Type of interlocutor

The interest in examining the way that L2 learners together try to solve the communication problems that arise in conversation originated in the interactional view of CSs (Tarone, 1977, 1981; Yule & Tarone, 1997; Paribakht, 1984). This perspective emphasises the analysis of the interactional mechanisms employed by both speakers when trying to solve problems in communication, and thus to achieve meaning by means of their mutual collaboration. Having this in mind, the focus of this chapter will be on the type of interlocutor and on how it affects the way the learners try to solve their communication problems when interacting with a different type of interactant. For this purpose, the present chapter will address those CSs which are influenced by this variable in two different dyads: a learner/non-native speaker in interaction with a learner/non-native speaker (NNS-NNS) and a learner/non-native speaker in interaction with a native speaker (NNS-NS). The aim will be to present and discuss the results obtained for this third variable in order to determine its possible effects on the learners’ use of CSs. Results will be quantitatively and qualitatively examined, as in the previous chapters, considering first the most general figures to continue with a more detailed observation of findings.

Previous to the analysis of results, the main interactional elements characteristic of meaning negotiation sequences will be presented as they will be used in the qualitative examination of the different CSs that may be affected by the interlocutor variable. Additionally, the possible effects that each type of interlocutor in each dyad may produce on the learners’ strategic behaviour will be briefly described. The following information is based on Varonis & Gass model for negotiation of meaning (1985).

Figure 7.1 Model for negotiation of meaning – basic elements (Varonis & Gass, 1985:74- 77)

NNS: eh (0.3) no eh ah no ha (0.5) el señor va a eh ir en las escaleras

NS: ¿o sea va a subir las escaleras? NNS: sí

NS: ah ok

Trigger: speaker’s utterance which ‘results in some indication of non-understanding on the part of the hearer’.

Indicator: utterance which ‘has the effect of pushing down the conversation’.

Response: ‘acknowledges the non-understanding’

Reaction to response: ‘it is an optional element’.

7.1.1 Interlocutor’s effects

NNS-NNS pairings

Familiarity between speakers:

The degree of familiarity was high in these dyads since as it was necessary, for methodological purposes, to pair students according to a similar proficiency level, they were recruited from the same language classes, and therefore at the time of the data collection, the learners already knew each other and in some cases they were friends. In fact, as most of the participants attended the same classes, in most cases they selected their own partners. This factor may have given them more confidence when trying to communicate in the L2 and thus facilitated their interaction. This was confirmed through their retrospective comments where most of them indicated that they felt more comfortable talking to another learner because of this familiarity aspect.

Speakers’ roles in relation to type of task:

This aspect has to do with the control of information which has been found to be an important variable in interactions of this kind. This is based on the premise that ‘interlocutors seeking particular information are more likely to initiate negotiation than interlocutors holding the information’ (Varonis & Gass, 1985:87). This feature is less likely to be present in the NNSs dyads because of the speakers’ shared linguistic characteristics. Their shared level of L2 proficiency and the familiarity between speakers might overrule any possible roles that the tasks may produce.

Shared linguistic background and ‘shared incompetence’:

The former term refers to the learners’ L1, which in this study was shared by all the NNSs. The latter term has to do with the proficiency level, which was also shared by the learners, as they were paired according to a similar level. These two factors are said to influence the number of interruptions within a conversation, that is to say, ‘when the interlocutors share a common background...the turn-taking sequence is likely to proceed smoothly...’ (Varonis & Gass, 1985:72). Therefore, the negotiation exchanges in this study, which can influence the use of CSs, may also be affected by these aspects. The learners commented on this aspect when indicating that the fact of sharing a relatively similar level with their peers gave them more confidence to communicate, and it also made them feel less worried about making mistakes. Other learners also mentioned that they felt comprehension was easier when interacting with a peer. They attributed this to their equal L2 competence, which made them use fairly similar structures thus producing similar types of mistakes. Finally, some of the

learners also indicated that they felt that they did not make as much effort to use the L2 correctly as they did with the NSs.

NNS-NS pairings

Familiarity between speakers:

The degree of familiarity was much lower in this type of dyad, since the speakers did not know each other until the moment of the data elicitation. This may have influenced the learners’ use of CSs in that they may have felt less comfortable talking to an unfamiliar interlocutor as opposed to their peers, who were either their acquaintances or friends, thus encountering more problems to communicate and so resorting to more CSs. In addition, the fact that the learners did not know whether their interlocutors would understand their L1 (English), may have pushed them to try to communicate meaning in the L2 more appropriately in their attempt to make their own output comprehensible, hence encountering more communication problems.

Speakers’ roles in relation to the type of task:

Although the tasks used for elicitation purposes were not oriented towards a type of role (giver-receiver), both activities may have prompted an uneven language production, as occurred in the pilot study with the open task15, and therefore may have influenced the CS production on the part of the NNSs. This may be tentatively explained because of the roles characteristic of this type of dyad, where the NS – as the more expert speaker – may tend to lead the conversation by guiding the learner on what to talk about (open task) or what to describe/narrate (closed task), when they feel that the learners are experiencing problems to communicate their message. Moreover, as the NSs are seen as a potential source of language, their role in this type of dyad may be more relevant as they may feel more responsible for providing support and/or assistance to the learner. The NSs commented on this indicating that on most occasions the learners did not ask them directly for help, but indirectly through their gestures or puzzled looks, yet as the NSs had been instructed to talk as naturally as possible, they helped them only when it was necessary. In a few instances, the NSs expressed that they had to switch to English after their unsuccessful attempts to repeat or

rephrase the message, as a last resource when comprehension seemed hard to achieve.

15

On some occasions in the pilot study the NS had to initiate the conversation by askingthe learner questions which made the NS interlocutor take an interviewer type of role.

170

Shared background and ‘shared incompetence’:

As these two factors were not present in this dyad, the effects of a different language and proficiency background may have produced, as suggested by Varonis & Gass (1985), more interruptions within the conversations, and thus more meaning negotiation exchanges, affecting therefore the NNSs’ strategic use of the L2. The speakers’ non-shared status may have produced more interruptions because of the possible problems of comprehension generated, on the one hand, by the NS’s more elaborated input, causing the learners to resort to more CS usage. On the other hand, the NNS’s less coherent speech may have also caused non-understanding routines also leading to a higher use of CSs. The participants referred to this aspect when indicating that they felt less comfortable speaking to a NS, since they were more afraid of making mistakes, and because they thought that the NSs would be more prompt to pick up on those mistakes. This was also mentioned by some NSs, who confirmed that some learners looked nervous and scared, or embarrassed to communicate in Spanish, which they thought it was due to interacting with someone with more expertise in the L2, and so can perhaps notice their mistakes more easily.