1 / 28

Lexical and syntactic complexity in a task-based, CMC environment Joe Collentine Northern Arizona University Karina Coll

Lexical and syntactic complexity in a task-based, CMC environment Joe Collentine Northern Arizona University Karina Collentine Yavapai College. Important issues in task based research • Lexical richness • Morphosyntactic complexity • Planning. SLA views on the importance of form

nemesio
Télécharger la présentation

Lexical and syntactic complexity in a task-based, CMC environment Joe Collentine Northern Arizona University Karina Coll

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lexical and syntactic complexity in a task-based, CMC environment Joe Collentine Northern Arizona University Karina Collentine Yavapai College

  2. Important issues in task based research • Lexical richness • Morphosyntactic complexity • Planning

  3. SLA views on the importance of form • The traditional dichotomy (Ellis 2005; VanPatten 2000) • Meaning through form (Ortega 2005; DeKeyser et al. 2002) • Meaning through form becomes more evident in synthetic languages like Spanish

  4. Task Based Research and Complexity • Strategic and guided planning yields high levels of complexity • Online task planning yields syntactic complexity though perhaps not lexical density • We know nothing about online planning and complexity in synthetic languages (see Ellis 2005)

  5. SCMC • Inherent tension between spontaneity and planning (Kern 1995; Warschauer and Kern 2000) • Often leads to more complex syntact (Keller-Lally 2006; Soltillo 2000)

  6. The study • Will intermediate and advanced level learners of Spanish produce discursive and lexico-grammatical complexity in SCMC conditions requiring within-task Planning? • Two tasks varying in amount of displaced discourse

  7. Participants Intermediate (n=14) Advanced (n=18)

  8. Tasks • Flash based • Interact with virtual people to interview • Solve two tasks solve a murder mystery locate a set of keys • Interrupted writing task • Post writing task • Interaction through iChat http://london-underground.modlang.nau.edu/collenti/juegos2/

  9. Analysis • Corpus based • Tagger: Python, NLTK, Corpus del español • Qualitative analysis: discourse-pragmatic moves, sociocultural approach

  10. Complexity dimensions Biber, Davies, Jones, and Tracey-Ventura 2006

  11. Informational richness

  12. Hypothetical discourse

  13. Narrative discourse

  14. Interpersonal discourse (ID)– discourse that involved asking each other questions and evaluating each other. 200-level, task 1 S2: porque piensas que Paco lo hizo? S1: Pienso que Paco lo hizo porque la mujer ? Tina dijo ella era con el’l. Tina dijo que ella miro’ TV. Creo que pero no estoy seguro. S1: Todos escucharon algo sobre 10:30. Correcto?

  15. Assertive discourse (AD) - discourse that involved reporting and concluding on what they saw or heard. 200-level, task 2 S1: Quiza’s todos son mientrandos [mintiendo]. S2: Nada [nadie] se encargo, de las llaves es dificil decir quien los robo o si solamente estan perdidos. S1: Tiene razo’n. Los llaves estari’a perdidos.

  16. Self-regulated language episodes (SR)– instances where an individual repaired an utterance or part of an utterance. 200-level, task 1 S1: hay muchos personas S2: me gusta su response S2: “tu”

  17. Interpersonal language episodes (ILE)– instances where the students repaired an utterance or part of an utterance together. 200-level, task 2 S2: Que maquina? S1: La lavadora (sp)? S2: El refrijador, possiblemente?

  18. External realizations (ER)– external manifestations of discourse about internal conclusions. 200-level, task 1 S1: El Dr. Torres se me hizo sospechoso Que cree,s? S2: No se’. Pero Voy con su respuesta.

  19. Unrelated discourse (UD)– this category was comprised of 3 types of discourse: a) discourse about the story line but unrelated to the story line 300-level, task 2 S2: no me gusta juan porque puede ver su trasero S1: jajaja

  20. b) discourse where chatters accused others of the crime (or each other) 300-level, task 2 S1: no tengo idea que tiene mis llaves, pero no tengo mas tiempo S2: TU eres el amigo S1: MIS S2: (un chiste) S1: Son Mios!!!! S2: mentirosa S2: entonces… S1: me robas! S2: que pienso? S2: ERA TU??? S1: ladrona sucia S2: profesor! Laura roba mis llaves-

  21. c) instances of humor 300-level, task 2 S2: carlos es ma’l, creo que es obvio…cocina carne S1: CARNE S1: AHH S1: pero a mi me gusta carne S2: entonces, eres ma’l persona!! S1: no, es un chiste… S2: si si yo se

  22. Interrsubjectivity (I)– discourse that commented on their performance, lack of performance, or instances where the students attempted to establish solidarity a) positive comments about their performance 300-level, task 1 S2: Paco dice que estaba con su banda los tigres S2: si’ S2: punto bueno S1: si’, pienso que yo visto más Law and Order que yo debo

  23. b) comments about their lack of performance 200-level, task 1 S1: no se nada S2: ni yo c) attempts to establish solidarity 300-level, task 2 S1: pues necesitamos un reporte en un documento o solo en ichat? S2: solamente nuestras ideas en ichat.

  24. Conclusions

More Related