). This study showed that Japanese language learners who have relatively longer in-country experience tend to have more well-developed networks with Japanese friends or acquaintances in home-country settings than those who have limited or no in-country experience. It was thus expected that the length of in-country experience would be one of the factors that would have an influence on the establishment and development of learners’ social networks. The participants and I shared a similar social position as a student at the same university. Although I was not teaching these students for the duration of the data collection in 2004, I had an experience of teaching the intermediate Japanese courses in which my participants were enrolled. I actually had taught one of the participants in the preceding year, but had not met the others until they volunteered for the research. I was therefore familiar with the institutional setting as well as the Japanese courses that they took. On these counts, I was an insider to them. In addition, in the course of multiple interviews with each of my participants, I found out that all of my participants and I shared an interest in learning L2 as well as similar difficult experiences as an L2 learner (for me learning English as an L2). In these respects, I had some advantages in understanding my participants’ needs and perspectives as L2 learners as well as in establishing a good rapport with them. At the same time, however, my participants and I occupied different positions, including biographical factors, such as age and nationality, and institutional positions, that is, undergraduate versus doctoral student with a casual teaching position. These differences also might have shaped our relationships. For instance, speaking to a senior Japanese student who was teaching Japanese in the department in which they were studying, it may be possible that they were inhibited in talking candidly about their problems and difficulties regarding their Japanese use and learning with me. However, I believe that these differences had only a minor effect on our relationships as an interviewee and interviewer. As I explained earlier, I conducted interviews with each participant several times over a period of 9 months. Each time I did so, I realized that they had talked more and more in detail,

50

Foreign Language Learning and Use

even about their negative experiences as a learner. In other words, in the first interview with each of my participants, some of them did not seem very open with me, but they became more candid and willing to talk more freely about their experiences as we developed a rapport in the course of the data collection period. In the next sections, I will describe the participants’ linguistic history, their social networks in which they used Japanese or the mixed variety (English and Japanese) and the patterns of L1/L2 use within these networks.

Cindy Linguistic background Cindy commenced her formal Japanese study at a college of Technical and Further Education (TAFE), a publicly funded postsecondary institution in Australia. She completed Certificate four in applied language (Japanese) in 2001 at this TAFE. There were 18 contact hours a week for this course. She then participated in an exchange program that this TAFE offered and studied at a university in Japan for 10 months in 2002 and 2003. She had Japanese lessons for 15–20 hours per week at this university. During her stay in Japan, she lived in a university hall with other overseas students who were mainly from Asian countries. She interacted with these students mostly in Japanese. In this hall there were a few Japanese tutors with whom she used English and Japanese. She sat for the Japanese Language Proficiency Test three times, once for Level four in 2001, and twice for Level two in 2002 and 2004. Although she passed Level four, she was unsuccessful for Level two. After her 10-month stay in Japan, Cindy commenced a BA in languages in 2004 at an Australian university, which required her to study two languages. Since she had only studied French for 4 years at secondary level, she was enrolled in a beginners’ course in French and Level D Japanese. At the university, she claimed that she had spent more time on French study than Japanese study during the teaching semesters because of the large amount of homework that was given in French classes. She described this homework as ‘tedious’ and said she was ‘so sick of it’. On the other hand, she reported that

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

51

she engaged in more extra-curricular activities for Japanese than for French because she was ‘really interested in Japanese’ and she was ‘trying to become really good at it.’ These extra-curricular activities included extra reading recommended in Japanese classes, visiting various Japanese websites, reading some Japanese manga (Japanese comic books) and translating Japanese animated films into English. Cindy was very keen to pursue social contact with NSs of Japanese as well as non-Japanese students who studied Japanese. She participated in the activities of the Japan Club at university (see Chapter 1), a social club for students who shared an interest in Japan, several times during the data collection period. She interacted with a number of Japanese students and other learners of Japanese in both English and Japanese during these activities. She also had a private Japanese lesson with a Japanese student once a week and took part in a language exchange interaction with another Japanese student. In addition, she claimed to have maintained contact with her Japanese friends in Japan as well as those in Australia in Japanese and/or English. Compared to the other participants in my study, Cindy was significantly more aware of the difficulties in developing language proficiency as well as the complexity of L2 learning. In her interview, for example, she pointed out one of the problems that L2 learners who are exposed to Japanese only in out-of-class situations tend to have. She explained that these learners ‘end up only being able to speak in a certain way and only being able to speak about certain things’, such as always speaking in plain forms or talking about daily topics only. She then mentioned some of the advantages of learning L2 in classes, including ‘studying topics that ordinarily you would never have discussed’. On the other hand, she highlighted the difficulties that learners who lack in-country experience and opportunities to use L2 outside classes might face. She commented that these learners are ‘really convinced that they can’t speak, they can’t understand, that means that they can’t speak and they can’t understand, and so even though they own their knowledge about Japanese in their head, actually putting it into use becomes really difficult for them’. She also seemed to achieve awareness of under what conditions learners, including herself and her peers, are comfortable or uncomfortable to speak L2.

Foreign Language Learning and Use

52

Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Figure 2.1 is a representation of Cindy’s social networks in which she was exposed to Japanese and English at the end of the data collection period (November 2004). In this figure, the two members connected by a solid line know each other. Multiple members who are shown together in one box also know each other due to their participation in the same activity field. The members indicated in grey boxes denote those with whom Cindy became acquainted after she entered university. Those indicated in italics are non-NSs of Japanese. As mentioned earlier, she interacted in the two languages not only with NSs of Japanese but also with non-Japanese network members, namely, Holly, Natalie, Julia, Sam and Anna. These members are all NSs of English with various ethnic backgrounds. All of the network members in Australia, except for Mako, were students at the same university as Cindy and she became acquainted with the majority of these students during her first year of university life. They met through friends, the Japan Club, classes, private Japanese

In Japan

Private Japanese tutor Mie

Former tutor in Cindy’s dormitory Mika

Former classmate Mami

Language exchange partner Yuko At Japan Club Nami, Holly

Cindy

Taking the same subject Natalie, Julia, Sam

Former classmate Ken

Julia’s friend Takuya

Yoga teacher Tomiko Former language exchange partner in Aust. Miku

Key:

In Aust.

Met while traveling with Mami and Mako Hideki

Mami’s friend Mako

: network members whom the participant met after entering university Italics : non-Japanese network members

Figure 2.1 Cindy’s bilingual networks in Japan and Australia

Taking the same Japanese class Anna

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

53

lessons and language exchange lessons. Cindy’s network members in Japan, on the other hand, were mostly her former classmates or tutor with whom she had regular contact during her stay in Japan and with whom she had maintained contact afterwards. Table 2.2 presents the varieties of language use between Cindy and her social network members. The language use in bold type (X) for distinguishing purposes indicates that their interaction with Cindy was by written channel, such as email and online chat. Employing Nishimura’s (1992) categories of three varieties of bilingual speech, Cindy’s language use was categorized into three types: ‘the basically Japanese variety’ (BJ), ‘the basically English variety’ (BE) and ‘the mixed variety’ (M). In addition, non-reciprocal use of languages between Cindy and her network members that was found in my study was categorized as ‘non-reciprocal use’ (NR). The language use denoted with asterisk (X*) was on the basis of actual interactional data; X indicates that it was based on interaction interview data. Table 2.2

Language use in Cindy’s social networks Japanese members

Varieties of language use

BE

Network Mie members at Nami university Yuko Takuya

X* X X X

Outside university

Mako

Members in Japan

Mika Tomiko Mami Miku Hideki Ken

X X X X X

BJ

M

X

X X

X

X

X

X

Non-Japanese members

NR

BE

Sam Holly Natalie Julia Anna

BJ

X X X X X

X X X X X N/A

X1 (see below) X* X X

M

N/A X2 (see below)

Key: X: language use according to interview data. X*: language use confirmed by actual interactional data. Bold type: interaction through the written channel. BE: Basically English, BJ: Basically Japanese, M: Mixed, NR: Non-reciprocal use. X1: Cindy: BJ, Tomiko: BE, X2: Cindy: BJ, Ken: BE.

NR

54

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Table 2.2 illustrates the wide range of language use patterns in Cindy’s social network contexts, depending on her network members, even though they belong to the same category, such as NSs of Japanese at the university. For instance, Cindy had interaction only in ‘the basically English variety’ with Mie and Nami, but she used the three types of varieties with Yuko at different times, depending on the contexts. Moreover, there are several instances of non-reciprocal use of varieties between Cindy and two of her network members, Tomiko and Ken. This pattern occurred in the written channel, including email and letters. In these instances, Cindy, Tomiko and Ken chose their own L2 to compose email or write letters and they received them in their L1. Closer examination of the language use patterns by the categories of network members reveals that the opportunities to use ‘the basically Japanese variety’ were not created in most of the interactions in which Cindy engaged with Japanese students at her university, but rather the majority of interaction was in ‘the basically English variety.’ In contrast, the language use with Mako, who was a member outside the university, does not include any instances of ‘the basically English variety’. One of the main factors that seem to affect this difference is Cindy’ perception of Mako’s lower English proficiency than that of the members at the university. Unexpectedly, almost half of the language use patterns with the network members who resided in Japan were ‘the basically English variety’. This trend is partly associated with the type of channel through which Cindy and her network members in Japan interacted with each other. More specifically, most of the interactions between them were by the written channel, mainly email. There are a number of cases of interaction in which Cindy used Japanese or mixed varieties with her Japanese network members in face-to-face interaction, while both of them preferred to use English for email messages.

Grace Linguistic background Grace commenced her formal Japanese study when she was in Year four at primary school. She then studied Japanese until Year 12,

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

55

including the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) Japanese, before she enrolled in Level D Japanese at the Australian university in 2004. She was taking a double degree in Law and Arts at the time of the data collection. She was also exposed to the German language through a private lesson with a NS of German for about 1 hour once a week when she was Year 8 and 9. She passed Level three of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test in 2003. As shown in Table 2.1, Grace participated in exchange programs to Japan twice. The first in-country experience was a cultural exchange for 2 months when she was in Year 10. She stayed with two Japanese families for 3 to 4 weeks each. She claimed that some of the members from both host families had spoken English to her and she ‘fell into the habit of speaking English’ during her stay in Japan. She remembered, however, that because she and her first host mother had indepth conversations in English, she had been able to learn much about Japan, including Japanese society. She was sure that these conversations had sustained and increased her interest in Japan as well as the language. She reported that through this first exchange program, she had ‘realized the difficulty of building oral (Japanese) skills and the persistence that is required’ to do so. Grace studied at a high school in Japan for 10 months when she participated in the second exchange program in the year preceding her entry to university. She claimed that since she had been strongly aware that she had failed to improve her oral Japanese skills during her first stay in Japan, she had decided ‘not to fall in the pattern of speaking English as an easy way out’ but to ‘focus on speaking only Japanese.’ She recalled that she was so persistent in speaking Japanese that it had taken her 1 or 2 months to feel comfortable doing so at school and home after her arrival in Japan. Her in-country experiences thus seemed to have shaped her dispositions towards L2 learning. How these dispositions were constructed and how they affected opportunities for her to use and learn L2 will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters. Unlike Cindy, Grace was not very keen to become acquainted with NSs of Japanese and other learners of Japanese during her first year of university life. Although she belonged to the Japan Club, she did not participate in their activities at all during this time. Since she had

Foreign Language Learning and Use

56

already known quite a few NSs of Japanese in Japan before she entered university, she sought to maintain contact with them. Consequently, she was exposed to Japanese in out-of-class contexts mainly by interacting with these existing social network members.

Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Figure 2.2 shows Grace’s social networks in which she was exposed to Japanese and English at the end of semester two in 2004. As mentioned earlier, she did not become acquainted with any NS of Japanese but maintained contact with her existing Japanese network members during her first year at university. Therefore, her networks expanded only a little in terms of size during this time. There were no NS of Japanese in her social network at university but there were three other Australian learners who had studied in the same Level D Japanese class. Grace and Karen had known each other since 2003 because they had participated in the same high school

In Japan

Former classmate and her mother Seiko, Hatsuko

Former classmate Maki

Peer in exchange program and Japanese class Karen

Japanese class Emily Japanese class Sophie

Grace

Former teacher Mieko

Former classmate Atsuko

Former host sister in Japan Yoko

Met as a research volunteer in Aust. Chieko Met as a research volunteer in Aust. Ritsuko

Key:

In Aust.

Former host sister Sayaka

Former host mother Yuko

: network members whom the participant met after entering university Italics : non-Japanese network members

Figure 2.2 Grace’s bilingual networks in Japan and Australia

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

57

exchange program. Her network outside university included two NSs of Japanese whom she had known as her former teacher and host sister for over 3 years and 1½ years, respectively. As the figure clearly shows, her social network in Japan was significantly larger than that in Australia. The members in the former network were mostly her former classmates or host family members whom she had met when she had participated in the second exchange program. Table 2.3 displays the varieties of language use in Grace’s bilingual social networks. Similar to Cindy, there were different combinations of varieties, depending on her network members and the use of these varieties changed according to contexts. For example, Grace engaged in online chat with Mieko in ‘the basically Japanese variety’. On the other hand, she chose ‘the basically English variety’ when Table 2.3 Language use in Grace’s social networks Japanese members Varieties of language use

BE

Network members at university Outside university

M

NR

BE Karen

N/A

Emily Sophie Yoko

X

X*

Mieko Members in Japan

BJ

Non-Japanese members

X

X*

Ritsuko

X

X

Maki Sayaka Seiko

X* X

X*

Atsuko

X X X X

X X* X* X X X

M X X X X

N/A

X*

Chieko

Hatsuko Yuko

X1 (see below)

BJ

X2 (see below) X3* (see below)

N/A

Key: X: language use according to interview data. X*: language use confirmed by actual interactional data. Bold type: interaction through the written channel. BE: Basically English, BJ: Basically Japanese, M: Mixed, NR: Non-reciprocal use. X1: Grace: BE; Yoko: BJ, X2: Grace: BJ; Chieko: BE, X3*: Grace: BJ; Ritsuko: BE.

NR

58

Foreign Language Learning and Use

she talked to Yoko over the phone immediately after Yoko arrived in Melbourne, although Yoko spoke to her in ‘the basically Japanese variety.’ She claimed that she had chosen English because Yoko came to Melbourne for the purpose of learning English. Moreover, they had interactions by email in ‘the basically English variety’ but they talked in ‘the mixed variety’ when Yoko visited Grace’s home with some other NSs of Japanese. There are some other instances of nonreciprocal use of varieties about which Grace and two network members, Chieko and Ritsuko, seemed to agree. The interactions between Grace and Chieko will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Compared to Cindy, there are a significantly larger proportion of Japanese members in Japan with whom Grace interacted in ‘the basically Japanese variety’. These members are mostly former classmates whom she met during her second stay in Japan. As stated earlier, because she was very determined to speak Japanese during this stay, the use of this variety seemed to become customary between Grace and these members. They thus maintained contact with each other in this variety after she returned to Australia. In common with Cindy, most of the interactions between Grace and Japanese members in Japan were by the written channel during 2004. However, Grace claimed to have interacted with Karen, a non-Japanese member in Australia, through the written channel although they frequently met in Japanese class at university. More specifically, they engaged in online chat in ‘the mixed variety’ when they talked about topics that were related to Japanese, such as about their Japanese assignments, exams and movies. Meanwhile, they chose ‘the basically English variety’ when their topics were not related to the language.

Patty Linguistic background Patty was a mature student of 27 years with considerable work experience before entering university. She commenced her formal Japanese study in her Year 8 in Australia and studied at a high school in Japan as an exchange student for about 1 year when she was in Year 11. She claimed that she had lost her fear

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

59

of making mistakes when speaking Japanese after she had made Japanese friends at this school. During her stay in Japan, she sat for Level 3 of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test with success. She returned to Australia and completed VCE Japanese by correspondence in Year 12. After this secondary education, she worked as an inbound manager at a Japanese travel agent in Australia for approximately 1½ years. She was occasionally required to interact with Japanese customers in Japanese, such as talking to the customers who became sick during their guided tour. She also claimed to have enjoyed observing interactions between Japanese customers and tour guides when she joined tours for the purpose of inspections. She also worked in Japan as an English teacher for about 1½ years on a working holiday visa in 2001 and 2002. In the year previous to the data collection (2003), she completed Certificate four in applied language (Japanese) at a TAFE college, which required 18 contact hours a week. She commenced a BA in 2004 and enrolled in Level C Japanese. Patty was a highly motivated learner who was keen to practise Japanese not only in class but also outside class. According to her diary entries, she was exposed to Japanese in out-of-class contexts by reading and composing email to her friends in Japan, talking with Japanese friends at university, using Internet dictionaries, watching TV programs that reported Japanese people’s life, listening to Japanese music and watching Japanese videos. Since she worked at an international hotel as a casual staff member and she had a few Japanese co-workers, she occasionally interacted with them as well as with Japanese customers in Japanese. Furthermore, she participated in a Japanese speech contest for which she prepared and practised with the assistance of a few NSs of Japanese. During her first year of university life, Patty was eager to seek social contact with NSs of Japanese. Similar to Cindy, she became a member of the Japan Club and frequently participated in weekly social gatherings. At this club she became acquainted with a Japanese student (Nami) and they started to meet once a week on a personal basis as language exchange partners. At the hotel where she worked, when a new Japanese staff member arrived, she went to see him to introduce herself and talked with him in Japanese. Moreover, as mentioned

Foreign Language Learning and Use

60

earlier, she maintained contact with the majority of her friends in Japan whom she had met during her stays there.

Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Figure 2.3 displays Patty’s bilingual social networks in Japan and Australia. One of the salient features about her networks is that there are significantly more Japanese members outside university in Australia than those of the other participants. All of these members except for Mai were her co-workers at the hotel where she worked. It was found that she interacted with the majority of them more frequently than did the other participants with their network members outside university. Another feature is, as mentioned earlier, that the relationship between Patty and Nami significantly developed within the data collection period. Although all the participants in the current study belonged to the Japan Club, I found that only Cindy and Patty actually participated in the club activities. Moreover, Patty is

In Japan

In Australia

Former language exchange partner Yo shiko

Japanese class Holly

Met in Osaka Norio

At Japan Club Nami

Patty

Her co-worker Juri

Student at an English school Daisuke Former student at a TAFE in Aust. Mio

Key:

Former host sister Iyo

Her co-worker Masato Wife of former classmate at TA FE Mai

: network members whom the participant met after entering university Italics : non-Japanese network members

Figure 2.3 Patty’s bilingual networks in Japan and Australia

Her co-worker Koji

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

61

the only participant who became acquainted with a Japanese student at the club and whose relationship with her developed from an acquaintance into a language exchange partner. Their interactions will be analysed in Chapters 4 and 5. In terms of size, closeness and frequency of interactions, Patty’s network in Japan is well developed. This is a point in common with Cindy and Grace who had relatively long in-country experience. As can be seen in Table 2.4, the language use in Patty’s social networks exhibits different combinations of varieties, depending on her network members. It also shows multiple language use patterns between Patty and all of her network members except for Mai, Koji and Daisuke. In common with Cindy and Grace, the opportunities to use ‘the basically Japanese variety’ were not created between Patty and her network members inside the university but were created outside it. Table 2.4 Language use in Patty’s social networks Japanese members Varieties of language use

BE

Network members at university

Nami

X X

Outside university

Masato

X

Juri Koji Mai

X

Mio

X*

Iyo Norio

X*

Members in Japan

Daisuke

M

NR

X*

BE Holly

X1 (see below)

BJ

X

N/A

X X X2 (see below) X* X

X*

X

X

X3 (see below)

M X

X

Yoshiko Member in the USA

BJ

Non-Japanese members

N/A

X*

Key: X: language use according to interview data X*: language use confirmed by actual interactional data Bold type: interaction through the written channel BE: Basically English, BJ: Basically Japanese, M: Mixed, NR: Non-reciprocal use X1: Patty: BJ, Masato: no response (by email), X2: Patty: M, Mio: BE X3: Patty: BE; Norio: M

NR

62

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Within her network in Japan, on the other hand, ‘the basically English’ and ‘the basically Japanese’ varieties were used by three members. There are several instances of non-reciprocal language use through the written channel in Patty’s social networks. As shown in Tables 2.2 and 2.3, Cindy and Grace emailed some of their Japanese members in Japan in ‘the basically Japanese variety’ while these members replied in ‘the basically English variety’. Unlike these cases, Patty emailed Mio and Norio in ‘the mixed variety’ and ‘the basically English variety’, respectively. She explained that she chose Japanese when the topic was related to Japan or the Japanese language while she chose English when talking about her life or things in Australia. She further claimed that she had chosen English in order to avoid using loanwords in katakana when the topic was related to Australia. Patty also emailed Masato about the topic of an assignment for a Japanese subject. Although she perceived him to be reluctant to speak Japanese to her, she composed the email in Japanese. She explained that the reason for this language selection was that the topic had been related to Japan and she had expected him to write to her back in Japanese. However, she did not receive a reply to the email from him.

Jim Linguistic background Jim was a student from a country area, who had studied Japanese for 10 years. He studied Japanese at primary school in Years 2 and 3, and had private Japanese lessons in Years 4 and 5. Between Years 4 and 8, he attended the Victorian School of Languages at night. He completed VCE (Year 12) Japanese when he was in Years 9 and 10. When he was in Year 11, he studied the second-year Japanese course at a university in his area and joined an exchange trip organized by his secondary school for 14 days. In 2004, he was enrolled in Level C Japanese at university and studied biomedical science in the Faculty of Medicine. Although Jim invested considerable time and effort in his formal Japanese study, he claimed that it was not easy to study it seriously. He stated, ‘when you’re studying a dry textbook all the time, it becomes

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

63

tedious’ and ‘if you use that, maybe grammar, you can say many interesting things with it’ and then ‘it’s a lot easier to remember’ it. He therefore sought opportunities to use Japanese in out-of-class contexts, including face-to-face and online interactions in Japanese with other learners of Japanese as well as with his Japanese friends. He also read and translated various Japanese web pages. He met most of these Japanese friends through his volunteer work at the ‘Manga Library’ where students borrow Japanese comic books at the university. Jim was enthusiastic about learning and using Japanese slang expressions in particular. He recalled that his host mother in Japan and some Japanese visitors to his high school had told him, ‘your Japanese is kirei’, which he interpreted as his Japanese being formal, like a textbook. He claimed that this experience had made him feel that what he had learnt for a long time was only textbook Japanese whereas people living in Japan would not speak like a textbook. He thus decided to learn slang expressions in order to ‘blend’ them into his Japanese use. He reported that he had taught himself Japanese slang expressions by looking at personal web pages created by non-Japanese who had resided in Japan for a long time. These pages usually gave detailed explanations about the origins of slang and the contexts in which they were used. He claimed to have chosen some of these slang expressions that were nice and not too old, and to have used them in his actual interactions with his Japanese and non-Japanese friends. I found that he had persistently used slang expressions when talking to one of his Australian friends, who happened to be one of my participants, Simon. I also discovered that Jim’s persistent use of slang expressions affected the language selection in his interactions with Simon. This will be analysed in the following chapter.

Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them Figure 2.4 represents Jim’s social network in which he was exposed to Japanese and English. Similar to the networks of the participants that were described earlier, his networks included not only NSs of Japanese, but also non-Japanese members, namely, Tom, Jennifer, Simon, Patrick and Emma. Jim became acquainted with these nonJapanese members either in Japanese classes or in a religious club at

Foreign Language Learning and Use

64 In Japan

In Australia Host mother Mie

Japanese class Tom, Jennifer

Neighbour of host family Yu ji Former exchange student at high school in Aust. Eiko Former neighbour in Aust. Emiko-Hanako Former exchange student at uni. in Aust. Eri

Key:

Manga library Aya, Makoto Jim

Former teacher Naoki Sister Emma

Friend’s friend Miki Exchange student at high school Toru

Religious club Simon, Patrick, Emi

: network members whom the participant met after entering university Italics: non-Japanese network members

Figure 2.4 Jim’s bilingual networks in Japan and Australia

the university which had no connection with Japan. Simon, another participant of mine, happened to belong to the same club and he and Jim became close friends. All of the members whom Jim met after entering university, except for Miki, were students at the same university as Jim. As mentioned earlier, Jim worked as a volunteer at the ‘Manga Library’ and he met Aya and Makoto who also engaged in volunteer activities. As regards the frequency of interaction, Jim interacted only once or twice during the period of 9 months with all of his network members in Japan, except for Eri. Eri, who studied at the same university as Jim until the middle of the year of data collection, became acquainted with Jim just before she went back to Japan and they maintained contact through mainly online chat afterwards once or twice a week. His network in Japan was thus less developed than those of Cindy, Grace and Patty in terms of the frequency of interactions. Within his network in Australia, on the other hand, Jim claimed to have interacted significantly more often than with those in Japan. In particular, the interaction with those who studied at the same university as himself tended to be more frequent and regular, such as once or twice a week.

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

65

Table 2.5 presents the varieties of language use between Jim and his social network members. This table illustrates clearly the wide range of language use patterns between Jim and his network members. It can be seen that these patterns varied from member to member. For instance, Jim interacted with each of his non-Japanese members at the university in different combinations of varieties, such as ‘the basically English’ and ‘mixed varieties’ with Jennifer and ‘the basically English’ and ‘the basically Japanese varieties’ with Tom. Moreover, there are multiple language use patterns between Jim and each of his members in most cases, and I found that these patterns changed according to contexts as well as across time. One of the typical examples of this tendency is the four types of varieties in which Jim and Simon interacted. There are several instances of non-reciprocal use of varieties Table 2.5 Language use in Jim’s social networks Japanese members Varieties of language use Network members at university

Outside university

BE

M

NR

BE

BJ

M

Jennifer X Simon X

X

X X

X X*

Makoto Aya

X X

X

Emi

X

X

Patrick Tom

X X

Miki

X

X

Emma

X

Toru

X

Naoki Members in Japan

BJ

Non-Japanese members

Eri Mie Yuji Hanako Emiko Eiko

X

X

X X

X X X X X X X

X

N/A

Key: X: language use according to interview data. X*: language use confirmed by actual interactional data. Bold type: interaction through the written channel. BE: Basically English, BJ: Basically Japanese, M: Mixed, NR: Non-reciprocal use. X1, X2*: Jim: BJ, Simon: BE.

NR

X1, X2* (see below)

66

Foreign Language Learning and Use

between Jim and Simon, that is, Jim used ‘the basically Japanese variety’ and Simon chose not to use Japanese and responded in English. The change of their language selection over time and the factors that affected their selection will be analysed in detail in the next chapter. Unlike the cases of Cindy, Grace and Patty, language choice between Jim and all of the members in Japan was predominantly ‘the basically Japanese variety.’ The one exception was Eri. As mentioned earlier, Eri had studied as an exchange student in Australia, and among other things, Jim’s perception of her high English proficiency seems to have affected their language use. On the other hand, Jim claimed to have used ‘the basically Japanese variety’ with the rest of the members since he became acquainted with them. He reported that it was easy and natural for him to speak Japanese to those to whom he was originally introduced in Japanese. In other words, their history of linguistic interaction was likely to be one of the important factors that influenced their use of ‘the basically Japanese variety.’

Simon Linguistic background Simon commenced studying Japanese at primary school when he was in Year 4. He then studied it for 5 years at secondary school, including VCE (Year 12) Japanese. He participated in a school trip to Japan for approximately 3 weeks and stayed with a host family when he was in Year 11. In Year 12, he completed Level C Japanese course (a special acceleration program) at university and enrolled in Level D Japanese in the following year (2004) at the same university, where he was undertaking a bachelor’s degree in Pharmacy. He also studied Spanish at the Victorian School of Languages for 3 years for 4 hours a week when he was a secondary school student. As mentioned earlier, he was a former student of mine and he was one of the most motivated students that I had ever encountered. When he was enrolled in my Japanese course, for instance, he asked my advice about how to improve his Japanese skills after class quite a few times. In addition, he persistently spoke to me in Japanese not only in class but also outside class. When I met him again and spoke to him

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

67

in English for the purpose of the research interviews, he attempted to talk to me in Japanese. He also wrote the diary for my research mostly in Japanese even though all the instructions in it were written in English. According to this diary, he seemed to try every possible means to be exposed to Japanese in out-of-class situations. The activities in these situations included listening to Japanese songs while eating and having shower, writing his schedule in his diary in Japanese and speaking Japanese to his cats as well as his friends who belonged to the same religious club. He also had private Japanese lessons with NSs of Japanese regularly during the data collection period. Simon was not keen to engage in online interactions with his social network members while the other participants claimed to enjoy doing so and to appreciate the usefulness of online interactions. He claimed that he had not engaged in online chat at all since Year 12 and he only checked email because he had to do so. He explained that the reason for this was that he did not like computers very much. He stated, ‘a computer feels like work’ and ‘you have to sit in one place, you can’t walk around and have to start it up and shut it down, wait for things’. He thus preferred face-to-face interactions, letters and telephone usage to online communications. As a matter of fact, he claimed to have telephoned his former host sister as well as his former tutor who were both in Japan rather than sending email to them.

Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them As shown in Figure 2.5, Simon’s bilingual networks are the smallest among those of all the participants. Although he claimed to have known a Japanese member in Japan, Erika, before entering university, they exchanged email only once around the beginning of the data collection period. Regarding the members in Australia, he became acquainted with all of them after entering university through friends, the religious club that I mentioned earlier and private Japanese lessons. They were all students at the same university except for Yui, whom Simon met through Eri and interacted with only a few times. On the other hand, Simon interacted with all the members studying at the same university significantly more often, once or twice a week during the two semesters.

Foreign Language Learning and Use

68 In Japan

In Australia

Former host sister Erika

Private Japanese tutor Emi

Former private Japanese tutor in Aust. Eri Simon

Eri’s friend Yui

Key:

Religious club member Jim

Religious club member Patrick

: network members whom the participant met after entering university Italics: non-Japanese network members

Figure 2.5 Simon’s bilingual networks in Japan and Australia

Table 2.6 displays the language use in Simon’s bilingual networks. Similar to the other participants’ language use patterns that were explained earlier, different combinations of varieties were used within Simon’s networks, depending on his network members as well as the contexts. Interestingly, ‘the basically Japanese variety’ was not chosen in Simon’s interactions with his Japanese members but in those with his non-Japanese members. Simon interacted with these nonJapanese members, Jim, discussed earlier, and Patrick, frequently at the religious club. He claimed that they used this variety mostly when they did not wish other members of the club to understand what they were talking about. With most of his Japanese network members, on the other hand, Simon used ‘the basically English variety’ in their interactions. In the cases of Eri and Emi, who were his private Japanese tutors, he explained that although he was attempting to speak Japanese to them as much as possible in their lessons, they had replied in English, so he had tended to forget to reply to them in Japanese. However, he reported that when Emi had participated in an activity of his religious club for the first time and had talked with him and Jim, they had used ‘the mixed variety’. He recalled that they had used English when talking about their club activities and they had switched to Japanese for simple content. He and his former host sister Erika exchanged email

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

69

Table 2.6 Language use in Simon’s social networks Japanese members Varieties of language use

BE

Network members at university

Eri (until mid-year) Emi

X*

Outside university

Yui

X

Members in Eri Japan (after mid-year) Erika

BJ

M

Non-Japanese members NR

X*

X

BE

BJ

M

NR

Jim

X

X

X

X1, X2* (see below)

Patrick

X

X

X

N/A

X N/A X

Key: X: language use according to interview data. X*: language use confirmed by actual interactional data. Bold type: interaction through the written channel. BE: Basically English, BJ: Basically Japanese, M: Mixed, NR: Non-reciprocal use. X1, X2*: Simon: BE, Jim: BJ.

in ‘the mixed variety’ because she first composed an English message and translated it into Japanese and he followed her language choice. However, he reported that her English had not been very comprehensible to him and he thus had read her Japanese message only. There were only two cases of interactions through the written channel in Simon’s bilingual networks during the data collection period. This is partly because he was not very keen on online communication. One case was an email exchange with Erika, which I mentioned earlier. The other case was an SMS message that Simon received from Jim (cf. X2* in Table 2.6). This message was written in romanization of Japanese (the Roman alphabet). However, Simon claimed that this message had been so difficult to understand for him that he had telephoned Jim in order to clarify his message in English.

Max Linguistic background Max was an international student from Austria, who had only studied in Australia for 3 weeks at the commencement of the research interviews. He had the shortest length of formal Japanese study among all

70

Foreign Language Learning and Use

of the participants, 1½ years at a university in his country. Regarding his other FL learning, he reported that he had studied English in class for over 10 years and had studied Latin and Spanish at high school for 4 years and 3 years, respectively. He commenced a BA at an Australian university in 2004 and was enrolled in Level C Japanese. He resided in one of the university’s halls of residence during the data collection period. Based on his diary entries, Max was exposed to Japanese mostly in his hall. The majority of this exposure was the interactions with two Japanese students who resided in the same hall. Other Asianbackground students in his hall, such as Malaysian and Singaporean, occasionally joined their interactions. He claimed that most of these students were so interested in the Japanese language and culture that they seemed to enjoy learning some Japanese expressions from Max and these Japanese students. He also reported that he had spent his spare time listening to Japanese music. Unlike the other participants in the current study, both English and Japanese are Max’s L2. However, he seemed to be keener to practise Japanese rather than English. In his interview, he stated, ‘English is, of course, easier for me than Japanese’ and ‘I would like to practise Japanese’ because he thought, ‘I can speak English all the time.’ He also claimed that the main reason he commenced learning Japanese was that he liked the language itself, in particular, the sound of it. He recalled that he had watched Japanese animated programmes on TV in his high school days, which had made him think that it would be interesting to learn Japanese. Furthermore, he stated that he was already happy if he could have a conversation in Japanese, adding he was satisfied ‘if I can do justice to my Japanese level.’ Despite such a desire to use Japanese that reflects his Japanese level, he claimed that if a NS of Japanese could not understand what he said, he might simply give up and say it in English, so that he tended to rely upon Japanese expressions in which he was confident.

Bilingual networks and language use patterns within them As shown in Figure 2.6, Max’s bilingual social networks are well developed in terms of size. In my first interview with him, which was

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

71

held 3 weeks after his arrival in Australia, he claimed to have two NSs of Japanese, Yoriko and Aki, in his social networks in Japan, even though he had never visited Japan himself. Max became acquainted with these two individuals in Austria and England, respectively, and maintained contact with them by email afterwards. In this interview, he also reported that he had already met two Japanese students in Australia, Eri and Riku. Furthermore, Max’s social networks expanded the most among those of the participants during the data collection period. This is partly associated with the type of his residence, a university hall (cf. Yokota & Tanaka, 1992). First, he became acquainted with a number of Asian students including Riku, who lived in the same hall as him. He then developed his social networks through these students. These networks included other Japanese students as well as those with other Asian backgrounds who studied Japanese or who were eager to learn some Japanese language and culture. Furthermore, he met a non-Japanese student (Luke) as well as Japanese students

In Japan

Met at an English school in UK Aki

A visitor in his friend’s place in Austria Yo riko

A former resident in his hall in Aus Eri

In Australia A resident in his hall Riku A resident in his hall Yu ki

Max

Residents in his hall Mal, Lay, Sin

A peer in his Japanese class Luke

Riku’s friend Yu kie

Luke’s house mate To moya Tomoya’s friend To shiki

Key:

Peers in his Korean class Ayako, Mie

Through a friend in his hall Keiichi, Shiori, Nami

: network members whom the participant met after entering university Italics: non-Japanese network members

Figure 2.6 Max’s bilingual networks in Japan and Australia

72

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Table 2.7 Language use in Max’s social networks Japanese members Varieties of language use Network members at university

BE Eri Riku Yuki

X X* X

Ayako Mie Yukie Shiori Nami Keiichi Tomoya Toshiki

X X X X X X

Outside university

N/A

Members in Japan

Yoriko Aki

BJ

M

Non-Japanese members NR Luke

BE

BJ

X

X

M NR

X* X* X

X

X X N/A X X

N/A

Key: X: language use according to interview data X*: language use confirmed by actual interactional data Bold type: interaction through the written channel BE: Basically English, BJ: Basically Japanese, M: Mixed, NR: Non-reciprocal use

(Ayako and Mie) in class at university. Therefore, his network members in Australia were all students of his university. As can be seen in Table 2.7, Max used ‘the basically English variety’ with the vast majority of his network members, including those in Japan. Another salient feature is that there were no instances of nonreciprocal language use reported during the data collection period. However, he claimed to have emailed to Yoriko in Japanese after they had become acquainted and conversed mainly in Japanese in his country a few years before his first research interview. Nevertheless, she replied to him in English. He then decided to email her in English so that she could practise English. He perceived that most Japanese people were very keen to interact in English and he did not mind using English with them, despite his desire to practise Japanese. He thus tended to follow his network members’ language choice and this tendency might be the reason for the predominance of ‘the basically English variety’ as well as no cases of non-reciprocal language use.

Learners’ Bilingual Social Networks

73

There was only one case of interaction in which Max used ‘the basically Japanese variety’. This interaction was held with a peer in his Japanese class (Luke), and Tomoya (Luke’s house mate) and Toshiki (Tomoya’s friend). Max and Luke went to Luke’s place to celebrate the end of their Japanese oral exam in which they worked in pairs, on the day they finished it. Max became acquainted with these two NSs of Japanese, Tomoya and Toshiki, and the four of them talked for approximately 2 hours. Max explained that since Luke always talked with Tomoya in Japanese at their house, all of them spoke only in Japanese except for a few sentences in this situation. Max and Toshiki, therefore, seemed to accommodate to Luke and Tomoya’s customary language choice. In terms of the types of channels, there is a point in common between Max’s networks and those of the other participants except for Simon. As expected, most of the interactions with all the participants’ network members in Japan were through the written channel. These interactions were mainly by email, followed by online chat and letters. Max claimed to have had contact with his two members in Japan, Yoriko and Aki, only by email. With the participants’ network members in Australia, on the other hand, their interactions by this channel were limited. Interestingly, however, Max engaged in online chat with Yuki once or twice a week although they lived in the same hall. He explained that it was more convenient and quick to communicate with other students in his hall by online chat than by telephone because most of them were online at night.

Summary and Discussion A longitudinal examination of the six participants’ bilingual social networks and their L1/L2 use in these networks has revealed a number of language use patterns as well as insights into the development of these networks. All the participants expanded their bilingual networks during their first year of university and these networks included NSs of Japanese and non-Japanese members with whom they interacted mostly in the mixed variety of Japanese and English, and in English. These non-Japanese members were other learners

74

Foreign Language Learning and Use

of Japanese and were found in the participants’ networks in smaller numbers than those of NSs. The great majority of the network members with whom the participants became newly acquainted during their first year of university were Japanese students or students of Japanese at their university. In this university domain, the frequency of interaction was mostly higher than for contacts from other domains. In addition, some of their network members were current residents in Japan. These were mainly former host family members or former classmates with whom the participants with extensive in-country experience (Cindy, Grace and Patty) had regular contact during their stay in Japan and with whom they had maintained contact afterwards. In this sense, it is reasonable to suggest that these participants were no longer purely FL learners limited to their Australian context, but that they had ongoing opportunities to use Japanese or the mixed variety with their network members in Japan. There are two salient features in the overall language use patterns in the participants’ social networks. One is the dynamic nature of the selection of the varieties between the participants and some of their network members. More specifically, it was found that this selection changed according to contexts as well as across time due to the influence of various social conditions. The other feature is that opportunities to use Japanese were relatively rare in the great majority of the interactions in which the participants engaged with Japanese students at the university. As mentioned earlier, interactions in this domain occurred more often than did those in other domains. The majority of these interactions, however, were mainly in English. Given that all of the participants were keen to interact in Japanese in natural settings, this result indicates the difficulty for these learners in constructing opportunities to use the language in this domain. In the next two chapters, I will analyse the factors which contributed to these two features based on the participants’ actual interaction and interview data. These interaction data include online communication, such as online chat scripts and email messages that I analyse in Chapter 3, and conversation data that are examined in Chapter 4.

Chapter 3

Changes in L1/L2 Use

In the preceding chapter, the participants’ backgrounds were described and the patterns of L1/L2 use in their social networks were introduced. One of the salient features of these patterns is multiple language use patterns changing over time and according to contexts. Drawing upon some concepts from sociocultural and post-structural approaches that I introduced in Chapter 1, Chapter 3 will consider why and how these patterns changed. Specifically, the highest level, activity, which is linked to motive, and the second highest level, goal-directed actions (or strategies/means), are examined. Furthermore, in order to explore the social construction of opportunities for L2 use more comprehensively, I also employ the categories of ‘the community’ (referring to the participants who share the same object), ‘rules/norms’ (referring to historical, institutional or social norms), ‘division of labour/social roles’ and ‘the mediational artifacts/means’. With regard to the concept of identity, it seems appropriate to focus on the identities (sense of self-worth or self-image) of the participants and their network members in relation to their L2 proficiency in my research. This is because the L2 use/learning contexts in which my participants were situated as FL learners are significantly different from those of immigrants that a lot of post-structuralist studies investigated. In the latter settings, other types of identities, such as gender and ethnicity, are major concerns while my participants studied Japanese at an Australian university where their L1 (English) was dominantly used and the majority of their network members were those in the same or similar social position and age bracket as them. Drawing on these concepts, the experiences of Grace, Jim and Simon will be used to examine how some major factors, including

76

Foreign Language Learning and Use

history and self-image as an L2 user/learner, contributed to these changes in L1/L2 use between these learners and some of their respective social network members. These members include not only NSs of Japanese who were situated in Australia or Japan but also other learners of Japanese with whom the learners used Japanese in greater or lesser degrees.

Case One: Grace The analysis of the participants’ interview data as well as that of their actual discourse suggests that one of the major factors affecting their L1/L2 use in their social network contexts was their history as an L2 user or learner. In the following sections, Grace’s experience will be highlighted as a particularly telling example that illustrates how her extensive exposure to the L2 community influenced the way she negotiated L1/L2 use and constructed opportunities to use L2 in her bilingual social networks. As explained in Chapter 2, Grace participated in 2-month and 10-month exchange programs in Year 10 (December 2000 to January 2001) and after the completion of Year 12 (in the year preceding the data collection, March 2003 to January 2004), respectively. During the data collection period in 2004, she did not become acquainted with any new NSs of Japanese but maintained contact with her existing Japanese network members whom she met in Australia before her second exchange program as well as those she met in Japan during it. A number of samples of her actual interactions with some of these members are also analysed in order to illuminate the language negotiation processes.

Self-image as an L2 user or learner formed during the learner’s in-country experience During and soon after her first in-country program, Grace seemed to perceive herself as an unsuccessful learner or user of Japanese. In my follow-up email interview, she claimed to have been very aware that she had failed to improve her oral skills by falling into the habit

Changes in L1/L2 Use

77

of speaking English during this period. She explained that her first Japanese host family had spoken L2 (English) to ‘a VERY high standard’, which in turn had made her feel inferior as a user or learner of L2 (Japanese). In addition, she recalled being preoccupied with accuracy, and thus being inhibited, despite this host family’s attempt to encourage her to speak Japanese. When she moved to her second host family, she found her host father so determined to speak English to her that she recalled being forced to do so notwithstanding her resolution to speak more Japanese. Through her experience in this program, she reported having realized the difficulty in building oral Japanese skills as well as the great persistence that was necessary for doing so. As regards preoccupation with correctness, Grace considered that it partly stemmed from her formal learning experience in which the focus was upon grammar, which, in turn, caused her to be disinclined or even to fear to speak Japanese. In Years 11 and 12, in particular, she recalled having concentrated on correctness so that she could obtain high scores in the Japanese exams. Utilizing activity theory, it can be claimed that an academic motive, including performing well in exams, shaped her goal to increase accuracy. This goal was probably not compatible with another goal that she had since her first in-country experience, that is, to become comfortable and confident in speaking Japanese. Grace further stated that her disappointing experience in the first in-country sojourn became the basis of her conscious decision or goal to overcome her preoccupation with accuracy. This decision or goal then seemed to provide the basis for her communication-oriented strategy in her second exchange program. Utilizing this strategy, she aimed to be ‘less worried about using perfect grammar’ and to ‘focus on just getting my point across’. The example of Grace’s goaldriven strategy that was influenced by her first in-country experience would seem to accord with Gillette’s (1994) claim that learners do not necessarily let their negative experience dissuade them from pursuing their interest in learning L2. Moreover, as Grace’s case demonstrates, the same learners may utilize this experience for constructing a conscious goal in using a positive learning strategy in their subsequent learning experience.

78

Foreign Language Learning and Use

In my email interview, Grace described how she achieved her goal to overcome her preoccupation with accuracy and to focus on speaking only Japanese during the second exchange program, and how her dispositions towards L1/L2 use changed accordingly: Excerpt 3.1 From the moment I met my host family, I spoke only Japanese. Because of this, it soon became ‘normal’ for me to communicate in Japanese, and I had no inhibitions or nervousness issues. That ((to get over my preoccupation with correctness)) doesn’t mean that I did not try to use correct grammar, I did, but more that if I made mistakes, I did not automatically correct myself, or become embarrassed. Sometimes I said things that I wasn’t sure about, but I nevertheless made my point. Ultimately, I achieved what I wanted to achieve. I was still learning new Japanese every day, but I was very confident at speaking and was not afraid to try out new words, phrases or grammar patterns, etc. Furthermore, I did not see English as a threat. I could speak English if I had to, or to help people who wanted to practice English with me, without my ability or confidence to speak Japanese falling.

This excerpt illustrates Grace’s communication-oriented strategy, which seemed to serve to create considerably increased opportunities to use Japanese in the L2 community where she was situated in her second sojourn. Accordingly, her actual as well as perceived Japanese proficiency appeared to improve and Japanese was established as the ‘normal’ base language in her social interactions in that community. As a result, she gained confidence in oral skills, which, in turn, appeared to shape her self-image as a successful learner or user of Japanese, who achieved her goal to become comfortable in speaking Japanese. It is also important to note that other social factors, such as the nature of her host family, were also highly likely to contribute to the success of this strategy. As explained in Chapter 1, the notion of investment proposed by Norton draws attention to issues of the learner’s sense of self or identity (Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995). Norton argues that an investment in the TL is also an investment in a learner’s own identity, which may be (re)negotiated in response to affordances and/or constraints of particular sociocultural contexts. Drawing upon this concept of sense of self or identity, it can be said that Grace had invested in her self-image as a user or learner of Japanese as well

Changes in L1/L2 Use

79

as in her L2 (Japanese). This investment took the form of, among other things, Japanese formal studies as well as her participation in exchange programs. However, in her first in-country experience, social factors, including her sense of inferiority towards her host family member’s high English proficiency, seemed to result in the depreciation of her self-image as an L2 user or learner to some extent. In contrast, as discussed earlier, her communication-oriented strategy and determination to speak exclusively in Japanese, combined with a more favourable environment, seemed to help her to enhance this self-image during her second sojourn. Of great interest is the fact that Grace’s attitude towards her L1 (English) use also seemed to transform through her in-country experiences, as shown in Excerpt 3.1. It appears that due to her negative experience during her first sojourn in Japan, English was a threat to her self-image as a user or learner of Japanese until ‘it became normal’ for her to interact in Japanese. In another email interview, she explained that she had stopped regarding English as a threat because it had become ‘comfortable’ for her to speak Japanese after about the first couple of months of her second sojourn. A possible explanation of this finding is that as her actual and perceived L2 proficiency improved, Japanese use became habitual for her, which, as a result, caused her selfimage as an L2 user or learner to be recognized and enhanced enough for her to maintain it regardless of her selection of language(s).

Language negotiation with a Japanese network member in Australia Grace claimed to have only one Japanese network member in Australia in her first research interview with me, which was conducted 1½ months after her second in-country experience. This member (Mieko, in her late thirties) was her former school teacher of Japanese in her Years 11 and 12. During Grace’s sojourn in Japan, they maintained contact with each other by letters and they did so through online chat after her return. Regarding her interactions with Mieko at high school, Grace recalled that since she had rarely been required to speak Japanese in class where the focus had been on grammar, she had used ‘the basically English variety’ with her.

Foreign Language Learning and Use

80

Table 3.1 Number of turns by language in Grace’s interaction with Mieko Grace

Mieko

Total

English Japanese Mixed

0 25 (100%) 0

4 (12.1%) 26 (78.8%) 3 (9.1%)

4 (6.9%) 51 (87.9%) 3 (5.2%)

Total

25

33

58

However, in their online chat session, which was conducted immediately after her return to Australia at the end of January, Grace and Mieko used ‘the basically Japanese variety’. Regarding turns in online chat interactions, the current study draws upon an ‘electronic turn’ or ‘e-turn’ proposed by Thorne (1999). These turns are ‘the final linguistic products as they appear in log file records or transcripts of online interaction’ (Thorne 1999: 153). The number of Grace and Mieko’s e-turns by language is shown in Table 3.1. Grace uses exclusively Japanese in this session. On the other hand, Mieko produces several turns which include English, mainly at the beginning of it, as shown in Excerpt 3.2. English translations are in square brackets. Excerpt 3.2 1 2

Mieko says: Grace says:

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Grace says: Mieko says: Grace says: Mieko says: Grace says: Mieko says: Mieko says:

10

Grace says:

11 12

Mieko says: Grace says:

13

Mieko says:

Grace, how have you been? ߎࠎ߫ࠎߪ㧍ర᳇ߛࠃ㨪‫[ޓ‬Good evening! I’m fine~] వ↢ߪ㧫[How are you?] Do you want me to type in Japanese? ߅㗿޿ߒ߹ߔ㧍[Yes, please.] ੹‫ࠆ޿ߦߎߤޔ‬㧫[Where are you now?] ࡔ࡞ࡏ࡞ࡦ[Melbourne] Swale Uni? ᣣᧄߢߩ↢ᵴߪߤ߁ߛߞߚ㧫[How was life in Japan?] ޿޿߃‫ޔ‬ኅᣖߩኅߛ‫ޕ‬ᄢቇ߇߹ߛೋ߼ߡߥ޿ ࠎ‫[ޕ‬No, at my family’s house. Uni has not started yet.] ޽‫[ޕ߆߁ߘޔ‬Oh, I see.] ߼ߞߜ߾ߒࠎߤ޿߿ߌߤࠃ߆ߞߚ[It was extremely hard, but it was good.] 㑐⷏ᑯߛߨ[You speak with a Kansai accent, don’t you?]

Changes in L1/L2 Use 14 15

Mieko says: Grace says:

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Mieko says: Grace says: Mieko says: Grace says: Mieko says: Grace says: Mieko says:

23

Grace says:

24

Mieko says:

25 26

Mieko says: Mieko says:

27

Grace says:

81

ߪߞ‫[ ߪޔߞߪޔ‬Ha, ha, ha] ⴫⃻ߒ߆಴᧪߳ࠎ㨪 [I only can speak with Kansai expressions.] I’m laughing. ߿ߞ߬ࠅ[You are] ߣߎࠈߢ‫ᤨޔ‬㑆ᄢਂᄦ㧫[Well, do you have time?] ੹㧫[Now?] ߪ޿[Yes] ߁ࠎ‫ޔ‬ᄢਂᄦ[Yeah, I have time.] ᄢቇߢᣣᧄ⺆ࠍീᒝߔࠆߟ߽ࠅ㧫[Do you intend to study Japanese at uni?] ߁ࠎ‫߽ߢޔ‬૗ߩቇ⚖ಽ߆ࠄ߳ࠎ[Yeah, but I don’t know which class I’ll be in.] ࠣ࡟ࠗࠬߩᣣᧄ⺆‫ᧄޔ‬ᒰߦ਄㆐ߒߚߨ [Your Japanese has really improved.] ߔߏߊ‫ޔ‬㛳޿ߡ޿߹ߔ[I’m surprised/impressed] ṽሼ߽߶ߣࠎߤ⺒߼ࠆࠎߢߒࠂ߁㧫[You can read most characters, can’t you?] ਄㆐ߒߥ߆ߞߚߩߪ࿎ࠆߎߣ߿ࠈ߁㧫㧍[I would be in trouble if my Japanese didn’t improve.]

In this excerpt, the two interactants use only Japanese except for four turns produced by Mieko (lines 1, 4, 8 and 16). Two of these turns, in lines 1 and 4, are embedded in the language negotiation sequence where the interactants do not agree on one common language-of-interaction (cf. Auer, 1998). The divergent use of two languages in this sequence is resolved by Mieko’s accommodating to Grace’s use of Japanese in line 6. It is important to note that in lines 4 and 5, Mieko and Grace explicitly and collaboratively negotiate an agreement for Mieko’s meeting Grace’s wish to use Japanese. Drawing upon the concept of activity, the activity in which Grace and Mieko seem to be engaged in this chat session can be informal social interaction, driven by a motive, interpersonal engagement. Judging from Grace’s description of Mieko as a close teacher and the informal content of this chat, this motive is likely to shape their goal to socialize. (In my analysis here, ‘socialize’ means ‘to spend time with other people in a friendly way’, not ‘learning or teaching via mediation’, which language socialization research generally deals with.) On the other hand, there seems to be another activity, language learning, driven by another motive, language. This motive appears to shape the goals which are related to Grace’s Japanese learning, given that her

82

Foreign Language Learning and Use

relationship with Mieko started with the latter as a teacher and her as a student in the classroom community. More specifically, it is probable that this motive influences Grace’s goal to display her improved Japanese proficiency to her former teacher as well as that to use and practise Japanese with her. Moreover, Graces’ positive self-image or identity as an L2 user or learner, including her desire that this self-image or identity be appreciated, which was enhanced during her second in-country experience, appears to influence these goals of hers. On the other hand, Mieko, as Grace’s former teacher, seems to understand these goals and to be happy to encourage her to use and practise Japanese with her and to recognize and appreciate her improved Japanese proficiency, as indicated in Excerpt 3.2. They thus seem to share the motive that drives their socializing activity and Mieko appears to accommodate to Grace’s goals pertinent to her Japanese learning, which might underlie the collaborative construction of opportunities for Grace to use Japanese in this chat session. In her stimulated recall interview based on this online chat script, Grace described what she was thinking about at the time of this chat session as follows: Excerpt 3.3 It’s natural, but since she is my teacher, I think about how I couldn’t do this ((use Japanese)) a year before, but now I can talk to the teacher ((in Japanese)), just because she is my teacher, I think about learning or whatever.

This statement illustrates her realization that her Japanese proficiency has improved enough to interact in Japanese with her former teacher in a natural context, which she was not able to do before her second sojourn in Japan. This realization is likely to be influenced by the change in social conditions in which she uses L2 for meaningful social interactions rather than for L2 study as an educational activity. It then seems to further enhance her positive self-image or identity as an L2 user or learner. This finding accords with that of Thorne’s (2003) study where he argues that the learner’s self-image as an L2 speaker is enhanced considerably through authentic L2 interactions in which they become aware of their capacity to communicate in L2 as well as to self-regulate it.

Changes in L1/L2 Use

83

Moreover, as shown in lines 24, 25 and 26 of Excerpt 3.2, Mieko’s positive comments on Grace’s improved Japanese skills appear to reinforce this positive self-image or identity. Therefore, I wish to argue that the learner’s self-image or identity as an L2 user or learner may be enhanced through, among other things, natural interactions in L2 with their interlocutor who accommodates or shares their purpose in these interactions. Conversely, this enhanced self-image or identity may shape the learner’s goal to pursue further authentic interaction in L2. This, in turn, seems to contribute to the increase of the possibilities of the construction of L2 use opportunities.

Language negotiation with a Japanese network member in Japan In her first research interview with me, Grace described Ritsuko (female, aged 25 years) as one of the three closest Japanese friends in her social networks. They first met in Australia at the site of an excavation where they worked as volunteers, 2 months before Grace’s second in-country experience (the beginning of 2003). Ritsuko was a postgraduate student studying Earth Sciences in Japan and stayed in Australia for a short time for the purpose of excavation research at that time. Grace clearly recalled that they had spoken English on this occasion. During her sojourn in Japan, Grace met Ritsuko several times and their language use changed from ‘the basically English’ by both speakers to ‘the basically Japanese variety’ by herself and ‘the mixed variety’ by Ritsuko after her second or third month in Japan, according to her claim. Grace explained that the preoccupation with correctness had made her inhibited about using Japanese with Ritsuko when they had met for the first time. In addition, given the community in Australia where they were situated as research volunteers and where English was dominantly used, interacting in English was the norm. Grace also claimed that after a stay of couple of months in Japan, she had started talking to Ritsuko mainly in Japanese due to her realization of the importance and effectiveness of her communication-oriented approach. As discussed earlier, this approach seemed to work, and in turn, she appeared to improve her self-image or identity as an L2 user or learner as well as her L2 proficiency. This improvement, together with the

84

Foreign Language Learning and Use

social contexts where Japanese was the dominant language of the society, might be a major determinant of the construction of opportunities for Grace to use Japanese in their interactions that occurred in Japan. Upon her return to Australia, Grace maintained contact with Ritsuko mainly by email during the 9 months of data collection. As Table 2.3 indicates, the patterns of language use between them are ‘the basically English’, ‘the basically Japanese varieties’ and ‘nonreciprocal use’. Interestingly, however, most of the email messages that they wrote belong to the category of non-reciprocal use. More specifically, Grace wrote messages mostly in Japanese, except for one message in English due to her time constraints before her exams, while Ritsuko chose English, with only one exception of a message in Japanese as well. It therefore seems reasonable to claim that their customary language use was non-reciprocal. Excerpts 3.4 and 3.5 exemplify such non-reciprocal language use between Grace and Ritsuko in their email exchange that occurred towards the end of data collection period. Excerpt 3.4 Graces’ email to Ritsuko ᓞሶ‫ޔ‬ ߎߩਃࡩ᦬ࡔ࡯࡞ᦠ߆ߥ߆ߞߡ‫޿ߐߥࠎ߼ߏޔ‬㧍 ర᳇㧫⑳ߪ⹜㛎߇⚳ࠊߞߡ‫ޔ‬ర᳇ߛ㧍㧍㧍 Mastersߪ߽߁ߔߋቢᚑߔࠆ߆ߥ㧫੹Elizabethߪੱᢥቇߩ ‘Honours thesis’ࠍ⚳ࠊ ࠆߔࠆߣߎࠈ‫✕ߊࠃޕ‬ᒛߩᗵߓ߇ߒ߹ߔ㧍㧍㧍 ߎߩ㑆⊒ជߩ࡟ࡐ࡯࠻߇ዯ޿ߚ‫ޔߤߌߚߞ߆ࠈߒ߽߅ޕ‬NelsonߣDianaߩᦠ޿ߚᢥᦠ ࠍోߊಽ߆ࠄߥ߆ߞߚ㧍㧍 Oh . . . ⑳ߪߎߩ ᣣᧄ౻ߦᣣᧄ߳᧪ߥ޿ߣᕁ߁‫ޔ߇ࠈߎߣޕ‬ᄙಽ᧪ᐕߩ㧢᦬ߦᗲ⍮ߩ㧱 㨄㧼㧻߳ⴕߌࠆ‫ࠕ࡝࠻ࠢࡆޕ‬Ꮊߩᆌᆂ⋵ߪᗲ⍮ߛ߆ࠄ‫․ޔ‬೎ߩ ‘Victoria Week’߇ⴕ ࠊࠇࠆ‫ߩࠕ࡝࠻ࠢࡆߦ߼ߚߩߘޔߡߒߘޕ‬᡽ᐭ߇㧞㧜ੱߩ̉⧯޿ᄢ૶̉ࠍㆬࠎߢࠆ㧍㧍ᚑ ഞߔࠆੱߪ㧐㧡㧜㧜ߛߌᛄߞߡᣣᧄ߳ⴕߌࠆ‫ޕ‬ ⑳ߪ↳ߒㄟࠎߛߒ‫ߢ߹࡯ࡘࡆ࠲ࡦࠗޔ‬ㅴࠎߛ㧍ࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ߢߪ‫ޔ‬ᣣᧄ⺆ߢࡆࠢ࠻࡝ࠕ ߦߟ޿ߡ⊒⴫ࠍ߿ࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ 㧐㧡㧜㧜ߢᣣᧄ߳ⴕ߈ߚ޿ߩߢ㗎ᒛࠅ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬I hope I will be chosen!! ߹ߚߨ . . . Grace

Translations Dear Ritsuko, I am sorry that I haven’t emailed you for these three months! How are you? I feel good now that I have finished my exams!!! Will you be finished your Masters soon? Now Elizabeth ((Grace’s sister)) is nearly finished her ‘honours thesis’ in Humanities. I feel that she’s been tense!!!

Changes in L1/L2 Use

85

The other day, the reports about excavation arrived. They were interesting, but the one written by Nelson and Diana was not understandable for me at all!! Oh . . . I won’t come to Japan this winter. But probably I will be able to go to the EXPO in Aichi next June. Aichi is Victoria’s sister prefecture, so there will be a special ‘Victoria Week’ there. For this event, the Victorian government is choosing 20 ‘young ambassador’!! Successful applicants only have to pay $500 to go to Japan. I have applied and been short listed for an interview. I will do a presentation about Victoria in this interview. I’ll try my best as I want to go to Japan for $500. See you . . . Grace

Excerpt 3.5 Ritsuko’s email to Grace Hello Grace! Thank you for the email. I have just received the report. I didn’t have a chance to read it yet, but I’m sure I reat [sic] it. I am so disappointing [sic] to hear the news! You will not come to Japan????? Although, next June is good time to me, I will have much time. I believe you will get a position as young ambassador. If you pass the all [sic] test, please let me know. I will write more soon Ritsuko

As shown in Excerpt 3.4, Grace’s message is all in Japanese, except for their common friends’ names, one sentence and a few other lexical items with which she was not familiar and where she codeswitched to English. In her stimulated recall interview, for example, she claimed to have known that she could have used Japanese for the word ‘honours’ by utilizing her electronic dictionary, but she had not done so. Excerpt 3.5, on the other hand, which is Ritsuko’s message to Grace the following day, is completely written in English. Grace commented about their non-reciprocal language use saying that she was keen to use Japanese in her email messages, particularly to use lexical items that she had learned as much as possible, and though she was not very sure, she speculated that Ritsuko might enjoy using English herself. Grace also claimed that she never minded about Ritsuko’s English use, although she wrote to her in Japanese because Grace herself had a desire to be exposed to Japanese. Grosjean (1982) notes that non-reciprocal language use normally results in embarrassment and even anger between bilingual speakers

86

Foreign Language Learning and Use

because, among other things, it can signal lack of group solidarity. In the case of email exchange, however, non-reciprocal use of languages does not seem to lead to such serious conflict over language preferences as face-to-face interaction. In addition, in the case of Grace and Ritsuko, it is probably rather natural and comfortable for them to write email in their preferred language, which in this case is their L2, and receive it in the other language. In other words, it seems that they tacitly agreed on this non-reciprocal language use and consequently this language use pattern became customary. From a sociocultural perspective, a possible interpretation of the contexts of this non-reciprocal language use is that the two participants engage in both socializing and language learning activities, driven by the motives of interpersonal engagement and language, respectively. As a result, they seemed to share their social roles as L2 learners as well as friends. I wish to argue that these shared social roles partly contribute to the absence of conflict over their differing language preferences. Furthermore, with her enhanced positive selfimage or identity as an L2 user or learner, which is not as vulnerable as before, Grace does not regard English as a threat to her self-image any more. This, in turn, seems to allow her to give consideration to Ritsuko’s goals pertinent to her L2 (English) learning. It is also important to note that email, an Internet communication tool, appears to mediate non-reciprocal language use between Grace and Ritsuko, in the sense that due to its a-synchronous nature and its use as a tool for long-distance interaction online, the linguistic norms that existed in their previous face-to-face interactions in Australia and Japan tend to be absent. Their own linguistic rule, namely nonreciprocal language use, seems to be co-established by themselves in their interactions by email. Based on the analysis of Grace’s experience, as Gillette (1994) argues, it appears that a learner’s history, including participation in in-country programs as well as formal learning experiences, mediate goal-driven strategies, such as accuracy- and communication-oriented approaches. My analysis also reveals that issues of self-image or identity as an L2 user or learner, which are influenced by the learner’s actual and perceived L2 proficiency, have important consequences for how the learner invests in L2 and constructs opportunities to use

Changes in L1/L2 Use

87

L2 in his/her specific surrounding contexts. These concrete contexts, including the community where the learner is situated, seem to play a major role in terms of the learner’s self-image or identity because this self-image may be co-constructed and (re)negotiated with those around the learner and with the community as well as the society at large. Moreover, the learner’s history of L1/L2 use seems to influence the construction of his/her goals in using L2 in specific activities in bilingual social network contexts and if these goals are shared or accommodated by his/her interlocutor(s), opportunities for the learner to use L2 tend to occur in these contexts.

Case Two: Jim The following sections will examine language use in the interactions between Jim and two of his network members, Aya and Tom. These two members were selected because of their relatively high frequency of interactions with Jim and their multiple language use patterns with him, which has motivated me to consider how and why these patterns changed. As described in Chapter 2, Jim was a highly motivated learner of Japanese, seeking opportunities to use it in natural settings. He valued these opportunities since he believed that they would facilitate his Japanese learning. This belief of Jim’s seems to partly stem from his formal learning experiences in which he felt that studying ‘a dry textbook’ all the time made L2 learning ‘tedious’ (cf. Jim’s comment about Japanese learning in line 19 of Excerpt 3.8, ‘It’s difficult to study Japanese seriously’). He clarified the meaning of ‘dry’ in his interview as follows: Excerpt 3.6 If you use that maybe grammar, it might be, you can say many interesting things with it, but if you just study it without using it, then it doesn’t seem interesting, it’s just plain facts.

He also added that if he had an opportunity to use new linguistic items, it would be significantly easier for him to remember them. These statements of Jim’s demonstrate his conscious learning strategy

88

Foreign Language Learning and Use

or goal, that is, to practise L2 as much as possible in meaningful interactions. In addition, as mentioned in Chapter 2, because of his perception of his Japanese as too formal based on a number of NSs’ comments, he aimed to speak Japanese in the way speakers living in Japan do in natural and informal contexts, including the use of Japanese colloquial expressions. Such motivations, therefore, seem to shape his learning strategies or goals while using L2, which as a result may influence his L2 use in out-of-class contexts. The following discussions will illustrate how these strategies or goals and some other major factors affect the construction of opportunities to use L2 in Jim’s actual interactions with Aya and Tom.

An NS’s corrective behaviour and impoverishment of opportunities to use L2 As mentioned in Chapter 2, Aya (female in her early twenties) was a Japanese undergraduate student whom Jim met through his volunteer work at the ‘Manga Library’ where students borrow Japanese comic books at his university. Jim claimed to have socialized with her not only in this library but outside of it, such as going to a movie together. Aya had been residing in English-speaking countries, such as the USA and Australia, for many years. In his interview, Jim commented that she was proficient both in English and Japanese. At the time of my study, she was intending to become a teacher of Japanese. Jim and Aya’s language use patterns were ‘the basically English variety’ and ‘the mixed variety’ (cf. Table 2.5). After a series of interaction interviews with Jim over 9 months, I found that their language use had changed over time. In his interviews in March when he had just met Aya, he claimed to have used ‘the mixed variety’ when interacting with her. In the following interview in June, however, he described their most recent language use as ‘mainly English’ and then continued: Excerpt 3.7 (J refers to Jim and N refers to the author of this thesis, Naomi) J: When I try to speak Japanese, she always corrects me because she is training to be a Japanese teacher, so it’s a bit annoying. N: You mean she corrects your Japanese?

Changes in L1/L2 Use

89

J: Yeah, N: In detail? J: Yeah, in detail, like ‘the intonation is wrong in this part’.

Here, it is clear that Jim was not comfortable speaking Japanese to Aya at the time of this interview. It can be considered that this is due to his perception of her over-use of correction of Jim’s Japanese and this over-correction appeared to affect Jim’s language selection. A particular situation in which Jim’s language choice was determined by Aya’s correction of his Japanese production was when he had an interview with Aya in Japanese for his Japanese project. This interview was conducted around the middle of June when they had known each other for 3–4 months. Jim remembered that in this situation before he started asking her the questions that he had written down in advance, she corrected them with her red pen. This correction was her voluntary behaviour because he had not asked her to do so. Her feedback indicated that there were numerous mistakes and that his questions mostly lacked naturalness. Jim claimed to have simply read the corrected questions and rarely asked further follow-up questions. Jim, in the interview with me, described his feelings in this situation as ‘I couldn’t sit there and look at her’; ‘To be honest, I felt my Japanese should have been better, I was a bit embarrassed that it wasn’t as good’. After this interaction, Jim socialized with Aya on several occasions. However, he reported that he did not use Japanese in these occasions and he added, ‘I shouldn’t try to do so’. Moreover, although Aya asked Jim to edit her essays in English, which he described as ‘well written’, Jim never again asked her for Japanese language assistance after the interview for his project. Given Jim’s conscious learning strategy or goal to practise L2 as much as possible in natural contexts, it was highly probable that he regarded the interview with Aya not only as an occasion to fulfil a requirement of his Japanese course but also as an opportunity to use Japanese for meaningful social interaction with a peer, at least before Aya corrected his questions so thoroughly. In contrast, judging from her corrective behaviour, Aya seemed to define the interview situation as one where she could teach correct Japanese to Jim, as an expert of this language. Therefore, there appeared to be some tension between their divergent interpretations of this situation and this

90

Foreign Language Learning and Use

tension was not resolved. As a result, Aya’s actions within the teaching activity in which she was engaged seemed to predominate, which, in turn, possibly precluded Jim’s engagement in L2 use activity for meaningful social interaction. In addition, Aya’s over-correction as an expert of Japanese was likely to militate against the maintenance of Jim’s positive self-image or identity as a user of Japanese. Jim thus appeared to only focus on the academic activity to satisfy the course requirement by simply reading the corrected questions in order to avoid further devaluation of his self-image. I suggest that Jim’s perception of the difference in L2 proficiency between his Japanese level and that of Aya’s English is also related to language selection and use between them. In an interview with me, Jim compared his language use with Aya to that with Emi, who was an international undergraduate student who had studied in Australia for only a few months. The language use patterns between Jim and Emi were the same as those between Jim and Aya, namely, ‘the mixed variety’ and ‘the basically English variety’ depending on contexts (cf. Table 2.5). However, Jim reported that unlike Aya who was very fluent in both English and Japanese, Emi was practising her English as her L2, just as he was practising his Japanese. He, therefore, felt considerably more relaxed and comfortable in using Japanese with Emi than with Aya. The impact of this factor, the learner’s relative perception of his/her L2 proficiency and that of his/her interlocutor(s), is also supported by Grace’s reluctance to speak Japanese to her first host family members whose English proficiency level was very high. As I claim in Kurata (2007a), it seemed that the interactions between Jim and Aya that were described earlier shaped what Cummins terms ‘interpersonal space’ that I outlined in Chapter 1 (Cummins, 1996, 2000a, 2000b). Cummins (1996) asserted that unless students’ sense of self-worth is affirmed or extended in this interpersonal space between them and their educators, collaborative construction of knowledge will not occur effectively. In their interpersonal space, it appeared that Jim and Aya’s negotiation of social roles and goals of their interactions as well as that of language selection hardly occurred. With respect to the interview situation between them, Aya seemed to position herself as an expert of his L2, with Jim as a novice who

Changes in L1/L2 Use

91

learns from her through her corrective behaviour. Since this behaviour seemed to threaten Jim’s positive self-image or identity as an L2 user or learner, he probably resisted the novice position by deciding not to speak Japanese to her any more. The interpersonal space between them thus became a negative constriction zone where Jim’s self-image or identity and his L2 use opportunities were constricted rather than developed.

Awareness about the learner’s self-image as an L2 user and co-construction of opportunities to use L2 As the earlier example of Jim and Aya demonstrates, the processes of constructing opportunities for a learner to use L2 with a bilingual NS appear to be complex in his/her social networks. Another example consisting of Jim’s interaction with Tom will be highlighted next as a contrast to the previous example as well as being a case in which a learner may co-construct L2 use opportunities with a peer learner. Jim became acquainted with Tom (male in his late teens/early twenties) in his Japanese class, and they worked together in pair work in the first semester in 2004. Tom had a Chinese background with some knowledge of characters. He had emigrated from Hong Kong and had studied in Australia since secondary level, which included formal Japanese studies for 6 years. However, he discontinued studying Japanese formally after the first semester. After this semester, Jim and Tom interacted mainly through online chat because they did not meet in class any more. They had a short chat two or three times a week and a longer chat once every 2–3 weeks. The language use patterns during Jim and Tom’s online chat sessions were either ‘the basically Japanese variety’ or ‘the basically English variety’ (cf. Table 2.5). These patterns seemed to vary according to the contexts. For instance, Jim claimed to have used English when engaging in a short online chat with Tom because it occurred just before his exams. The time constraint was thus one of the factors affecting their language selection. In order to extract some other social factors, the discussion given later on is focused on their L1/L2 use in an online chat script of a single session between them, which

Foreign Language Learning and Use

92

Table 3.2 Number of turns by language in Jim’s interaction with Tom Jim English Japanese Mixed

11 (16.4%) 54 (80.6%) 2 (3.0%)

Total

67

Tom 29 (28.7%) 69 (68.3%) 3 (3.0%) 101

Total 40 (23.8%) 123 (73.2%) 5 (3.0%) 168

naturally occurred. They had known each other for about 6 months at the time of this session. The overall L1/L2 use pattern in this online chat session is shown in Table 3.2. The total number of e-turns by both speakers in Japanese (123 turns) is almost three times as large as that in English (40 turns). Their language use pattern in this session is thus regarded as ‘the basically Japanese variety’. It is also clear that the frequency of turns that Jim produces in Japanese is slightly higher than that by Tom. On the other hand, the results regarding Tom’s turns including English utterances confirm that the majority of them are either his laughter, ‘ha ha ha’, or his phatic utterances, such as ‘hmmm’, which partly accounts for his higher frequency of turns in English, in comparison with Jim. Excerpt 3.8 is the beginning part of their online chat session. English translations are in square brackets and my explanations are in double parenthesis. Excerpt 3.8 1 Tom says: hmm.. how was jap? 2 Tom says: ޿޿㧫 [Good?] 3 Tom says: ߟ߹ࠄߥ޿㧫 [Boring?] 4 Jim says: lol, we havent really done anything yet but it is already a little different 5 Tom says: ߶ࠎߣ߁㧫[Really?] 6 Jim says: Tanaka and Sato are treating us more seriously 7 Tom says:ߥࠎߢ㧫[why?] 8 Tom says: HAHAHA> . . . lucky i didn’t do 2nd sem 9 Tom says: ߪߪߪ[hahaha] 10 Jim says: yeah 11 Jim says: haha 12 Tom says: hmm . . . oh well . . . i dun think i’d ever study for jap anywaz . . . even if i still do it 13 Tom says: hahha

Changes in L1/L2 Use

93

14 Jim says: me 2 15 Jim says: oh i do do it 16 Jim says: hmmm 17 Tom says:ߢ߽‫[ޔޔޔ‬But,,,] 18 Tom says: hahaha 19 Jim says: ߹ߓ߼ߦᣣᧄ⺆ࠍീᒝߔࠆߩ߇‫ޔ‬㔍ߒ޿ [It’s difficult to study Japanese seriously.] 20 Tom says: ߪߪ޽‫[ ߁ߘ߁ߘޕ‬ha ha. That’s right.] 21 Tom says: ߘߒߡ‫ࠎߗࠎߗޔ‬ീᒝߒߥ޿ [And I don’t study it at all.] 22 Tom says: ߪߪߞߪ޽ [ha ha ha.] 23 Tom says: ߢ߽‫ޔ‬ળ⹤ߒߚ޿ [But I want to have a conversation in it.] 24 Tom says: ߳߳ ((giggle)) 25 Jim says: lolߢߔ[That is lol.] 26 Tom says: ⾆ᣇߪ௢ߩળ⹤BUDDY [You are my conversation buddy.]

In line 1, Tom starts in English but switches to Japanese in the following line. Despite Tom’s use of Japanese in lines 2 and 3, Jim selects English in line 4 and continues to type in English until line 19. Although Tom accommodates to Jim’s use of English a number of times (in lines 8, 12, 13 and 18), this sequence exhibits a case of language negotiation in which these two interactants do not agree on one common language of interaction (cf. Auer, 1998). After line 19, the language use between them converges to Japanese and ‘the basically Japanese variety’ is used by both interactants until the end of this chat. In his stimulated recall interview based on this script, Jim claimed that he had not been sure whether Tom had wished to use Japanese at the beginning of this chat so he had refrained from using Japanese until line 19. Jim also reported that this is because Tom had occasionally said in previous online chats, ‘I can’t be bothered’ to use Japanese. The analysis of Jim’s interview data as well as a close examination of their chat script reveal that the language negotiation in Excerpt 3.8 is related to several social and contextual factors. One of the major social factors seems to be related to Tom’s self-image or identity as an L2 user. According to Jim, the cause of Tom’s discontinuance of his Japanese formal studies was that he was dissatisfied with his score in semester one since it was lower than the one that he used to receive. However, as shown in lines 12, 23 and 26 in Excerpt 3.8, Tom indicates that he does not intend to study Japanese in class but to study

94

Foreign Language Learning and Use

it by himself and thus he is keen to have a conversation in Japanese with Jim as his ‘ળ⹤ [conversation] buddy.’ These data suggest some ambivalence for Tom about his learning of Japanese as well as his precarious self-image or identity as an L2 user. Drawing upon Norton’s concept of investment, it can be said that Tom had invested in his self-image or identity as a user of Japanese as well as his L2 learning, in the form of Japanese formal studies, for 6 years (Norton Peirce, 1995; Norton, 2000). However, the score that Tom received seemed to threaten his self-image or identity to the extent that he decided to withdraw from these studies. In other words, he might expect that his investment in L2 would yield a return, in this case a good score, which would in turn improve self-image or identity as an L2 user or learner. However, he seemed to regard the return that he received on his investment as being incommensurate with the effort expended on L2 learning, so that he withdrew from formal learning contexts. Nevertheless, he did not totally withdraw from L2 learning, but continued to invest in L2 by being exposed to it in non-educational settings. Jim appeared to be aware of Tom’s vulnerable self-image as an L2 user, and in turn, to be sensitive about whether Tom wished to use Japanese or not when they started the online chat. Such an awareness and a sensitivity on Jim’s part thus seem to be chief determinants of his language selection in the excerpts given earlier in the text. Moreover, Jim seems to attempt to enhance Tom’s self-image or identity as an L2 user a number of times in their online chat session. Excerpt 3.9 1 Tom says: ߘߒߡ߆ࠄ [And then]‫ޔ‬U get HD 2 Tom says: lol 3 Tom says: i get D 4 Tom says: hahaha . . . 5 Jim says: ߘࠇ߇޿޿ࠃ [That is good.] 6 Jim says: 㧰߇޿޿ࠎߛ [D is good.] 7 Tom says: hahaa . . . 8 Jim says: ඨಽߩᤨ㑆߇߆߆ࠆ [It takes half of the time] ((What Jim meant here was Tom had studied Japanese only half as long as Jim.))

Here, Tom mentions that Jim received the highest grade (HD: high distinction) for their Japanese subject in semester one while Tom

Changes in L1/L2 Use

95

received the second highest score (D: distinction). In lines 5, 6 and 8, Jim says that the second highest score is good and emphasizes the fact that Jim has studied Japanese twice as long as Tom. In addition, Jim encourages Tom with praise of his knowledge of characters in two different parts of this chat script, such as ‘ṽሼ߇ࠃߊ⍮ߞߡࠆ [sic]’ [You know characters well]. In this way, Jim appears to attempt to recognize and strengthen Tom’s positive self-image or identity as a user of Japanese in this interaction. Tom, on the other hand, similarly makes a positive comment about Jim’s Japanese proficiency in another section of this chat script, after Jim asks the meaning of an unfamiliar character that Tom produces: ‘ߢ߽‫⾆ޕޕޕ‬ᣇᄢਂᄦߨ‫ޕޕޕޔ‬ᣣᧄ⺆߇਄ᚻ’ [but . . . you’re all right, . . . your Japanese is good]. Jim and Tom therefore seem to cooperate to enhance each other’s positive self-image or identity as users of Japanese. I wish to argue that this mutual appreciation of each other’s self-image or identity positively contributes to their investment in their Japanese use in their chat sessions, which as a result leads to their co-construction of opportunities to use Japanese in this particular discourse event. In other words, they construct positive interpersonal space in which negotiation of their self-image or identity as well as that of their language use occurs. Unlike the cases of the interactions between learners and NSs of Japanese that I analysed earlier, the chat session conducted mainly in Japanese between two learners, Jim and Tom, can be interpreted as an action within a learning activity in which both of them are engaged. This activity is possibly driven by a motive, language, which seems to shape their goal to use and practise Japanese for meaningful interaction in natural contexts. Furthermore, given that they also used ‘the basically English variety’ in their other online chat sessions, both of them appear to be interested in interpersonal engagement regardless of their choice of language. Such interest of theirs might influence their goal to socialize as friends. They thus seem to have shared understanding of the purposes of their chat sessions (cf. Wertsch, 1985). I wish to argue that these two learners actively create opportunities to use and practise Japanese by sharing the understanding of these purposes. The social roles (division of labour in Engeström’s (1999) model of an activity system) that Jim and Tom play in their chat session

96

Foreign Language Learning and Use

are probably peer learners or conversation partners in L2 as well as friends. There is a norm that peer learners of FL interact in their shared L1 (or in the dominant language of the society where they are situated if they do not share their L1) rather than FL in out-of-class contexts. If a learner unilaterally selects FL to interact with another learner in these contexts, such behaviour might intimidate the latter learner or make him/her feel uncomfortable. In short, this behaviour is against the aforementioned norm. As the case of Jim and Tom’s interaction demonstrates, peer learners may need to implicitly or explicitly negotiate an agreement for use of FL, giving consideration to, among other factors, each other’s positive self-image or identity as a user of TL/FL. It is, however, important to note that compared to a pair of learners who share an L1, it seems more natural and comfortable for Jim and Tom, whose L1 is different, to interact in their FL (Japanese) (cf. Shima, 2003: 33). To summarize, Jim’s differing experiences in his interactions with Aya and those with Tom demonstrate the two antithetical effects of interpersonal space on the construction of opportunities for learners to use L2 in their bilingual network contexts. The latter case highlights the importance of enhancement of interlocutors’ self-image or identity as an L2 user when learners seek to interact with each other in their L2. I wish to argue that without this mutual enhancement of self-image or identity, as Tom’s case implies, learners might be convinced that to invest effort and time in learning is futile and they may resist further threat to their self-image or identity by withdrawing from participation in interactions in L2 use/learning contexts. Regrettably, as the former case demonstrates, lack of shared or accommodated goals of interactions between a learner and a NS of his/her TL may prevent multiple activities, including social interaction and L2 use, from proceeding together, which possibly impoverishes, rather than affords, opportunities to use L2. Indeed, it is ironic that due to the NS’s lack of awareness about L2 learner’s vulnerable self-image or identity as an L2 user, the corrective behaviour of the NS, who intends to be a language teacher, may cause a learner, who is highly motivated to interact in L2 in natural contexts, to decide not to use L2 with her.

Changes in L1/L2 Use

97

Here, it is also important to concede that the types of channels, such as face-to-face or electronic interactions, are a probable factor that affects opportunities to use L2 in learners’ interactions (cf. Freiermuth, 2001; Freiermuth & Jarrell, 2006; Warschauer, 1996). However, the construction of these opportunities between Jim and Emi in face-to-face contexts indicates that face-to-face interactions do not automatically lead to negative interpersonal space resulting in impoverishment of these opportunities. In the next section, I will continue to examine how L1/L2 use was socially constructed in the interactions between two learners, in which their language use patterns changed dramatically over time, based on the interview data which I elicited from both of them.

Case Three: Simon The series of interactions between two of my participants, namely Simon and Jim, will be used to analyse the processes involved when language selection between two L2 learners is negotiated and structured under the influence of some social and contextual factors. This analysis will be conducted mainly from Simon’s perspective. As explained in Chapter 2, Simon and Jim became acquainted through the religious club to which they belonged at university, and they regularly attended club activities together. As previously mentioned a number of times, it is clear that both Jim and Simon were eager to be exposed to Japanese in natural settings. The language use patterns between Jim and Simon cover four types: basically English, basically Japanese, mixed varieties and non-reciprocal usage (Jim: basically Japanese; Simon: basically English) (cf. Tables 2.5 and 2.6). These patterns changed, depending on the contexts of the interactions, such as location or setting and presence of monolinguals. It was also found that the patterns changed across time even in a similar or the same location or setting and these changes seemed to be closely connected with, among other factors, the learner’s selfimage or identity as an L2 user and negotiation of this self-image or identity. In the following discussion, I will demonstrate how these social factors affected the changes in their language use over time.

98

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Transition of language use patterns In the research interview with Simon in June, he recalled that Jim had initiated a Japanese conversation with him as soon as Jim found that he spoke Japanese. Simon also claimed that they used ‘the mixed variety’ or sometimes ‘the basically Japanese variety’ during their club activities and he found it enjoyable to talk to Jim in Japanese. He further explained that it was enjoyable partly because other club members did not understand what they said when they chose Japanese. Jim also evaluated his interactions in Japanese with Simon as enjoyable and as a good opportunity to use and practise the language in his interview with me, which was conducted 5 days after Simon’s. He claimed to have used ‘the basically Japanese variety’ with Simon in their most recent club activity. He also recalled that on this day he had taught him some masculine slang expressions in Japanese because he knew that Simon was very concerned that he was speaking Japanese like an old woman. Given that Simon and Jim were situated in the club community where its members, including themselves, socialized at their university campus and where English was the dominant language, their Japanese use seemed to be defined by both of them as play among in-group members as L2 users or learners. This activity was likely to be driven by their common motive, language as well as solidarity as L2 users or learners. In addition, it is highly probable that the former motive also shaped Jim’s goal to learn Japanese with Simon in this context, based on his report about his teaching Simon some colloquial masculine expressions. In the next interview in September, however, Simon described his experience in which he became disinclined to speak Japanese to Jim and chose English. Specifically, regarding the language use on the day of their common friend’s birthday party that was held a few days before this interview, Simon claimed that although Jim had persistently spoken Japanese to him, Simon had not listened to Jim’s Japanese and told him to speak in English. He also showed me the following SMS message in romanization of Japanese that he had received from Jim most recently: ‘Osu! Konban Ikaga nasaimasu ka? Okotae de Materaremasu [sic] . . . Jimu yori’ [Hi, mate! Would you kindly tell me what you intend to do this evening? I humbly await for your reply . . . from

Changes in L1/L2 Use

99

Jim]. Simon claimed to have asked Jim in English over the phone what he said in this message as well as the reason he used polite expressions with the passive voice soon after he received it. These two examples thus illustrate their non-reciprocal use of languages, with Jim using the basically Japanese variety but Simon responding in English. Simon further explained that the cause of his disinclination to use Japanese in the aforementioned two situations was that he had felt intimidated by Jim’s use of Japanese slang expressions and strange lexical items with which Simon was unfamiliar. In addition, Simon claimed that Jim’s frequent correction of his Japanese utterances embarrassed him. At the same time, however, he acknowledged that he wished to utilize this type of interaction to improve his Japanese so that he could speak like Jim. This episode thus exhibits Simon’s ambivalence about using Japanese, including his wish to use and learn Japanese in his interactions with Jim, which could not be easily granted in some social circumstances. As I discuss in Kurata (2007b), an analysis of further in-depth interviews with Simon revealed some factors contributing to his ambivalence about using Japanese with Jim. He explained that since Jim was studying Level C and Simon was studying Level D, technically Simon’s level of Japanese proficiency was supposed to be higher than Jim’s. Simon, however, perceived his Japanese proficiency to be lower than that of Jim’s and this led him to think ‘I should know what Jim knows’ whenever Jim produced unfamiliar Japanese vocabulary and expressions or corrected his Japanese. Hence Simon’s perceived lower L2 proficiency than Jim’s contributed to the depreciation of Simon’s positive self-image or identity as a learner for Level D Japanese to some extent. This, in turn, seemed to result in his resistance to reciprocate Jim’s use of Japanese in order to avoid further depreciation of his positive self-image or identity.

Negotiating goals of interactions Nevertheless, Simon seemed to attempt to maintain his self-image or identity in spite of Jim’s face-threatening behaviour towards him that complicated his fulfilment of his wish to use and practise Japanese in his interactions with Jim. In his interview in November,

100

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Simon said: ‘I did it (felt intimidated by Jim’s Japanese) at first, I didn’t like it, but now, it’s OK, because I am not so intimidated’. In the following interview by email, he explained what made him less intimidated: ‘Although speaking with Jim in Japanese was intimidating, I thought that I shouldn’t be always intimidated by not understanding him and use the opportunity to talk with him in Japanese because I could use it to learn and get better’. He also explained that this change was his own conscious decision, that is, he changed his opinion about Jim’s Japanese and his own use of Japanese in reciprocation deliberately. These statements of Simon demonstrate that he was able to actively reconstruct his positive self-image or identity as an L2 learner by becoming more tolerant of his own perceived limited L2 proficiency and, in turn, by accepting Jim’s L2 use as an opportunity to learn. Jim, in his interview in November, claimed to have noticed Simon’s change regarding his language use as follows: ‘Simon used to, he doesn’t so much these days, but he’d always just tell me to speak in English, so I would be reluctant to speak in Japanese, but now he’s speaking more and more in Japanese’. Jim, however, was not aware of the reason for Simon’s change and stated, ‘I think he’s getting used to it’. As discussed earlier, Jim himself felt inferior to Aya due to her high English proficiency and thus decided not to use Japanese with her. Despite this experience, he did not realize that Simon had been intimidated by his own use of Japanese, possibly because Simon was studying in a higher level Japanese class than himself. Simon described in more detail what made him decide to be less stressed about Jim’s intimidating linguistic behaviour, including his frequent correction of Simon’s Japanese use. It was when Simon realized that Jim was not aiming to show off with his Japanese competence but was trying to assist him to learn Japanese, as an older brother would. Simon realized this because he had seen that Jim was persevering patiently in his efforts to use Japanese with him. This was consistent with Jim’s claim that he faced difficulties in understanding the way Simon constructed some Japanese sentences. In this situation, Jim reported to have simply told Simon that he did not understand what Simon said and then they constructed Japanese sentences together.

Changes in L1/L2 Use

101

What is important about the statements of Simon and Jim is that they appear to indicate how the two individuals implicitly negotiated their roles and the goals of their interactions. As mentioned earlier, they seemed to share the interpretation of their interactions in Japanese as play among in-group members as L2 users or learners. In addition, Jim’s interest in the use of Japanese, particularly in natural contexts, seems to form a goal of his peer learning, that is, to practise and learn Japanese with Simon. This goal, however, was not possibly shared with Simon despite his wish to utilize these interactions to improve his Japanese at an early stage. Simon rather seemed to interpret their interactions as opportunities to display L2 competence, judging from his description of Jim’s use of slang expressions as ‘a bit showing off’. Given this interpretation, he was likely to become concerned about maintaining his self-image or identity as a Level D learner whose proficiency was technically supposed to be higher than Jim’s, although he perceived it to be lower than Jim’s. There thus appeared to be a tension between such divergent views, which might cause Simon to feel disinclined to use Japanese, and in turn, cause Jim to become less keen to do so as well. This tension appeared to be mitigated and then resolved between these two learners. As shown in his statements, Simon realized that Jim did not intend to display his L2 knowledge and skills but to seek to practise and learn Japanese together. Simon also noticed that it required patience for Jim to interact with him in Japanese, and this seemed to make Simon aware of Jim’s goal of peer learning. Simon then appeared to actively accommodate to this learning goal. There are marked differences between the case of Jim and Tom and that of Jim and Simon in terms of their social roles as well as the social contexts in which they were situated. The relationship between Jim and Tom started as a partner for pair work in a language classroom community in which there was a norm that they were supposed to practise Japanese. Such experience as peer learners in class seemed to naturally lead them to share their goal to practise Japanese in their online interactions in which no one except themselves was involved. In contrast, Jim and Simon were situated as community members of their club at their university where English was dominantly used. Moreover, most of their interactions were conducted in the presence

102

Foreign Language Learning and Use

of other members. These social conditions clearly seemed to contribute to their difficulty in negotiating and sharing their goals of interactions that were associated with their L2 use. However, as the latter case demonstrates, learners may be able to negotiate their self-image or identity as well as their goals of interactions, which, in turn, seems to lead to an agreement for use of L2.

Summary This chapter has explored some of the ways in which learners negotiated L1/L2 use and actively constructed opportunities for L2 use in their bilingual social networks, which resulted in multiple language use patterns changing over time and according to contexts. The major factors that influenced these changes were discussed – the learners’ history, their goals in using L2, their goal-driven strategies, their self-image or identity and larger sociocultural structures, including the communities where the learners were situated. How these factors seemed to interact with each other and in particular the co-constructed nature of the learners’ self-image or identity has also been discussed. In the next chapter, I will narrow down the focus of analysis to negotiation of language selection in a number of specific contexts in which opportunities for learners to use L2 were relatively limited due to various social conditions.

Chapter 4

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

The previous chapter has examined changes in L1/L2 use over time and according to different contexts in the learners’ bilingual social networks and the major factors affecting these changes. In the current chapter, the focus of analysis will be narrowed down to L1/L2 use within specific contexts at a particular time. These contexts are the learners’ networks that were established with some NSs of Japanese at their university mostly during the 9-month data collection period. As has been discussed in Chapter 2, in this university domain, opportunities for the learners to use L2 were relatively limited, despite the eagerness of learners to pursue social contact with NSs and to use L2 with them. Chapter 4 explores the major factors that contribute to this limited use of L2 by analysing how L1/L2 use is socially and contextually structured and negotiated in some of the actual interactions that occurred in the university domain. More specifically, I will focus on the analysis of five natural conversations between Max, Simon, Cindy and Patty and some of their respective Japanese network members with whom they became acquainted at their university. The chapter commences with a description of the situations in which these conversations were audio-recorded, and is followed by an analysis of patterns of L1/L2 use in them. Drawing on Auer’s (1984, 1988) model incorporated with sociocultural theory, the chapter then explores how language selection is negotiated, which, in turn, affords or constrains opportunities for L2 use in these conversations.

104

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Situations of Conversations This section describes the situations where the five natural conversations occurred as well as the relationships between the participants and their Japanese interlocutors.

Max’s chat with Riku and Yuki As explained in Chapter 1, I provided the participants with a small tape recorder for their use and instructed them to attempt to capture a natural conversation at a time when they normally talked with their network members. I also emphasized that any language(s) could be used in this conversation. Following this instruction, Max recorded his interactions in his hall of residence at university in two situations. One was with two Japanese international students who resided at the same hall as Max, Riku (male, aged 21 years) and Yuki (female, aged 22 years) (hereafter Conversation 1). The recording lasted approximately 25 minutes while they were cooking in the kitchen and then eating dinner in the common room, which Max reported was their daily routine. The other situation was a chat between Max and Riku over dinner in the common room for a duration of about 5 minutes (hereafter Conversation 2). Max became acquainted with Riku soon after he arrived in Melbourne and started living in the hall of residence at the end of February. Since then they had informal contact almost every day not only in their hall but also outside of it. At the time of the recording, early in September, they had known each other for over 6 months. Max evaluated his closeness to Riku in March and November as, ‘not at all close’ and ‘extremely close’, respectively. This shows that Max perceived that their friendship had significantly developed during these 8 months. On the other hand, Yuki started studying and living at the university in July. Since then Yuki often joined Max and Riku while cooking and eating. In addition, Max and Yuki were occasionally engaged in online chat at night, using ‘the mixed variety’. The recording was conducted 1 month after Max and Yuki became acquainted with each other. In November, Max described Yuki as one of his close friends.

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

105

As explained in Chapter 2, both English and Japanese are L2s for Max. In his interview, however, he indicated his stronger desire to practise and improve Japanese rather than English due to his high level of English proficiency as well as limited exposure to Japanese in the environment where English is the dominant language for his daily communication in Australia. Indeed, I found his English proficiency more than adequate to conduct research interviews with me.

Simon’s private lessons with Eri Simon met Eri (female, aged 23 years) on a regular basis only for the purpose of private Japanese lessons. They became acquainted through a common acquaintance and started Japanese lessons in February, meeting weekly until Eri went back to Japan in June or July. Simon claimed to have had no contact with her since then except for talking to Eri all in English over the phone a few days after she returned to Japan. He evaluated his closeness with her as ‘very close’ in March and as ‘not very close’ in November. Simon recorded a 55-minute lesson with Eri in April at her room in a hall of residence at their university where she always tutored him (hereafter Conversation 3). In this lesson, they mainly focused on character practice with limited informal conversation. More specifically, Eri picked out and explained some important characters from the text that Simon was studying in class, and he wrote them with her assistance. During this character practice, the language use was almost all in English.

Cindy’s private lessons with Mie Unlike usual tutor-learner relationships, Cindy and Mie (a female in her mid-twenties) had been friends for over 1 year before they started to have weekly Japanese lessons in April 2004. Cindy claimed to have had an enjoyable time with her before and after their lessons. She also reported that they talked about their personal matters, including Mie’s stress about her relationship with her boyfriend’s mother. In her interviews, Cindy described Mie in March and November as a ‘not very close’ and ‘close’ friend, respectively.

106

Foreign Language Learning and Use

The recording of one of Cindy and Mie’s lessons was conducted at Cindy’s house in the middle of September (hereafter Conversation 4). The duration of the recording was 30 minutes. They had a chat while having some snacks and drinks for approximately the first 8 minutes. After this chat, Mie taught Cindy about the latter’s linguistic subject, which Mie also took the previous year. Their language use in this teaching part was almost all in English.

Patty’s language exchange with Nami As mentioned in Chapter 2, Patty became acquainted with Nami (a female in her late twenties) at the Japan Club of their university in March. They subsequently started to meet on a personal basis and received language assistance from each other and also had an informal conversation several times in semester one. In semester two, they started to schedule a meeting once a week on campus for the same purposes, so that they seemed to form a language exchange partnership. Patty evaluated her closeness to Nami in March and November as ‘not at all close’ and ‘close’, respectively. Patty recorded her conversation with Nami in the middle of September when they had a weekly language exchange at the campus centre in their university (hereafter Conversation 5). The recording lasted 30 minutes. They had a chat in the first 15 minutes. In the latter half, Patty introduced a topic about her Japanese project and they talked about it for a while. Patty then asked Nami to check this project and she gave her some advice. Their language use in the latter half was the basically English variety except when both of them read out aloud Patty’s essay in Japanese.

Overall Language Use The rest of this chapter will have a particular focus upon Max’s interactions. This is because these interactions were conducted in a very informal environment within his social networks (a chat in the university hall of residence where all the interactants in these interactions lived and met almost everyday), compared with the other

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

107

participants’ settings which are closer to formal learning and teaching contexts involving Japanese lessons, but in these cases, with NS peers.

Language use patterns Table 4.1 presents the number of turns taken by Max and his two Japanese interactants as well as by language. In the current study, turns are defined as changes of speakers. ‘Mixed’ is used here to denote the use of the two languages within a turn. In Conversation 1, the number of turns by Riku (214 turns) and Yuki (201 turns) is significantly larger than that by Max (117 turns). This forms a contrast to the symmetrical pattern of turns in Conversation 2. It is clear that in Conversation 2, English is the common language of interaction (cf. Auer, 1998). In Conversation 1, on the other hand, the total number of turns by the three interactants in English (260 turns) is almost the same as that in Japanese (256 turns). The language use pattern in this conversation is thus regarded as ‘the mixed variety’. However, the proportions of English to Japanese spoken by each interactant show that although the two NSs of Japanese employ this variety, Max’s speech is categorized as ‘the basically English variety’. Closer examination of the turns by language in Conversation 1 reveals that there are ten sequences in which Riku and Yuki address each other almost all in Japanese, with Max’s contributions to their talk being very limited. This accounts for Max’s considerably lower number of turns compared with Yuki and Riku. Furthermore, Yuki addresses Max mainly in English but occasionally in Japanese. In contrast, Riku always chooses English towards Max, except for three Japanese utterances that are responsive to Max’s utterances in Japanese. Table 4.1 Number of turns by language in Conversations 1 and 2 Conversation 1

English Japanese Mixed Total

Conversation 2

Max

Riku

Yuki

Max

Riku

97 (82.9%) 18 (15.4%) 2 (1.7%) 117

101 (47.2%) 104 (48.6%) 9 (4.2%) 214

62 (30.8%) 134 (66.7%) 5 (2.5%) 201

50 (96.2%) 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.2%) 52

53 (100%) 0 0 53

Foreign Language Learning and Use

108

Table 4.2 Number of turns by language in Conversations 3, 4 and 5 Conversation 3 Simon

Conversation 4

Eri

Cindy

Conversation 5

Mie

Patty

Nami

English 28 (57.1%) 33 (70.2%) 35 (55.6%) 25 (43.1%) 17 (11.2%) Japanese 14 (28.6%) 14 (29.8%) 20 (31.7%) 30 (51.7%) 129 (84.9%) Mixed 7 (14.3%) 0 8 (12.7%) 3 (5.2%) 6 (3.9%)

18 (11.3%) 141 (88.1%) 1 (0.6%)

Total

160

49

47

63

58

152

Table 4.2 presents the number of turns taken by Cindy, Simon and Patty and their respective Japanese interactants as well as by language. As explained earlier, the dominant use of English was confirmed while all of these interactants focused on learning activities, including character practice, and these activities are relatively similar to those in formal learning settings. I therefore selected the turns in which they were not engaged in these activities since the current study is concerned with opportunities for L2 use in learners’ network contexts in which informal social interactions occur. What Table 4.2 clearly illustrates is the dominant use of Japanese by both interactants in Conversation 5. In Conversation 3, in contrast, the frequency of English use is significantly higher than that of Japanese, and this pattern is more distinct in the number of turns by Eri (Simon’s tutor). The case is opposite for Conversation 4. More precisely, Mie (Cindy’s tutor) used Japanese more frequently than Cindy although their general language use can be categorized as ‘the mixed variety’.

Learners’ use of Japanese As Table 4.1 shows, the frequency of Max’s turns that include utterances in Japanese in Conversation 1 (17.1 per cent) is significantly higher than that in Conversation 2 (0.4 per cent). These utterances by Max in these two conversations are categorized according to discourse types in Table 4.3. As can be seen in the categories, ‘introduction of new sub-topics’, ‘requests or offers to Yuki or Riku’ and ‘greetings’ such as ‘tadaima’ (Hello, I’m back), Max actively initiates Japanese utterances several

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

109

Table 4.3 Discourse types of Max’s utterances in Japanese Conversation 1 (with Riku and Yuki) Introduction of new sub-topics Requests or offers to Yuki or Riku Answers to Yuki’s or Riku’s questions in English Answers to Yuki’s questions in Japanese Repetition of Yuki’s or Riku’s utterances in Japanese Repetition of Yuki’s or Riku’s utterances in English Greetings Others Total

2 2 4 5

Conversation 2 (with Riku) 0 0 0 N/A

3

0

0

1

2 2 20

0 1 2

times in Conversation 1. It is also apparent that he is given opportunities to speak Japanese by answering Yuki’s questions in Japanese five times in this conversation. Of great interest is the fact that he gives an answer in Japanese to Yuki’s or Riku’s questions in English four times. As Auer (1984, 1988) claims, responsive utterances in the other language are a strong indicator of the speaker’s preference for it. Such code alternation by Max therefore signals his desire to use Japanese. In Conversation 2, Max produces only two utterances in Japanese when making a side-remark and repeating part of Riku’s previous utterance in English, in Japanese. I wish to argue that the presence of two NSs who are in the habit of interacting with each other in Japanese is one of the crucial factors in the considerably higher proportion of utterances in Japanese by Max in Conversation 1 than that in Conversation 2. To reiterate, such a habit of Riku and Yuki seems to provide an environment where Japanese is a legitimate base language in Conversation 1, in a way that does not occur in Conversation 2. I suggest that this environment is positively related to the construction of opportunities for Max to produce Japanese. The number of Japanese utterances in the first five categories in Table 4.4 illustrates that like Max, Simon, Cindy and Patty actively produce utterances in Japanese. Patty, for instance, produces 101 utterances in total in these categories, which accounts for 75.9 per

Foreign Language Learning and Use

110

Table 4.4 Discourse types of learners’ utterances in Japanese Conversation number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Introduction of new sub-topics/topics Requests or offers to interactant Questions to interactant Explanation or adding information Answers to interactant’s questions in English Answers to interactant’s questions in Japanese Repetition of interactant’s utterances in English Repetition of interactant’s utterances in Japanese Backchanelling Reported speech Interjection Conjunction Others Total

3 (Simon) 4 (Cindy) 5 (Patty) 1 0 1 7 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 4 21

3 0 2 5 0 5 0 3 4 5 0 0 1 28

13 2 6 60 0 11 0 2 26 0 9 1 3 133

cent of the total number of her utterances in Japanese. This percentage, together with the exceedingly high frequency of her turns in Japanese in Table 4.2 shows that she appears to take the initiative to utilize this conversation as an opportunity to speak Japanese. Simon also actively creates opportunities to speak Japanese nine times, including his answer to Eri’s questions in English, which signals his preference for Japanese. This amounts to 42.9 per cent of his total utterances in Japanese. Cindy’s active initiation of Japanese, on the other hand, occurs 10 times, occupying 35.7 per cent of her total number of utterances in Japanese. The categories numbered 6 and 8 in Table 4.4 indicate that the learners are given some opportunities to produce utterances in Japanese by their Japanese interlocutors. Cindy, for instance, answers or repeats Mie’s questions or utterances in Japanese eight times in total. This accounts for 28.6 per cent of the total number of her utterances in Japanese, which is considerably higher than that of Simon (4.8 per cent) and Patty (9.8 per cent). Based on such relatively high proportion of these two categories of Cindy’s as well as Mie’s higher frequency of turns in Japanese than that of Cindy (cf. Table 4.2), it appears that Mie makes a positive effort to create opportunities for Cindy to use Japanese during their conversation.

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

111

Micro-discourse Analysis of L1/L2 Use In the following sections, I will conduct a micro-analysis of how opportunities for the learners to use L2 are constructed or not easily constructed in Conversations 1 to 5 due to various social and contextual factors.

Max’s conversations Construction of opportunities for L2 use As shown in Table 4.3, Max initiates a Japanese utterance as a new subtopic twice in Conversation 1. The following excerpt illustrates this case, taken from the conversation in which Yuki and Riku are talking about the pink cake that their mutual friend made. The conversation up to the beginning of this excerpt was mainly conducted in Japanese by Riku (R) and Yuki (Y), with a limited contribution by Max (M).

Excerpt 4.1 1

R:

2

Y:

3

R:

4

Y:

5

R:

6

Y:

7

R:

8

M:

9

R:

ߔߞߏ޿<ߐ>߆ࠊ޿ࠄߒ޿ࠤ࡯ࠠ 㧚(1.5) VERY pretty cake. ߥࠎ߆ߨ‫ࠠ࡯ࠤߩࠢࡦࡇޔ‬὾޿ߡߊࠇࠆࠎߛߞߡ㧚 You know, he bakes a pink cake (for his friends). ޽࡯ࡇ޽ࠤ࡯ࠠߪ‫ߛࠎࠆ޽ߪࠠ࡯ࠤޔ‬ Well, pi, well, cake is, you have a cake. ࠤ࡯ࠠߪߨߥࠎ߆ߨ߃?ࡇࡦࠢߩࠤ࡯ࠠࠍߎߥ޿ߛ὾޿ߚߞ ߡ⸒ߞߚ߆ࠄ‫ࠠ࡯ࠤߩࠢࡦࡇ<ߡߞ޿޿߇ࠢࡦࡇߚ߹⑳ޔ‬὾ ޿ߡ> About the cake, you know? He said he had baked a pink cake the other day, so I asked him to bake a pink one again, . [(ߛࠈ㧦)] [I said that, didn’t I]? [ࡇࡦࠢߩࠤ࡯]ࠠߛߞߡ[ߤࠎߥࠤ࡯ࠠ]ߛࠃߞߡ [Pink ca]ke, what type of cake is that pink cake? ‫])ࠠ࡯ࠤ( )ޓޓޓ([ ޓޓޓ ޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓ‬ (cake) ࠤ࡯ࠠࠍ૞ߞߚߎߣ޽ࠆ? Have you ever made a cake? ࠤ࡯ࠠࠍ૞ߞߚߎߣ?ࠎ࡯޽ࠆ. Have I ever made a cake? Well, yes.

Foreign Language Learning and Use

112 10

Y:

11

M:

12

R:

13 14

Y: M:

15

Y:

(.)޽ࠆߩ? Have you? [ࠎ࡯?] [Mmm?] [޽ࠆ]૗࿁߆ߪ(૞ߞߚ). [Yes], a number of times, (I have made one) You? (2.8) ߥ޿ No. ࿯บߛߌ૞ࠇࠆߣᕁࠊߥ޿? [ߢ߈ࠆ] Don’t you think we can make the cake base only? We can.

The sequence between lines 1 and 7 in this excerpt is conducted all in Japanese exclusively by Riku and Yuki. In line 8, Max initiates a Japanese utterance, which is not an abrupt topic change, but a more subtle topic shift. As van Lier and Matsuo (2000) explain, small subtopics are not specifically marked as they change, but rather they flow from one into the other, and are collaboratively established by interactants; the researchers refer to this flow as topic shift, as opposed to topic change. Adopting their definition of topic shift, it can be said that Max introduces a sub-topic, into which the topic about the pink cake flows. It seems that Riku and Yuki’s use of colloquial expressions, natural speed and Max’s unfamiliarity with the person about whom they talk make it hard for Max to participate in their dominant conversation in Excerpt 4.1. I therefore suggest that this introduction of a new sub-topic allows him to re-engage in their conversation as a speaker of Japanese as well as a legitimate participant of their conversation that they should not exclude. Furthermore, by choosing a sub-topic rather than an abrupt topic change, Max seems to be able to maintain the flow of the on-going talk as well as to develop their conversation. As shown in line 9, Riku repeats Max’s utterance, which shows his acceptance of Max’s selection of Japanese as well as his topic shift. Yuki, in line 10, also accepts this topic shift, so that it is collaboratively established by these three interactants. Max’s initiation of a Japanese utterance in line 8 can also be analysed as participant-related language selection that is associated with his preference for Japanese. Auer (1995) explains that by preferencerelated code selection, a speaker may simply avoid the language in

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

113

which he/she feels insecure and choose the language in which he/ she has a higher level of proficiency. In the earlier sequence, however, Max selects his less proficient L2, Japanese. In addition, he responds in Japanese to Yuki’s question in English in line 14. This responsive utterance in the other language can be interpreted as a strong index of his preference for Japanese (cf. Auer 1988). Here, it is important to note that Max is situated as a learner, who is keen to use and practise Japanese as an FL. This situation partly accounts for Max’s preference for Japanese which he is less competent to use. Therefore, I can argue that such an indication of his linguistic preference and his introduction of a sub-topic are positively related to the construction of opportunities for Japanese use in this speech event. Excerpt 4.2 exemplifies another opportunity for Max to produce utterances in Japanese by making a request as well as an answer to Yuki: Excerpt 4.2 1 2 3 4

R: M: R: M:

5

Y:

6

R:

7

Y:

8

R:

9

M:

10

Y:

11

M:

12

Y:

13 14 15

M: R: MRY:

(.)Okay done. (.)Shall we go? Be careful. Okay. (ߨ) ࠁ߈ߐࠎ, ࠁ߈ߐࠎ,ߎࠇᜬߞߡߞߡߊߛߐ޿. (Well), Yuki, Yuki, can you take this (food to the common room)? ߪ࡯޿. O:K. (.)ߤ߁ߒࠃ߁߆ߥ޽. What shall I do (with this)? (2.0)ߎࠇߣ߼ߥߊߡ޿޿ߩ? You don’t need to stop /switch off this? M? mm. just (). (2.0)޽ߞ((a clattering noise with some plates)) (3.0) Okay la: Ah (3.0) <޽࡯> Ah: ߤߒߚߩ?޽ߞߟ޿? (hhh) (.) ߜࠂߞߣᾲ߆ߞߚ:? What’s the matter? Is it hot? (hhh) Was it a little bit hot? (.)ߜࠂߞߣ. A little bit ߆ߥࠅᾲ߆ߞߚ? Was it quite hot? (hhh) (That’s good.) OK, let’s go. (hhh)

114

Foreign Language Learning and Use

In the preceding sequence, the three interactants exchanged opinions about the marriage of couples with a disparity in age. They discussed this issue all in English except for Yuki and Riku’s one utterance each in Japanese when they addressed each other. At the beginning of this excerpt, this discussion concludes with Riku’s announcement that he has finished cooking. In line 4, Max, with a switch to Japanese, requests Yuki to carry some food to the common room where they will eat dinner together. I can suggest that such a change in mode of interaction signalled in line 1 helps Max to seize an opportunity to switch to Japanese in line 4. Otherwise, it seems difficult and also unnatural for Max to create such an opportunity while these three interactants talk about relatively complicated topics like the marriage of couples with an age difference, almost all in English. Max’s code alternation in line 4 is accepted by Yuki and Riku, who align with his selection of Japanese, in lines 5 and 6, respectively. Although Riku’s preference for English can be seen in the conflicting use of two languages by Yuki and himself in lines 7 and 8, Yuki maintains the Japanese code to initiate an utterance to Max in the form of a question in line 10. In this question, she seems to employ significantly simpler expressions than those towards Riku in order to make it more comprehensible for Max. In the following line, Max makes a short reply, ‘a little bit’ in Japanese, which might show his embarrassment at his clumsy manner of handling some hot food or plates. Yuki again shows her concern for him by asking whether the food or the plate is very hot for him to handle, in Japanese in line 12. Max then answers with laughter possibly to conceal his embarrassment in line 13. This particular interaction in Excerpt 4.2 therefore demonstrates that opportunities for a learner to use L2 can be constructed by his/ her own active code alternation to L2 and that they can be given by his/her interlocutor(s). I argue that these opportunities are mediated by, among other things, collaborative effort by the learner and his/her interactant(s), and the dynamic nature of organization of the on-going interaction including the aforementioned mode shift.

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

115

Language negotiation sequences resulting in a convergence to English I have demonstrated the successful co-construction of opportunities for Max to use Japanese in Excerpts 4.1 and 4.2. However, there are also a number of negotiation sequences where Max’s selection of Japanese is not accepted by Riku and Yuki. Excerpt 4.3, which includes an illustration of such a case, comes from the interaction in which Max, Riku and Yuki are talking about Yuki’s English name, Meg. The surrounding stretch of talk is conducted in the mixed variety. Excerpt 4.3 1

R:

2

Y:

3

R:

4 5 6

R Y: R: Y:

7

R:

8

Y:

9

R:

10

Y:

11

M:

12 13 14

Y: R: M:

15

Y:

16 17 18 19

R: Y: R: Y:

ࡔࠣ㧫 Meg? (hhh)㧔߶ࠎߣ㧕߆ࠊ޿޿ߢߒࠂ㧫 (hhh) (It’s a really) pretty name? ޽࡯ߜࠂߞߣ㧚 Well, a little bit. (hhh) OK, OK, then, (ߓ߾޽)ߢ߽ߨ:෹㆐ߪߨߔߏ޿ૃวߞߡࠆߞߡ⸒ߞߚߩߨ: (well) but: my friends said it suits me very much: ࡔࠣ߇? (You mean your English name) Meg (suits you)? ߘ߁ߘ߁ߘ߁ߘ߁(.) ߢ߽ઁߩሶߪ:߽ߞߣ࠮ࠢࠪ࡯ߥฬ೨ࠍ ߟߌࠈߞߡ㧚 Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah (.) but other friends said: I should have a sexier name. ࡔࠣߞߡ࠮ࠢࠪ࡯ߛߣᕁ߁㧚 I think Meg is a sexy name. ߛ߼ߛࠃ߽ߞߣ࠮ࠢࠪ࡯[(‫])ޓޓޓ‬ No, a sexier [()] [Meg] Ryanߩࠃ߁ That is like Meg Ryan. Yeah yeah yeah. Meg Ryan. (3.0)޽ߩ(.)ࠫࡘ࡝࡯ߐࠎ߽ర᳇ߢߔ߆? Um, (.) how is Julie? ࠫࡘ࡝࡯[ߪ?] Julie [is?] [Julie]Julie? Julie (‫)ޓ‬ Who is Julie? [(‫])ޓ‬

Foreign Language Learning and Use

116 20 21 ...

R: Y:

32

M:

[Ju Julie is] Yuko. Yeah yeah yeah. ((An omission of 10 turns spoken by Riku and Yuki in English)) (.) Did you have lunch with her today?

Subsequent to Riku and Yuki’s conversation almost all in Japanese at a natural speed between lines 1 and 10, Max initiates a Japanese utterance with English code mixing in line 11. However, in her responsive turn to this utterance, Yuki produces a phatic utterance in English, by which she signals her agreement with Max despite her disregard of his selection of Japanese. Riku then repeats the name of the actress in English in line 13. In spite of their code alternation to English, Max introduces a new sub-topic (about another Japanese girl’s English name) in Japanese in line 14. Yuki, in her responsive turn in line 15, once aligns with Max’s choice of Japanese. Riku, on the other hand, does not respond to Max’s question (‘how is Julie?’) in line 14 directly but initiates another relevant question in English (‘who is Julie?’) in line 18. He knows the answer to this question, which is evidenced by his own utterance (‘Julie is Yuko’) in line 20. The language use between Yuki and Riku then converges to English afterwards. Finally, such conflicting use of the two languages is resolved by Max’s accommodation to Riku and Yuki’s choice of English in line 32. This sequence thus exhibits a clear case of language negotiation where the interactants do not agree on one common language of interaction (cf. Auer 1998). The sequence also illustrates Max’s and his Japanese interlocutors’ preference for Japanese and English, respectively, in this situation. The language negotiation sequence in Excerpt 4.3 forms a contrast with the absence of such a sequence in Excerpt 4.1. The first halves of these two excerpts, however, share an interactional feature that Yuki and Riku talk in Japanese exclusively between themselves until Max initiates Japanese utterances as new sub-topics. Hence, it is important to examine what factors contribute to Riku and Yuki’s acceptance of Max’s choice of Japanese in Excerpt 4.1 by comparing the sequences of these two excerpts. Auer (1995) suggests comparing participants’ language choice in responsive turns in order to see how their language negotiation can

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

117

be won. This suggestion is based on the general feature of bilingual language negotiation where a participant tends to feel pressure to accommodate to his/her interlocutor’s language selection for turns with a higher degree of cohesion with previous turns than for those with little cohesion, such as initiative turns. Following this suggestion, I will compare Riku and Yuki’s responsive turns to Max’s Japanese utterances in these two excerpts. In Excerpt 4.1, Riku accepts Max’s choice of Japanese by repeating and answering Max’s question in Japanese in line 9. Yuki, in line 10, uses a confirmation check strategy regarding Riku’s utterance in Japanese in line 9. These lines between 8 and 10 therefore show a significantly high degree of cohesion, and in turn, there may be considerable pressure on Riku and Yuki to accept Max’s choice of Japanese in this situation. Furthermore, Max’s question in line 8 is about Riku’s experience of baking cakes so that it may be difficult or impossible for Riku to avoid a direct responsive position by producing another relevant question, as he does in line 18 of Excerpt 4.3. Compared to Max’s utterance in Japanese in Excerpt 4.1, those of Max’s in lines 11 and 14 in Excerpt 4.3 probably exert less pressure on Yuki and Riku to accommodate to his language selection. This may be because these utterances are not direct questions to Yuki and Riku about themselves but are referring to other people who are not participants in their conversation. Moreover, Riku and Yuki’s choice of English in their responsive turns (lines 12 to 13 in Excerpt 4.3) is a stronger indicator of their preference for English than that of Max’s preference for Japanese, as seen in the turn which he initiates (line 14 in Excerpt 4.3) (cf. Auer 1988). In contract, in another context (Excerpt 4.1), Max signals his desire to use Japanese by his persistent use of it, even in his responsive turn to Yuki in line 14 of this sequence, as mentioned earlier. Hence, I argue that among other things, the degree of cohesion between turns (a discourse-related factor) and the relative strength of indication of each participant’s preference for English or Japanese (a participant-related factor) in these two excerpts affect the construction of opportunities for Max to use Japanese. Excerpt 4.3 thus seems to represent an unsuccessful discourse event for Max to construct an opportunity to speak Japanese. Nevertheless, an analysis of this excerpt as well as Excerpts 4.1 and 4.2 suggests

118

Foreign Language Learning and Use

interactional resources which may lead to opportunities for Max to be exposed to authentic informal interaction between the two NSs of Japanese in his age bracket. As mentioned earlier, there are 10 sequences, including Excerpts 4.1 and 4.3, in which Riku and Yuki address each other mostly in Japanese at a natural speed, employing colloquial expressions. Although it is no doubt difficult for Max to completely understand these sequences, he seems to mostly get the gist of them, which is evidenced by his production of coherent utterances either in English or Japanese (cf. line 8 of Excerpt 4.1 and lines 11 and 14 of Excerpt 4.3). As mentioned in Chapter 2, Max is a highly motivated learner of Japanese, who claimed to like the language itself. He also stated that he was happy if he could have a conversation in Japanese. Postulating his investment in Japanese which is evidenced by these statements, it can be claimed that even though Riku and Yuki do not include him as an addressee, he is actively engaged in these sequences as a listener (cf. Ohta, 2001).

Two activities: socialization and language learning As explained in Chapter 1, according to activity theory, activities are based within communities and driven by motives. Conversations 1 and 2 can be regarded as actions within organizing activities in which Max, Riku and Yuki are engaged. One of the activities is socialization in the community of students in their hall of residence. In an international hall of residence where students with various cultural backgrounds meet and socialize, it is reasonable to suggest that socializing activity in this context is driven by motives which include interpersonal engagement and cross-cultural communication. The other activity that they seem to be engaged in is language learning. Since the majority of the members of this community tend to be motivated to improve their English proficiency as international students as well as being interested in learning about the language and culture of their peers, language can be analysed as a motive. This motive can be considered as an object or problem space which organizes the linguistic actions of the three interactants. As mentioned earlier, in his interview, Max indicated his strong desire to

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

119

practise and improve Japanese due to limited exposure to Japanese in the environment where English is the dominant language for his daily communication in Australia. This supports the earlier claim that language would be a possible motive for the community residents of an international hall of residence. I thus wish to argue that these two different activities, socialization and language learning, might be underway in Max’s conversations with Riku and Yuki. Moreover, there seems to be a contradiction between these two activities in the sense that they are not always compatible with each other (cf. Engeström, 2001). The influence of this contradiction on shaping of the three interactants’ goals, and, in turn, their language use, will be discussed later in more detail.

Contradictions between goals The above-mentioned motives of the international university dormitory community, interpersonal engagement, cross-cultural communication and language seem to shape a number of goals that influence Max’s linguistic actions in the interactions. I suggest that one of his goals is to socialize with Riku and Yuki through conversation, shared cooking and eating while another goal is to use Japanese. However, as evidenced by Max’s dominant use of English over that of Japanese in Conversations 1 and 2, the latter goal is often temporary. In contrast, Max appears to always attempt to maintain the goal to socialize over the course of these conversations. I speculate that the reason for the temporariness of the goal to use Japanese is that if he persists in focusing on this goal, that is, if he defines his interaction with Riku and Yuki primarily as an opportunity to practise his Japanese, his goal to socialize would be undermined. This can be analysed as a contradiction between Max’s two goals. With reference to the earlier analysis of Max’s language selection based on Auer’s (1984, 1988) approach, I argue that Max chooses Japanese for participant/preference-related reasons, when he decides to bring in the goal to use Japanese (cf. line 8 of Excerpt 4.1 and line 14 of Excerpt 4.3). This decision seems to be made giving consideration to personal, social and/or discourse conditions, which may or may not allow him to pursue his two goals at the same time. In other

120

Foreign Language Learning and Use

words, Max appears to make choices between the contradicting two goals by temporarily giving up the goal to use Japanese in order to achieve both in the long term. It is clear that another contradiction emerges between Max’s goal to use Japanese and the Japanese interactants’ goal to use English. As previously stated, Max is a highly motivated learner of Japanese such that his great interest in the Japanese language may shape his goal to use Japanese with Riku and Yuki. These Japanese students, on the other hand, as international students, are very likely to be motivated to maintain and improve their English proficiency by being exposed to English in natural settings. The language negotiation sequence in which Max’s selection of Japanese is not accepted by Riku and Yuki (Excerpt 4.3) exemplifies this contradiction between the goals of the two parties.

Languages as mediational artifacts Max seems to utilize both Japanese and English as resources to organize the on-going discourse. Drawing on the model of an activity system, such linguistic resources are regarded as mediational artifacts, which mediate activities (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). As shown in Excerpt 4.1, Max introduces a sub-topic in Japanese in order to be recognized as a legitimate addressee as well as a speaker of Japanese. I can argue that such linguistic action of Max’s allows him to pursue his goals to socialize and to use Japanese at the same time. In other words, socializing activity and language learning activities are mediated, among other things, by Max’s discourse-related use of Japanese in this particular speech event. Riku and Yuki, on the other hand, seem to use Japanese as an artifact mediating in-group solidarity in terms of NS status in the context where English is the main language for daily communication. As previously stated, in Conversation 1, there are 10 sequences in which Riku and Yuki dominantly talk among themselves mostly in Japanese at a natural speed. It is highly likely that they do not regard Max as their addressee. In other words, their use of Japanese appears to mediate Max’s exclusion from social relations among Japanese students or legitimate speakers of Japanese.

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

121

Although both Riku and Yuki seem to be motivated as international students to improve their English and to use Japanese as a marker of in-group relations, they also utilize the two languages in different ways. As mentioned earlier, Riku never initiates utterances in Japanese towards Max. In addition, even when he asks Yuki some questions about her friend or herself, Riku uses English a number of times. He also summarizes his Japanese talk with Yuki in English twice for Max. I therefore suggest that Riku selects English, which is their common L2 and stronger L2 for Max, to include him as an addressee in their conversation (cf. Auer 1984, 1988). Riku’s use of English as an artifact to include Max as an addressee contradicts Max’s use of Japanese to mediate learning Japanese, and, implicitly, inclusion as a legitimate speaker of Japanese. As Auer (1984) asserts, code alternation for the interlocutor’s benefit, that is, to switch to his/her stronger language, is a dangerous move because this move may threaten his/her face. Moreover, a contradiction also emerges between such use of Japanese by Max and Riku’s use of Japanese as an artifact to mediate in-group relations with Yuki. In his interview, Max reported on his perception of Riku’s use of Japanese in their interactions with Yuki as follows: Maybe Riku tried to talk to Yuki in Japanese very fast on purpose, and sometimes it gave the impression that, um, yeah, he didn’t want me to participate in this part of the conversation. ( . . . ) Sometimes I felt excluded in this situation. They sometimes talked about me ((in Japanese)), thinking I can’t understand their conversation. This statement indicates that Max perceived that Japanese was being used by Riku as an in-group language, which, in turn, made Max feel excluded. It also shows that Max was aware of how Riku and Yuki perceived the level of his Japanese proficiency and that he was concerned about being viewed as not proficient enough to participate in their conversation. I suggest that such perception and awareness of Max made himself feel somewhat marginalized as a user of Japanese. This can be considered as a possible negative impact of the contradictions between the different use of languages as artifacts by Max and Riku on opportunities for Max to use Japanese.

122

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Yuki, on the other hand, seems to pay more attention to Max’s preference for Japanese than does Riku. Unlike Riku, she asks Max questions in Japanese, by using significantly simpler expressions than those towards Riku five times in the conversation, such as ‘ࡃ࡯ࡌ ࠠࡘ࡯ⴕ߆ߥ߆ߞߚߩ㧫’ (You didn’t go to the BBQ, did you?). In addition, according to his interviews, Max claimed to have used the mixed variety with her during their online chat a number of times. Here, her use of Japanese could be interpreted as an artifact to mediate language learning activity. Within this activity, Yuki’s action to initiate Japanese utterances to Max is likely to be directed by her conscious goal to help Max to use and learn Japanese.

Social roles and rules/norms within the community The social roles (which are referred to as ‘division of labour’ in the model of an activity system) that the residents of the dormitory community play within socializing activity do not normally include the vertical division of power and status. They are all students studying at the same university and most of them are in their late teens or twenties. Max, Riku and Yuki were all in their early twenties and seemed to regard each other as peers as well as friends. Moreover, such peer group relationships within the community of the halls usually involve a social norm/rule that students residing in the same hall increase understanding of one another’s cultures and form a friendship with each other. If Max only seeks an instrumental relationship with Riku and Yuki, in other words, if Max is engaged only in the language learning activity, his linguistic actions within this activity are against the social norm within the socializing activity, as already described. Max therefore always seems to attempt to give priority to the goal to socialize over the goal to use Japanese. Moreover, in terms of language use, there seems to be a norm that English be used among speakers with mixed language backgrounds, particularly, among international students situated in a university hall of residence in Australia. I claim that this norm within the socializing activity could shape the three interactants’ goals that are related to their language use, in particular, Riku’s strong desire to use English. This norm thus appears to partly contribute to the

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

123

limited opportunities for Max to use Japanese in the two conversations. On the other hand, as discussed earlier, there is a norm among NSs that they address each other in their native language. Max’s case demonstrates that this norm may help a learner to construct opportunities to use L2 when she/he interacts with more than one NS in a conversation.

Opportunities for L2 use in learning activities In contrast to the socializing activity in which Max, Riku and Yuki engage in their interactions, all of the interactants in the other three situations mainly focus on the activities associated with the learners’ Japanese learning. Since Simon’s and Cindy’s cases are private tutorial settings, the goal of their interactions, Japanese learning, is notably shared by both the learners and their tutors. Patty and Nami also seem to focus on a Japanese learning activity in their recorded interaction although they usually seek language assistance from each other as well as to practise their respective L2, depending on their needs on the day of their exchange lessons. I will analyse how language selection in their learning activities is socially and contextually structured next.

Simon and Eri As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Simon met Eri on a regular basis for the sole purpose of receiving private Japanese lessons. It is thus reasonable to suggest that Eri’s focused role as a tutor to whom Simon pays tuition places her under an obligation to teach Japanese to Simon efficiently within a certain limited time. Utilizing the model of an activity system, their clear division of labour involves a social norm, that is, a tutor should teach a learner in an effective way. For the purpose of effective teaching/learning, Eri and Simon appear to agree to choose English as their language of interaction (mediational artifact). Simon’s limited L2 proficiency seems to contribute to their choice of English. In his interviews with me, he mentioned that he wished to use more Japanese in his lessons with Eri. However, he also stated that ‘English is useful’ in these situations.

Foreign Language Learning and Use

124

As shown in Table 4.4, Simon actively creates an opportunity to produce nine utterances in Japanese although he and Eri spend most of their 55-minute lesson on character practice in which they use mostly English. The following excerpt illustrates this active production of an utterance in Japanese by Simon (S) while Eri (E) is explaining a kanji ‘ⴣേ⊛’ (impulsive) to him: Excerpt 4.4 ⴣേ⊛ is like, (.) If we go: shopping, right? And then see the bargain sale, wow, impulsive and then, (.) without no, without no shopping list, I just buy [this one], buy [this one], 2 S: [hhh] [impulsive] 3 E: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that one, impulsive shopping. 4 S: (hhh) Ah:, <ⴣേ⊛>, ((S is trying to write the character, ⴣേ⊛)) impulsive 5 E: Yeah, (2.5) 6 S: I don’t know (hhh) 7 E: (hhh) ⴣേ, it’s also, a bit difficult one, (2.0) <ⴣ:>, Impul im: 8 S: ታߪ⑳ߩᲣߪ‫ޔ‬ To tell you the truth, my mother, 9 E: ߁ࠎ Uh-huh 10 S: ޽ߩ (.) ߘߩⴣേ⊛ߥ‫ޔ‬ Well, that impulsive 11 E: ߁ࠎ Uh-huh 12 S: ⾈޿‛ (.) ߇ߒߡ‫޽ޔ‬: (.) like she does that she just wants to buy Shopping (.) she did, well, something (hhh) she () ‘No, I won’t take the list, I just buy one I feel like’ (hhh) 13 E: Wow, so natural ⴣേ⊛㧚 (hhh) impulsive 14 S: Ah:, this one () (6.0) 15 E: How many you write? (2.0) Yeah. 1







E:

In line 8, Simon switches to Japanese and starts to produce a Japanese utterance with ‘ⴣേ⊛’ (impulsive), the characters that he is practising. Adopting Auer’s (1984, 1988) approach, this code alternation provides a sequential contrast between the on-going sequence (character writing practice) and a subordinated sequence (an oral production of a sentence with the target characters). It can also be analysed as a

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

125

participant-related selection, which signals his desire to use Japanese, judging from his investment in learning Japanese (cf. Chapter 2). Eri’s backchannels in lines 9 and 11 seem to encourage him to continue to talk in Japanese. However, Simon switches back to English in the middle of line 12. A number of aspects of his way of producing a Japanese utterance suggest that he is having difficulties formulating what he wants to express in Japanese, such as a few pauses in lines 10 and 12 and the use of interjections, including an elongated ‘޽:’ (well) in line 12. This switch thus signals his inability to explain about his mother’s shopping habits in Japanese. Although Eri possibly notices that Simon’s switch to Japanese in line 8 signals his desire to speak L2 as well as that he switches back to English due to lack of L2 proficiency in line12, Eri selects English in the following line. I can suggest that this code selection by Eri subtly undermines Simon’s eagerness to initiate an utterance in Japanese in this speech event. In addition, her utterance in this line, ‘wow, so natural ⴣേ⊛’ (impulsive), is an evaluative comment, which may imply that she does not treat Max’s utterances in Japanese as part of authentic social interaction but as simply language practice, such as can often be seen in classroom settings. This utterance may also hint that Eri might urge Simon to go back to character practice. In fact, this topic about Simon’s mother’s shopping habits does not develop further as topics in authentic social interactions normally do, and they focus back again on the character practice in line 14. I can argue that there are multiple motives that shape Simon’s goal to learn and use Japanese in this private lesson. One of these motives seems to be an academic one, which might shape his goal to obtain a good score for his Japanese subjects. However, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Simon was very keen to be exposed to Japanese as much as possible in out-of-class contexts as well. This is because, based on his claim in his interview, he was interested in engaging in informal and authentic interactions in Japanese. As shown in Excerpt 4.4, the Japanese sentence that he produces is not an example sentence with a fictitious character but a real description about his mother’s shopping habits. Therefore, his eagerness to have authentic interactions in Japanese and his desire to improve his Japanese proficiency appear to underlie his active initiation of his Japanese utterance in line 8.

126

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Simon’s goal to do well in his Japanese subjects seems to be shared by Eri. There are a number of sequences in the recorded conversation, which indicate that she appears to feel responsibility for Simon’s academic results in these subjects. For instance, she asks about the result of his previous character quiz in which he hesitantly reports not having done well. She further asks him the reason for this unsatisfactory result and she also ensures that the style for the next quiz will be the same as the previous one. In addition, as her utterances in Excerpt 4.4 show, Eri explains ‘impulsive’ in Japanese by describing an example situation to make this lexical item comprehensible for Max and she also seems to encourage him to continue to produce an utterance using this item as language practice. However, as shown by her selection of English and her evaluative comment in line 13, Eri does not seem to share Simon’s other goal to be engaged in authentic informal interactions in Japanese. In other words, there seems to be a tension between one of Simon’s interpretations of their interaction as exposure to Japanese in an authentic context and Eri’s interpretation only as effective teaching for Simon to obtain satisfactory results (cf. Wertsch, 1985). This tension is also partly evidenced by the fact that despite the significant number of Simon’s active initiations of utterances in Japanese, there is only one instance in which Simon is given an opportunity to speak Japanese by answering Eri’s question in Japanese (cf. Table 4.4).

Cindy and Mie Similarly, Cindy and Mie seem to agree to use English for their lessons. Although Mie normally taught Cindy Japanese, on the day of the recording, Cindy claimed to have asked Mie to coach her in a linguistic subject which she had struggled to follow. Since Cindy learned these types of terms in English in class as had Mie in the previous year, it seemed natural to choose English. Cindy also reported that they mostly used English even though Mie taught Japanese to her, except for their reading aloud some Japanese texts. Mie’s high level of English proficiency seems to be one of the most influential factors that led to their selection of English during their lessons.

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

127

As shown in Table 4.2, however, a similar amount of English and Japanese are used by Cindy (C) and Mie (M) during their chat that lasts approximately 8 minutes before they start their lesson. The following excerpt illustrates some ways Cindy actively creates an opportunity to use Japanese: Excerpt 4.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



8 

9



10 

11 ... 27 28

C: And she hated to speak Japanese to him on the phone (hhh) () M: Mmm. (4.0) C: Ფㅳ‫ޔ‬㊄ᦐᣣ૗ߔࠆ㧫 What do you do on Fridays? M: ࠎ㧫 Huh? C: Ფㅳߩ㊄ᦐᣣ૗ߔࠆ㧫 What do you do on Fridays? M: ޽ߩߨ‫ޔߢࠕࠖ࠹ࡦ࡜ࡏޔ‬ You know, volunteer work, C: ޽‫ޔ‬೨߿ߞߡߚߩ㧫((mumbling while eating)) Ah, the one you used to do? M: ޽ߩߨ‫ޔ‬㆑߁‫ޔ‬㆑߁‫ࠬ࡝ࡑࠗ࡜ࡊޔߩ࡞࡯ࠢࠬ࡞ࠟࡦ࡝ࠗࡃޔ‬ ࠢ࡯࡞ߢ߿ߞߡࠆࡏ࡜ࡦ࠹ࠖࠕ㧚 You know, that’s different, different, at a bilingual school, primary school, I do volunteer work C: Ah, cool. (.) ߺ߃వ↢‫ޔ‬ Ms Mie M: ߢ߽ߺࠎߥ‫ޔ‬ฬ೨⍮ࠄߥ޿ࠃ㧚ߛߞߡ⑳ߩࡀ࡯ࡓ࠲ࠣ޿ߟ߽‫ޔ‬ ࡆࠫ࠲࡯ߒ߆ᦠ޿ߡ=ߥ޿߽ࠎ?㧚 But everybody doesn’t know my name. Because my name tag only says ‘visitor’. C: [hhh] ((An omission of 15 turns spoken in Japanese)) C: (hhh) I told you the same, didn’t I? M: Mmm?

Prior to this excerpt, the topic of their conversation is about the daughter of Cindy’s teacher, who teaches Japanese. While Cindy talks about the daughter’s experiences, Mie responds minimally, ‘Mm’ or ‘Mmm’, three times, as one of these utterances is shown in line 2. Subsequent to a relatively long pause (4.0 seconds), Cindy switches to Japanese and introduces a new topic in line 3. This switch can be simply analysed as a topic change, which serves to organize the discourse in progress. However, another possible interpretation is that this switch signals Cindy’s preference for Japanese. To reiterate,

Foreign Language Learning and Use

128

Cindy seems to actively construct opportunities to practise Japanese by introducing a new topic and asking Mie a question shown in lines 3 and 7, respectively, in Excerpt 4.5. This construction is likely to be shaped by Cindy’s interpretation of this situation as an opportunity to practise and use Japanese in an authentic context because they meet for a private lesson, not only for a chat. In line 9, Cindy inserts an English interjection with an empathy marker, ‘Ah, cool’, which expresses admiration for Mie’s volunteer work as a language assistant.This single utterance in English serves as an aside in the basically Japanese sequence from line 3 in order to emphasize her admiration for Mie’s work. These two code-switches of Cindy’s in lines 3 and 9 thus indicate that she adroitly utilizes two languages as mediational artifacts, which provide cues for the organization of the conversation. Mie, on the other hand, accommodates to Cindy’s language choice, as shown in line 4. The two interactants then maintain this code (Japanese) until Cindy, with the switch to English, introduces another sub-topic in line 27. As shown in Table 4.4, Mie’s questions in Japanese provide Cindy with opportunities to speak Japanese five times during their chat. Excerpt 4.6, taken from their talk about Cindy’s mother’s tape recorder that they are using for recording, exemplifies such a case: Excerpt 4.6 1

C:

2 M: 3

C:

4 M: 5 C:

6 M: 7

C:

8 M: 9

C:

⑳߇޽ࠆߩ߇ߐ‫(ޔ‬.) What I have, you know, ߃‫߅ޔ‬Უߐࠎ‫ޔ‬ᜬߞߡࠆߎߣߒࠄߥ޿ߩ㧫 What? Your mother doesn’t know that you have (her recorder)? ߁ࠎ㧚 No. (hhh) My brother, Michael, actually stole it from her, (.) Because she has so much stuff in the house, she wouldn’t notice, but she never used it anyway. ߥࠎߢ‫߅ޔ‬Უߐࠎ‫࡯࠳࡯ࠦ࡟ޔ‬ᜬߞߡߚߩ߆ߥ. I wonder why your mother had this recorder. ޽࡯‫ޔ‬ᄢቇߦ޿ࠆᤨ૶ߞߡߚ㧚 Well, she used it when she was at uni. ޽‫ߦߥࠎߘޔߦߣࠎ߶ޔ‬ฎ޿ߩ‫ࠇߘޔ‬㧫 Oh, really? Is that SO old? ޽‫ߦߥࠎߘޔ‬ฎߊߥ޿㧚 No, it’s not so old.

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

129

Mie’s questions in lines 2, 6 and 8 elicit Cindy’s responses in Japanese in the respective following lines. Of great importance is the fact that despite Cindy’s switch to English in line 5, Mie switches back to Japanese and produces another question in line 6. Given that Mie’s English proficiency is high enough to teach Cindy a linguistics subject, it could be considerably easier for Mie to interact with Cindy in English than in Japanese for the sole purpose of socializing with her. However, Mie seems to make a conscious effort to maintain the Japanese code in order to offer Cindy more chances to be exposed to Japanese in their informal conversation in both Excerpts 4.5 and 4–6. Cindy and Mie thus seem to share the goal to create opportunities for Cindy to practise Japanese while they are engaged in their chat before their lesson. I can suggest that this goal is shaped by an academic motive, including performing well in educational contexts. Furthermore, Cindy’s great interest in Japanese also influences her goal to use and practise Japanese in authentic and informal interaction with Mie, which is also likely to be shared and understood by Mie. Such shared understanding of the purposes of their interaction by Cindy and Mie contrast with the case of Simon and Eri whose interpretations of their interaction diverge in terms of authentic exposure to Japanese. In addition, given that Cindy and Mie have known each other over 1½ years and engaged in activities other than Japanese lessons as well, they also share the goal to maintain their close relationship. As a result, the shared sense of social contexts is created between them, and in turn, opportunities for the learner to use L2 are successfully co-constructed in their chat before their lesson.

Patty and Nami Given that Patty regarded her meetings with Nami as an informal conversation, they did not have a stated rule on their language use, which some language exchange pairs follow, in accordance with the guidelines of the language exchange program at their university (cf. Masuda, 2006). In fact, Patty claimed to have used mainly English with Nami in one meeting, and the mixed variety in another meeting.

Foreign Language Learning and Use

130

They therefore seemed to negotiate their language selection, depending on their needs at the time of their exchange lesson. As presented in Table 4.4, Patty produces a significant number of utterances in Japanese, which belong to diverse discourse types. The following excerpt includes several examples of these utterances: Excerpt 4.7 1

P:

2

N:

3

P:

4

N:

5

P:

6

N:

7

P:

8

N:

9

P:

10

N:

11

P:

12

N:

13

P:

14

N:

15

P:

16

N:

17

P:

޽, (.)ࠪ࠼࠾࡯ߜࠂߞߣ㔌ࠇ㔌ࠇߚߣߎࠈ‫ޔ‬ We.ll, the place which is a bit away from Sydney, ߁ࠎ Uh-huh, (ᕁ߁)ߌߤ(ߛߌߤࡑࡦ࡝࡯?ࡑࡦ࡝࡯ߩࡆ࡯࠴‫ޔ‬ I think, Manly? The beach at Manly, ߁ࠎ[޽࡯] Uh-huh [Ah] ‫?ࠆ޽]ߣߎߚߞⴕ߳[ޓޓ‬ Have you been there? ߁ࠎ, ޽ࠅ߹ߔ ޽ࠅ߹ߔ㧚 Yeah, yes, yes. ޽ߞߤ߁ߢߒߚ߆㧫 Oh, how was it? ߈ࠇ޿ߛߞߚߢߔ㧚[߁࡯ࠎ] It was beautiful. (Yeah:) ‫࡯޽ߥࠎߺߪ)ޓޓ(]࡯ࠎ[ޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓޓ‬New South Walesߦ޽࡯Ꮊߢࡑࡦ࡝࡯ࡆ࡯࠴߳ⴕ߈߹ߔ [Well:] () everybody, well, in New South Wales, um, this state, goes to Manly beach. ߰࡯ࠎ. Uh-huh. ߁ࠎ. Yeah. ࠃߊᶏߦⴕ߈߹ߒߚ߆? Did you often go to the beach? ߁࡯ࠎ(2.0)߁ࠎࠪ࠼࠾࡯ߦⴕߞߚߣ߈(.) (‫ߥ߆ⴕߦ)ޓޓ‬ ޿. Yeah., yeah, when I went to Sydney, I didn’t go to () ߰࡯ࠎ Uh-huh. ߁ࠎ Yeah. ᵒߋߩߪᅢ߈ߢߔ߆? Do you like swimming? ޽ߞ߁ࠎᄢᅢ߈[ߢߔ]. Yeah, I love it very much.

Language Selection and Its Negotiation 18

N:

19

P:

131

[ࠎ࡯]ᄢᅢ߈ߢߔ߆. Oh, you love it very much. ࠎ࡯. Yeah.

In the preceding conversation, Patty mentioned that she was born in Sydney and Nami told her that she had visited this city and she liked it, almost all in Japanese. In lines 1 and 3, Patty introduces a new sub-topic about Manly Beach in Sydney’s environs. This utterance and her subsequent questions and explanations to Nami in lines 5, 7 and 9 demonstrate Patty’s active initiation of utterances in Japanese. Nami’s responses to these utterances, including backchannels, on the other hand, probably indicate that she encourages Patty to continue to talk in Japanese, which as a result leads to an increase of opportunities for Patty to interact in Japanese. Nami also initiates utterances in Japanese by asking Patty a few questions relevant to this topic, which are shown in lines 12 and 16 in Excerpt 4.7. She seems to employ foreigner talk (cf. Ferguson, 1981; Skoutarides, 1981) in these questions, using relatively slow speed, clear pronunciation and not using any colloquial expressions but simpler lexical items possibly suitable for the beginners’ level. These examples of Patty and Nami’s utterances demonstrate how a learner and his/her language exchange partner collaboratively co-construct opportunities for the learner to interact in his/her L2 in an authentic context. Another salient point regarding Patty’s production of Japanese utterances is that they are not often fluent. Excerpt 4.8 illustrates such linguistic features of Patty’s utterances: Excerpt 4.8 1

P:

2

N:

3

P:

4

N:

ᄙಽᄙಽ, ࠨ࡯ࡈࠖࡦࠣߔࠆߣ⿷ߩ╭⡺? Perhap, perhaps, if you do surfing, leg muscle? ߁ࠎ߁ࠎ, H’m, h’m, ߇, ޽: Becomes, um: ߁ࠎ, Uh-huh,

Foreign Language Learning and Use

132 5

P:

6

N:

7 8

P: N:

9

P:

10

N:

11

P:

12

N:

13

P:

14

N:

15

P:

16

N:

17

P:

18 19

N: P:

20 N: 21 P: 22N:

ᒝߊ[ߥࠆ], Strong, [޽࡯], (.)(޽‫ߨߔߢ߁ߘޔ‬.) Ah, (that’s right) (hhh) ߰࡯ࠎ߰࡯ࠎ, H’m, h’m, ޽ߩ: ߥߺߐࠎ‫ޔ‬ Well: Naoko, ߁ࠎ, Yeah, ⑳, (.)ࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻‫ޔ‬ I, (.) project, ࠎ࡯‫ޔ‬ Mmm, (.)ߢ: For: ߁ࠎ߁ࠎ߁ࠎ߁ࠎ㧚 H’m, h’m, h’m, h’m. ࡊࡠࠫࠚࠢ࠻ߔࠆߩ‫ޔ‬ I will do a project, ߁ࠎ߁ࠎ㧚 Uh-huh. I need to find, um, to talk about the chosen (topic) international marriage? Mm mm mm mm, And then this, this is all about, (.) I suppose, women () educated become more independent, Mm mm? (and) therefore (like) marriage has a lower priority? Okay [yeah]

A number of aspects of Patty’s way of talking in this excerpt suggest that she is having difficulties forming some utterances in Japanese. For example, she is not certain about the Japanese word for ‘muscle’, judging from her rising intonation in line 1. She also searches for a particular lexical item while using an elongated interjection, ‘޽:’ (um:) in line 3. Nami again seems to persistently encourage her to continue to speak Japanese with her recurrent use of backchannels, as shown in lines 2, 4, 6, 8 and so forth. These features of Patty and Nami’s language use form a marked contrast with those observable in Max’s interaction in Conversations 1 and 2. As discussed earlier, Max produces a limited amount of

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

133

Japanese, which does not include any prosodic cues that indicate his troubles with producing Japanese. He seems to decide whether to take opportunities to speak Japanese or not, based on, among other things, his perception of his Japanese proficiency being adequate for the production of the utterances that he wishes to express. In addition, there is very little indication that Riku and Yuki make a persistent effort to encourage Max to continue to speak Japanese. One of the major possible factors that contribute to such pronounced contrast is the social contexts where these two groups of interactants were situated. As discussed earlier, Max, Riku and Yuki were situated as international students living in the same hall of residence where their L2 (English) was the dominant language in the community while Max was concurrently learning Japanese as an FL in this setting. Patty and Nami, on the other hand, were primarily interested in using and improving their respective FL and L2 as language exchange partners. In the former setting, their social roles as community residents as well as Riku’s preference for English often appeared to constrain the construction of opportunities for Max to use Japanese. In contrast, the distinct features of Patty and Nami’s utterances indicate their division of labour as a learner of Japanese and her partner who fulfils an obligation to assist Patty with her Japanese skills, respectively. In other words, they shared and maintained the goal of practising and learning Japanese although they seemed to be interested in interpersonal engagement as friends at the same time. Moreover, Excerpt 4.8 exhibits Patty’s selection of English for a discourse-related purpose. She is struggling with introducing the topic about her project, in Japanese in lines 11, 13 and 15. In line 17, with the switch to English, she explains about the topic of her Japanese assignment. Although this switch can be interpreted as a lack of Patty’s L2 proficiency, it also signals a change in the mode of interaction. To reiterate, their two activities (learning and socializing) proceeding in parallel converge to the learning activity from this point. Drawing upon activity theory, she seems to utilize English as a mediating artifact, which enables her to effectively achieve her goal to seek academic assistance. This goal is likely to direct a number of actions, which occur after the sequence in Excerpt 4.8 such

134

Foreign Language Learning and Use

as eliciting information or opinions regarding this topic from Nami. Nami, on the other hand, accepts the focus change of their activity as well as Patty’s language alternation by producing phatic utterances, ‘mm’ and ‘yeah’ in lines 18, 20 and 22 as well as expressing her agreement, ‘okay’ in line 22. Patty can thus be regarded as an active subject, who utilizes English in order to effectively elicit assistance from Nami for her Japanese assignment while pursuing her interest in both establishing rapport with Nami and practising Japanese.

Summary and Discussion This chapter has explored the social and contextual meaning of the interactants’ language selection in four participants’ natural conversations with some of their Japanese network members in Australia. A detailed sequential analysis of these conversations has revealed diverse functions of their code selection as well as how opportunities for the participants to use Japanese are constructed. In the case of Max’s conversation with Riku and Yuki, the complexities involved in the construction of these opportunities have become apparent. Indeed, it is not necessarily easy for an FL learner, particularly for a relatively low-level learner like Max, to create opportunities to use L2 in informal natural settings due to diverse social and contextual factors. This point has been overlooked in the previous research that regards access to interactional opportunities in L2 as unproblematic, despite emphasis on the importance of learners’ exposure to L2 in these settings (Rubin & Thompson, 1982; Yorozu, 2001). The approach incorporating activity theory and Auer’s approach to bilingual interaction has helped me to explore some major factors that contribute to the difficulties experienced by learners in constructing opportunities for L2 use and learning. I have argued that one of these factors is norms and social roles within the community where the interactants are situated. These norms and roles appear to affect participants’ respective goals, including socialization, practising L2 and obtaining good results in Japanese classes. In Max’s case, one of the major factors that seems to contribute to these difficulties is a contradiction that emerges between the socialising activity and the language learning activity in which Max, Riku and

Language Selection and Its Negotiation

135

Yuki are engaged in their conversation. This contradiction, in turn, seems to lead to a number of other contradictions between the three interactants’ goals as well as those between their respective use of Japanese and English as mediational artifacts. Moreover, some norms and roles within these co-existing activities appear to affect the three interactants’ conscious goals to socialize and use their preferred language. It seems that when Max attempts to bring in the goal to use L2, he chooses Japanese for participant/preference-related reasons. On the other hand, the learner’s discourse-related language selection is pertinent to how he utilizes language(s) as an artifact, which mediates the construction of opportunities in L2 as well as the socializing activity. Despite these difficulties, however, the examination of Max’s linguistic actions demonstrates that a learner at a relatively low level of proficiency may be able to gain access to exposure to L2 as a speaker as well as a listener, and, in turn, access to possible L2 learning opportunities. In Max’s case, this access seems to be enabled by, among others, his proactive move to introduce appropriate sub-topics and questions, the strength of signalling his language preference and the presence of these two NSs in the interaction. On the other hand, the analysis of the other three participants’ conversations has demonstrated that these learners occasionally utilize English in order to effectively elicit assistance related to their Japanese studies from their Japanese interlocutors. This finding corroborates those of previous studies that the learner’s use of L1 works as a device by which he/she requests the language expert’s assistance (Kasper, 2004; Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005). At the same time, however, these three participants actively create opportunities to use and learn Japanese and this creation is mediated by the social contexts in which their Japanese interlocutors play the role of a supportive expert of the participants’ L2. Nevertheless, as Simon and Eri’s case demonstrates, tutors as an expert of learners’ L2 may not be necessarily cooperative in terms of the learners’ goals for exposure to L2 in an authentic context due to divergent interpretations of the situations between them.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 5

Opportunities for L2 Learning

The analysis in Chapters 3 and 4 confirms that various personal, interpersonal and social conditions in which L1/L2 is used in the participants’ social network contexts have a significant effect on how this L1/L2 use is negotiated and, in turn, how opportunities to use L2 are afforded or constrained. In this chapter, attention is paid to opportunities to learn L2, with a particular focus on the ways in which natural interactions in these contexts provide or do not provide these opportunities. The chapter first examines what types of learning opportunities are found in the four major social settings in which the participants and their network interactants are situated: learner-NS informal conversations in non-instructional settings, learner-NS conversations in semi-instructional contexts, learner-NS informal written interactions online and online interactions between learners. This examination also includes an analysis of how learners orient to these learning opportunities, where such analysis is possible, based on the learners’ actual interactional or interview data. The chapter then explores the major factors that seem to contribute to the characteristics of the learning opportunities that arise in these four settings.

Learner-NS Conversation in an Informal Setting A number of SLA studies into input and interaction have maintained that uncontrolled conversations offer fewer opportunities for interlanguage development than do pedagogical tasks that researchers designed or utilized to elicit goal-convergent interactions from

138

Foreign Language Learning and Use

participants (Long, 1983, 1996; Pica, 1992; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993; Sato, 1988). These studies consider that such tasks facilitate repair negotiation or negotiation of meaning resulting from communication problems and that this negotiation is likely to prompt the learner participants to notice the difference between their interlanguage and the TL. In contrast, they maintain that in conversations the participants tend to drop or avoid troublesome topics rather than pursue negotiation, which, as a result, may limit the opportunities for interlanguage development. Opportunities to learn L2, however, include not only repair negotiation but also use of other types of interactional resources. Based on their comparison of the types of learning opportunities that arose in conversational interactions and information gap tasks, for instance, Nakahama, Tyler and van Lier (2001) suggest that conversation has the potential to provide substantial learning opportunities at multiple levels of interaction, including discourse management and interpersonal dynamics, although it offered fewer instances of repair negotiation than did the information gap activity. In line with this suggestion by Nakahama et al. (2001), van Lier and Matsuo (2000) dispute that repair negotiation plays a major role in conversational interactions in the way it seems to do in pedagogical tasks in which the aim is the solution of a problem or an exchange of information (cf. Firth & Wagner, 2007: 809). These researchers rather argue for the importance of ability to make choices in communication that are appropriate to setting, participants, topics and activity in conversational language use. The analysis in this chapter incorporates the above-mentioned suggestion regarding the relevance of a wider variety of learning opportunities that may arise in conversations and other types of interactions, including online chat. In addition, it is grounded within the sociocultural framework that allows for a holistic view of L2 learning and claims that learning processes emerge from relationships between individuals and their sociocultural environments. In the following section, Max’s natural conversation with Riku and Yuki (Conversation 1) will be examined again in order to identify the types of learning opportunities found in that context.

Opportunities for L2 Learning

139

Interactional resources available for the learner A significant number of studies have identified the relatively frequent occurrence of assistance in learners’ performance in L2 in semi-formal as well as formal learning settings (Holtzer, 2003; Kasper, 2004; Masuda, 2006; Ohta, 2001). Unlike such findings in these settings, Riku and Yuki’s assistance with Max’s production of utterances in Japanese is very limited, occurring only once in the form of corrective feedback in Conversation 1 (to be analysed later). However, an analysis of this conversation suggests the existence of a number of interactional resources which may lead to opportunities for Max to learn Japanese, not through the NS’s assistance but the learner’s own active performance as a listener. As discussed in the previous chapter, Max is exposed to authentic informal interactions in which the two NSs of Japanese often do not include him as an addressee but who address each other mostly in Japanese at a natural speed, employing colloquial expressions. I have argued that, as a listener, Max is actively engaged in these sequences between the two NSs, judging from his occasional relevant production of coherent utterances responding to the content of these sequences. As regards the learner’s cognitive processes as a listener, Ohta (2001: 77–79) points out that the learner who plays this role in peer interactive tasks in classrooms is actively involved not only in the process of decoding what he/she has just heard but also in a process of selective attention called ‘projection’. She claims that the latter process allows the learner in the listener role to mentally map along with the utterance in progress and formulate what might come next. According to relevant CA research, such as that by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974), the process of projection is constant and common in all conversational interactions, regardless of the types of setting (natural or educational) and the language (L1 or L2). These researchers also note that this process makes some basic features of conversational interaction possible, including turn-taking and collaborative construction of sentences. I suggest that although Max seems like a passive listener in the dominant interactions between Riku and Yuki, he is actively engaged

140

Foreign Language Learning and Use

not only in the process of decoding their utterances but also in that of projection by making predictions about how utterances may continue. This is evidenced by the fact that Max initiates an utterance in Japanese that appears to maintain the flow of Riku and Yuki’s dominant conversation, as shown in Excerpts 4.1 and 4.3 in the previous chapter. Moreover, as Gass (1991) maintains, through the predictive process, which is a part of selective attention, learners can notice the difference between their own L2 knowledge or production and that of their interlocutors. This noticing, as argued by Schmidt (1990), can be regarded as a necessary part of L2 development. Max’s active engagement as a listener in his interactions with the two NSs of Japanese therefore suggests that learners, even relatively lowlevel learners like Max, may experience opportunities to notice the discrepancies between their own interlanguage and the TL during interactions in which their interlocutors are dominant. Furthermore, some of the topics that Riku and Yuki discuss mainly among themselves can be suggested as resources that may increase Max’s sociolinguistic and sociocultural awareness in Japanese. For instance, these two NSs of Japanese exchange opinions about the marriage of couples with a disparity in age, discussing how much difference in age is generally acceptable in Japanese society. They also talk about some of the most common first and family names of Japanese people. Although Max’s contributions towards such discussion by Riku and Yuki are limited, his engagement in it as a listener may provide him with a source of non-linguistic as well as linguistic knowledge.

The NS’s corrective feedback and its uptake by the learner Another resource which may result in an L2 learning opportunity for Max is one of his Japanese interlocutors’ corrective feedback. Given that corrective feedback takes the form of responses to the interlocutor’s erroneous utterances and that these responses are otherinitiated repairs, this feedback can be regarded as a part of a repair negotiation process. A number of researchers have proposed such processes as offering an optimal linguistic environment for language acquisition (Long, 1996; Pica, 1992; Pica et al., 1993). As mentioned

Opportunities for L2 Learning

141

earlier, I found only one instance in which Riku (R) provides Max (M) with corrective feedback in the form of a recast in Conversation 1 and none in Conversation 2: Excerpt 5.1 1

R:

2 3

M: R:

4

Y:

5

R:

6

M:

7

R:

8 9

M: Y:

[ࠎ㧦]‫ࠆ߈ߢࠆ߈ߢߞ߅ޔ‬. Mmm:, yeah, we can, we can. (.) ((clearing his throat)) ߛߞߡ◲නߥ߿ߟߥࠄߛߞߡ(߈ߞߣ)ᄁߞߡࠆ߿ߟ⾈߃߫ߜ ࠂࠎߜࠂࠎߜࠂࠎߞߡ߿ࠅ߾(ߢ߈ࠆߢߒࠂ)? Because if we buy easy stuff, we can make it very easily. ߁ࠎ㧚 Yeah. ⷐߔࠆߦ[ࠬࡐࡦࠫ⾈ߞߜ߾߃]߫ߐ޽‫ޔ‬ In short, if we buy a sponge cake, [( )]yeah. ࠈ߁ߘߊࠍ૞ߞߡ㧚(hhh) We make a candle. ࠈ߁ߘߊࠍߟߌߡ. We light/put on a candle. Yeah. ߿‫ߊߘ߁ࠈࠃ޿ߥࠄ޿ޔ‬㧚 Nope, I don’t need a candle.

The sequence that precedes this excerpt was mainly conducted in Japanese by Riku and Yuki, with a limited contribution by Max. In line 6, Max said, ‘ࠈ߁ߘߊࠍ૞ߞߡ’ (we make a candle). This utterance is grammatically correct, but contains a lexical error: what he means here is not ‘૞ࠆ (tsukuru)’ (make), but a similar sounding verb, ‘ߟ ߌࠆ (tsukeru)’ (put on/light). In line 7, Riku fully recasts Max’s utterance by replacing ‘૞ࠆ (tsukuru)’ with ‘ߟߌࠆ (tsukeru)’. Max seems to recognize Riku’s feedback as corrective, judging from his following utterance indicating acknowledgement (one type of uptake), ‘Yeah’. The low frequency of corrective feedback in Max’s interaction with Riku and Yuki appears to coincide with the claims made by a number of previous researchers (Ellis, 2007; Firth & Wagner, 2007; Long, 1983, 1996; Pica, 1992; Pica et al., 1993; Sato, 1988). These claims suggest that there is significantly less frequent corrective feedback or repair negotiation in naturalistic or uncontrolled conversational settings than in classrooms or in pedagogical tasks. A possible explanation for the low incidence of correction in Max’s interaction is thus, among others, the disinclination for correction in natural conversations. Moreover,

142

Foreign Language Learning and Use

as mentioned in the previous chapter, Max’s utterances in Japanese are grammatically correct and smooth, which is consistent with his claim in his interview that he tended to produce utterances about which he was confident when talking to NSs in Japanese. In addition, there is a possibility that he might have learnt some basic Japanese expressions, such as those that he used in Conversation 1, to a significant degree of accuracy. It thus seems reasonable to suggest that Max’s lack of errors is partly a product of his L2 proficiency as well as his tendency to avoid language about which he is not confident. This, in turn, does not seem to trigger much corrective feedback.

The learner’s discourse strategies As discussed in Chapter 4, Max’s active initiation of sub-topics in Japanese allows him to create an opportunity to participate in the constellation as a speaker of Japanese as well as a legitimate participant in the interaction (cf. Auer, 1984). van Lier (1988) claims that of central importance in conversational language use is the ability to make choices in communication that are appropriate to the setting, participants, topics and activity. As shown in Excerpts 4.1 and 4.3, Max demonstrates his ability to choose an appropriate sub-topic in which both Riku and Yuki show an interest and into which their topic shifts smoothly. Another discourse strategy that Max employs in the same settings is a change of footing. He manages this strategy by posing a question, as shown in line 8 of Excerpt 4.1 and in line 14 of Excerpt 4.3 in Chapter 4. These questions position him in the role of a knower, thus raising his status in the conversation (Goffman, 1981; Tyler, 1992; Zuengler & Bent, 1991). In Excerpt 4.3, for instance, subsequent to Riku and Yuki’s dominant conversation in Japanese, Max initiates a question by utilizing his knowledge about another Japanese girl’s English name. This question enables him to raise his status as a listener to that as a knower, who takes a context-appropriate initiative in this conversation. I therefore argue that a learner’s natural conversations with NSs of the TL appear to provide a context in which the learner attends to and contributes to a number of discourse dimensions simultaneously.

Opportunities for L2 Learning

143

These strategies of Max’s, such as change of footing, can be regarded as part of the ‘interactional competencies’ that have been highlighted in a relatively recent second language research that adopts a CA approach (Gardner & Wagner, 2004; Kasper, 2006; Young & Miller, 2004). Young and Miller (2004) refer to these competencies as participants’ knowledge of how to configure diverse resources that allow them to participate in socially organized interaction in a specific discursive practice. Drawing upon this concept of interactional competencies, we can suggest that Max assembles his available interactional resources, including the above-discussed discourse strategies, which, in turn, facilitates his participation in his socializing activity as a legitimate user of Japanese. Furthermore, given that Max is an adult learner of two L2s (English and Japanese) who has been engaged in a variety of activities in both of his L1 and L2 communities, he must have already acquired some interactional competencies prior to his engagement in socializing activity with Riku and Yuki. These competencies possibly serve as powerful resources that not only enable him to orient to the normative organization of this socializing activity but may also assist him in developing novel competencies that are necessary for his active participation in this activity. I thus argue that Max’s utilization of his available interactional resources demonstrates that an L2 learner’s social interactions with NSs in natural informal settings have the potential to afford opportunities to use and possibly further develop interactional competencies that would help him/ her to participate in socially organized interactions in the community where the learner is situated.

Learner-NS Conversations in Semi-instructional Contexts In contrast to the limited occurrence of assisted performance in Max’s conversation described earlier, the analysis of Simon, Cindy and Patty’s conversations with their respective Japanese tutor or language exchange partner reveals that a variety of language assistance occurs on a frequent basis. This assistance was found mainly when these interactants focused on their lessons (Simon and Cindy’s cases)

144

Foreign Language Learning and Use

or when revising a Japanese essay (Patty’s case). Nevertheless, there were also a number of instances in which NSs’ assistance was available even when the interactants were engaged in informal conversations before or after lessons. In the following sections, I will describe the major types of assistance that arise during their interactions as well as examine how opportunities for such assistance are constructed.

Major types of assistance provided by NSs As mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 4, Simon and his tutor (Eri) spend most of their meeting time on character practice. During this practice, Eri mostly assists Simon in understanding and learning characters by supplying their meanings, explaining the contexts in which a particular character is used (cf. Excerpt 4.4 in Chapter 4) and explaining the meanings of radicals or elements which constitute the character. Such explanations can be considered as metalinguistic talk or language-related episodes. A number of researchers stress the importance of such talk as a source for L2 learning (Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Furthermore, such learning opportunities about a target character tend to be collaboratively constructed through this metalinguistics talk by both Eri and Simon. In Excerpt 4.4, for instance, Eri is explaining an example context in which ‘ⴣേ⊛’ (impulsive) is used in line 1. Simon then supplies the English word, ‘impulsive’, which Eri found expressive of the situation that she describes, judging from her repeated phatic utterances showing her agreement, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, that one’ in line 3. Simon’s recorded data also confirm that he writes down or attempts to write down the target characters while they were talking about it through the lesson. Similar to Simon’s lesson with Eri, the most common type of assistance during Patty’s revision of her Japanese essay with Nami is the latter’s explanations of the meanings of lexical items. For instance, Patty’s erroneous use of double vowel in the lexical item of ‘isshoo’ (a life time) rather than single vowel, ‘issho’ (together) in her essay triggers Nami’s explanations about the difference of meanings of these two expressions. Subsequent to these explanations by Nami, Patty implicitly requests further assistance from Nami by referring

Opportunities for L2 Learning

145

to another lexical item which is a synonym of ‘isshoo’ (a life time), ‘jumyoo’ (life span). Nami then clearly explains the difference of their meanings in English, which is followed by Patty’s making notes of them while murmuring ‘life span’. This example of Nami’s provision of assistance with regard to Patty’s lexical knowledge illustrates the collaborative and interactive processes by which this knowledge is consolidated. Moreover, this finding, namely, the predominance of this type of assistance in Patty and Nami’s language exchange meeting, corroborates the findings of Masuda’s (2006) study of six Japanese-English language exchange pairs’ meetings in which the most frequent type of assistance was related to particular lexical items in Japanese. In Cindy’s case, although Mie coaches her in her linguistic subject, their informal conversation prior to their lesson similarly seems to provide opportunities in which Cindy receives assistance with lexical items. This assistance seems to offer interactional and linguistic resources, which are relevant to the on-going topic of their conversation. The most marked difference between the nature of this performance and that in Simon’s and Patty’s lessons is that the learner actively initiates the orientation to linguistic and grammatical items or forms in the former case whereas NSs mostly do so in the latter situations. Needless to say, the latter pattern of L2 experts’ initiative can be often seen in traditional teaching activities in formal learning settings. The analysis that follows illustrates the former pattern of the learner’s initiative.

The learner’s active orientation to learning items Excerpt 5.2 demonstrates how Cindy (C) takes the initiative in orienting to a particular lexical item and its consequences in her chat with Mie (M) just before the commencement of their lesson: Excerpt 5.2 1 2 3 4 5

C: M: C: M: C:

6

M:

Hey, that was Club House’s song. Huh? That was Club House’s song. Uh-huh. Yeah. ࠢ࡜ࡉࡂ࠙ࠬ⍮ߞߡࠆ㧫 Do you know Club House? ⍮ࠄߥ޿㧚

Foreign Language Learning and Use

146

7

C:

8

M:

9

C:

10

M:

11

C:

12

M:

13

C:

14

M:

15

C:

16 17

M: C:

I don’t know it. ࠝ࡯ࠬ࠻࡜࡝ࠕߩࡃࡦ࠼㧚 An Australian band. <<޽‫ᧄޔ‬ᒰ㧫>> (.) <> (߁ࠎ) (.) Is that, what’s the Japanese word for a band? What is a rock band? (Yeah) ࡃࡦ࠼㧚 Band. (hhh) ࡠ࠶ࠢߩࡃࡦ࠼㧚 (hhh) Rock’s band. ࠎࠎ‫࠼ࡦࡃࠢ࠶ࡠޔ‬㧚 Well, rock band. ޽‫࠼ࡦࡃࠢ࠶ࡠޔ‬㧚(hhh) (3.5) OK.(.) (hhh) (.) (linguistics) ⡞޿ߡ߽޿޿㧫 Oh, rock band. (hhh) (..) OK.(.) (hhh) Can I ask you about (linguistics)? ߪ޿‫ߪޔ‬㧦޿㧚 Yes, Ye:s. What the hell is it? What, OK, what’s the phoneme and what’s the allophone, and what’s the difference between them? Allophone and phonemes, Yes, so, allophone, (.) yes.

As shown in lines 1–8 of this extract, the topic that they are discussing concerns an Australian band, which is not directly relevant to learning Japanese. However, with the switch to English, Cindy opens a new sequence, asking Mie how to say ‘a (rock) band’ in Japanese in line 9. In other words, she actively orients to this particular lexical item and makes it the focus for this sequence in this line. Mie supplies the Japanese word for ‘a band’ and also gives Cindy corrective feedback in a form of recasts in lines 10 and 12, respectively. Cindy’s utterance ‘޽’ (oh), which is followed by her modifying her original utterance in line 11 (uptake with repair), in line 13 indicates that she perceives Mie’s feedback as corrective and notices the error (the expression lacking naturalness) that she commits in line 11. This uptake with repair can be said to be beneficial in the sense that it may lead to possible internalization of this lexical item. In line 13, Cindy closes the sequence with ‘OK’ and then opens another new sequence by asking Mie whether she can ask her to explain a linguistic topic. In line 15, Cindy, with the switch to English, now orients to some terminology that she is supposed to learn in her linguistics

Opportunities for L2 Learning

147

subject. Cindy thus initiates these sequences by actively orienting to learning items, which makes a significant difference from traditional teaching activities in instructional settings. More specifically, teachers in these settings normally initiate sequences by orienting to items and learners respond to them, which is followed by teachers’ evaluations (cf. Mehan, 1979). Unlike this pattern, Mie appears to act not as a teacher but as an expert in Cindy’s L2, who collaboratively constructs opportunities for Cindy to learn these items in this excerpt. This active initiation of sequences by L2 learners, in which learning opportunities are co-constructed, concords with the findings of some previous studies that have investigated L2 learners’ interactional competence in natural settings (Gardner & Wagner, 2004; Firth & Wagner, 2007).

Learner-NS Informal Written Discourse Online I will now consider some available resources that may lead to L2 learning in learners’ online interactions with their Japanese network members living in Japan. This will be done by analysing Grace’s online chat with one of her closest friend’s mother, Hatsuko (in her forties or fifties), and email exchange between Grace and one of her closest friends, Chieko (female, aged 37 years).

The NS’s assistance in the learner’s ZPD Grace evaluated her closeness to Hatsuko both in March and November as ‘close’, with Grace perceiving that they had maintained their close relationship during this period. Since Hatsuko shared an email account with her daughter, Seiko, with whom Grace frequently interacted as an ‘extremely close’ friend, Grace and Hatsuko also happened to engage in online chats several times during this period. According to Grace, Hatsuko shared an interest in Korean dramas with Seiko and herself and had visited Korea together before. This report indicates the close relationship between Grace and Hatsuko, despite their age difference. Excerpt 5.3 is taken from their online chat session that was conducted late in June. There are 30 e-turns in total in this session, 14 of them by Hatsuko and the rest by Grace. All the utterances in these 30 turns were conducted only in Japanese.

Foreign Language Learning and Use

148

Excerpt 5.3 1

Hatsuko says:

2

Grace says:

3

Grace says:

4

Hatsuko says:

5

Hatsuko says:

6

Grace says:

7

Hatsuko says:

8

Grace says:

9

Grace says:

10

Grace says:

11

Hatsuko says:

12

Grace says:

ᣣᧄߪᣂẟ߿⑔੗⋵ߢᄢ㔎ߢߚߊߐࠎߩኅߪ᳓ߦߟ߆ ߞߡ‫ޔ‬ኅ߇ߥߊߥߞߚੱ߽޿ࠆࠎߛࠃ [Due to heavy rain, a lot of houses were flooded in Niigata and Fukui prefectures in Japan and some people lost their houses.] ߳߂࡯㧍บ㘑ߛߞߚ㧫 [Oh dear! There was a typhoon?] ‫ޟ‬ᣂẟ‫ߦߥߪޠ‬㧫 [What is Niigata?] 㓸ਛ⽕㔎(ࠬࠦ࡯࡞㧫㧕৻ᤨ㑆ߦ㧞ࡔ࡯࠻࡞߽㔎߇ߚ߹ ߞߚߩ [Because of a local downpour (sukooru?), they received 2-metres of precipitation in an hour.] ᣂẟߪ‫⋵ࠆࠇߣࠎߐߊߚ߇☨߅ޔ‬ [Niigata is a prefecture where a lot of rice is harvested.] ߥࠆ߶ߤ‫ޕ‬㧞ࡔ࡯࠻࡞ାߓࠄࠇߥ޿㧍ߎߩਃᐕ㑆 ߋࠄ޿ࠝ࡯ࠬ࠻࡜࡝ࠕߢߪ㔎ߪᧄ㑆ߦዋߥߊߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ ᤨ‫ޘ‬㧞ࡒ࡝㒠ࠄߥ޿㧍 [I see! 2 metres,,, I can’t believe it! We have had little rain for these 3 years. We occasionally had only 2-millimeters of precipitation!] ࿾⃿߇ᄢᄌߛߨ㨪 [The earth has a serious problem.] ߏ߼ࠎߨ‫߅ޔ‬Უߐࠎ‫ޔ‬ቴߐࠎߪᕆߦ᧪ߚߩߢ‫⹤ߚ߹ޔ‬ ߘ߁㧫 [Sorry, Mum, a guest has come without notice, shall we talk again?] ߖ޿ߎ‫ߨߊߒࠈࠃߦ࠽࠽ޔࡄࡄޔ‬㧍 [Say hello to Seiko, Dad, and Nana!] ࡃࠗࡃࠗ㧍 [Bye, bye!] ߪ޿㨪߹ߚߨ㧍ర᳇ߢ࡮࡮ [OK, see you! Take care] ߍࠎ߈ߢߨ㧍 [Take care!]

Opportunities for L2 Learning

149

In the preceding sequence, Grace and Hatsuko talk about the weather in Japan and Australia. Hatsuko, in line 1, then refers to the recent natural disaster to hit some prefectures in Japan. In her stimulated-recall interview based on this chat script, Grace claimed that in this chat session ‘ᣂẟ’ (Niigata), the name of one of these prefectures, was the only character compound that she could not understand due to her unfamiliarity with the second character of the compound word. She therefore appeals to Hatsuko for linguistic assistance in line 3 by asking the meaning of this compound. Hatsuko then supplies its meaning in line 5, not only by explaining that it is a ‘⋵’ (prefecture) but also by referring to the main crop in this prefecture using relatively simple expressions in Japanese. From a sociocultural perspective, this part of the interaction between Grace and Hatsuko can be analysed as demonstrating that Hatsuko provides assistance which allows Grace to perform, in this case to understand their interaction, at a higher level than she would be able to do alone. Such assistance in Grace’s ZPD has the potential to enable her to internalize the lexical and sociocultural knowledge that Hatsuko provides regarding this prefecture. Moreover, of great importance is the fact that both Hatsuko and Grace actively participate in the process of jointly tailoring their interaction to the level that suits Grace’s L2 proficiency. As mentioned earlier, Grace orients to the unfamiliar character compound (‘ᣂẟ’) (Niigata) although she seems to understand the purport of Hatsuko’s utterance in line 1, judging from her consistent response to it in line 2. Hatsuko, on the other hand, not only provides the assistance that Grace requests (cf. lines 3 and 5) but also does so without such requests from her. For instance, it can be reasonably inferred that Hatsuko put ‘ࠬࠦ࡯࡞’ (the word that originally comes from an English word, ‘squall’, literally meaning ‘a sudden strong wind’, but which is used in the sense of ‘a sudden shower’ in Japanese) in brackets in order to make ‘㓸ਛ⽕㔎’ (a localized downpour) more comprehensible for Grace. Hatsuko seems to be aware that Japanese idioms that are composed of a set of four characters, including ‘㓸ਛ⽕㔎’ (a localized downpour), are normally difficult for L2 novice users to learn. Moreover, judging from the question mark that Hatsuko added after ‘ࠬࠦ࡯࡞’ (squall), she might not be sure whether this loanword makes sense or not to Grace. In other words, she seems to implicitly

150

Foreign Language Learning and Use

attempt to discover what assistance is necessary for Grace to understand this recent natural disaster to hit Japan.

The learner’s interactional resources In common with Max who utilizes a number of discourse strategies in his interaction with Riku and Yuki, Grace attends to, and contributes to a number of discourse dimensions in her chat session with Hatsuko. In Excerpt 5.3, for example, Grace produces an empathy marker, ‘߳߂࡯㧍’ (oh, dear) in line 2 and an echoic backchannel, ‘㧞ࡔ࡯࠻࡞’ (2 metres) in line 6. According to van Lier and Matsuo (2000), empathy markers and echoic backchannels are specific subtypes of backchannels. The researchers stress the important controlling and structuring work that these discourse markers do, which has received little attention in previous studies into interaction. They also claim that the more proficient speakers tend to encourage the less proficient speakers in their conversation and exert control over the conversation by using, among other things, these backchannels. In Grace’s case, however, both Grace (the less proficient user of Japanese) and Hatsuko (the more proficient user of Japanese) equally employ these types of backchannels several times in their online chat session. This fact may indicate that they collaboratively attempt to keep their conversation going rather than Hatsuko’s dominantly controlling and structuring it as an expert user of Japanese. More importantly, Grace seems to effectively utilize a range of interactional resources, including backchannels, in an on-going attempt to construct meaningful social interaction with Hatsuko. Specifically, the two types of backchannels that she employs appear to serve the purpose of demonstrating her empathy and solidarity with Hatsuko and with the Japanese society at large, which suffered damage from heavy rain. In addition, she politely suggests the closing of their chat session by telling Hatsuko the reason for this closing, as shown in line 8 of Excerpt 5.3. This displays her capacity to actively construct boundaries between activities, in this case, transitions from states of contact to absence of contact (interactional closings) (cf. Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). These discourse strategies that Grace employs can be considered as some components of interactional competencies.

Opportunities for L2 Learning

151

As mentioned earlier, the importance of these competencies as objects of L2 learning is highlighted in the recent CA studies of second language (Gardner & Wagner, 2004; Kasper, 2006). A number of these studies claim that L2 speakers are interactionally efficient, regardless of their linguistic expertise. They found that these speakers tend to be capable to deploy, make available and creatively apply interactional resources, and these resources enable them to participate in socially organized interactions (Carroll, 2004; Firth & Wagner, 2007; Kurhila, 2004). This example of Grace’s effective utilization of available resources illustrates that an L2 learner’s interactions in natural noninstructional settings may provide opportunities to use diverse interactional competencies. These competencies, as found by the recent CA studies of second language, can be the target of L2 learning as well as resources to facilitate participation in these interactions.

The NS’s corrective feedback and the learner’s orientation to it Excerpt 5.4 is the email message of appreciation that Grace and her two Australian peers in her Japanese class sent to six of Grace’s Japanese friends who co-operated with the questionnaire for their group project. Grace reported that she composed this message and sent it from her email address on behalf of the group. Excerpt 5.5 is the reply that Chieko, one of these friends, emailed Grace two days later. In it Chieko corrects Grace’s message by providing the correct language form in brackets. Most of these corrections are polite expressions, which are appropriate for a message of appreciation. These expressions mainly include use of the desu/masu-style. According to Neustupný (1978: 3), this is one of the basic honorific styles in Japanese and it is ‘the normal vehicle of communication among adults who are not particularly good friends’. Excerpt 5.4 Grace’s email to her six Japanese network members including Chieko ⊝ߐࠎ߳ ࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻ࠍߒߡߊࠇߡ‫ߚߒ߹޿ߑߏ߁ߣ߇ࠅ޽ޔ‬㧍 ᤓᣣ⊒⴫ࠍߒߡ‫ߣߚߞⴕߊ߹߁ޔ‬ᕁ߁‫ޕ‬వ↢ߪࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻߆ࠄಽ߆ߞߚ௑ะ ߪ㕙⊕߆ߞߚߣ⸒ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ ⊝ߐࠎߪ⑳㆐ࠍഥߌߚߩߢᗵ⻢ߒߡ޿ࠆࠃ㧍

152

Foreign Language Learning and Use

߅∋ࠇ᭽ߢߒߚ㧍 Grace, Karen & Emily ࠃࠅ Translations: Dear all, Thanks for answering my questionnaire! We did our presentation yesterday and I think we did well. Our teacher said the trend that was revealed in the questionnaire was interesting. We are thankful to you for your help! Thank you for your time! Grace, Karen & Emily

Excerpt 5.5 Chieko’s reply to Grace Grace!! ⑳߆ࠄߩࡔ࡯࡞߇߅ߊࠇߡߏ߼ࠎߥߐ޿ߨ‫߇⴫⊒ޕ‬ᚑഞߒߡ⑳ߪᓎߦ┙ߡߥ ߆ߞߚߌࠇߤ⑳߽߁ࠇߒ޿ߢߔ‫ޕ‬ ਅ⸥ߩᢥ┨߅ീᒝߩߚ߼ߦዋߒ⸓ᱜߒ߹ߔߨ‫ޕ‬ ࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻ࠍߒߡߊࠇߡ㧔ࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻ߦ߅╵߃޿ߚߛ߈߹ߒߡ㧕޽ࠅ߇ߣ߁ ߏߑ޿߹ߒߚ㧍 ᤓᣣ⊒⴫ࠍߒߡ‫ޔ‬㧔⥄ಽߢߪ㧕߁߹ߊⴕߞߚߣᕁ߁㧔ᕁ޿߹ߔ㧕‫ޕ‬వ↢ߪ㧔 ߽㧕ࠕࡦࠤ࡯࠻߆ࠄಽ߆ߞߚ௑ะߪ㕙⊕߆ߞߚߣ⸒ߞߚ‫ޕ‬㧔⸒޿߹ߒߚ㧕 ⊝ߐࠎߪ⑳㆐ࠍഥߌߚߩߢᗵ⻢ߒߡ޿ࠆࠃ㧍㧔⊝ߐࠎ߇⑳ߚߜߦߏදജߒߡ ߊࠇߚߎߣߦ‫߽ߡߣޔ‬ᗵ⻢ߒߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬㧕 ߅∋ࠇ᭽ߢߒߚ㧍 㧼㧿㧦⑳ߩ⸓ᱜߪߣߡ߽‫ৼޔ‬ካߥᢥ┨ߢߔ‫ߣޔ߽ߢ߹߹ߚ޿ᦠߩࠬࠗ࡟ࠣޕ‬ ߡ߽޿޿ᣣᧄ⺆ߛࠃ㧍㧍㧍㧍ߓ߾࡯ߨ࡯‫ޕ‬ Translations: Grace!! Sorry about this late reply. I am happy that you did well in your presentation even though I couldn’t be helpful for that. I have corrected the following sentences ((that you wrote in your previous email)) for your study ((as shown in brackets)). Thanks for answering my questionnaire! (Many thanks for answering my questionnaire.) We did our presentation yesterday and I think we did well. (We presented its results in class and I personally think that we performed well.) Our teacher said the trend that was revealed in the questionnaire was interesting. (Our teacher also said that the trend that was revealed in the questionnaire was interesting.) We are thankful to you for your help! (We sincerely express our appreciation of your cooperation. Thank you for your time! PS My correction is very polite expressions. What you wrote is very good Japanese as it is!!! See you.

In her stimulated-recall interview based on the messages of Excerpts 5.4 and 5.5, Grace claimed to have recognized Chieko’s

Opportunities for L2 Learning

153

feedback as corrective and to have noticed that she had failed to use polite expressions in her message. From the cognitive perspective, therefore, this correction can be regarded as an opportunity for Grace to pay attention to these polite expressions or to increase such aspects of sociolinguistic awareness, which may positively be related to Grace’s interlanguage development. However, the results of Grace’s stimulated-recall interview also reveal her low level of receptivity to Chieko’s corrective feedback. More precisely, she claimed to be not interested in using polite expressions at all, despite her noticing the gap for the sociolinguistic errors in her message to Chieko. This comment is consistent with that on her online interaction with her former teacher (Mieko) to whom (according to Japanese norms) she could be expected to use polite expressions due to their social relationship (teacher and student) (cf. Excerpt 3.2 in Chapter 3). In the stimulated-recall interview based on the chat script with Mieko, Grace claimed to have been aware of the problem with her lack of interest in using polite expressions because of her extensive exposure to Japanese mostly through her interactions with her Japanese peers. In fact, the analysis of utterances that Grace produces in this online chat session confirms that she uses plain form without any polite expressions except for one use of masu, as shown in line 5 in Excerpt 3.2. Based on these findings, Grace is more likely to miss the opportunity to learn the polite expressions that Chieko provides than to utilize it. Utilizing sociocultural theory, we can claim that how she orients to Chieko’s corrective feedback seems to mainly depend on her history as an L2 learner or user and on the social norms and roles that she played in the community where she was situated. How these social and personal factors contribute to Grace’s lack of interest in using polite expressions in her interaction will be discussed later when comparing learning opportunities that occur in the four different social settings, including the learner-learner interactions to be dealt with next.

Learner-Learner Informal Written Discourse Online The following sections examine the online interaction between Jim and Tom that I analysed in terms of their L1/L2 use in Chapter 3.

Foreign Language Learning and Use

154

Their case will be used again in order to make some observations about learning opportunities that may arise during informal interactions between learners in non-instructional settings.

Mutual assistance in lexical knowledge Excerpts 5.6 and 5.7 illustrate the learning processes involved when Jim and Tom assist each other with lexical items. In Excerpt 5.6, they are talking about Tom’s plan for the evening. In line 8, Tom says he will have Chinese food, which is written in characters. In the stimulated-recall interview, Jim reported that he had not known what the character ‘⪇’ had meant in this line. (This character is the second character of the compound, ‘ਛ⪇’, which means Chinese.) This caused him to have difficulty understanding the lexical item, ‘ਛ⪇ᢱℂ’ (Chinese food). Tom, on the other hand, rephrases it as ‘ਛ࿖ᢱℂ̉ (China food) in line 12: Excerpt 5.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Jim says:‫੹ޓ‬ᣣߩ᥅ߦ૗ߔࠆ੍ቯ㧫 [What are you going to do this evening?] Tom says:‫ޓ‬ኅᣖߣ޿ߒࠂߦ᥅ߏ㘵㘩ߴߦⴕߊ [I’ll go for dinner with my family.] Jim says:‫ޓ‬ᭉߒߺ㧫[Are you looking forward to it?] Tom says:‫ޓ‬hehe.. ((giggle)) Tom says: haihai [Yes, yes] Jim says:‫ߢࡦ࡜࠻ࠬ࡟ ޓ‬㘩ߴࠆ㧫 (Are you eating at a restaurant?) Tom says:‫[ ޿ߪ޿ߪޓ‬Yes, yes] Tom says: ਛ⪇ᢱℂ [Chinese food] Jim says:‫ߢࠢ࠶ࡑ ޓ‬㧫[At McDonalds?] Jim says:‫(( ߁ߘߥ ޓ‬non-target form with unclear meaning)) Jim says:‫ ޓ‬haha Tom says: ਛ࿖ᢱℂ [China food] Jim says:‫[ ߁ߘߒ޿߅ ޓ‬That sounds tasty]

Jim claimed to have understood the word in line 12 during their chat. He also speculated that Tom had changed from ‘ਛ⪇ᢱℂ’ (Chinese food) to ‘ਛ࿖ᢱℂ’ (China food) because Tom knew that Jim would understand the latter. Given that they studied together in the same class for one semester, it is highly probable that they paid attention to each other’s L2 proficiency level, and Tom might have

Opportunities for L2 Learning

155

noticed that Jim could not recognize ‘⪇’ after he produced ‘ਛ⪇ ᢱℂ’ (Chinese food). Tom, in line 12, then provides Jim with the appropriate assistance that enables Jim to comprehend ‘ਛ⪇ᢱℂ’ (Chinese food). It is thus suggested that Tom helps Jim to perform slightly above his current level of L2 vocabulary without switching to English. Excerpt 5.7 includes Jim’s corrective feedback. Tom confuses the word ‘⾰໧’ (question) with ‘໧㗴’ (problem) in this excerpt. Jim switches to English in line 4 to clarify Tom’s utterance in line 1. Jim then notices Tom’s confusion and corrects Tom’s utterance in line 7: Excerpt 5.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Tom says: ⾆ᣇߩ໧㗴ࠊ߆ࠄߥ޿ [I don’t understand your problem] Jim says:‫ޓ‬௢ߩ໧㗴㧫 [My problem?] Tom says: ߪ޿ [Yes] Jim says: my prob? Tom says: NONO Tom says: question Jim says:‫⾰ޓ‬໧ߛࠃ[You should have said ⾰໧ (question)] Tom says: ߪߪ‫[ ࠎ߼ߏޕޕޕ‬Ha ha,,, sorry] Tom says: too used to chinese Jim says: ޿޿ [That’s OK] Tom says: lol Jim says: ᔃ㈩ߒߥ޿ߢ [Don’t worry about it]

It is clear that Tom perceives Jim’s feedback in line 7 as corrective and notices his lexical error, as evidenced by Tom’s utterance in lines 8 and 9. It is also important to note that Jim’s utterances after his correction can be seen as an attempt to affirm Tom’s selfimage or identity as an adequate user of Japanese. Jim said, ‘That’s OK’ and ‘Don’t worry about it’ in Japanese in lines 10 and 12, respectively. In addition, he writes with humour, ‘Nobody is perfect although I am close to it’ in Japanese several lines later. Since giving corrective feedback may become face-threatening behaviour, these utterances of Jim’s can be considered as mitigation of his corrective feedback. This example thus illustrates that Jim’s correction of Tom’s utterances stimulates Tom to notice his lexical error without intimidating him, which may lead to his interlanguage development.

156

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Assisted performance in the ZPD and interpersonal space In Excerpts 5.6 and 5.7, Jim and Tom appear to assist each other in their respective ZPD, that is, to do what they could not do without each other’s appropriate help. In other words, they collaboratively construct opportunities for each other to perform in a way that allows for proximal development. I argue that this type of collaborative interaction may promote L2 learning by allowing learners to participate in producing and comprehending utterances that are slightly beyond their current level of L2 proficiency. As previously explained in Chapter 1, the notion of ZPD can be extended, as suggested by Cummins (1996, 2000a, 2000b), by taking into consideration the concept of interpersonal space. Within this space, Cummins suggests that the dual processes of reciprocal negotiation of identity and collaborative generation of knowledge take place and that these processes are closely related to each other. Cummins (1996) further asserts that unless students’ sense of self-worth is affirmed or extended in this interpersonal space between them and their educators, collaborative construction of knowledge will not occur effectively. In the online interaction between Jim and Tom, I found several instances in which they appear to affirm each other’s self-image or identity as an adequate L2 user. As shown in Excerpts 5.7, 3.8 and 3.9, for example, Jim seems to understand the vulnerability of Tom’s identity as an adequate L2 user and attempts to affirm it by his careful selection of language and mitigation of his corrective feedback. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Tom similarly makes a positive comment about Jim’s Japanese proficiency after Jim asks the meaning of an unfamiliar character that Tom produces. I wish to argue that Jim and Tom collaboratively create their positive interpersonal space where such mutual affirming of each other’s self-image or identity as an adequate user of Japanese mediates the construction of opportunities for L2 learning, including assisted performance in their respective ZPD.

Major Factors Contributing to Learning Opportunities in the Four Different Settings We have thus so far seen some principal characteristics of opportunities to learn L2 that the four settings, in which the participants

Opportunities for L2 Learning

157

and some of their network interactants were situated, seemed to offer. Some of these characteristics are different in these different social settings although others are common to a number of them. The analysis that follows focuses on the major factors that contribute to the difference in the types of learning opportunities by comparing the social and contextual conditions of the interactions in these settings.

Social roles The social roles that the learners and their interactants play in their interactions are a possible factor that might have a significant impact on L2 learning opportunities. In the case of the learning activities in which Simon, Patty and Cindy are engaged, they play the role of an L2 novice user who intends to learn from their Japanese interlocutors. These interlocutors, on the other hand, assume responsibilities as a Japanese tutor or an expert of the learner’s L2. Such distinct division of labour is conducive to their shared sense of social contexts in which they were situated. This, in turn, appears to mediate their learning activity, including the learner’s assisted performance. In the case of peer learning activity between Jim and Tom, the role of partner that they played in pair work in formal learning settings seems to promote their attention to each other’s L2 proficiency as well as to their self-image or identity as a user of L2, and to lead to their shared understanding of the purpose of their online interaction in informal settings. As previously discussed, this attention and shared understanding appear to allow for their provision of assistance in each other’s ZPD and for co-construction of their positive interpersonal space. In socializing activity in which L2 learners and NSs are engaged in natural settings, in contrast, there is a possibility of a tension between the role of a communicator and that of a conversational partner for L2 learning or an L2 expert/novice user, depending on the interactants’ understandings of the contexts where they are situated and of the purpose(s) of their interactions. In the case of the conversation between Max, Riku and Yuki, for example, there seems to be occasionally a conflict between their roles as community members of their hall of residence and those as conversational partners for

158

Foreign Language Learning and Use

Japanese learning. Excerpt 4.3 in the previous chapter, which exemplifies a language negotiation sequence resulting in a convergence to English, can be used again to make some observations about this conflict. Max, in lines 11 and 14, attempts to participate in Riku and Yuki’s dominant conversation in Japanese as a novice speaker of Japanese by utilizing some interactional resources that I discussed earlier. Subsequent to these attempts, however, Riku and Yuki disregard his choice of Japanese and choose English. Their choice of English can be interpreted as their preference for the role of a communicator who is situated in the multi-cultural community where English is dominantly used. In other words, they are possibly not very interested in taking on the role of a conversational partner for Max’s Japanese learning that Max implicitly seems to request in this sequence. Such conflict of these dual roles may result from the divergent sense of social contexts defined by Max and these two Japanese interactants. Specifically, Max possibly considers this situation not only in terms of socializing but also L2 learning and using opportunities. Riku and Yuki appear to primarily define this situation as socializing and not as an opportunity for Max to use and learn Japanese. As analysed in the previous chapter, such possible understanding of the contexts by these two Japanese international students is probably shaped by, among other things, their motive, including interpersonal engagement and cross-cultural communication and a linguistic norm that English be used among speakers with mixed language backgrounds. This example of the tension between the dual roles in Max’s case demonstrates that L2 learners may actively negotiate the tension, which, in turn, allows them to access opportunities to use and possibly learn L2 (cf. Excerpts 4.1 and 4.2) to the extent that their sociocultural contexts allow them to do so. In Max’s case, therefore, I wish to argue for the important effect of the activity, including the constraints caused by social roles in the community, on constructing these opportunities, as well as that of the learner’s agency based on his own goals. In the case of Grace, on the other hand, her Japanese interactants’ understandings of the contexts in which Grace was situated as an exchange student in Japan appear to have a positive effect on the

Opportunities for L2 Learning

159

negotiation of the dual roles, even after her return to Australia. More specifically, the Japanese people with whom she interacted were very likely to understand the purpose of Grace’s sojourn in Japan, so that they seemed to cooperatively play the role of an L2 expert who assisted Grace’s participation in the L2 community during her sojourn as well as afterwards. In Excerpt 5.3, for instance, it can be seen that Grace and Hatsuko might constantly negotiate the tension between the dual roles. Specifically, they seem to focus on their roles as communicators at first but collaboratively change the focus to that as novice/expert users of Japanese in lines 3–5, which is followed by a return to its former state in line 5. I suggest that such seamless negotiation is partly mediated by Hatsuko’s understanding of the purpose of Grace’s sojourn in Japan as well as that of their interactions after it. This, in turn, appears to lead to their shared sense of social contexts in which they are situated. This shared sense of situations has the potential for paving the way for collaborative construction of opportunities in which L2 learning may take place in Grace’s ZPD (cf. Wertsch, 1985). Furthermore, it is important to consider the impact of Hatsuko’s position as the mother of Grace’s high school friend, Seiko. It seems reasonable to suggest that women in this position are interested in playing a motherly role, being willing to support younger women’s development and learning, such as Grace’s Japanese learning. I thus argue that such a role appears to exert a positive influence on the occurrence of L2 assistance by Hatsuko. At the same time, from Grace’s perspective, it seems more comfortable to seek assistance from Hatsuko whom she calls ‘߅Უߐࠎ’ (Mum) (cf. line 8 in Excerpt 5.3) rather than from her peers, including Seiko. In addition, this comfortableness as well as Hatsuko’s willingness to support Grace’s L2 learning appears to be pertinent to social norms that older people should help the younger generation to learn and this generation should learn from those who are more advanced in years.

History as an L2 user or learner Regarding the significantly low frequency of assisted L2 performance in Max’s case, I suggest that the learner’s history as an L2 learner

160

Foreign Language Learning and Use

or user is also another major factor that may influence it. Unlike a learner who has had extensive exposure to the L2 community, such as Grace, Max’s exposure to Japanese was limited, mainly within formal learning settings in his home country before he established his bilingual social network in Australia. In these learning settings, as Grace’s experience before her sojourns in Japan demonstrates (cf. Chapter 3), the importance of grammar and correctness are normally stressed, which as a result may lead learners to be correctness oriented rather than communication oriented. Given the fact that Max had formal Japanese study only for 1½ years with no in-country experience as well as very limited interactions with NSs of Japanese before he sojourned in Australia, it is probable that he tends to be correctness oriented in his social interactions with Riku and Yuki. This orientation to correctness by Max is supported by a claim that he made in his interview about an uncomfortable experience with using Japanese. He claimed to have felt uncomfortable by being explicitly corrected by a NS of Japanese as well as recognizing the error(s) that he had committed when he thought about it later. He further explained that he thus tended to produce utterances about which he is confident in terms of correctness, which is consistent with the fact that all of his utterances in Japanese are grammatically accurate and smooth in his conversation with Riku and Yuki. As suggested earlier, these accurate and smooth utterances of Max’s seem to trigger very little assistance from Riku and Yuki, including corrective feedback. There is a possibility that Max’s correctness-oriented approach might be attributed to some other factors, including personal traits. Nevertheless, what Grace described about her preoccupation with correctness before and during her first exchange program (cf. Chapter 3) was analogous with what Max said about his orientation to correctness in his uncomfortable experiences in using Japanese as well as the fact about the accuracy of his utterances during his conversation with Riku and Yuki. It thus can be suggested that a learner’s learning experience in which accuracy is valued may be one of the principal factors that diminish opportunities for the learner’s assisted performance in natural settings. Nevertheless, the lack of errors also seems to have a positive impact on Max’s L2 use and learning. This is because if his utterances in Japanese lacked accuracy, his Japanese

Opportunities for L2 Learning

161

interlocutors would be more likely to switch to English. In other words, his lack of errors may increase the chance of their selection of Japanese and consequent exposure to Japanese for Max. Grace’s communication-oriented approach that seems to partly result from her extensive exposure to Japanese in the L2 community is conducive to opportunities for assisted performance. However, it was found that this exposure and her consequent approach seem to negatively affect how she orients to corrective feedback provided by a NS. As mentioned earlier, the analysis of Grace’s stimulated-recall interview about her email exchange with Chieko (Excerpts 5.4 and 5.5) reveals her lack of interest in learning the polite expressions with which Chieko provides her. She further reported to have not used polite expressions at all during her sojourns in Japan although she studied it for the purpose of passing the Japanese proficiency test there. Moreover, she perceived that she had ‘soaked up teenage colloquialisms’ from her Japanese peers, since she always interacted with them during her second exchange program. I also found that her exposure to Japanese outside class was mostly through her interactions with these peers, in which she used plain form with some slang expressions, during the data collection period as well. I therefore suggest that Grace’s substantial interactions with her Japanese peers may have desensitized her to the importance of learning polite expressions. This suggestion is corroborated by Belz and Kinginger’s (2003: 640) claim that an FL learner who had grammatically unsanctioned interactions with NSs of the language in natural contexts, may be unlikely to pay significant attention to peer assistance from a NS regarding informal and formal pronouns of address in a German-American telecollaborative partnership. There are, however, other likely factors affecting the very limited use of polite expressions by Grace, including her probable lack of linguistic competence to use it adequately, fossilization of its non-use and identity as a member of an egalitarian society (Australia) that may cause her to resist its use.

Norms in communities It is also important to consider more comprehensively how social and historical structures influence the opportunities for the participants

162

Foreign Language Learning and Use

to learn Japanese as well as their orientation toward these opportunities. I wish to argue that one of the most crucial factors is the norms in the communities or contexts where the participants are situated. In the case of Max, for instance, a norm among NSs that they address each other in their native language, sometimes even in the presence of a non-NS, appears to offer an environment that seems to afford opportunities for Max to be exposed to authentic interactions between NSs in natural settings. In this environment, Max as the only non-NS of Japanese is required to utilize some interactional resources in order to participate in their interactions, which seems positively related to his L2 learning, as shown earlier. Another possible interpretation of Grace’s indifference toward polite expressions, which we discussed earlier, also seems relevant to social norms regarding expected proficiency level of a novice speaker of Japanese in the community where she was situated as an exchange student. More specifically, Japanese members of this community might not expect her to appropriately use polite expressions. Siegal (1996) points out low expectations of the proficiency level of western learners of Japanese, particularly pragmatic competence, including use of polite expressions, and she claims that these expectations are historically apparent in Japan. Siegal further argues that such linguistic norms regarding these learners’ pragmatic competence within society in Japan prevent them from accessing the opportunities to learn the use of polite expressions that serves to appropriately position the speaker in that society. It seems reasonable to assume that such linguistic norms partly contribute to Grace’s unconcern about polite expressions during her sojourn and afterwards. Low expectations regarding the learners’ sociolinguistic competence is also indicated in Chieko’s email (Excerpt 5.5). Even though she corrects Grace’s Japanese mostly in terms of sociolinguistic appropriateness, she adds a comment as a postscript, which says ‘my correction is very polite expressions, what you wrote is very good Japanese as it is’. Since giving corrective feedback could become face-threatening behaviour, this comment can be considered as mitigation of Chieko’s correction. At the same time, however, it may imply little necessity for Grace to increase such sociolinguistic awareness, which, in turn, may lead Grace to miss this learning opportunity. Hence,

Opportunities for L2 Learning

163

these two examples of Max and Grace demonstrate that in these cases social norms of the community and contexts where L2 learners are situated may positively or negatively influence a learning opportunity that arises in their interactions in natural settings as well as their orientations towards this opportunity.

Summary This chapter has analysed the principal characteristics of opportunities for the participants to learn L2 and I have also looked at how these opportunities are socially structured in the four different settings within the participants’ social networks. The analysis has revealed that some of these characteristics, including the learner’s frequent assisted performance, are different in different settings, such as semi-instructional or non-instructional settings. However, the analysis has also confirmed that there are also differences in the type of the opportunities in similar settings and these differences seem to be attributed to a number of personal, interpersonal and social factors. These factors include the participants’ history as an L2 user or learner, norms and social roles in communities.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 6

Access to L2 Social Interaction: Implications for Language Teaching and Learning

In this book, I have closely examined Japanese language learners’ outof-class language use in their personally established social networks, with a particular focus on the social construction of opportunities to use Japanese in Australia. Most previous studies of related phenomena have tended to be concerned with interactions in activities that have been designed for language learning, mainly as part of curricula (Holtzer 2003; Kasper 2004) or the interactions of immigrants in monolingual communities (Norton 2000; Norton & Toohey 2001; Miller 2004). An in-depth examination of these under-investigated FL learners’ social network contexts has meant that different issues and ideas have emerged from my study. This final chapter discusses the significance of the major findings of my research. It also presents some pedagogical implications for how to utilize the learners’ social networks as contexts for L2 use and learning and provides suggestions for future research.

The Dynamic and Complex Nature of Language Selection The longitudinal investigation into L1/L2 use in the learners’ bilingual social networks has illuminated the dynamic nature of the language selection patterns across time in these networks. Although a large number of studies to date have examined language selection or L1/L2 use in various bilingual contexts, they have often paid little attention to changes in L1/L2 use over time between particular

166

Foreign Language Learning and Use

dyads. Grosjean (1982) considers the participants’ history of linguistic interaction as an important factor that affects language selection in bilingual settings. He further explains that it is very common to find bilingual speakers who have an agreed-upon language of interaction when the situation or topics do not force them to choose a particular language. Whereas my study identified a number of cases in which pairs of interactants seemed to have one particular variety as their agreedupon language, the study has also confirmed that the patterns of L1/ L2 use of some pairs changed across time without appearing to be related to changes in particular topics or situations. More importantly, taking sociocultural perspectives, the analysis of these pairs’ actual interactions has indicated that these changes seemed to depend on various factors and that these factors interacted in complex ways. As Grace’s case demonstrates (cf. Chapter 3), these factors include the participants’ history as an L2 learner or user, their self-image as an L2 user, and shared or divergent goals of their interactions with their interlocutors. My study has thus illuminated the processes of language selection and its negotiation over a period of time between L2 learners and their social network participants. My study further suggests how sociocultural perspectives, including some concepts from activity theory and post-structural approaches, in conjunction with Auer’s (1984, 1988) model to bilingual interaction, provides for a robust theoretical framework which allows for a more nuanced account of the social influences on the construction of opportunities to use L2. More specifically, this framework has helped me to examine the situated meaning of interactants’ language selection at a micro-level as well as to consider macro-level social factors, which commonly receive little attention in Auer’s approach. As Max’s case shows (cf. Chapter 4), this examination has revealed some major factors that seemed to underlie the difficulties in creating opportunities to use L2 in the participants’ bilingual networks within the university domain. These difficulties have been overlooked in a lot of previous research, which generally regards access to interactional opportunities in L2 as unproblematic, despite emphasis on the importance of learners’ exposure to L2 in these settings (cf. Rubin & Thompson 1982; Yorozu 2001). The analysis utilizing this

Access to L2 Social Interaction

167

framework also demonstrates that a learner may be able to gain access to exposure to L2 and that this access seems to be mediated by both micro- and macro-level factors, including utilizing two languages as mediational artifacts and the linguistic norms in the community where the learner is situated. Another important issue, which I briefly discussed in Chapter 2, is regarding the distinction between FL and L2 learners. Technically, all the participants for my study are students who studied Japanese as an FL at an Australian university. However, it can be claimed that those who had extensive in-country experiences, in particular, those who maintained frequent on-going interactions in L2 with their network members in Japan were not simple FL learners. Given the increased mobility and ability to interact across cultural and geographical borders via Internet communication in recent years, I wish to argue that the distinction between FL and L2 learners is not clear and the FL/L2 continuum is one of the influential factors that seemed to affect the construction of opportunities to use L2 in the learners’ home country settings. I suggest that this is an important issue that deserves more attention in studies of L2 use and L2 learning. This study thus recommends that future research should pursue this issue further by conducting a longitudinal analysis of learners’ natural interactions before, during and after their extensive exposure to L2 communities.

Social Relationships in L2 Use and Learning Situations This book has also provided an insight into the impact of social relations between learners and their interactants with regard to constructing opportunities to use and learn L2. More specifically, an in-depth examination of the six FL learners’ L1/L2 use in their social networks has demonstrated that the types of social roles established in these networks were closely related to the types of opportunities to learn L2 as well as related to how L1/L2 is selected and negotiated. This examination, furthermore, has illustrated that these social roles or relationships were often not static but negotiable at both the micro- and macro-levels in terms of L2 expert-novice or conversation

168

Foreign Language Learning and Use

partner roles, as was the use of L1/L2. In addition, drawing upon sociocultural theory, it was found that these social roles and their negotiation were highly likely to be enabled or constrained by various personal, interpersonal and larger sociocultural factors, and that these factors seemed to interact in complex ways. From a social network perspective, my study highlights the importance of the learners’ university domain in their bilingual social networks. This is because, compared with other domains in these networks, the frequency and amount of interaction tends to be high, and the size of these networks may significantly expand in students’ first year of university in this domain. As discussed earlier, however, the difficulty in constructing opportunities to use and learn L2 in this domain in a setting where L1 is the dominant language has become apparent. This difficulty seems to be attributed to, among other things, the tension between the multiple social roles that learners and their interactants play or intend to play. These multiplex social relations and multiple social identities that are pertinent to these relations have attracted attention in a number of network studies and in SLA (cf. Kurata 2002, 2004a, 2004b; Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995). Drawing upon a framework that incorporated activity theory and Auer’s (1984, 1988) approach, I have been able to further explore the significance of these relations by a detailed sequential analysis of negotiation of these identities and multiple goals, which, in turn, suggests that there is a complexity and ambivalence which attends the learners’ identities in natural interactions in FL settings. It is hoped that the present study has paved the way for future research seeking for a richer understanding of the significance of social relations in the field of L2 use and learning.

Overcoming the Obstacles to Opportunities for L2 Use and Learning An important implication drawn from this book is that Japanese language learners and educators in Australia should be aware of the complexities of the processes of L1/L2 selection in these learners’ social networks. These complexities, in turn, would lead to the fact

Access to L2 Social Interaction

169

that opportunities to use and learn Japanese are not necessarily easily constructed in these networks, in particular, in the university domain. Indeed, it is easy for Japanese language teachers to encourage their students to make friends with NSs outside the classroom and to interact with them in Japanese. The reality is, however, that it is not always so easy for these students to gain access to such interactional opportunities in Japanese. It seems reasonable to suggest that this implication may be applicable to other FL contexts where English is dominantly used, as well as other bilingual settings where L2 learners whose L1 is English study in their host countries. The latter settings include learning Japanese by NSs of English at a Japanese university in which a lot of Japanese students are likely to seek opportunities to use and practise English with NSs of English. In addition, my study revealed that bilingual interaction, including the mixed variety and the non-reciprocal use of two languages, is common in the learners’ social network contexts. As Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2005) point out, it is not possible for L2 learners to become monolingual speakers of L2, but only to become bilingual speakers of both an L1 and L2. This study therefore suggests that it is often natural for learners and their network interactants to use two languages and that the learners are also likely to actively utilize L1 as a mediational means for the purpose of learning as well as socializing. I thus wish to argue that the learner’s L1 use should not necessarily be viewed as an abandonment of L2 use but may be a positive strategy to achieve his/her multiple goals in natural interactions (cf. Levine, 2003; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003). Given the difficulties in access to interactional opportunities in L2 in the learners’ social networks, educators should know that it is not enough for them to advise students to make friends with NSs of their L2 outside the classroom. They further need to give students some guidelines for overcoming the obstacles to opportunities for L2 use and L2 learning that I identified in my study. For example, it is recommended that educators provide students with strategies to maximize the chance for learners to use and learn L2, which suit their actual contexts. These strategies include not being overly concerned with correctness in L2 and some discourse strategies to actively participate in interaction in L2, such as introducing appropriate sub-topics.

170

Foreign Language Learning and Use

In semi-instructional settings, moreover, it is helpful for the learners and their tutors or language exchange partners to negotiate the purpose(s) of their interactions at an early stage of their meetings. This negotiation would possibly allow for increased opportunities to have authentic interaction in L2 in these settings. As regards discourse strategies, I wish to suggest that natural interactions in the learners’ social networks offer opportunities for the learners not only to utilize available interactional resources, including their own interactional competencies, but also to possibly further develop these competencies. Both learners and educators should be aware of the importance of these resources and competencies, which seem to facilitate learners’ participation in socially organized interactions in the community or contexts in which they are situated. It is thus advisable to introduce the students to model interactions in which some useful discourse strategies are utilized in order to increase the chance to use and learn L2 in a specific out-of-class context. Another significant insight from this study is that learners in different social contexts within their social networks may face different types of difficulties regarding opportunities to use and learn L2. In non-instructional natural settings in which peers or friends interact informally, there is possible tension between their goals and their roles as communicators or community members and conversation partners/experts-novices. In other words, a shared sense of the social contexts in which they are situated may not be easily achieved. This, in turn, appears to result in a difficulty for the learners in constructing opportunities for L2 use and in the limited assistance from NSs of their L2. In semi-instructional settings, on the other hand, a clear division of labour as learners or novice users of L2 and tutors or experts of L2 is likely to occur and mediate opportunities for learners to receive linguistic assistance from NSs. Nevertheless, as demonstrated in most cases in my study, learners tend to have the goal to interact with NSs in authentic contexts as well as the goal to learn from them. The former goal may not necessarily be compatible with the goals of NSs, which possibly results in limited opportunities in which learners have authentic interactions in these settings. Given the tendency towards more frequent opportunities for the majority of the participants to be exposed to L2 in semi-instructional

Access to L2 Social Interaction

171

settings than in natural settings, I suggest that learners should expand interactional opportunities through developing relationships such as language exchange partnerships. In these interactions, as previously mentioned, the learners’ goal to use L2 for social interactions is highly likely to be accommodated from the beginning. As numerous studies, including the current research, suggest, such engagement in L2 interaction is a valuable source of L2 learning. In fact, as mentioned in Chapter 2, my study indicated that a number of participants developed their relationship with their language exchange partners or tutors into friendship, which, in turn, seemed to enable them to achieve their multiple goals. My research also yields some implications for language teaching in formal settings. The analysis of the participants’ natural interactions with other learners as well as with NSs suggests that it is very important for language teachers to increase their awareness about their students’ self-image or identity as an adequate user of L2. This analysis indicates that this self-image or identity is constantly being structured through interactions, and that it has important consequences for how learners invest in L2 and construct opportunities to use L2. Because of this, in classroom interaction, particular care should be taken in order that this self-image or identity is affirmed or enhanced. Moreover, the analysis also revealed that the learners’ perceptions of their own L2 proficiency as well as the proficiency of their interactants seem to be closely related to the construction of this self-image or identity. When the learners work in pairs or groups in class, therefore, paying attention to their perceptions of their own L2 proficiency as well as the proficiency of their peer(s) is likely to be beneficial for the creation of improved L2 learning opportunities for the learners.

Directions for Future Research In terms of methodology, the employment of retrospective methods to elicit information about the participants’ L1/L2 use and their perspectives on this use has been ascertained to be useful and beneficial. More specifically, these methods have helped me to extract

172

Foreign Language Learning and Use

some important factors that seemed to affect the learners’ opportunities to use and learn L2 by giving consideration to the learners’ orientation to these opportunities. Furthermore, the analysis utilizing these methods raised some important issues that could not be answered in the data obtained through the other methods that my study employed, whereas this analysis also served to corroborate some evidence from these data. However, I acknowledge that such self-report data utilizing the retrospective technique cannot be considered completely accurate. Hence, the results that I obtained based on these data should be interpreted with this concern in mind. Given this concern regarding the reliability of the learners’ selfreports, this study recommends that future research conducts a longitudinal micro-analysis of a learner’s natural discourse with his/her particular network interactants. I suggest that discourse data should be collected regularly, coupled with stimulated recall interview data based on them. Such research would provide valuable insights into not only the macro- and micro-processes of L1/L2 selection and negotiation but also those of L2 development. It would also possibly allow for a profitable exploration into the interface between the cognitive and social aspects of L2 learning, which has been touched upon in this book. In addition, it is necessary for further studies to be undertaken in other L2 use and learning settings. This would allow us to examine the extent to which the social factors that the current study has found to be influential in constructing opportunities to use and learn L2 may be generalized to other contexts. A theoretical framework that incorporates sociocultural theory and Auer’s (1984, 1988) approach to the analysis of language selection has proved to be effective in my study. This framework, therefore, may be worth utilizing in other L2 learning contexts. It is recommended, for example, that L1/L2 selection and code-switching behaviour in classroom interaction could be investigated by drawing upon this framework. This investigation is important because, as previously mentioned, I found that it is not necessarily easy for learners to access meaningful authentic interaction in L2 in semi-instructional settings. It is hoped that this framework can illuminate the motives and goals of participants in the classroom community as well as other larger sociocultural factors. These factors may structure some patterns of

Access to L2 Social Interaction

173

L1/L2 use and language selection in this community, which, in turn, would help us to solve the potential problems relating to this language selection. Moreover, this study also suggests the value of examining other settings where informal learning goals may potentially co-exist with social interaction for other purposes and how multiple goals may be achieved or inhibited by features of the activity, and of the individual negotiations and interactions between participants.

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix I: Questionnaire for the First Year Students

My name is Naomi Kurata and I am undertaking research in the School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics towards a PhD at Monash University. The aim of my research is to explore the relationships between language learners’ participation in social networks and their second language learning. I hope that the results of this research will be useful for both foreign language teachers and learners. Would you please answer the following questions? Thank you for your co-operation. 1. How would you describe yourself? Age: Sex: ( ) Female ( ) Male Home Language(s): Nationality: Length of residence in Australia: 2. Have you ever been to Japan? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, please give details (year, length of stay and purpose): e.g. 2002 10 months exchange program to Tokyo 2001 3 weeks school trip to Kyoto 3. Do you have any Japanese friends or acquaintances in Australia? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, how many?: _______ (Male: _____, Female: _____) 4. Would you think of your closest Japanese friend or acquaintance in Australia and answer how often you have contact with him/her? a. more than once a week b. once a week c. 2 or 3 times a month, d. once a month e. several times a year f. rarely 5. Do you belong to any groups or clubs in which Japanese people are involved? ( ) Yes ( ) No

176

Appendix I

If yes, please give details (the name of the groups or clubs) e.g. the Japan Club at Monash University 6. Do you have any Japanese friends or acquaintances in Japan? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, how many?: _______ (Male: _____, Female: _____) I would like to have an interview with some of you. If you do not mind having an interview with me, would you give me your personal details? (which will be kept strictly confidential) Name: _______________ Email address:

Contact numbers: _______________

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

Appendix II: Interaction Interviews

1. Regarding developing networks 1.1 Have you got acquainted with Japanese people since last interview? (fill in the table) 1.2 Did you experience any difficulties in getting acquainted with Japanese people? 2. Regarding Japanese friends and acquaintances in Australia 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15

When did you have contact with A last time? Where did you have contact with A last time? What did you do then? (Who else were there?) How long did you talk with A? Do you remember what you talked about? What languages did you use when you spoke to A? What languages did A use when A spoke to you? (sometimes asking) Are you aware of any factors that influenced the choice of language? When you spoke to A in Japanese, did you have any difficulties in communicating with A? When A spoke to you in Japanese, did you have any difficulties in communicating with A? How did you feel when you talked with A? Were you satisfied with the communication with A? (Why, why not?) Before you had contact with A, did you prepare (expect) anything regarding language use? How often have you had contact with A since the last interview? What other occasions did you meet A?

Appendix II

178

3. Regarding communicating with non-Japanese in Japanese 3.1 Do you use Japanese with non-Japanese people outside of Japanese classes? 3.2 If yes, when did you use it last time? 3.3 In what situation did you use it? 3.4 What did you talk about in Japanese then? 3.5 Did you have any problems in communicating with him/her in Japanese then? 4. Regarding Japanese friends and acquaintances in Japan 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11

When did you have contact with B in Japan last time? How did you have contact with B? Do you remember the content of the communication? Did you use Japanese or English then? Did B use Japanese or English then? (sometimes asking) Are you aware of any factors that influenced the choice of language? When you used Japanese with B, did you have any difficulties in communicating with B? How did you feel when you talked with B? Were you satisfied with the communication with B? (Why, why not?) Before you had contact with B, did you prepare (expect) anything regarding language use? How often have you had contact with B since the last interview?

Appendix III: Diary About Exposure to Japanese Outside Classrooms Date: Time

Place

With whom, How? e.g., (conversation, email, SMS, animevideo)

Activity (situation)

Language(s)

Topic/ content

Did you notice/ Other comments discover (e.g., satisfaction, something in problems) terms of languages? If, yes, what?

e.g., 1:00–1:40 pm

In the campus centre

Conversation with Hanako

½ English, ½ Japanese

e.g., 10:00–11:20 pm

At home

Manga (Doraemon)

Having lunch together with two other friends Reading manga

About my assignments and a party on Sat. (Title of a story)

I got to know ‘majide?’ has the same meaning as ‘hontoni?’. I noticed in which contexts ‘kiotuskete’ is used

Japanese

Sometimes had a trouble understanding some slang, but got the gist

This page intentionally left blank

References

Angelil-Carter, S. (1997). Second language acquisition of spoken and written English: Acquiring the skeptron. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 263–287. Archangeli, M. (1999). Study abroad and experiential learning in Salzburg, Austria. Foreign Language Annals, 32(1), 115–124. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social interaction: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, J. C. P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, J. C. P. (1988). A conversation analytic approach to code-switching and transfer. In M. Heller (Ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspective (pp. 187–213). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Auer, J. C. P. (1995). The pragmatics of code-switching: A sequential approach. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching (pp. 115–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, J. C. P. (1998). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). 2006 census of population and housing: Melbourne – a social atlas. Retrieved 23 June 2008, from http://www.abs.gov. au/ausstats/[email protected]/cat/2030.2. Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53(4), 591–647. Blackledge, A. (2004). Constructions of identity in political discourse in multilingual Britain. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 68–92). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum. Blom, J. P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Codeswitching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), The ethnography of communication (pp. 407–434). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Boissevain, J. (1974). Friends of friends. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16, 645–668. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London: Sage Publications. Boztepe, E. (2003). Issues in code-switching: Competing theories and models. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 1–27. Breitborde, L. B. (1983). Levels of analysis in sociolinguistic explanation: Bilingual code switching, social relations, and domain theory. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 39, 5–43.

182

References

Canagarajah, S. (2004). Multilingual writers and the struggle for voice in academic discourse. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 266–289). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Disfluencies or interactional achievements? In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 201–220). London: Continuum. Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a second language acquisition task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–191). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (2000a). Language, power and pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2000b). Negotiating intercultural identities in the multilingual classroom. The CATESOL Journal, 12(1), 163–178. de Bot, K., & Stoessel, S. (2002). Introduction: Language change and social networks. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 153, 1–7. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Alex Publishing. Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505–537. Duff, P. A. (2002a). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289–322. Duff, P. A. (2002b). Pop culture and ESL students: Intertextuality, identity, and participation in classroom discussions. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(6), 482–487. Duff, P. A. (2003). New directions in second language socialization research. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 3, 309–339. Duff, P. A. (2006). Beyond generalizability: Contextualization, complexity, and credibility in applied linguistics research. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. Chapelle & P. A. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 65–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, R. (2007). Cognitive, social and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. Paper presented at the Social and Cognitive Aspects of Language Learning and Teaching Conference, University of Auckland. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156. Ferenz, O. (2005). EFL writers’ social networks: Impact on advanced academic literacy development. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 339–351.

References

183

Ferguson, C. A. (1981). ‘Foreigner Talk’ as the name of a simplified register. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 9–18. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91, 800–819. Fishman, J. A. (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique, 2, 67–88. Fishman, J. A. (1972). Domains and the relationships between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 435–453). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Fitzgerald, J., Jeffrey, R., Maclean, K., & Morris-Suzuki, T. (2002). Maximising Australia’s Asia knowledge: Repositioning and renewal of a national asset. Asian Studies Association of Australia. Freed, B. F. (1990). Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of interactive and noninteractive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown university round table on language and linguistics 1990 (pp. 459–477). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Freeman, R. (2004). Building on community bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Freiermuth, M. (2001). Native speakers or non-native speakers: Who has the floor? online and face-to-face interaction in culturally mixed small groups. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 169–199. Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willing to communicate: Can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189–212. Gardner, R., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2004). Second language conversations. London: Continuum. Gass, S. M. (1991). Grammar instruction, selective attention and learning processes. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 134–141). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gillette, B. (1994). The role of learner goals in L2 success. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 195–213). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Goldstein, T. (1996). Two languages at work: Bilingual life on the production floor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1971). Language in social groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: CUP.

184

References

Harklau, L. (2000). From the ‘good kids’ to the ‘worst’: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35–67. Haruhara, K. (1992). Nettowaakingu sutoratejii (Networking strategy). Nihongogaku (Japanese Language Study), 11, 17–26. Holtzer, G. (2003). Learning culture by communicating: Native-non-native speaker telephone interactions. In M. Byram & P. Grundy (Eds.), Context and culture in language teaching and learning (pp. 43–50). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Imura, T. (2004). Let learners talk with native speakers outside the classroom in your home country: Community involvement project. Sekai no Nihongo Kyooiku (Japanese-Language Education around the Globe), 14, 125–148. Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute. (2004). Survey report on Japaneselanguage education abroad 2003. Urawa: Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute. Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute. (2006). Survey report on Japaneselanguage education abroad 2006: Present condition of overseas Japanese-language education-Summary. Urawa: Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute. Kanno, Y. (2000). Bilingualism and identity: The stories of Japanese returnees. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(1), 1–18. Kanno, Y. (2004). Sending mixed messages: Language minority education at a Japanese public elementary school. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 316–338). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567. Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19, 83–99. Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice doesn’t live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity reconstruction. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 219–242). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kurata, N. (2001). Communication networks of Japanese language learners. Unpublished paper, Monash University, Melbourne. Kurata, N. (2002). Communication networks of Japanese language learners and second language acquisition. Unpublished MA thesis, Monash University, Melbourne. Kurata, N. (2004a). Communication networks of Japanese language learners in their home country. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14(1), 153–178. Kurata, N. (2004b). Social networks of language learners and collaborative interaction with native speakers: A case study of two Australian learners of Japanese. ASAA e-journal of asian linguistics & language teaching, 7, 1–22. Kurata, N. (2007a). Language choice and second language learning opportunities in learners’ social networks: A case study of an Australian learner of Japanese. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 05.01–05.18. Kurata, N. (2007b). Social and contextual factors influencing L1/L2 use in learners’ social network contexts: A case study of learners of Japanese in Australia. In

References

185

H. E. Marriott, T. Moore & R. Spence-Brown (Eds.), Learning discourses and the discourses of learning (pp. 15.11–15.19). Melbourne: Monash University ePress. Kurhila, S. (2004). Clients or language learners – Being a second language speaker in institutional interaction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 58–74). London: Continuum. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 619–632. Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. B. (2002). ‘I’d rather switch than fight’: An activity-theoretic study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization. Ecological perspectives (pp. 175–196). London: Continuum. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (l)anguage (a)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–149). London: Longman. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leaver, B. L. (1989). Dismantling classroom walls for increased foreign language proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 66–77. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343–364. Li Wei. (1994). Three generations, two Languages, one Family: Language choice and language shift in a Chinese community in Britain. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Li Wei. (2005). ‘How can you tell?’ towards a common sense explanation of conversational code-switching. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 375–389. Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2005). Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 234–247. Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in SLA, 5, 177–193. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marriott, H. E. (1984). English discourse of Japanese women in Melbourne. Melbourne: Japanese Studies Centre. Martin-Jones, M., & Heller, M. (1996). Introduction to the special issue on education in multilingual settings: Discourse, identities, and power. Linguistics and Education, 8, 3–16.

186

References

Masuda, Y. (2006). Interaction in Japanese-English language exchange partnerships. Unpublished MA thesis, Monash University, Melbourne. Matsumoto, K. (1994). Introspection, verbal reports and second language learning strategy research. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(2), 363–386. McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourse, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577–608. Meeuwis, M., & Blommaert, J. (1994). The ‘markedness model’ and the absence of society: Remarks on codeswitching. Multilingua, 13, 387–423. Mehan, H. (1979). Language lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miller, J. (1999). Becoming audible: Social identity and second language use. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 20(2), 149–165. Miller, J. (2000). Language use, identity, and social interaction: Migrant students in Australia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 69–100. Miller, J. (2004). Identity and language use: The politics of speaking ESL in schools. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 290–315). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Miyazoe-Wong, Y. (1997). Honkon rikoo daigaku no ‘bijinesu no tameno nihongo’ o chuushin ni shita renkei (Cooperation in the ‘Japanese for business’ program at Hong Kong Polytechnic University). Nihongogaku (Japanese Language Study), 16, 211–222. Miyazoe-Wong, Y., Ueda, M., & Watanabe, T. (2003). Kanbaseeshon paatonaa puroguramu no sankasha wa nani o manabiatta ka: Chuubu daigakusei to honkon rikoo daigakusei no soohookooteki gakushuu no choosa to bunseki (The learning experiences of participants in a conversation partner program: An investigation into reciprocal learning among students of Chubu and Hong Kong Polytechnic Universities). Ryuugakusei Kyooiku (Journal of International Students Education), 8, 201–220. Morgan, B. (1997). Identity and intonation: Linking dynamic processes in an ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 431–450. Muraoka, H. (2002). Interviews and questionnaires. In J. V. Neustupný & S. Miyazaki (Eds.), Gengo kenkyuu no hoohoo – Gengogaku, nihongogaku, nihongo kyooikugaku ni tazusawaru hito no tame ni (Methods in language research – For those involved in linguistics, Japanese linguistics and Japanese teaching) (pp. 126–142). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1998). A theoretical introduction to the Markedness Model. In C. Myers-Scotton (Ed.), Codes and consequences: Choosing linguistic varieties (pp. 18–38). New York: Oxford University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1999). Explaining the role of norms and rationality in codeswitching. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1259–1271.

References

187

Myers-Scotton, C., & Bolonyai, A. (2001). Calculating speakers: Codeswitching in a rational choice model. Language in Society, 30, 1–28. Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 377–405. Neustupný, J. V. (1978). Japanese honorifics: An outline for the teacher. Japanese Language Teaching Newsletter, 2, 1–10. Neustupný, J. V. (1987). Communicating with the Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Neustupný, J. V. (1990). The follow-up interview. Japanese Studies Association of Australia Newsletter, 10(2), 31–34. Neustupný, J. V. (1991a). Atarashii nihongo kyooiku no tame ni (For new Japanese language education). Sekai no Nihongo Kyooiku (Japanese-Language Education around the Globe), 1, 1–14. Neustupný, J. V. (1991b). On romanizing Japanese. Melbourne: Japanese Studies Centre. Neustupný, J. V. (1994). Nihon kenkyuu no hoohooron: Deeta shuushuu no dankai (A methodology for Japanese studies: A stage of collecting data). Machikaneyama Ronsoo: Nihongakuhen, 28, 1–24. Neustupný, J. V. (1995). Atarashii nihongo kyooiku no tame ni (For new Japanese language education). Tokyo: Taishuukan Shoten. Neustupný, J. V., & Miyazaki, S. (Eds.). (2002). Gengo kenkyuu no hoohoo – Gengogaku, nihongogaku, nihongo kyooikugaku ni tazusawaru hito no tame ni (Methods in language research – For those involved in linguistics, Japanese linguistics and Japanese teaching). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Nihongo Kyooiku Gakkai Nettowaaku Choosa Kenkyuu Iinkai (The Network Research Committee of the Japanese Language Education Society). (1997). Kokunai no nihongo kyooiku nettowaaku zukuri ni kansuru choosa kenkyuu (Research on the creation of domestic networks in Japanese education). Tokyo: Nihongo Kyooiku Gakkai (Japanese Language Education Society). Nishimura, M. (1992). Language choice and in-group identity among Canadian niseis. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 3(1), 97–113. Norton, B. (1998). Rethinking acculturation in SLA. Prospect, 13(2), 4–19. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman. Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In X. Bonch-Bruevich (Ed.), The past, present, and future of second language research (pp. 167–180). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Norton, B., & Gao, Y. (2008). Identity, investment, and Chinese learners of English. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 18(1), 109–120. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 307–322. Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31. Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

188

References

Ogawa, K. (1998). Impact of an interaction-oriented Japanese course on learners. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 123–138. Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 93–121. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ozaki, A., & Neustupný, J. V. (1986). Intaaakushon no tameno nihongo kyooiku – imaashon puroguramu no kokoromi – (Japanese language education for interactions – an attempt of immersion program – ). Nihongo Kyooiku (Japanese Language Education), 59, 126–143. Palfreyman, D. (2006). Social context and resources for language learning. System, 34, 352–370. Pasfield-Neofitou, S. E. (2007a). Intercultural internet chat and language learning: A socio-cultural theory perspective. Learning and socio-cultural theory: Exploring modern Vygotskian perspectives international workshop 2007, 1(1), 147–162. Pasfield-Neofitou, S. E. (2007b). Textual features of intercultural internet chat between learners of Japanese and English. CALL-EJ Online, 9(1), 1–18. Pasfield-Neofitou, S. E. (2009). Learners’ participation in informal JapaneseEnglish Internet chat. New Voices, 3, 43–63. Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 275–302). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, A. (2004). ‘The making of an American’: Negotiation of identities at the turn of the twentieth century. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 34–67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (1990). Toward a critical applied linguistics for the 1990’s. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1, 8–28. Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native speaker negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 198–237). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In S. Gass & G. Crookes (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Polio, C., Gass, S., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in SLA, 28, 237–267.

References

189

Preston, D. R. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 79–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. (1984). Guidance in cognitive development: An examination of mother-child instruction. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 95–116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1982). How to be a more successful language learner. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Sato, C. (1988). Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development. Studies in SLA, 10, 371–395. Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. Scotton, C. (1986). Diglossia and code-switching. In J. A. Fishman et al. (Ed.), The Fergusonian impact (Vol. 2, pp. 403–417). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Segawa, M. (1998). The cultural adaptation of Japanese college students in a study abroad context: An ethnographic study. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, The University of British Columbia, Canada. Shima, C. (2003). Learning strategy in contexts: Social dynamics in the classroom. Unpublished research paper, Monash University, Melbourne. Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 356–382. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications. Skoutarides, A. (1981). Nihongo ni okeru forinaa tooku (Foreigner talk in Japanese). Nihongo Kyooiku (Japanese Language Education), 45, 53–62. Smith, L. R. (2002). The social architecture of communicative competence: A methodology for social-network research in sociolinguistics. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 153, 133–160. Stoller, F. L., Hodges, R., & Kimbrough, J. (1995). Examining the value of conversation partner programs. Applied Language Learning, 6(1 & 2), 1–12. Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 457–480. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760–770.

190

References

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). ‘New’ mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. Modern Language Journal, 91, 820–836. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 320–338. Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417–431. Tarone, E. (1997). Analyzing IL in natural settings: A sociolinguistic perspective on second-language acquisition. Communication and Cognition, 30, 137–149. Tarone, E. (2000). Still wresting with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 182–198. Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research – 1997–2007. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 837–848. Thomson Kinoshita, C. (1997). Japanese language learning resources for overseas learners and teachers. Sekai no Nihongo Kyooiku (Japanese-Language Education around the Globe), 7, 17–29. Thorne, S. L. (1999). An activity theoretical analysis of foreign language electronic discourse. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California. Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language, Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and specification of relationships: A crosslinguistic analysis. Text, 12, 1–18. Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? codeswitching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302–325. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy & authenticity. New York: Longman. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Lier, L., & Matsuo, N. (2000). Varieties of conversational experience looking for learning opportunities. Applied Language Learning, 11(2), 265–287. Volk, D., & Angelova, M. (2007). Language ideology and the mediation of language choice in peer interactions in a dual-language first grade. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 6(3), 177–199. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

References

191

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. Calico Journal, 13, 7–26. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. London: Blackwell. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V., Minick, N., & Arns, F. J. (1984). The creation of context in joint problem solving. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social contexts (pp. 151–171). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wiklund, I. (2002). Social networks from a sociolinguistic perspective: The relationship between characteristics of the social networks of bilingual adolescents and their language proficiency. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 153, 53–92. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. Yanagimachi, T. (2003). Sociolinguistic/interaction-analytic perspectives on AJSL research: Focus on language use and its contexts. In Y. A. Hatasa (Ed.), An invitation to second language acquisition research in Japanese: In honour of Seiichi Makino (pp. 145–154). Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Yokota, M., & Tanaka, T. (1992). Friendship networks of foreign students in Japan-Comparison on the basis of students’ residential conditions-. Student Counselling Journal, 13(1), 1–8. Yorozu, M. (2001). Interaction with native speakers of Japanese: What learners say. Japanese Studies, 21(2), 199–213. Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88, 519–536. Yum, J. O. (1982). Communication patterns and information acquisition among Korean immigrants in Hawaii. Human Communication Research, 8(2), 154–169. Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). The academic literacy socialization of Mexican exchange students at a Canadian University. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Zuengler, J., & Bent, B. (1991). Relative knowledge of content domain: An influence on native-non-native conversations. Applied Linguistics, 12, 397–416. Zuengler, J., & Cole, K. (2005). Language socialization and L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 301–316). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

This page intentionally left blank

Index Page numbers in bold denote figures and tables. Angelova, M. 23 Auer, J. C. P. 5, 20–1, 44, 45, 103, 109, 116, 119, 121, 124, 134, 166, 168, 172 Belz, J. A. 161 Blom, J. P. 19 Blommaert, J. 20 Boissevain, J. 30 code-switching 19 Myers-Scotton’s Markedness Model 20 rational choice model 20 situational and metaphorical 19 conversation analysis (CA) 19–23, 25, 44, 139, 143, 151 Cummins, J. 90, 156 Dailey-O’Cain, J. 22, 169 data collection 36–45 diary entries 39–40 interaction interviews 36–9 stimulated recall interviews 40–2 transcription 42–4 decontextualized learners 5 Duff, P. A. 36 English as a foreign language (EFL) 32 English as a second language (ESL) 13, 15, 28, 33 Ferenz, O. 32 Firth, A. 5

foreign language (FL) 1–2, 7, 10, 26–7, 35, 70, 74–5, 96, 133–4, 161, 165, 167–9 Freed, B. F. 48 French 51 Gass, S. M. 41, 140 Gillette, B. 77, 86 Grosjean, F. 85, 166 Gumperz, J. J. 19 Haruhara, K. 31 Holtzer, G. 24 Jefferson, G. 139 Kasper, G. 23–4 Kinginger, C. 27, 161 Kurata, N. 99 L1/L2 use, changes in 75–102 L2 learning in English-dominant Settings 8–10 post-structural perspectives 16 identies and interpersonal space 16–17 investment 18–19 learners’ agency 17–18 social networks as contexts for 6–7 social relationships in 167–8 sociocultural theory 11–12 activity system 12–13, 95, 120, 122–3

194 L2 learning Continued activity theory 12–14 Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 14–17, 26, 29, 45, 147, 149, 156–7, 159 L2 learning, opportunities for learner-learner informal written discourse 153–6 lexical knowledge, mutual assistance in 154–5 ZPD, assisted performance in 156 learner-NS conversation (informal setting) 137–43 interactional resources available 139–40 learner’s discourse strategies 142–3 NS’s corrective feedback 140–2 learner-NS conversations (semi-instructional contexts) 143–7 assistance provided by NSs 144–5 learner’s orientation to learning items 145–7 learner-NS informal written discourse (online) 147–53 interactional resources available 150–1 NS’s assistance in learner’s ZPD 147–50 NS’s corrective feedback 151–3 major factors contributing to 156–63 history as an L2 user or learner 159–61 norms in communities 161–3 social roles 157–9

Index overcoming the obstacles to 168–71 social factors affecting 25–34 language selection 19–25 and its negotiation 103–35 conversations, situations of 104–6 languages as mediational artifacts 120–2 language use patterns 107–10 socialization and language learning 118–19 the nature of 165–7 social influence on 21–5 in classroom settings 22–3 outside the classroom 23–5 theories of 19–21 Lapkin, S. 30 learner(s) bilingual social networks of 47–74, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 71 background of the participants 48 language use in 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 72 Liebscher, G. 22, 169 Mackey, A. 41 Masuda, Y. 24, 145 Matsuo, N. 112, 138, 150 Meeuwis, M. 20 methodological triangulation 36 Miller, E. R. 143 Miller, J. 28 Milroy, L. 7 Muraoka, H. 37 Nakahama, Y. 138 native speakers (NSs) 1–3, 6, 15, 21, 23–4, 28, 30–2, 34–5, 37, 47–8, 51–2, 54–9, 70–1,

Index 73–4, 76, 88, 91, 95–6, 103, 107, 109, 118, 120, 123, 135, 137, 139–40, 142–5, 147, 157, 160–2, 169–71 Neustupný, J. V. 7, 30, 37, 41, 43, 151 Nishimura, M. 53 Norton, B. 27, 78, 94 Nunan, D. 35 Palfreyman, D. 32–3 Pasfield-Neofitou, S. E. 33 Preston, D. R. 7 Schegloff, E. A. 139 Schmidt, R. 140 Scotton, C. 20 second language acquisition (SLA) 5, 14, 16, 18, 29–30, 35–6, 40, 137, 168 see also L2 learning Seedhouse, P. 22 Siegal, M. 28, 162 Silverman, D. 36 situated learning 5 Smith, L. R. 29–30 sociolinguistics 1, 7

195

Spanish 23, 66, 70 Swain, M. 30 target language (TL) 6, 28–9, 48, 78, 96, 138, 140, 142 Tarone, E. 24, 30 Technical and Further Education (TAFE) 50 Thorne, S. L. 26, 80, 82 Tyler, A. 138 Üstünel, E. 22 van Lier, L. 112, 138, 142, 150 Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) 55, 59, 62, 66 Volk, D. 23 Wagner, J. 5 Wei, Li 20–1 Wenger, E. 22 Wiklund, I. 29–30 Young, R. F. 143 Zappa-Hollman, S. 33