Achieving coherence in multilingual interaction

Kleifgen, Jo Anne; Saville‐Troike, Muriel

doi:10.1080/01638539209544808

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To negotiate meaning is to work towards 'comprehensibility of message meaning' (Pica, 1994: 494). Because teachers and students are able to negotiate meaning with little or no linguistic knowledge in common, as they draw on higher-order processes involving schematic and contextual knowledge (Swain, 1985;Kleifgen and Saville-Troike, 1992), it remains unclear how negotiation for meaning in L2 classroom settings would suffice to drive L2 development forward effectively and efficiently. Skehan (1998) argues that resolving communication breakdowns through negotiation for meaning entails the use of communication strategies and, as such, does not aim to effect changes in a learner's underlying interlanguage system.…”

Section: Interaction Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: implications for theory and practice

Lyster¹

2004

French Language Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a comparative analysis of five quasi-experimental studies involving close to 1,200 students, ranging in age from 7 to 14, in 49 French immersion classrooms in Canada – a content-based instructional context where learners develop high levels of communicative ability yet demonstrate a levelling-off effect in their grammatical development. The studies investigated the effects of form-focused instruction on four areas known to be difficult for anglophone learners of French: perfect vs. imperfect past tense, conditional mood, second-person pronouns and grammatical gender. Findings suggest that effective form-focused instruction in immersion contexts, at least with respect to interlanguage features that have reached a developmental plateau, includes a balanced distribution of opportunities for noticing, language awareness and controlled practice with feedback. Less effective instructional options overemphasise negotiation for meaning in oral tasks where message comprehensibility and communication strategies circumvent the need for learners to move beyond the use of interlanguage forms.

show abstract

Section: Interaction Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: implications for theory and practice

Lyster¹

2004

French Language Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As its name suggests, the negotiation of meaning aims primarily to achieve ''comprehensibility of message meaning'' (Pica, 1994, p. 494). Yet, according to Kleifgen and Saville-Troike (1992), teachers and students are able to negotiate meaning with little or no linguistic knowledge in common, by drawing on higher-order processes involving background and situational knowledge (see also Sato, 1986, regarding interaction between native speakers and non-native speakers in natural settings). As they do so, teachers and students display ''the mutual satisfactoriness-notwithstanding difficulties-of the interaction'' (Aston, 1986, p. 140).…”

Section: Recasts and Meaning-focused Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiation in immersion teacher–student interaction

Lyster

2002

International Journal of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the role of negotiation in teacher-student interaction and argues that the negotiation of meaning, defined as a set of conversational moves which work toward mutual comprehension, is too narrow a construct to fulfil its pedagogical potential in teacherstudent interaction in communicative and content-based second language (L2) classrooms. Drawing on examples from immersion classrooms, where the overriding focus is on delivery of subject matter in the L2, an argument is presented in support of a more comprehensive view of negotiation that accounts for corrective feedback and distinguishes between meaning-focused and form-focused negotiation. r

show abstract

“…Focusing on the signaling function of metalinguistic cues and how inferences are "ultimately based on empirically detectable signs" (Gumperz 1992a:. 234) runs the risk of positioning the analytic lens too narrowly on "bottom-up" (Kleifgen & Saville-Troike 1992) features of messages, thus missing how the interpretation of linguistic and metalinguistic cues is itself mediated by "top-down" extra-textual or "pretextual" assumptions (Hinnenkamp 1987) about social identity that speakers bring to the interaction and which skew "accurate" (and "intended") interpretation.…”

Section: Mediated Interpretation and The Diversity Of Cultural Voicementioning

confidence: 99%