Negotiating for meaning in interaction: differences between virtual exchanges and regular online activities

The present research explores the interactional nature of oral tasks carried out in two types of learner dyads in terms of their likelihood to foster negotiation for meaning during Language Related Episodes (LREs). Quantitative data analyses reveal how learners in same L1 dyads, Spanish English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, and in different L1 dyads, Canadian learners of Spanish and Spanish learners of English participating in a virtual exchange, modify their speech using negotiations and clarifications to make it comprehensible to their interlocutors. Eighteen different L1 dyads of university learners doing a virtual exchange (Canada-Spain) and eighteen dyads of Spanish-speakers learning English at the Spanish university carried out three oral communicative tasks online following the same procedures. Data were transcribed, LREs were identified, quantified for each dyad, and analyzed to determine their characteristics in terms of types of triggers, modified output, and type of feedback provided. Initial findings point to substantial differences in meaning negotiation occurring during LREs in each group. Different-L1 dyads exhibit more clarifications, meaning negotiation, and provide more feedback, which leads to higher amounts of comprehensible and modified output than learners in same L1 dyads.


Introduction
Studies on Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) have used the interactionist paradigm to prove the role that negotiation of meaning in learner-to-learner interaction activities play in L2 development (Loewen & Isbell, 2017). Meaning negotiation episodes allow for comprehensible input, The aim of the present research is to examine learner-to-learner interactions in order to characterize the LREs they produce. LRE sequences consist of focus-onform episodes in meaning-focused interactive tasks triggered by a communication breakdown which involves meaning negotiation (Swain & Lapkin, 1995), including feedback and modified output.
The present research sets out to answer the following research questions.
• What are the characteristics of the LREs produced in each group (different L1 versus same L1 dyads) in terms of type of triggers (lexical, phonetic, and morphosyntactic)?
• Which LREs lead to more meaning negotiation, modified output, and feedback?
• What type of feedback is provided, and which type leads to more modified output and gets more noticed?

Participants and procedures
Seventy-two language learners at two universities, one in Canada and one in Spain, were divided into two groups. The first 36 participants took part in a virtual exchange where learners were paired up with a proficient speaker of the target language they were learning and carried out three oral communicative tasks using a videoconferencing tool. The other 36 participants, Spanish-speakers learning English at the Spanish university, carried out the same oral communicative tasks in English and online following the same procedures. The tasks consisted of three two-way open-ended communicative tasks which involved information exchange, decision-making, and comparison and analysis of information. The sessions were recorded and yielded 108 oral tasks (70 hours). Seven hundred and ninety-three LREs were identified, transcribed, and coded according to their length, dyad type, trigger type, amount and type of feedback, modified output, meaning negotiation, and resolution.

Results
Table 1 below displays that 36 dyads produced 793 LREs. Lexical triggers fostered more LREs regardless of the dyad type (53% and 64%), followed by global-misunderstanding triggers in the case of the same-L1 group (34%) and morphosyntactic ones (20%) in the case of the different-L1 group. However, out of the 54 interactive tasks carried out between same L1 dyads, 37 failed to produce any LREs. If we compare the amount of LREs produced overall, we observe that only 4% (N=32) are produced by learners in same L1 dyads. Within the same L1 group, we can observe how some triggers produced very few LREs: one phonetic trigger and four morphosyntactic ones. This made the comparison between dyads extremely challenging and hindered its generalizability. Therefore, this paper will only focus on the characteristics of dyads within the different L1 group.   When examining the types of feedback produced, in Table 3 we can observe that the great majority of the feedback learners provided to their partners were in the form of explicit corrections (N=192). Explicit corrections were also the ones which were more noticed (N=186) along with elicitations, which were noticed in more than half the time. Recasts, however, in two out of three cases got mostly ignored or not understood. Whenever they got noticed, elicitations lead to modified output at higher rates (75%) than any other feedback type. Recasts lead to modified output on two out of five occasions and explicit corrections, although they got more noticed, only lead to modified output in 24% of occasions.

Discussion and conclusions
The first finding underscores the fact that interactions between different L1 dyads taking part in a VE foster more meaning negotiation than interactions between same L1 dyads carrying out similar tasks, which is consistent with other findings (Bueno-Alastuey, 2013). Although earlier studies indicated that different LRE triggers showed similar numbers of instances of negotiation and feedback (Kenning, 2010), the current paper has observed a clear tendency for global triggers to produce more meaning negotiation and phonetic ones to lead to more modified output. This is consistent with findings by Lyster (2001) and with Bueno Alastuey (2011) who also found more modified output following phonetic triggers. On the other hand, morphosyntactic triggers led to more feedback, in the shape of explicit corrections which get more noticed, also observed by Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006).
This study contributes to the growing body of research underscoring the benefits of learner-to-learner interaction in voice-based SCMC for L2 development. The ability to direct learners' attention to linguistic elements (focus-on-form) in meaning-related tasks, pivotal for the development of the target language, can be observed in the LREs allowing for comprehensible input, corrective feedback, and modified output to occur.

5.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16 (3), 371-391. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371 Disclaimer: Research-publishing.net does not take any responsibility for the content of the pages written by the authors of this book. The authors have recognised that the work described was not published before, or that it was not under consideration for publication elsewhere. While the information in this book is believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the editorial team nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions. The publisher makes no warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. While Researchpublishing.net is committed to publishing works of integrity, the words are the authors' alone.
Trademark notice: product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Copyrighted material: every effort has been made by the editorial team to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permission for the use of copyrighted material in this book. In the event of errors or omissions, please notify the publisher of any corrections that will need to be incorporated in future editions of this book.