SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


ACKNOWLEDGMENT

IwishtoacknowledgeI-ChunLiu,whosehardworkincompilingmanyofthesestudieswasintegraltothisproject.

AUTHOR’SBIODATA

ShannonSauroisAssistantProfessorofAppliedLinguisticsinthedepartmentofBicultural-BilingualStudiesat theUniversityofTexasatSanAntonio.Her researchexploressecondlanguageacquisitionprocesseswithinthecontextofcomputer-mediatedcommunication.

AUTHOR’SADDRESS

ShannonSauroUniversityofTexasatSanAntonioOneUTSACircleSanAntonio,TX78249Phone:2679716466Fax: 2104585962Email:[email protected]

SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis.

Documents

Transcript of SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis.