Becka Barker

University of Calgary

603.02 L02

Spring 2010

Part 2

Group Name

Social Media Type

Description Classes in Each Test Group

T1Blogger • online journal; dialogue limited

• multimodality for authors, but not for comments

Native English 1CNative English 1F

T2Ning

• self-contained social network; dialogic forums• multimodality among all network members possible• emphasis on group

Native English 1DNative English 1G

T3Facebook • disparate social network;

features a ‘group’ function• emphasis on individual profiles• multimodality between individuals and within groups

Native English 1ANative English 1H

example of a corpus

Variables will be coded as follows:

• total number of linguistic utterances

• total number of non-linguistic expressions

• total number of paralinguistic expressions

• total instances of correct target language use

• number of each kind of expression in the first two weeks of test period

• number of each kind of expression in the final two weeks of test period

• instances of correct target language use in the first two weeks of test period

• instances of correct target language use in the final two weeks of test period

Stommel (2005): “CA investigates social action with a focus on participants’ understanding of one another’s conduct” (p. 3).

Belz and Vyatkina (2005): CA of learner-derived corpora may also be used in data-driven learning.

Heckman and Annabi (2005): relates CA framework developed for their study to social constructivist learning; learning processes are reflected in communicative utterances

Raffaella (1999): “CA originated as an approach to the study of social organization of everyday conduct” (p. 76).

Herring (2004): the multimodal nature of computer-mediated discourse is socially-driven as well as being technologically-driven and culturally-distinct. Most non-standard features used are deliberate choices by interlocutors, usually to mimic spoken language, economize on typing, or creatively express themselves.

Montero, Watts, and García-Carbonell (2007): text-based interaction on computers help with oral proficiency, as well as linguistic and meta-linguistic competence.

Raffaella (1999): interpreted paralinguistic features as part of informal online conversation

Montero, Watts, and García-Carbonell (2007): modals are a common issue for ELLs; modals are also used differently in oral and written contexts

Belz and Vyatkina (2005): modals in German language learners’ online conversations were considered representative of pragmatic competence