When I read Pellettieri's article, I am quite interested about ytalk. The author says that "ytalk software presntes users with a split screen: in the top half they view their own messages as they type them in the bottom half they view replies from their interlocutors, letter by letter as they are typed"(p.60). I think "letter by letter as they are typed" would greatly promote the simultaneous interaction. When I chat online via MSN or other chatting software, I only know my interlocutor is typing something because of the words poping in the screen "XX is wrting/typing....", but I have no idea about what he/she is writing about, or whether he/she is still talking about the previous topic. Sometimes, before I send my words about the previous topic, my interlocutor has sent me something else, so I have to erase what I have written and respond to the new topic or question. I would say "letter by letter" instead of the whole sentence is more like real life communication.
Another thing is about the language form during the chatting via ytalk or similar chatting tools. When Pellettieri discusses "research background", she claims that L2 learners would focus on form of their output while negotiating meanings. Is it true with ytalk? I am concerned that learners would ignor the form of language, such as omitting articles, using abbreviation, rather than produce well constructed sentences which strictly stick to the grammar rules. In this case, ytalk promotes more the meaning than the form of the target language. What is the language teacher supposed to focus on, form or meaning of the target language, while applying such talking tools?
Blogs for Specific Purposes
12 years ago
Yi--I also thought the "letter-by-letter" aspect of ytalk was interesting. But it kind of adds risk to the chat, too, don't you think? Then your interlocutor can see all of your mistakes before you have the chance to correct them (like you could in other chat programs...). But, you're right that it could make the chat more like speech, and it also seems to give good info to the researcher.
ReplyDeleteI have the same "confusing" feeling. When I chatted with my friends via MSN, they seldom corrected my grammar errors since they still understood the meanings. It is the same as in the face-to-face conversation. As long as they understood the meanings, they were not so picky about the language usages. It seems that only the “language teacher” is more concerned about the form of the language. But……did you remember one of our classmates in ENGL 613 brought out an interesting point when he observed the language class – he was surprised that the teacher did not correct “all” the mistakes that students made. What is the “balance” for a language teacher to correct students’ errors?
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a few very important questions, Yi. First, is there a way to get students to focus on form without sacrificing focus on meaning? It depends on the task, and if they're chatting with friends or doing a task they care about, they're probably more concerned with other things. As far as Mandy's question goes, I think correcting student errors demands consideration of task as well--if the objective is to build fluency and speaking confidence, correcting every error is probably not a good idea. The teacher needs to choose wisely what they correct and what they don't.
ReplyDeleteI would say chatting online is a way to focus on form without sacrificing focus on meaning in that students can read what they have written and also notice their grammar errors. Though listening and oral skilles are not that emphasized when students chat online, they would make some grammar errors less frequently after self-correcting these errors several times in the chat room. They would become more sensitive to the vocabulary they choose and the sentences they produce when communicating face-to-face.
ReplyDelete