Post on 01-Mar-2023
369
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
CALICO Journal, 28(2),p-p369-391. ©2011CALICO Journal
SCMC for SLA: A Research Synthesis
Shannon Sauro
University of Texas at San Antonio
ABSTRACT
Thisresearchsynthesisexplorestheroleofsynchronouscomputer-mediatedcommu-nication(SCMC)forsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA).UsingHymes’(1971)notionofcommunicativecompetenceandCanaleandSwain’s(1980;Canale,1983)subsequentframeworkforcommunicativelanguageteaching,thesynthesisexaminestheresearchtrends,methods,andfindingsaddressedbyjournalarticleswhichhaveevaluatedtheroleofSCMCforSLAoverthepast20years.
KEYWORDS
CommunicativeCompetence,synchronousComputer-mediatedCommunication,SecondLanguageAc-quisition(SLA),LanguageDevelopment,LanguageUse
INTRODUCTION
Inherseminal1997article,Chapellecalledonresearchincomputer-assistedlanguagelearn-ing(CALL)toincorporatetheoreticalparadigmsandresearchmethodologiesfromthefieldofsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA)toinvestigatethedesign,use,andeffectivenessofCALLmaterialsandpractices.Sincethen,asubstantialbodyofresearchonsynchronouscomput-er-mediatedcommunication(SCMC)has looked toprominent interactionist,cognitive,andsociocognitiveapproachesinSLAtoinvestigatetwocriticalquestionsChapelleidentifiedtoevaluatetheroleofCALLinsecondlanguage(L2)learning:
1. WhatkindoflanguagedoesthelearnerengageinduringaCALLactivity?2. HowgoodisthelanguageexperienceinCALLforL2learning?(p.28)
Thepurposeofthispaper,therefore,istoprovideasynthesisofresearchonSCMCtoinves-tigatethetrendsandtopicsthathavebeenexaminedinresponsetotheseguidingquestionstoexploretheroleofSCMCforSLA.
ToreflecttherangeofmethodologiesandepistemologiesofSCMCresearchusedtoinvesti-gateL2development,SLAisoperationalizedasthedevelopmentofcommunicativecompe-tence(Hymes,1971)intheL2.Fromthisperspective,SLAencompassesthedevelopmentofthelinguistic,psycholinguistic,sociolinguistic,andprobabilisticproperties(Canale&Swain,1980)ofthetargetlanguage.Assuch,equatingSLAwiththedevelopmentofcommunicativecompetence(e.g.,seeSchmidt,1983)allowsfortheinclusionofSCMCstudieswhichexplorethedevelopmentofculturallyandcontextuallysituatedrulesandnormsforlanguageuseinadditiontothedevelopmentofdiscretelanguageformsandrulesofgrammar.
Accordingly,thissynthesisisorganizedusingtheconceptualframeworkforcommunicativecompetencedevisedbyCanaleandSwain(1980;Canale,1983),whotransformedandrein-terpretedHymes’(1971)notionofcommunicativecompetenceintofourskillorknowledge
370
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
areas (Leung, 2005)meant to serve as guidelines for communicative language teaching:grammatical competence, sociocultural competence, discourse competence, and strategiccompetence.
Communicative Competence in SCMC
Grammatical competenceencompassesknowledgeofdiscreteunits of languageand rulesgoverningtheiruse(Canale&Swain,1980).StudiesofSCMCthataddressthedevelopmentofgrammaticalcompetenceincludethosethatinvestigatetheacquisitionofnewvocabulary(e.g.Smith,2004)orthedevelopmentofmorphosyntax(e.g.Salaberry,2000).
Sociolinguisiccompetenceconcernsknowledgeoftheappropriacyofutterances,communi-cativefunctions,andspeechactswithinagivencontext(Canale&Swain,1980).Assuch,studiesofSCMCthatinvestigateissuessuchaslanguagesocializationinchatenvironments(e.g.Lam,2004),andSCMCpragmatics(e.g.Collentine,2009)addressthedevelopmentofsociolinguisticcompetence.
Discoursecompetencedescribesknowledgeandskillsinusingrulesfor“cohesioninformandcoherenceinmeaning”(Canale,1983,p.9)acrossconceptuallyunifiedutterancesorstretch-es of discourse. Studies of SCMC that address the development of discourse competencemightexaminelearners’cohesionstrategies(e.g.useofreferentialterms,directrepetition,etc.)tounifynonsequentialturnsinsmall-grouptext-chatinteraction(e.g.Negretti,1999)orlearners’segmentingorchunkingoffullsentencesandideasacrossmultiplesequentialtrans-missionunits(Baron,2008)tosuccessfullyconveymeaninginthenonlinearandoverlappingenvironmentoftext-chat.
Strategic competence, initiallydefinedas “verbal andnonverbal communication strategiesthatmaybecalledintoactiontocompensateforbreakdownsincommunicationduetoper-formancevariablesor to insufficientcompetence”(Canale&Swain,1980,p.30)hasalsocometoincludetheuseofverbalandnonverbalcommunicationstrategies“toenhancetheeffectivenessofcommunication”(Canale,1983,p.9).WithinSCMC,studies thatexaminehowandwhenlearnersnegotiateformeaningduringsmall-groupordyadicinteraction(e.g.Blake,2000)reflectthecompensatorysideofstrategiccompetence.SCMCstudiesthatlookatlearners’useofmodality(e.g.,Sauro,2009b)orlinguisticcode1(e.g.Lam,2004)toreno-gotiatetheirpositionorachievetheircommunicationgoalembodytheenhancementcompo-nentofstrategiccompetence.
ThispaperisdividedintofoursectionsthatexplorethemajorSLAconstructs,trends,andmethodsfromresearchonSCMCforSLAthatareassociatedwitheachcompetence.Eachsectionreturns toChapelle’s (1997) twoguidingquestions to identifystudies thatexploreboththekindoflanguagelearnersengageinduringSCMCaswellasstudiesthatexploretheeffectivenessofSCMCforthedevelopmentofaparticularcompetence.
METHOD
Retrieval of Relevant Studies
For this researchsynthesis, retrievalof relevantstudieswasconductedusinga twostageelectronicsearchthatfocusedonidentifyingSCMCstudiesin16EnglishlanguagejournalsinCALLandappliedlinguistics.ThejournalsselectedforinvestigationwereguidedbySmithandLafford(2009)whosurveyedCALLresearcherstoevaluateandrankjournalsinCALLand
371
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
appliedlinguisticsaccordingtotheirpotentialbenefitfortenureandpromotion.Thetop15rankedjournalswereselectedforinclusion.AlsoincludedwastheonlineCALLjournal,CALL-EJ Online,whichhadbeenidentifiedbySmithandLafford’s informantsasthefifth-rankedEnglishlanguageCALL-specificjournal.
Thus,the16publicationsintiallytargetedinthissynthesisincludedfiveCALL-specificjournals(CALICO Journal,CALL-EJ Online,Computer Assisted Language Learning,Language Learn-ing & Technology,ReCALL)and11appliedlinguisticsjournals(Applied Linguistic, Canadian Modern Language Review, Foreign Language Annals, Journal of Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Language Testing, International Review of Applied Linguistics, The Modern Lan-guage Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, System, TESOL Quarterly).Althoughthese16publicationsdonotrepresentanexhaustivereviewofallpossiblepublications inapplied linguistics or educational technology, their ranking by Smith and Lafford’s (2009)informantssuggestthatthisgroupofpublicationsislikelytoencompassasizeableandrep-resentativebodyofrelevantstudiesinvestigatingtheuseofCMCforSLA.
ThefirststageoftheelectronicsearchwasconductedusingtheonlineresearchdatabasesLinguistics and LanguageBehaviorAbstracts (LLBA) andEducationResources InformationClearinghouse(ERIC).2Abroadanywheresearchwasusedfortheterm‘computer-mediatedcommunication’ in any of the subfields coupledwith a restricted search using the title ofthejournalintheJournalNamesubfield.Thisanywheresearchenabledtheidentificationofstudiesthatincludedthesearchterminthetitle,keyword,andabstractsubfieldswithinaparticularjournal.
Thesecondstageoftheelectronicsearchwasconductedusingtheelectroniconlinesearchfunctionsavailableforeachofthepublications.Forpublicationswhosesearchfunctionsen-abled a full-text search, a broad anywhere search of the expression ‘computer-mediatedcommunication’restrictedtothedates1990-2010broughtupadditionalarticlesthathadnotbeencapturedbythefirststageoftheelectronicsearch.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Throughthis initialelectronicsearchatotalof302studieswereidentifiedinthetargettedjournals.Toqualifyforanalysis,eachofthestudieswasreviewedusingthefollowinginclusionandexclusioncriteria:
InclusionCriteria1. Thestudywaspublishedbetween1990andApril2010.3
2. ThestudymadeuseofsomeformofSCMC(e.g.,text-chat,audioconferenc-ing,bimodalchat,orvideoconferencing)eithera. exclusively,orb. inconjunctionwithotherinstructionaltools(e.g.,software)orasynchro-
nousCMC(ACMC;e.g.,emailordiscussionboards)asisoftenthecasewithbilingualtelecollaborations.Insuchinstances,however,theuseofSCMCandfindingsattributedprimarily toSCMCwereclearandsuffi-cientlyextensivetowarrantinclusioninastudyofSCMCforSLA.
3. InkeepingwithChapelle’s(1997)guidingquestions,thestudyaddressedeithera. thenatureofthelanguageproducedduringSCMC,and/orb. theeffectofSCMConL2learning.
372
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
ExclusionCriteria1. ThestudyusedonlyACMC.2. ThestudyusedSCMCinconjunctionwithACMCorotherinstructionaltools
(e.g.,software),butthedegreetowhichfindingswereattributedexclusive-lyorprimarilytoSCMCwasunclearornotsufficientlydetailedtowarrantinclusioninastudyofSCMCforSLA.
3. Thestudydidnotaddresseitherthenatureof languageproducedduringSCMCortheeffectofSCMConL2learning.Thisdesignationincludedstud-ieswhoseprimaryfocusincludeda. studentattitudeorbeliefsregardingSCMC,b. pedagogicalrecommendationsforusingSCMC,c. materialsdevelopment,andd. theoreticalpositionpapers.
4. TheparticipantsinthestudywerenotidentifiedinanywayasL2learners.Typically,thesestudiesinvestigatedtheuseofSCMCasatoolforteacherpreparation.Whileitispossiblethatsomeoralloftheseteachersintrain-ingwerealsoL2learnersofthelanguagestheywerebeingtrainedtoteach,iftheparticipantswerenotpositionedaslanguagelearners,thesestudiesweredeterminednottobestudiesofSLA.
Ofthe302SCMCarticlesidentifiedintheinitialelectronicsearch,97metthecriteriaforin-clusion(seetheAppendixforthefulllistofstudies).Ofthese97studies,71werefoundinthefiveCALLjournalswiththeremaining26foundin7ofthe11appliedlinguisticsjournals.Table1presentsabreakdownofincludedandexcludedarticlesforeachofthetargetedpub-lications.
Table1IncludedandExcludedArticlesfromTargetPublications
Journal Included Excluded Total
CALICO JournalCALL-EJ OnlineComputer-Assisted Langauge LearningLanguage Learning & TechnologyReCALL
Applied LinguisticsCanadian Modern Language ReviewForeign Language AnnalsJournal of Applied LinguisticsLanguage LearningLanguage TestingInternational Review of Applied LinguisticsThe Modern Language JournalStudies in Second Language AcquisitionSystemTESOL Quarterly
24217235
15100007282
4514303827
187200170214
6916476132
21382001142296
Total 97 205 302
AsTable1shows,noCMCstudieswerefoundintwooftheappliedlinguisticsjournals(Lan-guage Learningand Language Testing)withtheInternational Review of Applied Linguistics
373
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
andJournal of Applied Linguistics,accountingforoneandtwoexcludedstudies,respectively.Ofthe7remainingappliedlinguisticsjournals,SystemandThe Modern Language Journalac-countedformorethanhalfofthe26studiesnotfoundinCALLjournalsthatwereincludedinthisreview.
Anoverviewofcertaincharacteristicsofthesestudiesrevealsthatallbutfourdealtwithadultlanguagelearners,whowereidentifiedprimarilyasuniversitystudents.ThefourexceptionsincludedSatarandOzdenar’s(2008)studyofTurkishhighschoollearnersofEnglish,Lam’s(2000) and (2004) case studies of U.S. high school ESL learners of English, and Smith’s(2009b)studyofU.S.middleschoolESLlearners.
Withrespecttolanguage,10differenttargetlanguageswereidentified,withEnglishservingasthemostcommontargetlanguage.Ofthese10languages,English,German,andSpanishaccountedfor80%ofthelanguagesinthe97articles.Inaddition,allbut7ofthesestudiesconcernedEuropeantargetlanguages.ThebreakdownoftargetlanguagesisshowninTable2.
Table2TargetLanguage(s)ofIncludedStudies
TargetLanguages Number
EnglishGermanSpanishFrenchJapaneseItalianChineseKoreanPortugueseRussian
4823217432111
Total* 114
*Duetotheinclusionoftandemprojectsorotherstudiesinwhichtherewasmorethanonetargetlanguage,thisnumberisgreaterthanthetotalnumberofstudies(N=97)includedinthereview.
RESULTS
Grammatical Competence
Researchongrammaticalcompetence,which includesknowledgeof the lexiconaswellasdiscretelinguisticformsandrules(Canale&Swain,1980)isthemostexploredcompetence,having been the object of substantial research, particularly from studies that draw uponcognitive(e.g.Lai&Zhao,2006;Payne&Whitney,2002)andcognitivie-interactionist(e.g.Sauro, 2009a; Smith, 2005) approaches to SLA. A total of 48 studies addressed the de-velopmentofgrammaticalcompetence.Theseincludedstudiesthatdescribedthequantity,complexity,andaccuracyofmorphosyntaxandlexisoflearnerperformanceduringSCMCorcomparedL2performanceduringSCMCwithL2performanceinotherinteractionalcontexts(e.g.,face-to-faceoralinteractionorACMC).OtherstudieshaveinvestigatedwhetherSCMCitselfcanbeusedtofacilitateprocesses(e.g.,noticing,uptake,orlanguage-relatedepisodes)thatmayimpactthedevelopmentofgrammaticalcompetence.Stillothershaveinvestigated
374
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
whethertheSCMCmediumitselforaparticularinterventionadministeredviaSCMCresultsinimprovedknowledgeorproductionofspecificvocabularyitems,linguisticforms,orrules.
Thequantity,complexity,andaccuracyofL2performanceinSCMC
Descriptionofthequantitiy,complexity,andaccuracyofL2morphosyntaxandlexisduringSCMCincludesKelm’searly(1992)discussionofcomputer-assistedclassdiscussions(CACD)carried out by U.S. university learners of Portuguesewhich showed that learners used awiderangeofgrammaticalformsandverbconstructionsduringtext-chatdiscussions.SimilaranalysisofthesyntacticandgrammaticalcomplexityoflearnerpeformanceinCACDwasalsocarriedoutbyChun(1994)onlearnersofGerman.Tyingtheiranalysisoflearnerperformanceduringbimodal chat to a course curriculum,Meskill andAnthony (2007) found that adultlearners of Russian incorporated linguistic forms introduced in coursematerials into theirSCMCinteractions,includingaccusativecaseaftertransitiveverbs,genetivecase,formulaicexpressions,andcomparativesofadjectives.InastudyoflearnerperformanceduringvoicechatLamy’s(2004)Frenchlearnersdemonstratedgrammaticalcompetencethroughgenderandverbagreementaswellasaccurateorpartiallyaccurateuseoftargetformsneededtoexpressafuturecourseofaction.
Influencedinpartbythesomewhatspeech-likenatureoftext-chat,studiesthattakeacom-parative view of L2 grammatical complexity and lexical richness in different interactionalcontextshaveoftencomparedtext-chatwithface-to-facespokeninteractions.ThisincludessomeoftheearliestpublishedresearchstudiesonSCMCforSLAsuchasKern’s(1995)com-parisonofwholeclassdiscussionsandWarschauer’s(1996)studyofsmallgroupdiscussionsinface-to-faceandtext-chat.OtherstudiescomparingSCMCandface-to-faceinteractionin-cludeBeauvois’(1998)comparisonofthevarietyandcomplexityofsentencetypesproducedinFrench,Böhlke’s(2003)investigationofdevelopmentallymorecomplexGermansentencestructures,andFitze’s(2006)analysisoflexicalvariety.
Thequantityandcomplexityof learneroutput inSCMChasalsobeencomparedwiththatfoundinACMC.This includesSotillo’s(2000)comparisonofthesyntacticcomplexity(em-beddingandsubordinationinsentences)producedintext-chat(SCMC)anddiscussion-boardpostings(ACMC)andPérez’s(2003)comparisonoftotallexicaloutputintext-chat(SCMC)versuselectronicjournals(ACMC).
AfinalsubsetofcomparisonstudieshasalsolookedatL2performanceindifferentSCMCcon-ditions.ThisincludesSander’s(2006)studyoftotallexicaloutputandspellingaccuracydur-ingin-classandoutside-of-classtext-chatsaswellasSauroandSmith’s(2010)comparisonofthelexicaldiversityandmorphosyntacticcomplexityintext-chatindeleted,nondeleted,orpostdeletedtext-chatoutput.
Facilitatinglearningprocesses
MovingbeyondadescriptionoflearnerproductionduringSCMC,otherstudieshaveinvesti-gatedthepresenceandfrequencyofprocessesandbehaviorshypothesizedtosupportthedevelopmentofgrammaticalcompetence.TheseincludeanumberofstudiesthatdrawuponcognitiveapproachestoSLAaswellasstudiessituatedinmoresociocognitiveapproaches.
SeveralstudieshaveinvestigatedwhetherSCMCintheformoftext-chatisaneffectiveenvi-ronmentforfacilitatinglearners’attentiontotargetlanguageformstoenablethemtonoticethegap(seeSchmidt&Frota,1986),definedasrecognizingmismatchesbetweenwhatone
375
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
saysandtarget-likenorms.Inbimodalvoice-/text-chat,Blake(2005)observedthepresenceofnoticingthegapwhileintext-chat,andShekaryandTahriran(2006)documentedtheoc-currenceoflearnersnoticingthegap.Studieshavealsoevaluatedthedegreeofnoticingthatoccursintext-chatfollowingtheprovisionofcertaintypesofcorrectivefeedback(Lai&Zhao,2006)bynativeornonnative-speakinginterlocutors(Sotillo,2000)andwhethertheamountofnoticingwasinfluencedbythecontingencyofthefeedbackorlearners’workingmemorycapacity(Lai,Fei,&Roots,2008).
Otherstudieshavedocumentedtheoccurrenceofform-focusedepisodesthatariseduringorasaresultofSCMC.ThisincludesLevyandKennedy’s(2004)useofstimulatedrecalltoelicitattentiontoformfollowingvoice-chatsessions,Lee’s(2008)examinationofwhethernative-speaker/nonnative-speakercollaborationsintext-chatsupportform-focusedcorrectivefeed-back,andLoewenandReissner’s(2009)comparisonoftheamountandtypeofgrammati-calemphasisinform-focusedepisodesthatoccurinmonitoredandunmonitoredtext-chat.Severalstudieshavefocusedinparticularontheoccurrenceof language-relatedepisodes,definedbySwainandLapkin(1998)aslearner-initiateddiscussionofthelanguageformsthatmayincludetalkabouttheirownproduction,questionsofuse,andself-orother-correction.For instance,GengandTakatsuka(2009)explored the frequencyof language-relatedepi-sodesthatlearnersengagedinduringcollaborativetasks,andYilmazandGranena(2010)investigatedtheeffectsoftasksonthefrequencyoflanguage-relatedepisodes.
Asubsetof these form-focusedstudieshasalso lookedat theoccurrenceofself-repair indifferent SCMC environments. Smith’s (2008) use of screen-capture software revealed ahigherleveloflearner-initiatedself-repairduringtext-chatthandocumentedbyanalysisofchatscriptsalone,and, in videoandvoice-chat, YamadaandAkahori (2009)explored theimpactof interlocutor imageon theamountof self-repair. In their examinationof learnerdeletionandeditingintext-chat,SmithandSauro(2009)foundthatlearnerscreatedmorecomplexoutput followingself-initiateddeletions than followingdeletions initiatedby inter-ruptingturnspostedbytheirpartners.
DrawinguponsocioculturalapproachestoSLA,Warner’s(2004)sociointeractionistexplorationoflearnerlanguageinaMOOdocumentedlearners’useofcross-linguisticlanguageplay,acomponentofadvancedL2proficiency(Cook,2000),intheformofpunningwithspecifictar-getlanguagelexicalitems.AlsodrawinguponsocioculturalapproachestoSLA,Oskoz(2005)foundevidenceoflearnersprogressingfromother-toself-regulateduseofspecificSpanishlanguageformsduringtext-chatinteraction.Inalaterstudy,Oskoz(2009)alsoinvestigatedtheamountofassistancelearnersprovidedtoeachanotherduringSCMCinteraction.
Effectonlexicalandgrammaticalknowledgeorproduction
Among the 48 studies addressing grammatical competence, nearly half have investigatedwhetherSCMCitselforaparticularinterventionadministeredviaSCMCresultedinimprovedknowledgeorproductionofspecificvocabularyitemsorlinguisticforms.ThisincludesstudiesthatexaminethetransferofspecificgrammaticalskillsandknowledgefromSCMCtospeech(e.g.Blake,Wilson,Cetto,&Pardo-Ballester,2008;Payne&Ross,2005)andwriting(e.g.Liang,2010;Sullivan&Pratt,1996).MeasuresoflexicalandgrammaticalskilltransferfromSCMCtospeechincludelexicalrichness,lexicaldensity,syntacticcomplexity(Abrams,2003;Hirotani,2009),accuracyofwordchoice(Hirotani,2009),andaccuracyofvocabularyandgrammaruse(Abuseileek,2007;Payne&Whitney,2002;Satar&Ozdenar,2008).Measuresofskillandknowledgetransfertowritinghavefocusedoneffectiveuseofverbforms(Coniam&Wong,2004),revisionoflocalerrorsinrevisedwriting(Liang,2010),andholisticscoringofwritingsamples.
376
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
Otherstudies,oftenemployingarepeatedmeasuresdesign,haveusedform-specificteststomeasurethedevelopmentoflexicalorgrammaticalknowledgeasaresultofSCMCinterac-tionoraspecificpedagogicalinterventionthatisadministeredduringSCMC.Studiesusingrepeated-measurestoassesslexicaldevelopmentfollowingtext-chatincludedelaFuente’s(2003)analysisofthedevelopmentofreceptiveandproductiveknowledgeofSpanishfood-relatednouns,Canado’s(2010)examinationofdepthandbreadthofvocabularyknowledge,andSmith’s(2004,2005)seriesofstudiesinvestigatingtheeffectsofmodifiedinteractiononvocabularyacquisition.FocusedtestshavealsobeenusedtomeasurethedevelopmentofspecificgrammaticalknowledgefollowingSCMCsuchasSalaberry’s(2000)pilotstudyofthedevelopmentofpasttenseSpanishverbendingsfollowingtext-chat,Fiori’s(2005)examina-tionoftheeffectofconsciousnessraisingduringtext-chatonlearners’distinctionofpor/paraandser/estarinSpanish,aswellasLoewenandErlam’s(2006)andSauro’s(2009a)studyoftheeffectofdifferenttypesofcomputer-mediatedcorrectivefeedbackonlearners’knowledgeoftheEnglishpasttense-edandthezeroarticle,respectively.Additionalfocusedassessment-basedstudiesoflexicalandgrammaticaldevelopmentfollowingSCMCincludetwothatusedpostteststhatweredesignedspecificallyforthetargetofthelanguage-relatedepisodesthatoccurredduringtheSCMCinteraction(Geng&Takatsuka,2009;Shekary&Tahriran,2006).
Sociolinguistic Competence
AlsotheobjectofsignificantSCMCresearchissociolinguisticcompetence,whichencompassesknowledgeoftherelationshipbetweenlanguageandcontext(Canale&Swain,1980).Byitsverynature,SCMCintroducesamyriadoftechnological,culturalandmutilingualfactorsintoL2interactionalcontexts,whichisreflectedinthebroadrangeofissuesaddressedbythe22studiesfoundtofocusonthedevelopmentofsociolinguisticcompetenceduringorasaresultofSCMC.ResearchofthiscompetencehasmostoftendrawnfromsocioculturalanddiscourseanalyticapproachestoSLAandhasexaminedsuchissuesasspeechactsandparticipantroles(e.g.Abrams,2001),thedevelopmentofappropriatesociopragmaticsduringSCMC(e.g.Belz&Kinginger,2002),andlanguagesocializationthroughSCMC(e.g.Lam,2004).
Speechacts,discoursefunctions,andparticipantroles
StudieswhichhaveexploredthevarietyofdiscoursefunctionsandspeechactsthatL2learn-ersengageinduringSCMChaveexaminedbothproductiveandunproductivebehavior.Thisincludescross-modalcomparisonsoftherangeofspeechacts,discoursefunctions,andpar-ticipantroleslearnersproduceduringlarge-orsmall-groupinteraction.Forinstance,Kern’s(1995)comparisonoftext-chatdiscussionswithface-to-facediscussionsfoundthatstudentsusedawidervarietyofdiscoursefunctionsinchat,includinggreetings,assertions,questions,commands,andself-corrections.Similarly,Sotillo’s(2000)comparisonofemailandtext-chatalsofoundmorediscoursefunctionspresentinSCMCthaninACMC.Incomparingtherangeofinteractantrolesandspeechactsintext-chatwithwrittenjournalentries,Abrams(2001)foundthatinadditiontotheparticipantrolesfoundinbothcontexts(e.g.,speaker,scolder,respondant,commenter,informant,questioner,knower,orcreatorofgroupidentity)chatin-cludedtheadditionalparticipantrolesofchallenger,supporter,andjoker.
Withintext-chat,Abrams’(2008)focusonopeningandclosingsequencesproducedbyU.S.learnersofGermanfoundmultiturnandelaborateopeningandclosingsequences.Uponcloseexamination,shealsouncoveredevidenceofnegativesociopragmatictransferingreetingsinwhichlearnersused“Wie geht’s?”(How’sitgoing?)asagreetinginsteadofasasocioprag-maticallyappropriaterequest for information.Similarspeechacts, includinggreetingsandleave-takingwereexaminedinDarhower’s(2002)studyof9weeksoftext-chatinteractionsbylearnersofSpanish.
377
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
Investigatingabroaderrangeofspeechactsandparticipantroles,Chun’s(1994)semester-longstudyrevealedthatduringtext-chatbeginninglearnersofGermanemployednumerousdiscoursemanagementstrategiessuchasaskingandansweringquestions,givingfeedbackandexpandingonmessagesinitiatedbyothers.InabilingualGerman-EnglishMOO,Schwein-horst’s(2004)analysisofthefrequencyofthespeechactsassociatedwithtopicinitiationandtopicnegotiationshowedthatalthoughtopicinitiationwasbalancedforbothhigh-proficiencyparticipants(GermanlearnersofEnglish)andlow-proficiencyparticipants(EnglishlearnersofGerman),GermanspeakersweremorelikelytoinitiatetopicswithWH-questionsthanwereEnglish-speakerswhenoperatingintheirfirstlanguage(L1).
WithinmultimodalSCMCcontexts,severalstudieshavelookedattheimpactofboththeSCMCmediumandcharacteristicsofthechatcontextontheperformanceandfrequencyofcertaindiscoursefunctions.Forinstance,Lamy(2004)observedlearnersofFrenchutilizingcertainfeaturesofthechattoolinadditiontolinguisticmeanstoperformavarietyofdiscoursefunc-tions(e.g.,signalingtemporaryleave-taking,biddingforthefloor,andgivingupthefloor).Inexamininganothercontextualfactorfoundinvoice-chat,Collentine’s(2009)qualitativeandquantitativeanalysisofL2Spanishlearnerdiscourseduringtask-basedinteractionshowedthatthetypeofholisticlanguageunitsproducedweremediatedbytaskcharacteristicsandlearnerproficiency.
StudiesthathaveexaminednonproductiveorpotentiallydisruptivespeechactsanddiscoursefunctionsduringSCMCincludethosethatdocumentcommunicationbreakdownorconflictre-sultingfromthelackoffamiliaritywithtargetlanguageorsocietalnorms.WhileculturalandinstititutionallydrivensourcesoftheseconflictswereinitallyaddressedinstudiesofACMC(e.g.,Belz,2001),linguisticallydrivensourcesofconflictinspeechactmiscommunicationhasbeentheprimaryfocusofSCMCresearch.Forinstance,inevaluatingthesourcesofnegotia-tionsequencesencounteredbyAustralianuniversitylearnersofItalianwhointeractedwithunfamiliar Italiannativespeakers inonlinechatrooms,Tudini (2007) found thatof the37totalinterculturalnegotiations,21weresociopragmaticandincludedlearners’useofincor-recttermsofaddressaswellasbreakdownsarisingfromunfamiliarorinformalopeningandclosingsequences.
Withinnonnative-speaker/nonnative-speakerchatdiscourse,potentiallydisruptivediscoursefunctionshavealsobeenobservedincasesinwhichlearnersmisappropriatenativespeakerdiscourseinaclassroomcontext.ThiscanbeseeninAbrams’(2003b)explorationofflamingintext-chat.Whileflamingintheformofrudeoroffensivelanguagewasusedproductivelytoteaseandfosterinterpersonalrelationshipsamongpeers(seealsoDarhower,2002),misusesoftargetlanguageexpressionsthatweresemanticallymorenegativeoroffensivethantheirnative-languagecognatesresultedinoccasionalinadvertentflaming.
ExtendingworkcarriedoutonACMCinteractionintrans-Atlantictelecollaboration(e.g.,Belz2001),Ware(2005) investigatedthebroaderculturallyand institutionallydrivendiscoursenormsthat leadtopotentiallynonproductivespeechactsandtensionduringthereal-timechatcomponentofaGerman-UStelecollaboration.Analysisofchatscriptsandpostinteractioninterviewdatarevealedtensionsthataroseasaresultofmismatchesinculturallysituatednormsforthetasksandspeecheventsineducationalcontexts,whatBelz(2001)referstoasinstitutionalizedclassroomscripts.Asaresultofdifferingexpectationstowardthepurposeandfunctionofthesebilingualchatsessions,differencesinlinguisticformalityandtheuseofdiscoursefunctionswerenoticeable.Thiswasmanifested,forexample,inanimbalanceinthenumberofquestionsinitiatedbythetwogroups,withtheGermanparticipantsraisingfarmorequestionsthantheU.S.particpants,manyofwhomapproachedthevirtualpartnershipasanotheracademictasktobecompletedinfulfillmentofcourserequirements.
378
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
Asseenfromtheabovediscussion,mostresearchonthefrequencyandtypeofspeechacts,discoursefunctions,andparticipantrolesthatemergeinSCMChasbeendescriptive.Ano-tableexceptionisthatofSykes’(2005)repeatedmeasuresstudyofL2speechactdevelop-ment,whichcomparedgainsinSpanishlearners’performanceofrefusalsfollowinginterac-tionintwodifferentSCMCconditions(voice-chatandtext-chat).Whilebothgroups(andacontrolface-to-facecondition)improvedtosomeextent,thetext-chatgroupoutperformedboththevoice-chatandface-to-facegroupintermsofthecomplexityandvarietyofrefusals.Sykesattributedthisdifferencetothenatureofthetext-chatmedium,whichcarriedlesstimepressurethanvoice-chatandenabledlearnerstoproducemoreelaborateandlessformulaicrefusals.
Appropriacyofform
A second subset of SCMC studies investigating the development of sociolinguistic compe-tencehasfocusedinparticularonlearners’useordevelopmentofpragmaticallyappropriatelanguageformsduringorfollowingSCMCwithnativespeakersofthetargetlanguage.Thisincludeslearners’varyingabilitytousetheappropriatesecondpersonpronouninGerman(Belz&Kinginger,2002),French (Lamy,2004;Thorne,2003),and Italian (Tudini,2007).ThroughSCMCinteraction,learnerswereobservedtoreceivepeerassistanceandtoengagein intercultural negotiations that focused on the appropriate termof address. In Thorne’sstudy,whichincorporatedaposttelecollaborationinterview,afocalparticipantidentifiedthechatinteractionwithherkeypalascrucialinsolidifyingherawarenessandabilitytoapplythispragmaticfeature.
Alsoaddressingpragmaticappropriacychangeovertime,Chung,Graves,Wesche,andBar-furth(2005)observedthegradualadoptionoftheKoreanhonorificsystemintext-chatbyheritageandgeneration1.5CanadianstudentsinaweekendKoreanlanguageprogram.Whilenotinvolvingissuesofformalityofaddress,BelzandVyatkina(2005,2008)exploredlearn-ers’useofGermanmodalparticlessuchasebenanddochusedtoconveyspeakerattitude.ByapplyingmicrogeneticanalysistoacorpusofCMCouptutproducedduringaGerman-U.S.telecollaboration,theywereabletoobservethe increasedemergenceofpragmaticallyap-propriatemodalparticlesbysomeoftheGermanL2learners.
Takingacross-sectionallookatappropriacyofform,VanCompernolleandWilliams(2009)usedacorpus-basedapproachtoanalyzethelangugeoffirst-,second-andthird-yearstu-dentsofFrenchtocomparestylisticvariationintext-chat.Analysisofchatscriptsforvariabil-ityinyes/noquestionformationaswellasuseofthereferentialpronounsnousoronfoundthatmoreadvancedL2learnersofFrenchapproximatednativespeakernorms.
Languagesocialization
Languagesocializationhasbeendescribedastheprocessofsocializingspeakersintousinganewlanguageaswellastheprocessoflearninghowtobecomeamemberofacommunitythroughlanguage(Riley,2008).ItisthefirstofthesetwoprocesseswhichisrelevantforthedevelopmentofsociolinguisticcompetenceintheL2andwhichhasbeenexploredthroughSCMCstudiesthathavelookedatthedevelopmentoflearneridentitiythroughlanguageuse.ThisisexemplifiedinLam’s(2000,2004)casestudiesofU.S.-basedimmigrantESLlearners.
Inthefirstofthesestudies,Lam(2000)followedonelearner’suseofbothACMCandSCMCtoadvancehisEnglishidentityandcomputerliteracydevelopmentinwhichheappropriated
379
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
thelanguageofpoppsychology,religion,andyouthinternettermsinhisonlineinteractioninEnglish.Inasubsequentstudy,Lam(2004)exploredthediscoursepracticesandlanguagesocializationofU.S.ESLlearnerswhoparticipatedinbilingualchatrooms.Inthisstudy,thelearners relieduponCantonese-English code-switching in their chatdiscourseasameansthroughwhichtheyconstructedabilingualidentity.
Discourse Competence
Thedevelopmentofdiscoursecompetence,whichencapsulatestheabilitytosupportcohesionandcoherenceacrosslongerstretchesofdiscourseormultipleshorterutterances(Canale&Swain,1980),isthecompetencethathasreceivedtheleastamountofattentioninstudiesofSCMC.Thisisdueperhapstotheabbreviatedandconversation-likefeaturesofSCMC(Danet&Herring,2007).Intotal11studieswereidentifiedwhichexploredthedevelopmentofdis-coursecompetencethroughSCMC.Theseincludedstudiesthatexaminedthedevelopmentofspecificdiscoursefeaturesusedtosupportcoherenceandcohesionintext-chat,medium-specificstrategiesformaintainingcohesionandcoherenceacrossmultipleoverlappingturns,andtheimpactofSCMCondiscoursecompetenceinothermodalities.
MaintainingcoherenceandcohesioninSCMC
Researchon learners’developmentofdiscoursecompetencewithinSCMC includesstudiesthatexaminethedevelopmentanduseof linguisticandmedium-specificstrategies.ThosethatexplorethedevelopmentoflinguisticstrategiesincludeBelz’s(2004)andBelzandVyat-kina’s(2008)documentationofGermanlearners’useofda-compounds,cohesivestructuresusedtolinktopicsacrossphrases,clauses,andutterancesduringGerman-U.S.telecollabo-rations.Inbothstudies,learnerlanguagegeneratedinbothACMCandSCMCwassubjectedtomicrogeneticanalysisthatdocumentedtheemergenceanddevelopmentofda-compounduseacrossthetelecollaboration.Analysisofthefrequency,variety,andaccuracyofda-com-pounduseindifferentcontextsbydifferentlearnersprovidedevidenceoftheirability,orlackthereof,touseda-constructionsinthelatterweeksofthetelecollaboration.
YetanotherinstanceofdiscoursecompetenceinSCMCwasfoundinWarner’s(2004)studyof the types of languageplay learners engaged inwhile using text-chat in aMOO. In ananalysisofchatscripts,WarneruncoveredevidenceoflearnersmanipulatingtheL2forthepurposeofrhymingorrappingacrossmultipleutterances.Thus,cohesionacrossutteranceswasmaintainedthroughtheuseofsimilarsyllablepatternsinadjacentturnswithmatchingendrhymes.
SCMCapplicationsthemselveshavealsopushedlearnerstoutilizecontext-specifictoolsformaintainingcoherenceandcohesionacrossutterances. Inavatar-supported text-chat,Pe-terson’s(2006)learnersusedaddressivity,theregularnamingoftheintendedrecipientofanutterance,tomaintainconversationalcoherenceacrossthemanyparallelconversationspossibleintextualinteraction.Innonavatarsupportedtext-chat,Abrams’(2008)beginning-levellearnersreliedonmultipleshorterturnstoprovidevisualcoherencewhenintroducingnewtopics.Withinvoice-chat,Jenks(2009)foundthatlearnersreliedonpausingandbreathinhalationtosignalcontinuationofatopicandtohelpmanageoverlappingtalkinmultipar-ticipantinteraction.InacomparisonoffourdifferentSCMCenvironments(videoconferencing,audioconferencing,text-chatwithanimage,andtext-chatonly)YamadaandAkahori(2007)foundthegreatestamountofdiscourseproducedduringvideoconferencing,morethanhalfofwhichconsistedoffillerwordsthatwerelargelyabsentfromtext-chat.
380
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
Impactoncohesionandcoherenceinothermodalities
AfewstudieshaveinvestigatedtheeffectofSCMCondiscoursecompetenceinspeechandwriting. In speech, this includes Blake’s (2009) study concerning the impact of text-chatonoralfluency.Blakefoundthatstudentswhoengaged intext-chatachievedsignificantlygreatergainsinmultiplemeasuresoffluencythandidacontrolgrouporface-to-facegroup.ShamsudinandNesi(2006)alsoexaminedtheimpactofSCMConstretchesoforaldiscoursethroughtheuseofinterviewanddiscussionskilltestswhichalsoincorporatedmeasuresoffluency.Inwriting,Liang(2010)investigatedtheeffectoftext-chatonwritingrevisionsandfoundanimpactonglobaldiscourselevelfeaturesofwriting.
Strategic Competence
Thirty-onestudieswereidentifiedasinvestigatingthedevelopmentofstrategiccompetence,definedasboththeverbalandnonverbalstrategieslearnersutilizetonegotiatecommunica-tionbreakdown(Canale&Swain,1980)andtofacilitatetheeffectivenessofcommunication.Ofthese31studies,themajorityexploredhowoftenandinwhatmannerlearnersdealtwithcommunicationbreakdownduringSCMC.Also investigated,however,wereboth language-specificandtechnology-specificcommunicationstrategieslearnersusedtopotentiallyavoidcommunicationbreakdownandtoenhancecommunicationeffectiveness.
Negotiatingcommunicationbreakdown
Amongstudiesexploringtheverbalandnonverbalstrategieslearnersusedtodealwithcom-municationbreakdownarethosethatexaminedthepresenceandfrequencyofnegotiationofmeaningepisodes,conversationaladjustmentsthatariseduringinteractionasaresultofmisunderstandingsornonunderstandingsandthatareusedtofacilitatecomprehension(e.g.Blake,2000;Fernández-García&Martínez-Arbelaiz,2002;Smith,2009b).Buildinguponre-searchinface-to-faceSLA,thesestudiesaregroundedincognitivie-interactionistSLA(Orte-ga,2009)inwhichinteractionaladjustmentsareseenastoolsforfacilitatingcomprehensionandfortriggeringcognitiveprocesses(e.g.,noticingthegapanduptake)deemedessentialorfacilitativeforL2development.TextualanalysisofchatscriptsisoftenconductedusingVaro-nisandGass’(1985)schemaforidentifyingnegotiationroutines.
Blake’s (2000) study is an early examplewhich incorporated Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun’s(1993)tasktypologytoinvestigatetheamountofnegotiationofmeaningelicitedbydiffer-enttypesofcommunicationtaskscarriedoutduringtext-chat.OtherstudiesofnegotiationofmeaningduringSCMCcomparedthetriggersofnegotiationroutines(Toyoda&Harrison,2002)and frequencyofnegotiation routineswhen learners interactedwithdifferent typesofinterlocutors,includinginterlocutorswhowerefellowadultlearners(Fernández-García&Martínez-Arbelaiz,2003),middle-schoollanguagelearners(Smith,2009b),orunfamiliarna-tivespeakersoftheL2(Fernández-García&Martínez-Arbelaiz,2003;Tudini,2003).
Morerecently,researchonthenegotiationofmeaninghasalsoinvestigatedtheroleoftech-nologyontheamountandtypeofnegotiationinwhichlearnersengage.ThiscanbeseeninJepson’s(2005)comparisonofrepairmoves,whichincludednegotiationofmeaningoccurringintwodifferenttypesofSCMC.Jepson’sanalysisrevealedthatduetoprounciation-relatedissues,agreaternumberofrepairmovesoccurredduringvoice-chatthanduringtext-chat.Within text-chat, Smith (2009a) explored the relationship between negotiated interactionandtheuseofscrollingandcursormovement.Resultssuggestedthatasscrollingandmousemovementincreased,negotiationdecreased.ExtendingworkonnegotiationofmeaningintomultimodalSCMC,Wang(2006)analyzedvisualtriggersandcues(e.g.,facialexpressions)fornegotiationroutinesthatoccurredduringvideoconferencing.
381
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
Whilemoststudiesonthenegotiationofmeaningandlearnerstrategiesfornegotiatingcom-municationbreakdownduringSCMCfocusondescribingthekindoflanguagethatlearnersproduce,onestudydidattempt toexplore theeffectivenessofdifferent typesofnegotia-tion routines forvocabulary learning.Smith’s (2005) study,also included inother studiesinvestigatingthedevelopmentofgrammaticalcompetence,attemptedtodeterminewhethermorecomplexnegotiationroutines(i.e.,negotiationroutinesthatwerelongerorcomprisedofmultiplecompensatorystrategies)resultedinincreasedvocabularylearningasaresultofdifferentdegreesofuptake.
AlsolookingathowlearnersattempttoresolveoravoidcommunicationbreakdownduringSCMCbutdrawingupondifferenttheoreticaltraditionsarestudiesthatfocusinparticularontheuseofcommunicationstrategiesduringSCMC.AccordingtoLee(2001),thesecompensa-torystrategiesaretechniquesandinteractionalmodifications“commonlyusedtobridgethecommunicationgapbetweenthelistenerandthespeaker”(p.234)andincludecodeswitch-ing,requestsforclarificationorotherformsofassistance,confirmationchecks,provisionofassistance,paraphrasing,self-correction,useoftheL1,topicshifting,circumlocution,conver-sationalcontinuants,andrepetition.
Studiesoftext-chatthathaveinvestigatedcommunicationstrategiesincluderesearchthatisgroundedinbothcognitive-interactionist(e.g.,Lee,2001),sociocultural(e.g.,Kötter,2003),andconversationanalysis(e.g.,Vandergriff,2006)approachestoSLA.Thisincludesexplora-tionofpreferredcommunicationstrategiesusedbylanguagelearnersengagedinnonnative-speaker/nonnativespeakertext-chatinteractions(Dekhinet,2008;Lee,2001,2002;Smith,2003b)aswellascomparisonofcommunicationstrategiespreferredbystudentsoperatingintheirL1orL2duringbilingualtelecollaborations(Darhower,2008;Kötter,2003).
Takingamore focusedapproach to communication strategies,Thoms, Liao,andSzustack(2005)investigatedthefrequencyandfunctionofonecommunicationstrategyinparticular,useof theL1,during task-based text-chatby learnersofChinese,German,andSpanish.WhiletheL1wasprimarilyreliedonfortaskmanagement,itwasalsousedtofocusatten-tiononspecificlanguagefeaturesandtofacilitateinterpersonalinteraction.AsimilarfocusinPasfield-Neofitou’s(2007)studyofabilingualJapanese-EnglishtelecollaborationuncoveredaparticularuseoftheL1thatwasdrivenbydifferencesinthetwolanguages’writingsystems.InordertoavoidthepotentialconfusioncausedbytransliteratingEnglishplacenamesintoJapanesekatakana,studentschosetowritethenamesinEnglishduringtheJapaneseinterac-tion.Inyetanotherstudyoftext-chat,Darhower(2002)foundlearnersofSpanishreliedontheirL1,English,toexpresstermsandphrasesthattheydidnotknowinSpanish.However,inacomparativestudy,Heins,Duensing,Stickler,andBatstone(2007)foundthatlearnersofGermanengagedinonlineSCMCtutorialswerelesslikelytorelyontheirL1thanlearnersengagedinface-to-facetutorials.
Withintext-basedSCMC,communicationstrategiesalsoincludeinnovativekeyboard-basedstrategiessuchasrelianceonpunctuation(e.g.,?),ellipsestotrailoff,text-art,textualem-phasis,andemoticonstocompensateforlackofothervisualcues(Kitade,2000;Lee,2001;Negretti,1999;Pasfield-Neofitou,2007).
Enhancingcommunicativeeffectiveness
Inadditiontoexploringverbalandnonverbalstrategiestocompensateforortoavoidcom-municationbreakdown,studiesofCMChavealsoinvestigatedverbalandnonverbalstrategiesusedbylearnerstoenhancecommunicativeeffectiveness.
382
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
Studiesofverbalstrategiesusedtoenhancecommunicativeeffectivenessdrawinparticularuponconceptsandtoolsfromdiscourseanalysis.ThisincludesSauro’s(2009b)useofpo-sitioninginacasestudyofonelearner’suseoftext-chatduringbimodalvoice-/text-chattostrengthenherfootholdintheconversationtogarnermoreopportunitiestoproduceL2outputandtoeventuallydirectthediscussion.Byemployingthelessemphemeralofthetwochatmodesavailabletoher,thelearnerwasabletoshareheropinionsandinformationwithoutbe-inginterrupted,thusensuringthathercontributiontotheinteractionwasnoticed.Inanotherstudyinatext-chatonlyenvironment,Vandergriff&Fuchs(2009)exploredspontaneouslan-guageplayinbothCMCandface-to-faceinteractionbyadvancedlearnersofGermanduringsmallgroupinteraction.AsaresultofatechnicalglitchinaCMCcontextnecessitatingthatonelearnerusetheinstructor’saccount,thelearnerappropriatedtheidentityoftheinstruc-tortoteaseherpeersandconvincethemtosupportherposition.Inaddition,learnerswereobservedtouseplaytoresolvecontentiousdiscussionandtoeffectivelymovethroughtheassignedtask.
Researchonnonverbalstratgiesusedtoenhancecommunicationeffectiveness,remainslim-ited.However,Peterson’s(2006)discussionofstrategiesusedinavirtualenvironmentservesasamodelforfutureresearchtoinvestigatenonverbalstrategiesspecifictovirtualenvirone-mentsthatsupportmultimodalSCMCaswellasmovementinasharedvirtualspace.Spe-cifically,Petersonobservedthatinavatarsupportedtext-chat,inordertofacilitatefocusedinteractionandeaseofreadingavatarspeechbubbles,learnersmovedorturnedtheiravatarstolesspopulatedpointsinthevirtualspace.Inaddition,toconveyemotionalstatesorfacialexpressionsbeyondthoseconveyedbytheiravatars,learnersrelieduponkeyboardsymbols.
CONCLUSION
ThepurposeofthissynthesiswastoexamineabodyofresearchonSCMCforSLA.Byop-erationalizingSLAasthedevelopmentofthefourcompetencessubsumedunderCanaleandSwain’s(1980)interpretationofcommunicativecompetence,thissynthesiswasabletoex-ploretrends,methods,andfindingsaddressedbycompetingtheoreticalapproachestoSLA.
Ofthe97studiesfoundtoaddressSCMCforSLA,almostexactlyhalf(48)exploredgram-maticalcompetence.Studiesutilizingacognitiveorcognitive-interactionistapproachtoSLAfocusedinparticularontheimpactofSCMCongrammarandvocabularydevelopment,whilestudiesfrombothcognitiveandsociocognitiveapproachesexploredthefacilityofSCMCforpromotingprocessesassociatedwithfosteringgrammaticalcompetence.Thenextmostin-vestigated competencewas strategic competencewith31 studies. These include researchwhich lookedatboth linguisticand technological strategies fornegotiatingcommunicationbreakdownorfacilitatingcommunicativeeffectiveness.Thoseinvestigatingtheformertendedtodrawuponcognitive-interactionistapproachestoSLA,whilethelatterwereinformedbysocioculturalapproachestoSLAanddiscourseanalysis.The22studiesofsocioculturalcom-petencemostoftenlookedtosocioculturalanddiscourseanalyticSLAtoexplorethedevelop-mentofsociopragmaticsandtheformanduseofspeechactsandparticipantroles.Withonly11studies,discoursecompetenceremainsthe least investigatedcompetenceand includesresearchonbothlinguisticandSCMCmedium-specifictoolsformaintainingcoherenceandcohesionacrossmultipleturnsandconversations.
Thedecisiontofocusononlyjournalarticlesandtoexcludeotherpublished(e.g.,booksandbookchapters)andunpublishedstudies(e.g.,dissertationsandtheses)isaclearlimitationofthisreview.Althoughthisdecisionwasdriveninpartbylogisticalconsiderationsandinpartbythedesiretoreduceoverrepresentationofstudiesandfindings(dissertationsandtheses
383
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
oftenbecome the source of subsequent publications), this resulted in the exclusion of allSCMCstudiesfoundonlyineditedvolumesorbooks(e.g.,Warschauer&Kern,2000).
Inaddition,thesamplingofpublicationscarriedoutinthisreviewreplicatesthesameEnglishlanguagebiasfoundinmanyotherresearchsynthesespublishedrecentlyinEnglishinappliedlinguistics.Asaresult,thissynthesisdoesnotaccountforthetargetpopulations,L2s,meth-ods,epistemologies,andfindingsofresearcherspublishinginlanguagesotherthanEnglish.
Despitetheselimitations,however,thisreviewhasshownthatSCMCisaproductivecontextforexaminingL2processesandoutcomesinamannerthatincorporatesandbuildsuponre-searchinface-to-facecontextswhilealsobeginningtoexplorethetechnologicallyinfluencedtoolsandstrategiesuniquetocomputer-mediatedcontexts.AsTable3shows,mostofthesestudieshavecomeaboutsinceChapelle’s(1997)callforresearchtoevaluatethequalityoflanguageandtheeffectonlearningsupportedbyCALLapplications.Promisingfuturedirec-tionsincludethosethatexamineSLAprocessesandoutcomesamongyoungerlearnersandlearnersofnon-EuropeanornonalphabeticlanguagesandthatexplorelearnerstrategiesandpedagogicaltoolsthatareuniquetospecificSCMCcontextsandmodalities.
Table3SCMCforSLAStudiesPerYearinthisSynthesis
Year NumberofStudies
1990-19991990199119921993199419951996199719981999
2000-20092000200120022003200420052006200720082009
2010
70010112011
865261181496916
4
384
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
NOTES1Kramsch&Whiteside(2008)propose thenotionofsymboliccompetence todescribe theabilityofspeakersinmultilingualcontextsnotonlytoapproximateoraccommodatetothelanguageofothersbutalsotomanipulatethelanguagecontexttomeettheirowngoalsandtoframeorreflecttheirownreal-ity.SCMC,whichcanbeusedtolinkremotespeakersofmultiplelanguages,representsaparticularlyrichcontextforinterlocutorstoemploytheirstrategiccompetencethroughtheselectionofbothlan-guagecodeandmodeofcommunication(e.g.,voice-chat,text-chat,orvideo).AlthoughKramschandWhitesidearguethatsymboliccompetenceisnotmerelyasubskillofcommunicativecompetencethatlanguagelearnersneedtomaster,Ihavefounditausefultoolforenhancingthenotionofstrategiccom-petencetoreflectwhatispossibleinSCMCinwhichmultiplelanguages,multiplewritingsystems,andmultiplerepresentationsofwritingsystemsareavailabletoL2learnersengagedinreal-timeinteraction.
2Fourteenofthe16journalsweresearchedusingLLBA.TheCALICO Journal,whichatthetimeofdatacollectionwasnotarchivedonLLBA,wasthesolejournalsearchedusingERIC.TheotherexceptionwasCALL-EJ Online,which,notbeingarchivedoneitherdatabase,necessitatedareviewofallarticlesinthepublication.
3Duetothetwo-stageelectronicsearch,thiscategoryalsoincludedstudiesthatwereavailableelec-tronicallyandpriortotheirprintpublication.
REFERENCES
Baron,N.S.(2008).Always on.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Canale,M.(1983).Fromcommunicativecompetencetolanguagepedagogy.InJ.Richards&J.Schmidt(Eds.),Language and communication(pp.2-27).London:Longman.
Canale,M.,&Swain,M.(1980).Theoreticalbasesofcommunicativeapproachestosecondlanguageteachingandtesting.Applied Linguistics 1,1-47.
Chapelle,C.(1997).CALLintheyear2000:Stillinsearchofresearchparadigms?Language Learning and Technology1(1),19-43.Retrievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle/default.html
Cook,G.(2000).Language play, language learning.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Hymes,D.H.(1966).Twotypesoflinguisticrelativity.InW.Bright(Ed.),Sociolinguistics(pp.114-158).TheHague:Mouton.
Hymes,D.H.(1971).On communicative competence.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
Kramsch,C.,&Whiteside,A.(2008).Languageecologyinmultilingualsettings:Towardsatheoryofsymboliccompetence.Applied Linguistics, 29,645-671.
Leung(2005).Convivialcommunication:Recontextualizingcommunicativecompetence.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15,119-144.
Ortega,L.(2009).Understanding second language acquisition.London:HodderEducation.
Pica,T.,Kanagy,R.,&Falodun,J.(1993).Choosingandusingcommunicationtasksforsecondlanguageinstruction.InG.Crookes&S.Gass(Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice.Vol. 1.(pp.9-34).Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMatters.
Riley,K.C.(2008).Languagesocialization.InB.SpolskyandF.M.Hult(Eds.),The handbook of educa-tional linguistics(pp.398-410).Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell.
Schmidt,R. (1983). Interaction,acculturation,and theacquisitionofcommunicativecompetence:Acasestudyofoneadult.InN.Wolfson&E.Judd(Eds.),Sociolinguistics and language acquisition(pp.137-174).NewYork:NewburyHouse.
Schmidt,R.,&Frota,S.(1986).Developingbasicconversationalabilityinasecondlanguage:AcasestudyofanadultlearnerofPortuguese.InR.Day(Ed.),Talking to learn: Conversation in sec-ond language acquisition(pp.237–326).Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse.
385
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
Smith,B.,&Lafford,B.A.(2009).Theevaluationofscholarlyactivityincomputer-assistedlanguagelearning.The Modern Language Journal, 93,868-883.
Swain,M.,&Lapkin,S.(1998).Interactionandsecondlanguagelearning:TwoadolescentFrenchim-mersionstudentsworkingtogether.Modern Language Journal, 82,320-337.
Varonis, E.M.,&Gass,S. (1985).Non-native/non-native conversations:Amodel fornegotiationofmeaning.Applied Linguistics, 6,71-90.
Warschauer,M.,&Kern,R.(Eds.).(2000).Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
APPENDIX
Listofthestudiesincludedinthereview
Abrams,Z.I.(2001).Computer-mediatedcommunicationandgroupjournals:Expandingtherepertoireofparticipantroles.System, 29,489-503.
Abrams,Z.I.(2003a).TheeffectsofsynchronousandasynchronousCMConoralperformanceinGer-man.The Modern Language Journal, 87,157-167.
Abrams,Z.I.(2003b).FlaminginCMC:Prometheus’fireorInferno’s?CALICO Journal, 20,245-260.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=298
Abrams, Z. I. (2008). Socio-pragmatic featues of learner to learner computer-mediated communi-cation. CALICO Journal, 26, 1-27. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=720
Abuseileek,A.F.(2007).Cooperativevs.individuallearningoforalskillsinaCALLenvironment.Com-puter Assisted Language Learning, 20,493-514.
Beauvois,M.(1998).Conversationsinslowmotion:Computer-mediatedcommunicationintheforeignlanguageclassroom.The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langes vivantes,54,198-217.
Belz,J.A.(2001).Institutionalandindividualdimensionsoftransatlanticgroupworkinnetwork-basedlanguageteaching.ReCALL, 13,213-231.
Belz,J.A.(2004).Learnercorpusanalysisandthedevelopmentofforeignlanguageproficiency.Sys-tem, 32,577-591.
Belz,J.A.,&Kinginger,C.(2002).Thecross-linguisticdevelopmentofaddressformuseintelecollabo-rativelanguagelearning:Twocasestudies.The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langes vivantes, 59,189-214.
Belz,J.A.,&Vyatkina,N.(2005).LearnercorpusanalysisandthedevelopmentofL2pragmaticcom-petenceinnetworkedintercultural languagestudy:ThecaseofGermanmodalparticles.The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langes vivantes, 62,17-48.
Belz,J.A.,&Vyatkina,N.(2008).Thepedagogicalmediationofadevelopmental learnercorpusforclassroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 33-52. Re-trievedfromllt.msu.edu/vol12num3/belzvyatkina.pdf
Blake,C.(2009).Potentialoftext-basedInternetchatsforimprovingoralfluencyinasecondlanguage.The Modern Language Journal, 93,227-240.
Blake,R.J.(2000).Computermediatedcommunication:AwindowonSpanishL2interlanguage.Lan-guage Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
386
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
Blake,R.J.(2005).BimodalCMC:Theglueoflanguagelearningatadistance.CALICO Journal, 22,497-511.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=146
Blake,R.J.,Wilson,N.L.,Cetto,M.,&Pardo-Ballester,C.(2008).Measuringoralproficiencyindistance,face-to-face,andblendedclassrooms.Language Learning & Technology, 12(3),114-127.Re-trievedfromllt.msu.edu/vol12num3/blakeetal.pdf
Böhlke,O.(2003).Acomparisonofstudentparticipationlevelsbygroupsizeandlanguagestagesdur-ingchatandface-to-facediscussions inGerman.CALICO Journal, 21,67-87.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=282
Canado,M.L.P.(2010).Usingvirtuallearningenvironmentsandcomputer-mediatedcommunicationtoenhancethelexicalcompetenceofpre-serviceEnglishteachers:Aquantitativeandqualitativestudy.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23,129-150.
Chun,D.M.(1994).Usingcomputernetworkingtofacilitatetheacquisitionofinteractivecompetence.System, 22,17-31.
Chung,Y.-G.,Graves,B.,Wesche,M.,&Barfurth,M.(2005).Computer-mediatedcommunicationinKo-rean-Englishchatrooms:Tandemlearninginaninternationallanguageprogram.The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langes vivantes, 62,49-86.
Collentine,K. (2009). Learneruseofholistic languageunits inmultimodal, task-basedsynchronouscomputer-mediatedcommunication.Language Learning & Technology, 13(2),68-87.Retrievedfromllt.msu.edu/vol13num2/collentine.pdf
Conaim,D.,&Wong,R.(2004).InternetrelaychatasatoolintheautonomousdevelopmentofESLlearners’Englishlanguageability:Anexploratorystudy.System, 32,321-335.
Danet,B.,&Herring,S.C.(2007).Introduction:WelcometothemultilingualInternet.InB.Danet&S.C.Herring(Eds.),Themultilingualinternet:Language,culture,andcommunicationonline(pp.3-39).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Darhower,M.A.(2002).Interactionalfeaturesofsynchronouscomputer-mediatedcommunicationinthe L2 classroom:A sociocultural case study.CALICO Journal, 19, 249-277.Retrieved fromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=426
Darhower,M.A.(2008).Theroleoflinguisticaffordancesintelecollaborativechat.CALICO Journal, 26,48-69.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=722
Dekhinet,R.(2008).OnlineenhancedcorrectivefeedbackforESLlearnersinhighereducation.Com-puter Assisted Language Learning, 21,409-425.
delaFuente,M.J.(2003).IsSLAinteractionisttheoryrelevanttoCALL?Astudyontheeffectsofcom-puter-mediatedinteractioninL2vocabularyacquisition.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16,47-81.
Fernández-García,M.,&Martínez-Arbelaiz,A.(2002).Negotiationofmeaninginnonnativespeaker-non-nativespeakersynchronousdiscussions.CALICO Journal, 19,279-29.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=427
Fernández-García,M.,&Martínez-Arbelaiz,A.(2003).Learners’interactions:Acomparisonoforalandcomputer-assistedwrittenconversations.ReCALL, 15,113-136.
Fiori,M.L.(2005).Thedevelopmentofgrammaticalcompetencethroughsynchronouscomputer-me-diatedcommunication.CALICO Journal, 22,567-602.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=151
Fitze,M. (2006).Discourseandparticipation inESL face-to-faceandwrittenelectronicconferences.Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67-86.Retrieved from llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/pdf/fitze.pdf
387
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
Geng,Z.,&Takatsuka,S.(2009).Task-basedpeer-peercollaborativedialoginacomputer-mediatedlearningenvironmentintheEFLcontext.System, 37,434-446.
Heins,B.,Duensing,A.,Stickler,U.,&Batstone,C.(2007).Spokeninteractioninface-to-faceandonlinetutorials.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20,279-295.
Hirotani, M. (2009). Synchronous versus asynchronous CMC and transfer to Japanese oral perfor-mance.CALICO Journal, 26,413-438.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=749
Jenks,C.J.(2009).Whenisitappropriatetotalk?Managingoverlappingtalkinmulti-participantvoice-basedchatrooms.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22,19-30.
Jepson,K.(2005).Conversationsandnegotiatedinteractionsintextandvoicechatrooms.Language Learning & Technology, 9(3),79-98.Retrievedfromllt.msu.edu/vol9num3/pdf/jepson.pdf
Kelm,O.R.(1992).Theuseofsynchronouscomputernetworksinsecondlanguageinstruction:Apre-liminaryreport.Foreign Language Annals, 25,441-454.
Kern,R.G.(1995).Restructuringclassroominteractionwithnetworkedcomputers:Effectsonquantityandcharacteristicsoflanguageproduction.The Modern Language Journal, 79,457-476.
Kitade,K.(2000).L2learners’discourseandSLAtheoriesinCMC:CollaborativeinteractioninInternetchat.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13,143-166.
Kötter,M.(2003).Negotiationofmeaningandcode-switchinginonlinetandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2),145-172.Retrievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/kotter/default.html
Lai,C.,Fei,F.,&Roots,R.(2008).Thecontingencyofrecastsandnoticing.CALICO Journal, 26,70-90.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=723
Lai,C.,&Zhao,Y.(2006).Noticingandtext-basedchat.Language Learning & Technology, 10(3),102-120.Retrievedfromllt.msu.edu/vol10num3/pdf/laizhao.pdf
Lam,W.S.E.(2000).L2literacyandthedesignoftheself:Acasestudyofateenagerwritingontheinternet.TESOL Quarterly, 34,457-482.
Lam,W.S.E.(2004).Second languagesocialization inabilingualchatroom:Globaland localcon-siderations.Language Learning & Technology, 8(3),44-65.Retrievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol8num3/lam/default.html
Lamy,M.-N. (2004).Oral conversationsonline:Redefiningoral competence insynchronousenviron-ments.ReCALL, 16,520-538.
Lee,L.(2001).Onlineinteraction:NegotiationofmeaningandstrategiesusedamonglearnersofSpan-ish.ReCALL, 13,232-244.
Lee,L.(2002).Synchronousonlineexchanges:Astudyofmodificationdevicesonnon-nativediscourse.System, 30,275-288.
Lee,L.(2008).Focus-on-formthroughcollaborativescaffoldinginexpert-to-noviceonlineinteraction.Language Learning & Technology, 12(3),53-72.Retrievedfromllt.msu.edu/vol12num3/lee.pdf
Levy,M.,&Kennedy,C.(2004).Atask-cyclingpedagogyusingstimulatedreflectionandaudio-confer-encinginforeignlanguagelearning.Language Learning & Technology, 8(2),50-68.Retrievedfromllt.msu.edu/vol8num2/pdf/levy.pdf
Liang,M.-Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFLwriting: Revision relat-eddiscourse.Language Learning & Technology, 14(1),45-64.Retrievedfromllt.msu.edu/vol14num1/liang.pdf
Loewen,S.,&Earlam,R.(2006).Correctivefeedbackinthechatroom:Anexperimentalstudy.Com-puter Assisted Language Learning, 19,1-14.
388
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
Loewen,S.,&Reissner,S.(2009).Acomparisonof incidentalfocus-on-forminthesecondlanguageclassroomandchatroom.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22,101-114.
Meskill,C.,&Anthony,N.(2007).Form-focusedcommunicativepracticeviaCMC:Whatlanguagelearn-ers say.CALICO Journal, 25, 69-90. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=677
Negretti,R.(1999).Web-basedactivitiesandSLA:Aconversationanalysisresearchapproach.Language Learning & Technology, 3(1),75-87.Retrievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/negretti
O’Rourke,B.(2005).Form-focusedinteractioninonlinetandemlearning.CALICO Journal, 22,433-466.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=144
Oskoz,A.(2005).Students’dynamicassessmentviaonlinechat.CALICO Journal, 22,513-536.Re-trievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=148
Oskoz, A. (2009). Learners’ feedback in online chats: What does it reveal about students’ learn-ing. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 48-68. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=779
Pasfield-Neofitou,S.E.(2007).TextualfeaturesofinterculturalInternetchatbetweenlearnersofJapa-neseandEnglish.CALL EJ-Online, 9(1).Retrievedfromhttp://callej.org/journal/9-1/pasfield-neofitou.html
Payne,J.S.,&Ross,B.M.(2005).SynchronousCMC,workingmemory,andL2oralproficiencyde-velopment.Language Learning & Technology, 9(3),35-54.Retrievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/payne/default.html
Payne,J.S.,&Whitney,P.J.(2002).DevelopingL2oralproficiencythroughsynchronousCMC:Output,workingmemory,andinterlanguagedevelopment.CALICO Journal, 20,7-32.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=327
Pérez,L.C.(2003).Foreignlanguageproductivityinsynchronousversusasynchronouscomputer-me-diated communication.CALICO Journal, 21, 89-104. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=283
Peterson,M.(2006).Learnerinteractionmanagementinavatarandchat-basedvirtualworlds.Com-puter Assisted Language Learning, 19,79-103.
Peterson,M.(2009).Learner interaction insynchronousCMC:Asocioculturalperspective.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22,303-321.
Salaberry,R.M.(2000).L2morphosyntacticdevelopmentintext-basedcomputer-mediatedcommuni-cation.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13,5-27.
Sanders,R.(2006).Acomparisonofchatroomproductivity:In-classversusout-of-class.CALICO Journal, 24(1),59-76.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=89
Satar,H.M.,&Ozdenar,N.(2008).TheeffectsofsynchronousCMConspeakingproficiencyandanxiety:Textversusvoicechat.The Modern Language Journal, 92,595-613.
Sauro,S.(2009a).Computer-mediatedcorrectivefeedbackandthedevelopmentofL2grammar.Lan-guage Learning & Technology, 13(1),96-120.Retrieved fromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf
Sauro,S.(2009b).StrategicuseofmodalityduringsynchronousCMC.CALICO Journal, 27,101-117.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=782
Sauro,S.,&Smith,B.(2010).InvestigatingL2performanceinchat.Applied Linguistics,31,554-577
Schweinhorst,K.(2004).Nativespeaker/non-nativespeakerdiscourseintheMOO:Topicnegotiationandinitiationinasynchronoustext-baseenvironment.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17,35-50.
389
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
Shamsudin,S.,&Nesi,H.(2006).Computer-mediatedcommunicationinEnglishforspecificpurposes:AcasestudywithcomputersciencestudentsatUniversitiTeklnologiMalaysia.Computer As-sisted Language Learning, 19,317-339.
Shekary,M.,&Tahriran,M.H.(2006).Negotiationofmeaningandnoticingintext-basedchat.The Mod-ern Language Journal, 90,557-573.
Simpson,J.(2005).Learningelectronicliteracyskillsinanonlinelanguagelearningcommunity.Com-puter Assisted Language Learning, 18,327-345.
Smith,B.(2003a).Computer-mediatednegotiatedinteraction:Anexpandedmodel.The Modern Lan-guage Journal, 87,38-57.
Smith,B.(2003b).Theuseofcommunicationstrategiesincomputer-mediatedcommunication.System, 31,29-53.
Smith,B.(2004).Computer-mediatednegotiatedinteractionandlexicalacquisition.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26,365-398.
Smith,B.(2005).Therelationshipbetweennegotiatedinteraction,learneruptake,andlexicalacquisi-tionintask-basedcomputer-mediatedcommunication.TESOL Quarterly, 39,33-58.
Smith,B.(2008).MethodologicalhurdlesincapturingCMCdata:Thecaseofthemissingself-repair.Language Learning & Technology, 12(1),85-103.Retrievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/smith/default.html
Smith,B.(2009a).Therelationshipbetweenscrolling,negotiation,andself-initatedself-repair inanSCMC environment. CALICO Journal, 26, 231-245. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=739
Smith, B. (2009b). Task-based learning in the communicative ESL/EFL classroom. CALL-EJ Online, 11(1).Retrievedfromhttp://callej.org/journal/11-1/smith.html
Smith,B.,&Sauro,S.(2009).Interruptionsinchat.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22,229-247.
Sotillo,S.M.(2000).Discoursefunctionsandsyntacticcomplexityinsynchronousandasynchronouscommunication.Language Learning & Technology, 4(1),82-119.Retrievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
Sotillo, S. M. (2005). Corrective feedback via instantmessenger learning activities in NS-NNS andNNS-NNSdyads.CALICO Journal, 22, 467-496.Retrieved fromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=145
Sullivan,N.,&Pratt,E.(1996).AcomparativestudyoftwoESLwritingenvironments:Acomputer-assistedclassroomandatraditionaloralclassroom.System, 24,491-501.
Sykes, J.M. (2005).SychronousCMCandpragmaticdevelopment:Effectsoforalandwrittenchat.CALICO Journal, 22, 399-431. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=142
Thoms,J.,Liao,J.,&Szustack,S.(2005).TheuseofL1inanon-lineL2chatactivity.The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langes vivantes,62,161-182.
Thorne,S.L.(2003).Artifactsandculturesofuseininterculturalcommunication.Language Learning & Technology, 7(2),38-67.Retrievedfromllt.msu.edu/vol7num2/pdf/thorne.pdf
Toyoda,E.,&Harrison,R. (2002).Categorizationof text-chat communicationbetween learnersandnative speakersof Japanese.Language Learning & Technology, 6(2),82-99.Retrieved fromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/toyoda/default.html
Tudini,V.(2003).Usingnativespeakersinchat.Language Learning & Technology, 7(3),141-159.Re-trievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/tudini/default.html
390
CALICO Journal, 28(2) SCMCforSLA:AResearchSynthesis
Tudini,V.(2007).NegotiationandinterculturallearninginItaliannativespeakerchatrooms.The Mo-dern Language Journal, 91,577-601.
vanCompernolle,R.,&Williams,L.(2009).Learnerversusnonlearnerstylisticvariationinsynchronouscomputer-mediatedFrench:Yes/Noquestionsandnousversuson.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31,471-500.
Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common group in computer-mediated and face-to-face discus-sions. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 110-138.Retrieved fromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/vandergriff/default.html
Vandergriff, I.,&Fuchs,C. (2009).DoesCMCpromote languageplay?Exploringhumor in twomo-dalities. CALICO Journal, 27, 26-47. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=778
Wang,Y. (2006).Negotiationofmeaning indesktopvideoconferencing-supporteddistance languagelearning.ReCALL,18,122-145.
Ware,P.(2005).Missed“communication”inonlinecommunication:TensionsinGerman-Americancol-laboration.Language Learning & Technology, 9(2),64-89.Retrievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/ware/default.html
Warner,C.N.(2004).It’sjustagameright?TypesofplayinforeignlanguageCMC.Language Learning & Technology, 8(2),69-87.Retrievedfromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/pdf/warner.pdf
Warschauer,M.(1996).Comparingface-to-faceandelectronicdiscussioninthesecondlanguageclass-room.CALICO Journal, 13(2-3),7-26.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=604
Yamada,M.,&Akahori,K.(2007).SocialpresenceinsynchronousCMC-basedlanguagelearning:Howdoesiteffecttheproductiveperformanceandconsciousnessoflearningobjectives?Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20,37-65.
Yamada,M.,&Akahori,K.(2009).Awarenessandperformancethroughself-andpartner’s imageinvideoconferencing.CALICO Journal, 27,1-25.Retrievedfromhttps://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=776
Yilmaz,Y.,&Granena,G.(2010).Theeffectsoftasktypeinsynchronouscomputer-mediatedcommu-nication.ReCALL, 22,20-38.
391
CALICO Journal, 28(2) ShannonSauro
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
IwishtoacknowledgeI-ChunLiu,whosehardworkincompilingmanyofthesestudieswasintegraltothisproject.
AUTHOR’SBIODATA
ShannonSauroisAssistantProfessorofAppliedLinguisticsinthedepartmentofBicultural-BilingualStudiesat theUniversityofTexasatSanAntonio.Her researchexploressecondlanguageacquisitionprocesseswithinthecontextofcomputer-mediatedcommunication.
AUTHOR’SADDRESS
ShannonSauroUniversityofTexasatSanAntonioOneUTSACircleSanAntonio,TX78249Phone:2679716466Fax: 2104585962Email:shannon.sauro@utsa.edu