Occurrence of structural alignment

In regards to the occurrence and degree of structural alignment, results indicate that the amount of aligned production of the target structure was significantly greater following primes when compared to non-primes (i.e., fillers), and this finding was consistent regardless of interaction modes. These results align with previous L2 alignment research demonstrating a

greater amount of aligned production of target grammatical structures as compared to misaligned production of them (Conroy & Antón-Méndez, 2015; Kim & McDonough, 2008; McDonough & Mackey, 2006). This finding lends support to the notion that structural alignment occurs because prior production or comprehension of a particular grammatical structure raises the activation of the relevant syntactic representations and/or processes, making them a better candidate for subsequent use (Branigan et al., 2000).

In line with previous L2 alignment research showing structural alignment effects in peer interaction (e.g., McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2010; McDonough et al., 2015), this study also demonstrated that structural alignment occurred while L2 peers carried out collaborative

alignment activities in pairs. The current finding indicated a positive role of peer interaction in eliciting alignment effects as was also pointed out by McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2010) and McDonough et al. (2015). McDonough et al. confirmed the effectiveness of using

collaborative alignment activities in ESL classrooms by showing learners’ use of particular grammatical structures targeted in their study when multiple alternative structures are available for expressing the same information. Similarly, McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2010)

demonstrated that collaborative syntactic priming activities could be useful in EFL classroom as such activities help promote learner production of target grammatical structures.

The current study expands the L2 alignment literature by including pre-experiment sessions, which were designed not only to help L2 learners develop perceptions of their peer interlocutors but also to familiarize them with communicative activities. Furthermore, in this study, L2 learners were provided with structural and lexical primes in an integrated fashion (i.e., integrated primes) so that the alignment effects could be enhanced. Previous research has

structural) enhances alignment of representations at another level that is meaning-based (e.g., lexical) (Pickering & Garrod, 2004). In that regard, it may be plausible that structural alignment that occurred during L2 peer interaction promoted lexical alignment effect. However, this speculation can only be tested by including a comparison group, to which only structural primes were provided.

With regard to the modality effect, the current findings were in line with the results of Kim et al. (under review), which investigated the structural alignment phenomenon in an L2 learning context by comparing the FTF and SCMC mode, such that structural alignment occurred in text-based online chat as in FTF spoken interactions. In addition, the present study found that modality had a significant effect on the magnitude of structural alignment that occurred during the communicative alignment activities in SMMC mode. More specifically, SMMC interactions elicited significantly more aligned production of the target structure than FTF interactions. For example, a prime sentence containing a target word and stranded preposition RC “A kettle is

something you heat water in” elicited the following aligned production from an SMMC

participant and misaligned production from an FTF participant:

Example 4: Structurally aligned production of an SMMC participant (pseudonym: Jihye)

A kettle is something you heat water in.

Example 5: Structurally misaligned production of an FTF participant (pseudonym: Yena)

A kettle is something that you can boil the water.

Across the two treatment sessions, the SMMC participant Jihye produced 30 instances of structurally aligned production (93.75%) out of a possible total of 32 instances whereas the FTF participant Yena demonstrated structural alignment on 10 task items (31.25%).

While this particular observation accords with findings of previous L2 alignment research (e.g., Kim et al., under review), it contrasts with those from L1 alignment research (e.g., Cleland & Pickering, 2006; Hartsuiker et al., 2008). Previous L1 research investigating alignment effects in oral and written (i.e., synchronous text-chat) modes have suggested that despite the

unavailability of visual and prosodic feedback in text-only environments (e.g., SCMC, SMMC), structural alignment effects were not markedly different between the written and spoken modes, indicating that speaking and writing involve the same syntactic processing in task-based

interactions between L1 adult speakers (Hartsuiker et al., 2008). However, the differing degree of structural alignment in the two modalities of interaction found in this study seems to indicate that text-based and spoken interactions may not necessarily have a commonality and that L2 speakers may process written and spoken language input, particularly syntactic structures of the input, in a similar fashion.

The greater magnitude of structural alignment in the SMMC context may be attributable to the availability of explicit memory (i.e., awareness) and the occurrence of noticing during task-based interactions in the two interactional contexts. Previous research has suggested that text-based interaction enhances the opportunity to draw L2 learners’ attention (noticing) to linguistic forms, as they have more time to process the written input compared to the oral input during FTF interaction (Ziegler, 2016). Specifically, due to a slower pace of conversation and slower turn-taking in text-based communication, compared to FTF conversation, L2 learners are allowed to have extended time for monitoring and processing the language input and their own production. This may obviate the social need to have to respond immediately and give learners extra online planning time to construct their output (Kitade, 2000). Additionally, previous studies have indicated that text-based online chat may have afforded L2 learners opportunities for

noticing linguistic features because they could easily access previous chat messages that remain on the screen by scrolling up and down in order to reference and review the message exchanges (Yuksel & Inan, 2014). In order to preserve the authenticity of the modality, the SMMC

participants were not instructed as to whether or not they would be allowed to refer back to the prime sentences. Then, it is possible that the SMMC participants made use of scroll up and down function of their smartphones during the alignment activities. This may have helped them notice and analyze the target grammatical structure, construct their own sentences by either aligning or misaligning with their interlocutors. If the use of scroll up and down function was restricted during the activities, different results could have obtained from the SMMC group. However, without relevant data examining such explicit strategies that learners may have employed during the chat interaction, this study could not provide evidence for the role of noticing in the

alignment effects in the SMMC context. Future study is warranted to use screen capture programs or eye-tracking techniques to address this issue.

Another possible explanation for SMMC being a more facilitative context may be related to Korean EFL learners’ tendency to utilize explicit grammatical knowledge when carrying out a language activity in an educational context. Although the participants were engaged in a

communicative activity, which had its primary focus on meaning with the target structure being hidden (i.e., learners were not told explicitly what the grammatical structure the task targeted), they might have employed typical strategies pertaining to analyzing the grammatical structure of input that they encounter and using metalinguistic knowledge to construct sentences during the alignment activities. This explicit focus on form may have been more possible in the SMMC condition due to less time pressure and the availability of text-based interaction, as learners were able to spend more time to express their intended meaning as accurately and as coherently as

they could (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). In turn, the SMMC condition appears to have helped strengthen the learners’ mental representations associated with the target structure that they

encountered in the prime sentence, thereby increasing the likelihood that the structure is used again (i.e., a greater magnitude of structural alignment) in their own turns during the alignment sessions. This suggests that alignment in text-chat contexts might tap into different cognitive processes and strategies than those used in the FTF mode. This question should be further examined in future studies using different data sources such as stimulated recall, interviews, or knowledge source judgment questionnaire (Marsden, Williams, & Liu, 2013), which can provide further insights on how learners process primes in different modes of communication.