Technologically-mediated second language interaction

Although the principle theme of the present study has been L2 interaction, the setting in which the study takes place has led to some findings of relevance to the field of TMI and, more specifically, computer-mediated communication (CMC). While some of these findings may be relevant to L2 TMI in particular, other observations

contribute more generally to the field.

Previous literature has shown L2 interactants to be resourceful as they go about their social business. As was outlined in Section 2.2.2, participants interacting in an L2 can make up for any linguistic shortcomings (and this is not to imply that such shortcomings are a given) by drawing upon other, nonverbal, resources. Research has shown that the most common resources drawn upon are gestural (e.g. Carroll 2008; Mori and Hayashi 2009; Olsher 2004) although it has also been shown that artefacts in the surrounding environment (Mori and Hasegawa 2006), and language aids such as electronic dictionaries (e.g. Barrow 2009; Hauser 2010) can be employed.

The findings of the present study add to this body of research by demonstrating how L2 interactants in English language chat rooms can draw upon the IPM feature of their chat room software. As has been evidenced in Chapter 7, participants can resort to the use of written messages when trouble in understanding can not be resolved through the talk. This again demonstrates L2 users to be resourceful in their attempts to understand, and be understood.

This would appear to be related to participants’ statuses as L2 users. While one can imagine L1 users resorting to the use of written messages for particular lexical items (such as technical words) or to overcome technical problems (like poor sound quality), one would expect that, because of the kind of trouble being resolved through IPMs in this corpus (i.e. ‘everyday’ words, cf. Hosoda 2006), this is an example of the usefulness of the chat room setting for the practice of L2 use.

Another interesting observation to emerge from the IPM sequences examined in chapter 7 was the relationship between the text and the talk. As was discussed, there appeared to be a strong preference for resolving trouble through talk, and only using IPMs after (often multiple) failed efforts to do so. It was argued that this may be due

to the private nature of the written messages and a desire to keep the interaction publicly available to all present. Regardless, these observations contribute to an understanding of how and why CMC users choose different media, which has been called for within CMC research community (Jenks and Firth, forthcoming).

Additionally, the analyses showed how receipt of a written message, and any resulting change in epistemics, is typically displayed vocally. This then links the text back to the talk and serves to return the ongoing interaction to the, preferred, spoken floor. Such interactional transitions between mediums have also been identified as an aspect of CMC in need of further understanding (Jenks and Firth, forthcoming).

Two final considerations from the study which are relevant to research into TMI and CMC pertain to the observations on nonresponses from Chapter 6. The first is the general participant orientation to continuing the talk in the face of a nonresponse. As was demonstrated, the ‘abroad’ case – in which the participant faced with an absent response put the ongoing talk on hold in order to check for his interlocutor’s presence – appeared to be a deviant case. On all of the other occasions, the participants

continued the ongoing talk, apparently in the belief that their interlocutor was still present and available, and unable to respond for some other reasons (such as a problem in hearing or understanding).

This provides an example of how participants in the chat rooms manage some of the limitations of the TMI setting; in this multiparty, voice-only environment, the absence of visual cues and uncertainty with regards to who is present, are constant constraints for those involved. As such, these observations follow Hutchby’s (2003) call for further investigation into the constraints and affordances of emerging technologies on interaction.

Related to this is the nonresponse itself. While analysis has been able to explicate the consequences of a nonresponse, its cause is also worthy of analytic consideration. Because of the nature of the data collected, and the data which could not be collected (see Section 8.4), it was not always possible to know the ‘real’ reason (which is not necessarily the same as a claimed reason) for an absent response. As was postulated in Chapter 7, a response absence may be due to a problem in understanding, or in hearing, but it is equally possible that a participant does not respond because their attention is elsewhere. The implications of this are interesting.

Other forms of TMI, such as one-to-one telephone calls, follow Goffman’s definition of ‘focussed’ encounters, which he describes as:

two or more participants in a situation joining each other openly in maintaining a single focus of cognitive and visual attention. (Goffman, 1963: 1989)

Couper-Kuhlen (2010) applies this notion of focussed encounters in her distinction between ‘noticeably absent’ turns and ‘absent but not noticeably absent’ turns; in focussed encounters, where all participants are engaged in a single focus, an absence is noticeable. However, Couper-Kuhlen (2010) argues, other settings – such as

cooking a dinner, working in a shop, studying with a friend – do not require sustained joint attention, and so may be considered nonfocused, in that both parties are not required/expected to maintain a single, common, focus of attention.

It may be that the occasional absences of responses are indicative of some participants’ differing orientations to the style of interaction in which they are

engaged. That is, while some may be treating the ongoing talk as a focused encounter, much like a one-to-one telephone conversation, others may treat it as a non-focused encounter, with which they are simultaneously engaged in other activities, such as reading emails, browsing websites, watching TV, or involved in any number of other activities.

Couper-Kuhlen (ibid.) argues that non-focused encounters have not received as much analytic attention in social interaction research and suggests that:

we would be well advised to extend our analytic attention to other forms of social togetherness, including nonfocused gatherings and incipient states of talk, in order to appreciate more fully how focused interaction is achieved and sustained.” (ibid.: 35)

The data and analysis presented in Chapter 7, and discussed in the present chapter, may shed some preliminary light on how this can be oriented to differently by participants engaged in the same interaction, and subsequently how focused

interaction can be “achieved and sustained” in the face of contesting orientations to it. This section has offered some candidate interpretations of many of the study’s analytic observations. It is difficult to offer definitive conclusions regarding the impact that the technologically-mediated nature of the interaction has on the talk, or the impact that the participants’ statuses as L2 speakers has. This is partly because it is not possible to tease apart these two factors, and understand the separate influences

they bring to bear on the interaction. The next section will consider this multi- contextual nature of the research setting.