M. Fernndez-Garca and A.

Martnez-Arbelaiz

Negotiation of Meaning in
Nonnative Speaker-Nonnative Speaker
Synchronous Discussions
Marisol Fernndez-Garca
Northeastern University
Asuncin Martnez-Arbelaiz
Michigan State University

ABSTRACT

Research on negotiation has thus far focused on oral conversations/inter-

actions. This study expands on this line of research by investigating whether
learners engage in negotiation when exchanging ideas in synchronous com-
puter-mediated interaction. Four groups of learners of Spanish discussed
a number of content questions about a reading assignment using an Open
Transport (OT) Chat. The analyses of the transcripts of the interactions
showed that instances of negotiation as operationalized in Varonis and
Gass (1985b) do occur in the electronic medium. A limited repertoire of
types of primes reoccurred, due in part to the nature of the medium and
the academic context of foreign language learning in which the interac-
tions took place. Of special concern was the tendency to use the native
language in the response of the majority of the routines since this ten-
dency does not result in target language modified output, which is claimed
to be fundamental for second language acquisition (SLA) (Swain, 1985).

KEYWORDS

Input, Output, Negotiation of Meaning, Learner-Centered Instruction,

Computer-Assisted Classroom Discussion.

INTRODUCTION

In the last few decades there has been a shift from a traditional teacher-
centered instructional setting to one that is mainly learner-centered (Nunan,
1988). Given the emphasis that recent approaches to language teaching

2002 CALICO Journal

Volume 19 Number 2 279

Negotiation of Meaning in NNS-NNS Discussions

place on small group work, it seems essential to expand on the line of

research that investigates the characteristics of the discourse generated
during learner-learner interaction. As several researchers have noted (Ellis,
1994; Long, Adams, McLean, & Castaos, 1976; Long & Porter, 1985;
Porter, 1986), the literature on small-group work and interaction suggests
that interaction between learners is more effective than teacher-led inter-
action1 in providing the conditions which have been hypothesized to fa-
cilitate second language acquisition (SLA).
According to research on interaction, the conditions for SLA are en-
hanced by the presence of discourse moves that allow interlocutors to
ensure message comprehensibility. Specifically, several studies have fo-
cused on the interactional modifications that take place when a communi-
cation problem arises in a conversation. These studies propose that inter-
actional modifications can help to make input more comprehensible which,
in turn, assists in language learning (Gass & Varonis, 1985b, 1986; Pica,
1994; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993; Scarcella &
Higa, 1981; Varonis & Gass, 1985a; 1985b).
Certain applications of computer technology appear to go hand in hand
with learner-centered instruction. In particular, local networks, which link
computers in a laboratory to each other, have made possible one-to-one
and many-to-many synchronous interchanges, thus affording language
learners new opportunities for communicative practice. A few studies that
have examined computer-assisted-classroom discussions (CACDs) suggest
that the electronic environment provides optimal opportunities for lan-
guage development (Beauvois, 1992; Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995;
Warschauer, 1996; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996). Nevertheless, as Warschauer
(1997) notes, the growing interest in computer-mediated collaborative
language learning has not been matched by sufficient research and theory.
Thus, if CACDs are to become a common practice in the foreign/second
language classroom, it is crucial to describe the nature of the discourse
generated through the electronic medium. In particular, research needs to
ascertain whether the features relevant to the processes involved in SLA
are present in CACDs discourse. In this study we examined whether in-
teractive discourse features of oral discussions that are said to foster inter-
language development are also present in electronic interactions.

The Study of Learner-Learner Interactions

Several studies have called to our attention the advantages of learner-

centered instruction. These studies have compared the interaction in
teacher-centered lessons with that found in group work. Long, Adams,
McLean, and Castaos (1976) found that students working in small groups
performed better than students in a teacher-fronted classroom in terms of

280 CALICO Journal

 M. Fernndez-Garca and A. Martnez-Arbelaiz

quantity and quality of language used. More precisely, small group work
not only provided more opportunities for language production,2 but also a
greater variety of discourse moves in initiating discussion, asking for clari-
fication, interrupting, competing for the floor, and joking. Similarly, Rulon
and McCrearys study (1986) revealed that a small group discussion gen-
erated significantly more negotiation of content than a teacher-led discus-
sion.
Other studies (Varonis & Gass, 1985b; Porter, 1986) have pointed to
the value of learner-learner conversations, specifically the interlanguage
talk generated in such discussions, as a source of opportunities for mean-
ing negotiation. For example, participants in a conversation may experi-
ence problems in understanding or breakdowns in communication. To
remedy this situation, they often engage in negotiation of meaning, inter-
actional modifications that aim at ensuring shared understanding.
Interactional modifications can be analyzed in terms of discourse func-
tions (e.g., requests for clarification or confirmation) and in terms of a
specific discourse structure. A number of studies have provided taxono-
mies of discrete discourse functions (Long, 1983) as well as models of
foreign talk discourse structure (Varonis & Gass, 1985b; Ehrlich, Avery,
& Yorio, 1989). Ellis (1994) has pointed out that the use of models that
account for discourse structure constitutes a definite advance, as it en-
ables researchers to examine the pouring back and forth consider[ed]
essential for investigating how learners acquire language.
Varonis and Gass (1985b) proposed a model that shows how the dis-
course structure unfolds during the negotiation of meaning. According to
this model, the discourse of conversation advances in a linear fashion,
represented by a horizontal line in their model. When an instance of
nonunderstanding occurs, speakers may engage in a series of exchanges
with the purpose of resolving that particular breakdown in the conversa-
tion. These instances are viewed as vertical sequences along the horizon-
tal line.
In Varonis and Gasss model, a negotiation routine consists of two parts:
a trigger and a resolution. The trigger (T) is an utterance or portion of an
utterance on the part of the speaker which results in some indication of
non-understanding on the part of the hearer. The second part of the rou-
tine, the resolution, consists of two primes: an indicator (I), by which one
of the conversational partners lets the other know that something was not
clear, and a response (R), which acknowledges the request for informa-
tion. An optional prime, the reaction to the response (RR), may tie up the
routine. In addition, Varonis and Gass offered a useful analysis of the
types of primes used within a negotiation routine. This analysis reveals
how interlocutors employ their linguistic resources in order: (a) to let
each other know that something has not been successfully understood
and (b) to solve the communication problem.

Volume 19 Number 2 281

Negotiation of Meaning in NNS-NNS Discussions

Varonis and Gasss model proves to be a useful tool to characterize and

understand a particular type of interaction that is said to promote SLA.
Although the synchronous electronic medium has been suggested to pro-
vide an environment that affords ample opportunities for learners to in-
teract with each other, the actual advantages of this environment in terms
of the opportunities it affords to negotiate meaning has not been addressed
to date.3 Within this context, the study presented here explores whether
this environment affords opportunities for meaning negotiation. The fol-
lowing section summarizes the findings of studies that suggest that com-
puter-assisted classroom interaction facilitates interlanguage development.

Computer-Assisted Classroom Interaction

Recent studies suggest that the use of computer-assisted interaction may

be beneficial in the language acquisition process. In particular, computer-
assisted communication seems to allow for a more equal pattern of par-
ticipation to the point that the instructor may become a mere member of
the group (Kelm, 1992). In other words, the electronic medium has the
potential to subvert the traditional roles enacted by teachers and students.
In addition, it seems to afford more opportunities for learner output than
oral discussions and to support a greater range of discoursal moves.
In Kerns (1995) study, students produced more turns, words, and sen-
tences in CACD than in face-to-face whole-class discussion, which sug-
gests that CACD affords more opportunities for learner output than oral
discussions. Two studies (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996) com-
pared small group interactions in the oral and the electronic modes and
found greater equality of participation in the electronic discussion. Chun
(1994) found that electronic discussions prompted discoursal moves such
as topic initiation and expansion, interactional moves (e.g., clarification
requests, comprehension, and confirmation checks), and repairs in case
of misunderstanding.
The present study adds to this line of research focusing on the discourse
generated through computer-assisted interaction. While previous research
on CACD offers a very encouraging picture of the synchronous written
interaction, from an interactionist perspective, it should be noted that it is
not only the amount of participation and/or production that matters but
also the specific structure that the interaction displays. According to a
growing body of research (Gass & Varonis, 1985b, 1986; Pica & Doughty,
1985; Pica, 1994; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993; Scarcella & Higa, 1981;
Varonis & Gass, 1985a; 1985b), the type of interaction that has been
identified as negotiation of meaning is the one that provides optimal
conditions for language acquisition since it offers opportunities to gener-
ate both comprehensible input and modified output. Given the relevance

282 CALICO Journal

 M. Fernndez-Garca and A. Martnez-Arbelaiz

of this interaction, the main goal that the present study pursues is to in-
vestigate whether negotiation of meaning occurs in the electronic syn-
chronous written medium. A second aim of the study is to characterize
the linguistic means conversational partners used to achieve message com-
prehensibility.

THE STUDY

We follow the model for the negotiation of meaning proposed by Varonis

and Gass (1985b). Table 1 shows an example of one of the routines used
by two nonnative speakers to negotiate a nonunderstanding.

Table 1
Discourse Model of the Negotiation of Meaning With Example
Utterance Function
NNS1: My father now is retire. Trigger
NNS2: retire? Indicator
NNS1: Yes. Response
NNS2: Oh yeah. Reaction to Response
Note: adapted from Varonis and Gass, 1985b.

In Table 1, the first utterance My father now is retire serves as a trig-

ger in the routine. The NNS2 repeats the word retire with rising intona-
tion, retire? Thus, this utterance functions as an indicator in the se-
quence. The NNS1s utterance, yes, confirms that retire was the word
she had used and constitutes the response. Finally, the example includes
the optional unit of the routine, the reaction to the response, exemplified
by NNS2s last turn, oh yeah, which ties up the negotiating exchange.
The current study examines whether these negotiation routines emerge
in the synchronous electronic medium. If found, of special interest would
be to analyze the type of primes used in this medium as they can offer
insights that explain why misunderstandings occur as well as which kinds
of means interlocutors use to resolve them.

Participants

The participants of the study were foreign language university learners

of Spanish. All of them were native speakers of English and were enrolled
in a third-year course on grammar and composition at the time the study
took place.

Volume 19 Number 2 283

Negotiation of Meaning in NNS-NNS Discussions

Task

The task consisted of discussing several content questions about a read-

ing assignment.4 Both the reading and content questions had been assigned
as homework in the previous class. After the chat group discussion, stu-
dents wrote a paper and pencil summary about the content of the reading.
The study focuses on the first part of the task, the Open Transport (OT)
Chat group discussion.5 The goal of using a chat session was to provide an
opportunity for learners to work in collaboration so that they could clarify
or develop ideas that they had not been able to work out on their own.

Procedures

All subjects participated in the chat group discussion in two different

sessions approximately 20 days apart from each other. The 28 students
enrolled in the class were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Since
there were some absences, the class was divided so as to include at least
six learners in each group.
The instructions were presented in English and in written form on the
computer screen followed by a set of content questions about the reading
assignment. Students were informed that they would be able to switch
back and forth from their chat room to the screen with the instructions by
pressing a specific button in an adjacent control panel.
The written instructions explained to students they would have 20 min-
utes for the discussion part and 15 minutes to work on the paper and
pencil summary of the reading assignment. Students were also told when
to start and stop working on each part of the task.

Results and Discussion

We found instances of negotiation in all groups in both sessions except

for one group in the second session. In what follows, we present and com-
ment on excerpts that illustrate how nonunderstandings were resolved in
the context of group interaction through the electronic medium. Example
1 presents one of the negotiation routines in the discourse generated in
computer-mediated communication.

Example 1
NNS1: Pienso que David es un mentiroso I think that David is a liar
NNS2: que es mentiroso what is liar
16
NNS1: A Liar

284 CALICO Journal

 M. Fernndez-Garca and A. Martnez-Arbelaiz

NNS1 gives his/her opinion about one of the characters in the novel. This
turn activates a nonunderstanding and, therefore, acts as the trigger. This
utterances function as a trigger is established in retrospect by considering
the turn of NNS2 that explicitly asks for the meaning of the word mentiroso.
Thus, NNS2s question functions as the indicator and points to the spe-
cific source of the nonunderstanding. In the last turn, NNS1 responds by
giving the English translation of the Spanish word.
In the majority of the negotiating routines of this study there was a
single indicator coming from one conversational participant, as in example
1 above. However, a few routines included several indicators which came
from either one or from more than one member of the chat group. Ex-
ample 2 contains three indicators (the turns preceded by an arrow) that
clearly show that the meaning of the word tallarines is unknown by two of
the participants.

Example 2
NNS1: Que es el significado de los What is the meaning of the
tallarines? noodles?
>> NNS2: que es el tallarines what is the noodles
1
NNS1: Noodles Noodles
>> NNS3: Sson tallarines cards ? Are noodles cards
NNS4: El tallarines es pasta The noodles is pasta"
NNS3: Ah, veo Ah, I see
>> NNS2: El tallarines cards o pasta The noodles cards or pasta
NNS5: El padre de Camilo solo comi Camilo s father ate the noodles
los tallarines only
2
NNS2: entiendo las tallarines I understand the noodles

In order to understand how this negotiating routine unfolds, let us con-

sider how the turn(s) of each of the five participants contributes to this
exchange. The first turn, Que es el significado de los tallarines?7 is not a
metalinguistic question; NNS1 is not asking for the meaning of an un-
known word. The question refers to the role that the noodles play in the
chapter of the novel students had been assigned as homework. Thus, que
es el tallarines is the first indicator in this routine. The appearance of Sson
tallarines cards?, the second indicator, may seem surprising given that
an English equivalent of tallarines has been provided in the previous turn.
This particular sequence of turns may be explained by the fact that the OT
Chat does not register simultaneous turns as such. While two chatters
may write simultaneously, the transcript shows the turns in the order they
have been sent, not in the order they have been written. A second possibil-
ity is that NNS3 had actually read the response of NNS1. Her question
would simply reflect she had in mind another alternative that was viable
for her in this context.

Volume 19 Number 2 285

Negotiation of Meaning in NNS-NNS Discussions

The utterance, El tallarines cards o pasta, is the third indicator in this

routine and suggests that NNS2 needs confirmation after having read two
alternatives. What is interesting is that while the previous turns have worked
to resolve the nonunderstanding for NNS3 (Ah, veo) they did not have the
same effect on NNS2. The frequent absence of question marks in some of
the turns may have led her to interpret El tallarines es pasta as a ques-
tion rather than as an assertion. It is the intervention of NNS5, an ad-
vancement in the horizontal line,8 which seems to finally clarify the mean-
ing of tallarines for NNS2. To sum up, this routine shows that the OT
Chat allows each participant to engage in the negotiation of meaning, that
is, to indicate a breakdown in communication and to work towards its
resolution at different stages in the unfolding of the group discussion.
Some of the types of primes found by Varonis and Gass in oral interac-
tions are also present in the electronic medium. In our data, some types of
primes occurred more frequently than others. With respect to the indica-
tor, Varonis and Gass identified several types: echo, explicit statement of
non-understanding, no verbal response, and inappropriate response. Some
of these types also appear in synchronous written group interaction. In
example 3, the indication of nonunderstanding is expressed by an echo,
the repetition of the unknown lexical item, followed by a turn with a ques-
tion mark.

Example 3
NNS1: Camilo es un chulo! Camilo is a pimp!
>> NNS2: Chulo Pimp
>> NNS2: ? ?
3
NNS1: Chulo es como pimp Chulo is like pimp

The overwhelming majority of the indicators found in our data (19 out
of 21) are what Varonis and Gass call explicit statement of non-under-
standing. Most of them were expressed in the form of a direct appeal for
assistance, for example: qu significa X? what is the meaning of X? as
in example 4, es X Y? is X Y? and es X Y o Z? is X Y or Z? as in
example 5, and Qu? What? as in example 6.

Example 4
NNS1: Pienso que la profesora sabe que I think that the teacher knows
es chulo. what chulo is.
No te preocupes! Do not worry!
Chulo no es una palabrota Chulo is not a bad word
>> NNS2: Que significa chulo? What does chulo mean
30
>> NNS2: que es chulo en ingles? What is chulo in English
No se esta palabrea I do not know this word

286 CALICO Journal

 M. Fernndez-Garca and A. Martnez-Arbelaiz

Example 5
>> NNS1: Sson tallarines cards ? Are noodles cards?
NNS2: El tallarines es pasta The noodle is pasta"
NNS1: Ah, veo Ah, I see
>> NNS3: El tallarines cards o pasta The noodles cards or pasta

Example 6
NNS1: O, ella dejviniendo? O, she Xcoming?
>> NNS2: Que What

Nevertheless, the most frequent way of requesting help was through the
use of the formula qu es X? what is X? as in Examples 4 and 7.

Example 7
NNS1: Pienso que David es un mentiroso I think that David is a liar.
>> NNS2: que es mentiroso what is liar
1
NNS1: A Liar

Students are exposed to formulas of the type what is X? in the in-

structional setting. They learn these chunks in beginning language courses
and continue to use them regularly in subsequent ones. It is possible that
the classroom context in which the task took place favored the use of this
formula as a way to indicate nonunderstanding.
The predominance of explicit ways of expressing nonunderstanding and
the infrequency (or absence) of other types of indicators in our data may
be due to the use of the written medium as mediated by the OT Chat. It
should be noted that there were only two instances of echoes, and no
instance of inappropriate response.9
The low incidence of echoes in our data can be explained by comparing
how the echo functions in the oral versus the written medium. In face-to-
face oral interactions, an echo may indicate that the interlocutor is not
sure about what s/he has heard or if s/he understands. In this type of
interaction, suprasegmental features (e.g., intonation) and paralinguistic
features (e.g., gestures, facial expressions, and head and eye movements)
are part of the message and can help to clarify the source of the
nonunderstanding. In addition, in an oral exchange the immediate pres-
sure to keep the conversation going would favor the use of brief and less
elaborated ways (e.g., echoes) to indicate non-understanding. In contrast,
in the electronic medium one would expect echoes to be infrequent. On
the one hand, they cannot emerge as a result of perceptual difficulties in
the decoding of the message; on the other, the unavailability of the
suprasegmental and paralinguistic features of oral face-to-face interaction
mitigates their effectiveness. The additional time that the electronic me-

Volume 19 Number 2 287

Negotiation of Meaning in NNS-NNS Discussions

dium affords for interactants to code and decode messages would explain
their preference for more explicit ways of indicating nonunderstanding.
Some of the factors already mentioned that relate to the nature of the
medium can explain why inappropriate responses do not appear in our
data. The exchange in Example 8, taken from Varonis and Gasss oral
data, is not likely to be found in a written discussion.

Example 8
NNS1: Are you a student in your country?
>> NNS2: in my class?

In this example, it seems that the presence of a certain type of noise

accentinterfered with the message itself, and the listener replied to an
erroneously perceived utterance. Furthermore, in the oral medium, the
pressure to keep the conversation going may prompt the interlocutor to
respond in an unsuitable way. This pressure does not exist in written dis-
cussions. Thus, participants may choose to remain silent when they do not
understand or are not sure whether they understand a previous turn.10
The response is a turn that acknowledges in some way the request for
additional information that is implicit or explicit in the indicator. The types
of responses found in Varonis and Gass study were: repetition, expan-
sion, rephrasing, acknowledgment, and reduction. Given that the major-
ity of the indicators in the routines of this study are of the type qu es X?,
there are restrictions on the types of responses that might logically follow.
Interactants might have chosen to rephrase their utterance to try to clarify
the meaning of the unknown word. Nevertheless, they overwhelmingly
preferred to use the native language equivalent. This type of response was
not present in Varonis and Gasss study. We must take into account that
the nonnative speakers of their study were second language learners of
English who lived and studied in the country where the target language
was spoken. In addition, not all of the learners shared a common L1. In
contrast, we are examining here a situation of foreign language learning in
which students share the L1 among themselves, with the instructor, and
with the community at large. Consequently, the tendency to rely on the L1
should be expected.
Acknowledgments and reductions are not logical options after the types
of indicator present in the routines of this study. Acknowledgment could
follow an echo indicating that the interlocutor is unsure about what s/he
heard, but this type of echo cannot occur in written interaction. Recall
that the echoes in the present study were equivalent to what does X mean?
The data contain only one occurrence of a response in the form of a repeti-
tion (see Example 9).

288 CALICO Journal

 M. Fernndez-Garca and A. Martnez-Arbelaiz

Example 9
NNS1: no se quien es la persona. I don t know who the person is
es posible lamucama it is possible themaid
NNS2: que es una lamucama what is a themaid
>> NNS1: lo siento, es posible s LA mucama I am sorry, it is possible THE
maid
NNS2: que es este? what is this?

NNS1 typed the definite article la and the following noun mucama to-
gether lamucama. Her turn functions as the trigger. The next turn with
the indefinite article una preceding the sequence lamucama clearly shows
that NNS2 interpreted lamucama as one word. Then, NNS1 self-corrects
and separates the article LA from the noun mucama. It is interesting to
note that a typing error resulted in a breakdown in communication similar
to those that occur in oral interactions because of certain types of
missegmentation errors (Peters, 1985).
Most of the breakdowns in the conversations were successfully resolved
by providing a translation into English of the unknown word in the trig-
ger. Still, in two exchanges the provision of an English equivalent in the
response was not effective and brought about a series of embeddings in
which the interactants tried to clarify the appropriateness of the use of a
given term in the context of the classroom discussion. The excerpt in ex-
ample 10 illustrates what we have labeled pragmatic negotiation.

Example 10
T NNS1: Camilo es un chulo! Camilo is a chulo!
I NNS2: Chulo
I NNS2: ?
3
R T NNS1: Chulo es como pimp Chulo is like pimp
2
RR I NNS3: Camilo es un pimp?! que dice! Camilo is a pimp?!
what are you saying?
RR I NNS4: Carmen tu estas extrano! Carmen you are weird!
2
RR I NNS3: saben que la profesora lee You know that the teacher
lo que escribimos, si? reads what we write, right?
12
R T NNS1: Pienso que la profesora I think that the teacher
sabe que es chulo. knows what chulo is
No te preocupes! Do not worry!
Chulo no es una palabrota Chulo is not a bad word
I NNS2: Que significa chulo? What does chulo mean?
30
I NNS2: que es chulo en ingles? what is chulo in English?
No se esta palabrea I do not know this word

This exchange starts with a negotiation routine to clarify the meaning of

the word chulo. The response Chulo es como pimp triggers a first em-
bedded routine in which the interactant attempts to justify the appropri-

Volume 19 Number 2 289

Negotiation of Meaning in NNS-NNS Discussions

ateness of the word in the context of the Spanish class. NNS3s comment
(camilo es un pimp?! que dice! and saben que la profesora lee lo que
escribimos, si?) and NNS4s turn (Carmen tu estas extrano!) suggestor
at least seem to suggest to NNS1that NNS3 and NNS4 assume that
chulo has the exact connotative value as pimp.11 NNS1s response (Pienso
que la profesora sabe que es chulo. No te preocupes! Chulo no es una
palabrota) attempts to excuse the use of the word chulo in this context.
To sum up, the examples presented above show that the OT Chat allows
participants to engage in the negotiation of meaning, that is, to indicate a
breakdown in communication and to work towards its resolution at dif-
ferent stages in the unfolding of the discussion. As the examples illustrate,
learners negotiated the meaning of a lexical item in the majority of the
routines. Nonunderstandings that are likely to occur in the oral medium
due to noise, accent, etc. cannot emerge in the written electronic environ-
ment. This situation explains the absence of certain type of primes (that
are medium dependent) in the negotiation routines of the electronic me-
dium. Participants showed a preference for certain types of indicators and
responses. This preference may be related to the academic and the foreign
language learning context in which the interactions took place.

CONCLUSION

The second language literature has identified negotiation routines in

oral interactions by which learners give and receive feedback and help
each other to modify output and obtain more comprehensible input. This
process is said to contribute to second language development.
The present study provides evidence that learners of Spanish as a for-
eign language engage in negotiation of meaning in computer-mediated
discussions. Nevertheless, some of the types of primes used in the elec-
tronic medium differed from those documented in the oral medium. In
the overwhelming majority of routines, learners indicated a breakdown in
communication by means of an explicit statement of nonunderstanding in
the form of a classroom learned formula learned. Other types of indica-
tors were either absent or very infrequent. The types of responses docu-
mented in previous studies were not present in this study, with the excep-
tion of one instance of repetition in the form of self-correction. The learn-
ers in this study resorted to their native language to resolve instances of
nonunderstanding.12 While recourse to the L1 was an efficient and fast
means to return to the horizontal line of the conversation, it did not push
learners to modify their output. It remains to be seen whether the use of
the L1 is a characteristic of a typical foreign language learning situation in
which learners share the native language or whether there are other fac-
tors that might account for this use.
290 CALICO Journal
 M. Fernndez-Garca and A. Martnez-Arbelaiz

The model adopted to analyze the data of the study allowed the re-
searchers to observe how each learner contributed and benefited from
group interaction, both to indicate/resolve misunderstandings and to con-
tinue the discussion in the horizontal line. The electronic medium not
only seems to afford more opportunities for active participation in a group
discussion (Kern, 1995), but it also provides a forum where participants
can engage in the negotiation of meaning at their own pace.

NOTES

1
It does not imply that interaction involving teachers does not have any impact on
interlanguage development. Studies such as Tanakas (1991, cited in Ellis, 1994)
offered evidence that interactionally modified input (through teacher-learner in-
teraction) resulted in better comprehension and in more words being learned
and retained over time than either baseline input or premodified input.
2
A possible objection that might be raised against group work is that learners are
exposed to and might incorporate defective forms. Several studies (Gass & Varonis,
1989; Bruton & Samuda, 1980) have shown that learners do not generally incor-
porate errors of a nonnative speaker peer. On the contrary, there are numerous
examples of modifications in the direction of the correct target language forms.
3
While writing the results of this study, it came to our attention that another
investigation was addressing this issue though in a slightly different approach
(Pellettieri, 2000).
4
The questions were on the content of an adapted short novel, Rosaura a las diez
by Marco Denevi, that students were reading for this class.
5
OT Chat, a networking protocol used by Macintosh computers, allows users to
engage in written synchronous discussions. Chatters sit at individual computer
terminals linked together electronically. With OT Chat, it is possible to open chat
rooms in which participants can work in groups. Each participant can compose
and send messages which appear on all participants screens. Participants can
respond to whichever messages they choose.
6
Numbers between turns represent other utterances that are not part of the
nonunderstanding routine. These utterances usually move the discourse forward
in a linear fashion (represented by Varonis and Gasss model by a horizontal line).
7
Note that question marks and other orthographic conventions are sometimes
omitted. Due to the online nature of the task, participants may have been more
focused on the content of the messages than on the conventions of the written
language.
8
A turn that moves forward the discussion of the content question.
9
No (verbal) response, one of the indicators that appears in Varonis and Gasss
data, is difficult to trace in transcripts from computer-mediated group interaction
due to the flexibility in turn taking that the combination of medium and group
size affords.
10
Although there is less pressure in the written medium to respond than in the
Volume 19 Number 2 291
Negotiation of Meaning in NNS-NNS Discussions

oral medium, the number of conversational participants also contributes to lighten

the turn-taking pressure.
11
There is no basis in the novel to think that the character Camilo is a pimp. The
Spanish word chulo has several meanings, one of them being prepotent, arro-
gant and another one being pimp. It is not clear in which of the two senses the
student is using the word chulo.
12
The L1 emerged, even though participants were specifically told to use Spanish
only throughout the activity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to thank Dennie Hoopingarner and Michael Kramizeh

for answering their many questions about technical issues.

REFERENCES

Beauvois, M. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign lan-

guage classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language An-
nals, 25, 455-464.
Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of
error in group work. RELC Journal, 11, 49-63.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of
interactive competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31.
Denevi, M. (1964). Rosaura a las diez (D. A. Yates, Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Ehrlich, S., Avery, P., & Yorio, C. (1989). Discourse structure and the negotiation
of comprehensible input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11,
397-414.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985a). Variation in native speaker speech modifi-
cation to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
7 (1), 37-58.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis E. M. (1985b). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative
negotiation of meaning. In S. M. Gass and C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in non-native speaker/non-
native speaker interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conver-
sation in second language acquisition (pp. 327-351). Cambridge, MA:
Newbury House.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse.
In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in
second language variation (pp. 71-86). New York: Plenum Press.

292 CALICO Journal

 M. Fernndez-Garca and A. Martnez-Arbelaiz

Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second lan-

guage instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25
(5), 441-453.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers:
Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Mod-
ern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotia-
tion of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Long, M., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk and second lan-
guage acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (2), 207-227.
Long, M., Adams, L., McLean, M., & Castaos, F. (1976). Doing things with words:
Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In J.
Fanselow & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 76 (pp. 137-153). Washing-
ton, D.C.: TESOL.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the develop-
ment of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.),
Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, A. M. (1985). Language segmentation: Operating principles for the percep-
tion and analysis of language. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study
of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical issues (pp. 1029-1067).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-lan-
guage learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learn-
ing, 44 (3), 493-527.
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative lan-
guage classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities.
In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition
(pp. 115-132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pica, T., Kanady, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication
tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes and S.
M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and second language learning: Integrating theory
and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-
centered discussions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation
in second language acquisition (200-224). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Rulon, K. A., & McCreary, J. (1986). Negotiation of content: Teacher-fronted and
small-group interaction. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversa-
tion in second language acquisition (pp. 182-199). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Scarcella, R., & Higa, C. (1981). Input, negotiation, and age differences in second
language acquisition. Language Learning, 31 (2), 409-438.

Volume 19 Number 2 293

Negotiation of Meaning in NNS-NNS Discussions

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environ-
ments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom.
System, 29, 491-501.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible in-
put and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C.
G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253).
Rosley, MA: Newbury House.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985a). Miscommunication in native/non-native con-
versation. Language in Society, 14 (3), 327-343.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985b). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model
for the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71-90.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the
second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-25.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and
practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481.

AUTHORS BIODATA
Marisol Fernndez-Garca is an Assistant Professor in the Department
of Modern Languages at Northeastern University. She teaches courses in
Spanish language, linguistics, and applied linguistics. Her research focuses
on input, interaction, and second language acquisition.
Asuncin Martnez-Arbelaiz is an Assistant Professor in the Department
of Romance and Classical Languages at Michigan State University where
she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in Spanish linguistics.
Her research interests are Spanish syntax and second language acquisi-
tion.

AUTHORS ADDRESS
Marisol Fernndez-Garca
Department of Modern Languages
400 Meserve Hall
Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115-5000
Phone: 617/373-3659
Fax: 617/373-2298
Email: marisolfernan@aol.com
Asuncin Martnez-Arbelaiz
Department of Romance and Classical Languages
314 Old Horticulture Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1112
Phone: 517/353-0769, ext. 130
Fax: 517/432-3844
Email: marti298@msu.edu
294 CALICO Journal