Discourse Functions And Vocabulary Use In English Language Learners' Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication

Year 2013, Volume: 14 Issue: 2, 99 - 117, 01.06.2013

Ghaleb Rababah

Abstract

This study explores the discourse generated by English as a foreign language (EFL) learners using synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) as an approach to help English language learners to create social interaction in the classroom. It investigates the impact of synchronous CMC mode on the quantity of total words, lexical range and discourse functions of EFL learners’ writing from different genders (males vs. females). Thirty-two intermediate EFL students discussed four topics in four CMC sessions. The findings reveal that gender plays a major role in shaping the quantity of discourse (total words), lexical range (variety), and linguistic output (i.e., the quantity and type of discourse functions) the participants’ generated using synchronous CMC mode. Generally, the female participants produced more words, complex lexical range and output discourse functions than males in CMC setting. In addition, the study showed that the participants produced discourse functions shaped by the particularities of local social arrangements. Users found opportunities in the virtual world of CMC which enable them to blind their identities, so people in subordinate conditions such as females in certain conservative societies, EFL learners, and shy students may find CMC useful for fostering their communicative competence.

Keywords

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), Discourse Functions, Lexical Range, Synchronous CMC, Gender.

References

• Abrams, Z. (2008). Surfing to cross-cultural awareness: Using Internet-mediated projects to explore cultural stereotypes. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 141-160.
• AbuSeileek, A. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 493–514.
• AbuSeileek, A. (2012). The effect of computer assisted cooperative learning method and group size on EFL learners' achievement in communication skills. Computers and Education, 58(1), 231-239.
• Acikalin, S. (2008). What about gender based pseudonyms in blogs? Anadolu University
• Journal of Social Sciences 8(1), 275–284. Al-Jehani, N. (1995). Mecca: Sociocultural change and elaborate courtesy in the speech of females. Journal of King Saud University, 6(2), 53-64.
• Barnett, R. C., & Rivers, C. (2008). The difference myth. In B. Rendtorff & A. Prengel
• (Eds.), Jahrbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft Kinder und ihr Geschlecht (Vol. 4, pp. 27-32). Leverkusen, Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing, New York: Basic Books.
• Brandon, D., & Hollingshead, A. (1999) Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education, 48(2), 109-126.
• Bromley, H. (1995). Gender's dynamics online: What is new about new communications technology, Feminist Collection: A Quarterly Review of Women's Studies Resources, 16(2), 16-21.
• Bruce, B., Peyton, J.K., & Batson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Network-based classrooms:
• Promises and realities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, D. (2009). Sex/gender, language and the new biologism. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 173-192.
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
• Cassel, J., & Stone, M. (2005). Teaching dialogue to interdisciplinary teams through toolkits. Proceedings of the Second ACL Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching NLP and CL, (pp. 9–14), Ann Arbor: Association for
• Computational Linguistics. Chapelle, C. (1997). Call in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigm?
• Language Learning & Technology, 1 (1), 19-43. Chartsbin. (2012). Mobile subscribers. Retrieved May 12, 2012 from http://chartsbin.com/view/1881.
• Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System 22, 17-31.
• Darhower, M. A. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the L2 classroom: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249-2
• Escalera, E. (2009). Gender differences in children’s use of discourse markers: Separate worlds or different contexts? Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2479–2495.
• Fitz, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67-86.
• Goodwin, M. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status and exclusion. London: Blackwell.
• Guiller, J. & Durndell, A. (2007). Students’ linguistic behaviour in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2240–2255.
• Hiramoto, M. (2010). Utterance final position and projection of femininity in Japanese.
• Woman and Gender, 4(1), 99-104. Herring, S. (1994), Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Miami, USA: American Library Association.
• Herring, S. (1996). Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in CMC. In C.
• Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives in computer-mediated communication (pp. 115- 145). Albany NY: State University of New York Press. Ho, M. & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290.
• Husseini, R. (2010). Women's rights in the Middle East and North Africa. Amman: Freedom House.
• Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 121-145.
• Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers:
• Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476. Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 146-166.
• Kitade, K. (2008). The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer- mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 12 (1), 64-84.
• Light, V., Nesbitt, E., Light, P., & Burns, J. R. (2000). Let’s you and me have a little discussion: Computer mediated communication in support of campus-based university courses. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 85–96.
• Pérez, L. C. (2003). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 21, 89-104.
• Richardson, H., & French, S. (2000). Education on-line: what’s in it for women?
• (Women work and computerization: charting a course to the future). Vancouver, BC: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 554-577.
• Shehadeh, A. (1999). Gender differences and equal opportunities in the ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 53(4), 256-261.
• Sierpe, E. (2000). Gender and technological practice in electronic discussion lists: an examination of JESSE, the library/information science education forum. Library and Information Science Research, 22, 273–289.
• Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication, Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 82-119.
• Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the net: Women, power, and cyberspace. North Melbourne: Spinifex.
• Tomasil, D., & Volkow, N. (2011). Laterality patterns of brain functional connectivity: Gender effects. Cerebral Cortex, August 30, 1-8.
• Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face- to-face discussions. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 110-138.
• Ware, P., (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language
• Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
• Winegar, R. (2002). Genderized language in computer-mediated communication: A content analysis of online discourse. Unpublished PhD dissertation. USA: Union
• Institute and University. Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115-132.
• Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2010). The effects of task type in Synchronous Computer
• Mediated Communication. ReCALL, 22(01), 20. Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts : A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457-477.