\

 

xv; vvamv-gn

.v wry-n —u— vVV

1:1! ..
.3... :tl!
m. 1!
. :5.
it.

 

 

 

 

.... _ ...tz...zrc.n.py

w. Fray: t 3‘ 5 $1....» t ins... _. .

n .1133

£93...

 

 

135‘“ LIBRARY
*l' Michigan State
2 o c C1 University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

OPPORTUNITIES FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING AND
CULTURAL AWARENESS RAISING DURING
PARTICIPATION IN A TANDEM LANGUAGE EXCHANGE
PROGRAM

presented by

ANNA DRIGGERS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic,
Asian, and African Languages

 

 

LL? Pm

 

Major Professor’ 5 Signature

Now ZLl 23%
Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRC/DateDue.indd

 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING AND CULTURAL AWARENESS
RAISING DURING PARTICIPATION IN A TANDEM LANGUAGE EXCHANGE
PROGRAM

By

Anna Driggers

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages

2008

ABSTRACT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING AND CULTURAL AWARENESS
RAISING DURING PARTICIPATION IN A TANDEM LANGUAGE
EXCHANGE PROGRAM
By
Anna Driggers

The concept of tandem learning involves two speakers of different native
languages, interested not only in language learning, but also in cultural exchange. This
learning method is widely employed at European universities, but still unknown in the
United States. From various theoretical viewpoints, it is assumed that interactional
practices during Tandem may promote not only language learning, but also intense
cultural exchanges. This study investigates if tandem learning actually provides
opportunities for lexical, grammatical, and cultural learning.

To answer the following questions, audio-data collected from 18 tandem learners
at the intermediate L2 level is analyzed. Additionally, questionnaires filled out by the
participants are taken into account.

Results indicate that the tandem method provides learners with substantial
Opportunities for lexical learning (ranging from addressing a single word to complex
discussions about idioms and proverbs), grammatical learning (pronunciation and
morphology were fiequently addressed), and cultural and pragmatic exchanges.

In addition, tandem participants confirmed through questionnaires their high levels of

satisfaction with the tandem method. Such favorable feedback and the positive results

obtained in this study suggest that the tandem method is a valuable tool for SLA.

Copyright by
Anna Driggers
2008

TO PROFESSOR DEBRA HARDISON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my committee, Debra Hardison, George
Peters, Patrick McConeghy, Debra Friedman, and Elizabeth Mittman, for their help and
their support as I worked on this dissertation. The document is stronger as a result of their
input. Professor Hardison was especially helpful reading through many drafts of the
document, and providing comments and suggestions. Without her support, I would not be
able to accomplish this project.

I would also like to thank Professor Debra Friedman for helping me with my data
analysis and for challenging my way of thinking. Her knowledge is deeply appreciated.

I am very grateful for all the encouraging words I received from Professor
McConeghy and Professor Mittman. Their encouragement made a huge difference,
especially on these days when nothing was going well.

Finally, I would like to thank Professor George Peters for being my committee co-
chair, taking care of all the administrative issues, and supporting me during my
dissertation defense. I can not thank him enough.

The acknowledgments would not be complete without a heartfelt thanks to the
members of the Tandem Language School in Berlin and to all participants of my study.
The Tandem Language School provided me with a “home-base” while collecting my
data. They let me use their computers, phone, printers, and facilities. Their kindness is

deeply appreciated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1.1 The concept of tandem learning ............................................................ 1
1.2 Previous studies and tandem research ..................................................... 4
1.3 Importance of this study .................................................................... 6
1.4 Tandem and Standards for Foreign Language Learning ............................... 7
1.5 Research questions and hypotheses ....................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2

TANDEM LEARNING ............................................................................ 15
2.1 History of tandem learning ............................................................... 15
2.2 Guidelines to a successful tandem ....................................................... 17
2.3 New trends for tandem learning .......................................................... 19
CHAPTER 3

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 23
3.0 Introduction .................................................................................. 23
3.] Elements of interaction .................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Input/interaction framework .............................................................. 23
3.1.2 Output ........................................................................................ 26
3.1.3 Three functions of output .................................................................. 26
3.1.4 Studies related to the output hypothesis ................................................. 29
3.2 Collaborative dialogue ..................................................................... 30
3.2.1.1 Definition of collaborative dialogue ...................................................... 30
3.2.2 Collaborative dialogue and its challenges ............................................... 31
3.2.3 Language Related Episodes (LRE) ...................................................... 32
3.2.4 Scaffolding .................................................................................. 34
3.3 Corrective feedback (CF) .................................................................. 37
3.3.1 Definition of corrective feedback ......................................................... 37
3.3.2 Learners’ perception of feedback ........................................................ 38
3.3.3 Recast ......................................................................................... 44
3.4 Focus on Form .............................................................................. 46
3.4.1 Focus on From research ................................................................... 46
3.5 Lexical learning ............................................................................ 53
3.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 53
3.5.2 Vocabulary learning strategies ............................................................ 55
3.5.3 Easy and difficult words .................................................................. 57
3.5.4 Lexical learning from context and in context .......................................... 60
3.5.5 Pragmatic and cultural learning ........................................................... 63
3.6 European tandem research ................................................................ 66

vi

CHAPTER 4

THE PRESENT STUDY ........................................................................... 73
4.0 Introduction ................................................................................. 73
4.1 Participants ................................................................................... 73
4.1.1 Participants’ selection ....................................................................... 73
4.1.2 Participating tandems ...................................................................... 74
4.1 .3 Tandems-general information ............................................................. 75
4.2 Materials ..................................................................................... 76
4.3 Procedure .................................................................................... 77
4.3.1 Consent Form ............................................................................... 77
4.3.2 Audio data ................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER 5

RESULTS ............................................................................................ 80
5.1.1 Participants selected for data analysis .................................................... 80
5.1.2 General information about tandems ...................................................... 80
5.2 Individual tandems descriptions .......................................................... 81

5.2.1 Tandem DG/RS ............................................................................ 82

5.2.2 Tandem LC/AG ..................................................................................................... 84
5.2.3 Tandem OS/TG ...................................................................................................... 86
5.2.4 Tandem RD/AlG .................................................................................................... 88
5.2.5 Tandem MG/JE ...................................................................................................... 90
5.2.6 Tandem MS/BG ..................................................................................................... 92
5.2.7 Tandem NoS/SoG .................................................................................................. 94
5.2.8 Tandem SE/MiG .................................................................................................... 96
5.2.9 Tandem MaG/CS ................................................................................................... 98
CHAPTER 6

DATA ANALYSIS-LEXICAL LEARNING ................................................................. 100
6.0 Introduction ................................................................................ 100
6.1 Opportunities for lexical learning in tandem .......................................... 100
6.2 Explicit, single-word learning ........................................................... 101
6.3 Idioms ...................................................................................... 120
6.4 Proverbs .................................................................................... 135
6.5 Multiword lexical learning ............................................................... 143
6.6 Conclusion ................................................................................. 1 5 5
CHAPTER 7

FORM-FOCUSED LREs ........................................................................ 157

7.0 Introduction ................................................................................. l 57
7.1 Pronunciation and spelling ............................................................... 157
7.2 Other form-based LREs .................................................................. 180
7.3 Conclusion ................................................................................. 207

vii

CHAPTER 8

CULTURAL AND PRAGMATIC EXCHANGES IN TANDEM ......................... 209

8.0 Introduction ................................................................................ 209
8.1 Data analysis .............................................................................. 211
8.2 Summary ................................................................................... 240
CHAPTER 9

ANALYSIS OF

QUESTIONNAIRES .............................................................................. 242
9.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 242
9.1 Questionnaires—general information .................................................. 242
9.2.0 Questionnaire 1 ............................................................................ 243
9.2.1 Why are you learning the TL ............................................................ 243

9.2.2 What is more important to you, focus on grammar on vocabulary ................ 245

9.3.0 Questionnaire 2 ........................................................................... 247
9.3.1 Why did you decide to participate in tandem ......................................... 247

9.3.2 How often do you meet with your tandem partner ................................... 249

9.3.3 In your opinion what is the better learning method .................................. 249
9.3.4 The main differences between tandem and classroom .............................. 252

9.3.5 Did you like when your partner corrected your errors ............................... 253
9.3.6 What did you learn from your tandem partner ........................................ 254
9.4.0 Questionnaire 3: Cultural exchanges ................................................... 256
9.4.1 Did your tandem partner helped you understand his country better ................ 256
9.4.2 Participants’ evaluation of tandem ...................................................... 258
9.4.3 Leamers’ recommendations for a well functioning tandem ........................ 259

9.5 Questionnaire 4: Evaluation of the tandem method .................................. 260
9.6 Summary ................................................................................... 262
CHAPTER 10

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 263

10.0 Introduction ................................................................................ 263
10.1 Review of research hypotheses ......................................................... 263
10.2 Evaluation of hypotheses ................................................................ 264
10.2.1 Hypothesis 1 ............................................................................... 264
10.2.2 Hypothesis 2 ................................................................................ 264
10.2.3 Hypothesis 3 ............................................................................... 269
10.2.4 Hypothesis 4 ............................................................................... 271
10.3 Summary .................................................................................... 271

10.4 Conclusion ................................................................................. 274
10.4 Areas for future research ................................................................. 276
Appendices .......................................................................................... 277
Appendix A: Questionnaire 1 ................................................................................... 277

viii

Appendix B: Questionnaire 2 ..................................................................... 278

Appendix C: Questionnaire 3 ..................................................................... 279
Appendix D: Questionnaire 4 .................................................................... 280
Appendix E: Fragebogen 1 .............................................................................................. 281

Appendix F: Fragebogen 2 .............................................................................................. 282

Appendix G: Fragebogen 3 .............................................................................................. 283
Appendix H: Fragebogen 4 .............................................................................................. 284
Appendix 1: Symbols used in this dissertation ................................................................. 285
References .......................................................................................... 286

ix

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

LIST OF TABLES

General information about regular, intermediate tandems ............ 75

Tandem DG/RS ................................................................. 82

Tandem LC/AG ...................................................................................... 84
Tandem OS/TG .................................................................. 86
Tandem RD/AIG ..................................................................................... 88
Tandem MG/JE ....................................................................................... 9O
Tandem MS/BG ................................................................. 92
Tandem NoS/SoG .................................................................................... 94
Tandem SE/MiG ................................................................. 96
Tandem MaG/CS ................................................................ 98
Tandem vs. classroom learning ............................................. 252

Participants’ evaluation of tandem ......................................... 258
Questionnaire 4 ................................................................. 260

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The concept of tandem learning

The interactions involving a native speaker (NS) and a non-native speaker (NN S) are
the central point of many studies in the field of second language acquisition since it is
argued that such interactions may advance second language learning (Gass, 1997; Gass &
Polio, 1998; Long, 1983; Mackey, 1998; Oliver, 1995; Pica, 1988; Tarone & Liu, 1995).
Learning in tandem is an example of such a situation.

The concept of tandem learning involves two speakers of different native languages
(and different cultural backgrounds), where both are interested in a language-exchange
and in learning about the culture of their tandem partner. They establish a learning-
relationship, meeting in most cases at least once a week for two hours or so, and speaking
for an equal amount of time in each language. Tandem as a language learning
arrangement between two individuals is gratis--there are no fees or tuition costs. Each
participant simply gives time to the other. As such, it may be one of the best opportunities
to practice and improve one’s emerging second language (L2) skills outside of the
classroom. Students can use their second language in a true communicative setting,
learning new vocabulary and practicing grammar and pronunciation. They are also able
to acquire pragmatic and intercultural skills through authentic interaction with a native
speaker. This type of learning is very different from a typical classroom instructional

environment.

In some foreign language classes, especially those that are teacher-centered, students
are in many instances limited to just receiving information. They may learn all the
grammatical rules and memorize vocabulary, but may also have few opportunities to
speak and actively practice the learned material (as observed in some of my recent
foreign language courses). Knowing grammatical rules does not necessarily mean that
students can communicate in their second language. It is not uncommon that language
learners are not able to ask or answer a simple question in the L2, largely because, even
in more communicative classrooms, the opportunities for oral production frequently take
the form of artificial simulations, which sometimes have nothing to do with the students’
interests and real life conversations.

In a tandem learning setting, language production and authentic communication
are the main goals. During such interactions, both tandem partners are playing an active
role, and both are in control and responsible for their own learning. Furthermore, because
the choice of topics of the conversation is closely connected with the learners’ interests
and needs, their mental effort is naturally increased. Also, regardless of the topics of the
conversation, in the tandem setting, students are speaking all the time--producing an
“output.” Swain stressed in her research (Swain, 1995) that output serves second
language acquisition in several ways. One of the functions of second language production
is to practice the learned material and, as result of the practice, to enhance fluency. A
second fimction is to notice the “gap” in the learners’ knowledge. Anytime a non-native
speaker wants to say something and experiences difficulty in the process of Speech
production, the NNS may realize the lack of linguistic resources. This deficiency, as

Swain (1995) pointed out, can trigger cognitive processes, which then may help generate

further knowledge of L2. Feedback from a native speaker, or intensive interaction
between a NNS and 3 NS, may help fill in these gaps of knowledge and thus improve the
NNS’s performance in the future. For these reasons, conversation between a NS and a
NNS often includes linguistic forms which are not generally present in a conversation
between two native speakers. It is a special way of communicating, where both parties
strive for mutual understanding and conversation flow, especially, as in tandem, where
both speakers interact with each other regularly over an extended period of time.

Finally, tandem supports students’ sense of independence and autonomous
learning. The participants of this learning method are responsible for arranging their
meetings and for overseeing their progress. The majority of the participants tailor their
tandem meetings according to their interests and current needs, and are usually able to
converse about issues and subjects that are relevant to them. Tandem learners may
determine not only what is learned, but also how and when it is learned. Secondly, they
can manage the frequency and type of corrective feedback they receive from their tandem
partner. Tandem meetings allow learners flexibility with regard to the use of time, and
because of this, participants of tandem are able to allocate more time during the meeting
discussing areas of L2 that may be problematic or of keener interest for them, if desired.

In summary, one of the most significant advantages of the tandem learning
method is its personal nature and the substantial opportunities for language production
that it affords. Because of this personal aspect, also students expressing a strong aversion
to classroom language learning report enjoying their meetings with a tandem partner, as

can be observed in the questionnaires collected for this research.

Although the tandem method provides learners with many unique benefits
(autonomy, opportunities for language production and practicing of learned material, free
choice of conversational topics, among others), it still possesses some limitations. One of
the more significant limitations is the lack of formal, structured instruction of
grammatical rules. For this reason, the tandem learning method and classroom instruction
seem to complement each other rather well. By combining both methods, one can
optimize learning. The classroom provides the structured grammatical foundation of the
L2, while the tandem method provides a relaxed setting for use, practice, and further

learning of the L2.

1.2. Previous studies and tandem research

Some studies suggest that interaction is beneficial because language learners may
receive negative feedback as a response to their non-target-like speech production (Gass,
1997; Long, Inagaki & Ortega, 1998; Lyster, 1998; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Pica, 1994).

A smaller number of studies address communication strategies utilized by a
learner who is having difficulties expressing certain concepts because of a lack of lexical
resources or because of contextual constraints (Kasper & Kellerman, 1997; Kellerman &
Bialystok, 1997). There are also studies focusing on learners’ production and analyzing
changes in learner output (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Swain, 1995). Their results suggest that
interactional feedback motivates learners to modify their output, which may lead to
increased fluency and automatization of the learned language. Lyster and Ranta (1997)
emphasized that some forms of interactional feedback, such as elicitation and

clarification requests, contribute to a learner’s uptake and to output modification.

Additional studies addressing the learner’s active role in the learning process have
been conducted, among others, by Long and Porter (1985) who stressed the numerous
advantages of a situation where learners interact and take control of their own learning.
The ability to tailor the learning material to one’s own current needs is one such
advantage, and something characteristic of the tandem learning situation.

However, none of the above studies (dealing with input, output, and interactions
between 3 NS and a NNS) were conducted in the context of a tandem learning situation.
Many of them were conducted in classroom settings or in university research settings,
with artificial pairs of speakers created for the purpose of the data collection. Addressing
some of these previously investigated research questions in a tandem learning
environment is of interest to the field of second language acquisition.

Tandem research studies conducted in Europe address mostly the following
topics: online tandem learning (Appel, 2000; Brarnmerts, 1999; Brarnmerts, 1998;
Brarnmerts & Little, 1996; Schwienhorst, 1997, 1998; St.John & White, 1995;
Warschauer, 1995); the place of tandem at German universities (Ehnert, 1986, 1987;
GaBdorf, 2001; Lewis, 2001; Wolff, 1985); learners’ autonomy (Brammerts, 2001;
Kleppin, 2000; Little, 2001; Miiller, 1988; Nodari, 1996); French-German tandem
(Neurohr, 1999; Woemer, 1993); and tandem learning as an intercultural activity
(Bechtel, 2003; Vences, 1999; Woodin, 2001 ). There are very few studies that approach
tandem fi'om the linguistic point of view and investigate the relationship between tandem

learning and traditional foreign language classroom learning.

1.3 Importance of this study

The goal of this dissertation is to investigate the linguistic processes linked to
opportunities for lexical and grammatical learning in tandem. Additionally, I will
research the intercultural exchanges that occur during tandem interactions. In doing so, I
will attempt to close the existing research gap in the area of tandem learning, by adding a
linguistic context to the pedagogical and cultural findings regarding this method.

Research related to tandem conducted at a university in the United States could
open doors to the introduction of this learning method at American colleges and
universities. Moreover, through their participation in tandem, American students could
benefit from additional, inexpensive, and interactive exposure to authentic foreign
language and culture. Tandem learning also presents an attractive solution to the question
of how one creates a stronger relationship between classroom instruction and independent
learning. Also, American students returning to school in the United States after successful
tandem experiences abroad, currently are not able to continue with this learning method
because of the lack of tandems at US. universities.

In addition to aforementioned benefits, it is important to note that the tandem
learning method fulfills all five goals of the National Curricular Standards for the Foreign
Languages: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities.
This strong correspondence between the National Standards and the tandem method

could be highly useful for educational purposes.

1.4 Tandem and Standards for Foreign Language Learning

As a result of the active involvement of the US. federal government and its
financial support (1993), a coalition of four national language institutions: the American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, the American Association of Teachers of
French, the American Association of Teachers of German, and the American Association
of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese developed standards for foreign language
education for grades K-12, which were called “Standards for Foreign Language Learning:
Preparing for the 21St Century.”

These standards emphasize not only linguistic learning, but also intercultural
communication, which is reflected in the guiding philosophy of ACTF L:

Language and communication are the heart of human experience. The United

States must educate students who are linguistically and culturally equipped to

communicate successfully in a pluralistic American society and abroad. This

imperative envisions a future in which ALL students will develop and maintain
proficiency in English and at least one other language, modem or classical.

Children who come to school from non-English backgrounds should also have

opportunities to develop firrther proficiencies in their first language.

(www.actfl.oLg/files/public/StandardsforFLLexecsumm_rev.pdf)

To maintain the required proficiency, ACTF L developed a total of eleven
standards, divided into five goal areas, which are known as “The Five C’s of Foreign
Language Education”: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and
Communities. According to ACTF L, these standards cannot be achieved “overnight,”

but they should represent a realistic goal for the years ahead. The ideal implementation of

these standards should start in the elementary school and continue beyond high school. It
should be a life-long learning experience consisting of formal instruction and
autonomous learning.

The Communication goal area addresses learners’ ability to use the L2 in any
communicative setting. It points out that students should be able to communicate ideas
and opinions in the spoken or written form of the L2. Students are encouraged to engage
in conversations, provide and obtain information, express feelings and emotions, and
exchange opinions. (Standard 1.1) The communication goal area indirectly emphasizes
the importance of comprehensible output. In order to communicate successfully, one
should be able not only to understand received input, but also to respond to it.

The Cultures goal area requires that students gain understanding of other cultures.
Learners should be able to make the link between how the practices of a culture shape its
perspectives. According to ACTFL, learners “cannot truly master the language until they
have also mastered the cultural contexts in which the language occurs.” This statement is
very significant because it stresses the importance of teaching and learning of all aspects
of a language: its structure, lexical items, as well as intercultural elements.

The Connections goal area asks that learners connect with other disciplines and
acquire a variety of types of information utilizing the knowledge of the L2. Using the
foreign language in various settings, “students can acquire information and recognize
distinctive viewpoints that are only available through the foreign language and its
culture” (Standard 3.2). Through the employment of this principle, learners should be
able to obtain information not available to them in their native language, and thus have a

broader access to knowledge.

The Comparisons goal area addresses learners’ necessity to develop an ability to
compare American language and culture with an L2 and its cultural characteristics.
Students are encouraged to compare the familiar environment with the unknown. This
approach is necessary in the process of creating an open-minded society, able to face the
globalization that is inevitable. As ACTF L pointed out, through comparisons students
may “realize that there are multiple ways of viewing the world.”

The final objective of the five C’s is Communities. It encourages students to
become life-long learners “by using the language for personal enjoyment and
enrichment” (Standard 5.2) within an educational setting and outside of it. According to
the National Standards for Foreign Language Education, the United States “must educate
students who are linguistically and culturally equipped to communicate successfully” in
any pluralistic society, abroad and in this country. Educators are required to implement
the five C’s in order to attain this goal.

The implementation of the tandem learning method could be useful and helpful
since tandem is compatible with the new standards. It is a very communicative approach
(Communication), where participants are actively engaged in conversations, expressing
their feelings and opinions and developing their ability to interact in a culturally
appropriate manner. Secondly, tandem allows its participants to gain deep understanding
of other cultures, through direct contact with it (Cultures). The non-native speaker can
learn directly fi'om a native speaker what to do and what to avoid in the other culture in
order to behave “appropriately.” Tandem participants frequently demonstrate high
interest in the progress of their learning-partners and ensure that they learn the whole

spectrum of the L2: the linguistic elements, as well as cultural and pragmatic knowledge,

as can be observed when looking at the analyzed data. Tandem provides learners with
direct access to the other culture, through cultural activities which are the essential
(although optional) part of tandem interactions: visits to museums, cooking traditional
food for each other, discussing customs and traditions of the native cultures.

Thirdly, during tandem interactions, learners are able to use their L2 in various
settings. Tandem meetings tend to take place at different locations, among others in
private homes, bars, cultural centers, museums. Such a wide range of “instructional”
settings leads to situations when learners discuss a variety of topics utilizing their second
language, which in this instance becomes “a means to expand and deepen students’
understanding of, and exposure to, other areas of knowledge” (Standard
3.1/Connections). For example, a visit to a museum may lead to an intense learning about
German history through the means of the L2.

In many instances, above and beyond their usual tandem meetings, tandem
partners often introduce each other to their respective fiiends and family, and in doing so
“students can recognize the distinctive viewpoints that are only available through the
foreign language and cultures” (Standard 3.2/Connections).

The fourth standard (Comparisons) is also an element of most tandem
interactions. It is common for tandem partners to compare the cultures, traditions, and
linguistic features of their native languages (examples are discussed in the data analysis
chapters). Tandem partners frequently look not only for differences between them, but
also for similarities in order to “build a bridge” between their languages and cultures.
Through the comparisons of the language studied with their own, tandem learners are

able to notice certain features of their native language, which they used before, but were

10

not consciously aware of. Such comparisons provide tandem learners with opportunities
for reflections on their Ll , L2, and the relationship between them. Tandem learners
frequently “compare and contrast the two languages” as they notice differences, and in
doing so, it is possible for them to gain a deeper understanding of their L1 and L2, and to
develop critical thinking abilities with regard to “how languages work” (Standard 4.1/
Comparisons).

Since during tandem interactions, linguistic learning is as important as cultural
learning, tandem participants frequently compare their own culture with the culture of
their tandem partner. As Standard 4.2 states, “they expand their knowledge of cultures
through language learning, they continually discover perspectives, practices, and products
that are similar and different from their own culture, and they develop the ability to
hypothesize about cultural systems in general.” All these phenomena can be observed in
the further chapters of this dissertation. Analyzed data provide examples of situations
when tandem learners engage in discussions and comparisons of their native languages
and cultures.

Finally, tandem learning involves a multilingual community of learners who
engage in learning outside of the formal educational setting. They use the L2 for personal
enrichment. Learners also enjoy the tandem interactions, and some tandems may be the
beginning of life-long fiiendships. This also fulfills the fifth and final standard of
ACTF L, Communities, which states that the L2 is “used as a tool for communication with
Speakers of the language throughout one’s life: in schools, in the community, and

abroad.” (Standard 5.1)

11

Since tandem learning corresponds with all five standards recommended for
foreign language instruction, and since it is relatively unknown in the United States, new

research related to it should be of prime interest to language educators.

1.5 Research questions and hypotheses

As previously discussed, the tandem method provides opportunities for linguistic and
cultural learning in an authentic, communicative environment. Tandem meetings are not
only a social gathering-they are much more because their primary goal is language
learning.

My goal is to determine what occurs during a typical tandem meeting: what is
learned and what causes this learning. This investigation will focus on four features of
learning: lexical acquisition, grammatical features spontaneously addressed during
tandem learning, error correction, and intercultural learning. The research will analyze
tandem-leamers’ output for the following characteristics: (a) one partner asks the other
for help; (b) the NNS calls upon the language expertise of the NS; (0) the partners
negotiate meaning; and ((1) one or both tandem partners acquire new linguistic awareness
about the L2 or about the native language. The research also will identify ways in which
the NS signals the NNS that the original utterance of the NNS was unacceptable,
grammatically and/or pragrnatically. For example, the NS can recast the utterance,
complete the sentence for the NNS, or provide a response that demonstrates a target-like
way of expressing the original meaning.

The changes in learner output emanating from the tandem-learning process will

be one of the focal points of this research. Generally speaking, any change in the

12

learner’s language development will be analyzed. The study will look for an existence of
a pattern of changes in learner’s language and for eventual repetition of patterns by
different tandem partners, investigating in which way tandem participants are learning
through interaction and how effective such a learning environment is. I also expect that
the data analysis will confirm my hypotheses that:
1- H1: There are substantial opportunities for lexical learning because of students’
participation in tandem.
2- H2: There are substantial opportunities for grammatical learning from context and
in context due to one’s participation in tandem.

Additionally, this research will be one of the first comprehensive studies of
tandem language learning as a whole; it will assess not only the linguistic learning in
tandem, but also the pragmatic and cultural aspects of learning during tandem
interactions. Since tandem partners have the possibility to choose the place of their
meetings, many of the native speakers use it as an opportunity to introduce the foreign
visitor to the local culture. Tandem meetings can take place in a café, museum, park, zoo,
or private home. Each place creates a different context for learning and a unique
environment for cultural experiences. This aspect leads to the third hypothesis of the
dissertation, which states that:

3- H3: There are substantial opportunities for development of pragmatic

knowledge and cultural exchanges because of students’ participation in tandem.

Finally, participants’ opinions about the value of the tandem learning method will
be analyzed. In the current study, tandem participants evaluated advantages and

disadvantages of the tandem learning methOd through multiple questionnaires and thus

13

provided valuable information about future implementation and improvement of this
learning approach. This aspect of data analysis will address the fourth hypothesis:
4- H4: The majority of tandem participants are highly satisfied with the outcome
of their learning in tandem, and with the learning progress of their tandem partner,
and would recommend this method to others.
To investigate the above research questions, this study will analyze data obtained
fiom multiple audio-tapings of tandem interactions (authentic conversations between a
native speaker and a non-native speaker) and the results of four questionnaires, which
were administered to measure tandem participants’ perceptions about their experiences as
tandem learners. By combining questionnaires with audio-tapings of dialogues, I intend
to obtain a comprehensive picture of tandem interactions. According to Swain (1994),
analysis of dialogues may be very profitable for second language research:
I believe that another source, and perhaps a more direct source of cognitive
process data, may be in the dialogues themselves that learners engage in with
other learners and with their teachers. If one accepts the Vygotskian perspective
that much learning is an activity that occurs in and through dialogues, that
development occurs first on the inter-psychological plane through socially
constructing knowledge and processes, then it must be that a close examination of
dialogue as learners engage in problem-solving activity is directly revealing of
mental processes. The unit of analysis of language learning and its associated

processes may therefore more profitably be the dialogue. (p.142)

14

CHAPTER 2

TANDEM LEARNING

2.1 History of tandem learning

The term “tandem” appeared for the very first time in the second half of the 19603
and was closely connected with the French-German Youth Exchange Program (“Deutsch-
Franzéizischer Jugendwerk,” DFJ W), which involved regular meetings between French
and German teenagers. The essence of modern tandem learning was established in so-
called “ateliers linguistiques” (Raasch, 1972). DFJW focused not only on the social
aspect of the bi-national meetings (frequently conducted as summer camps), but also on
their educational aspects. Language courses were of great importance to the organizers
and the participants of these meetings. At first, these courses were conducted separately
for each nationality during the summer camps: the German group learned French
together, and the French participants studied German. After some time of separate study,
the idea of mutual learning was introduced, and the concept of the modern tandem began
(Bechtel, 2003). French and German native speakers were brought together to learn the
language of their partner directly with and from the readily available native speaker. This
approach allowed learners to learn fiom an expert, and to be at the same time the expert
of their L1.

Shortly thereafter, the tandem learning concept was introduced at language
schools in France and Germany. Its communicative approach gained great support among
European language educators. In 1979, J. Wolff established the very first “Tandem-

Agency” in Madrid, whose goal was to bring together German and Spanish learners, who

15

were interested in learning with a tandem partner (Wolff, 1982). Additionally, the
Goethe—Institut in Madrid started to offer German language courses supplemented with
Spanish-German tandem interactions (Wolff, 1984). This approach proved successful and
the so-called “Tandem-Initiativen” began to exist in Barcelona, San Sebastian, and in
various cities in Germany. A few years later, Italy began introducing the tandem learning
method at its language schools. These alternative language schools exist to the present
day and are part of the “Tandem-Network” (TANDEM ®). All of them offer traditional
language courses, as well as the opportunity for tandem learning (Bechtel, 2003).
Currently, language schools that are members of the Tandem-Network, firnction in the
following countries: England, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Argentina, Chile, and
Spain.

Additionally, the tandem method found a significant level of interest and support
among the academic community in Europe. Since the mid 19805, many universities in
Switzerland, Germany, and France, among others, have introduced the tandem learning
component to their students. In Germany, the University of Bielefeld was one of the first
to introduce tandem learning as a part of their formal curriculum and as an extracurricular
activity (Bechtel, 2003).

Currently, the majority of German universities offer the tandem learning
possibility, as well as support in finding a tandem partner. At most of these universities,
interested students are able to fill out an application to indicate their language needs.
Applications may be submitted online or personally to a tandem office, which matches
tandem partners according to their age, personal interest, and linguistic needs. This

service is gratis, and students may use it as often as desired. In most cases, students have

16

the additional option of posting their own application directly to the blackboard in the
front of the tandem office, and to manage their own tandem partner selection process.
The learners’ autonomy is of great importance for this learning concept although
universities frequently provide additional counseling for any tandem participant with
questions or doubts.

In addition to the personal tandem meetings, one additional form of tandem
learning is currently employed at European universities: network based computer-
mediated communication (CMC). One of the most successful networks was created at the
University of Bochum-the International E-Mail Tandem Network, a project founded by
the European Union, which involves universities from more than 10 countries. It was
developed to promote autonomous and intercultural learning, and is considered an

extension of the tandem learning method.

2.2 Guidelines to a successful tandem

Currently, there is strong support among most German universities for the tandem
learning method. Universities provide supplemental guidelines to a successful tandem
experience. These materials are readily available, either online or as handouts in language
learning centers at the universities. The University of Kassel published on their official

web-page the rules for successful tandem learning (http://wwwuni-

 

kassel.de/sprz/tandem/Tandem_lnitiative/prinzneughk), some of which will be used in

 

this dissertation as an example of what is normally recommended for tandem participants.
These rules can be seen as general guidelines, which can be provided by any university to

novice tandem participants in order to help them to have a successful learning experience.

17

Similar rules are posted on web pages of most German universities. I will present a few

of these rules with the purpose of illustrating what is generally expected from tandem

learners:

1.

Both partners should profit equally from tandem learning. Each language should
be spoken half of the time.

Tandem partners are responsible for their own learning. They should recognize
and evaluate their linguistic needs and weaknesses and be able to address them
during tandem interactions. Learners have the power to decide how much they
want to learn, knowing that their tandem partner is readily available with help.
Tandem partners should write down new lexical items, idiomatic expressions, or
useful sentences. Taking notes is important!

During each tandem meeting, tandem partners should try to correct errors and feel
free to discuss them. Nevertheless, each tandem partner should decide how much
error correction he/she wants to receive, and which type of correction would be
most useful.

“Other countries, other cultures.” Students should endeavor to be always aware
that their tandem partner was born and raised in a different country, with different
customs and different traditions. This awareness presents an excellent opportunity
for intercultural learning and effective conflict resolution.

Students are encouraged to do different things with their tandem partner: go to the
movies, visit a museum, or cook something traditional for the other person.

Adding extra activities serves to keep the learning experience fresh and fertile,

18

and importantly, helps to prevent any sense of monotony. (http://wwwuni-

kassel.de/sprz/tandem/Tandcmwlnitiative/prinzneughk)

 

The above suggestions are guidelines for novice tandem learners, who may be unsure
or confused about this learning approach. They may also be seen as general guidelines for
successful tandem learning for all participants throughout the duration of their tandem
interactions.

Learners are encouraged to be responsible for their own learning and to manage it
intelligently in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the tandem method. On the
other hand, sensitivity to the needs of the other learner is equally important, without

which it is impossible to have a successful tandem.

2.3 New trends for tandem learning

Until recently, the tandem learning method was offered either as: (a) structured
tandem-language courses in an educational setting, or (b) independent meetings of two
tandem partners, who were in control of the content of their learning. The latter type of
interaction is the focus of this research study.

The first form of tandem learning—the structured language courses-- is conducted
with an instructor, who is responsible for the selection of conversation topics and the
theme of the course. Tandem courses take place, in most cases, at universities or during
binational meetings. Although they have formal structure, they try to remain true to the
most important principles of tandem interactions -- two students fi'om different

nationalities work together as a team. This approach is a mix of the autonomous and

19

structured learning. It is autonomous because there is an opportunity for authentic
communication between a NS and a NNS, and students can personalize what they want to
say about the provided topic.

There are, however, some elements of structured learning. First of all, students have
fixed times for their classes. Secondly, there is an instructor who controls the situation
(manages the instruction) and who prepares the topics for the conversations and tasks
which need to be accomplished. The instructor also sets the time limits for each
assignment and, in some cases, has to grade it. For this reason, students may perceive it
more as a different form of formal instruction.

The second form of tandem interactions, which I will analyze in this document, is
the autonomous tandem learning between two learners, who are completely in control of
their learning. In this setting, learners are on their own, without any outside influences.
This situation has many advantages: tandem participants can choose topics for their
conversations, they have no fixed times to meet, their performance is not evaluated by a
third party, and there is nobody else in control of their interaction.

Both approaches have some advantages and disadvantages. Learners participating in
the fully autonomous approach have the freedom of doing what they want, but this may
present some motivational and organizational difficulties for them. Also, students
participating in formal instruction normally receive a grade or at least some form of
documentation to acknowledge their effort; autonomous tandem learners do not have this
option. Their meetings, although educational, are often not officially recognized as such.

The above problems were recognized by the linguists of the Freie Universitat in

Berlin, and a new form of tandem learning emerged in 2007. During my data collection

20

in Berlin, which was partially conducted with students fiom this university (as well as
students fiom the Tandem Language School), I had the opportunity to have direct contact
with Professor Tassinary, who is one of the developers of the new approach to tandem
learning.

The new approach to tandem learning retains the element of strong emphasis on
learners’ autonomy, but additionally provides tandem participants with opportunities for
some structure, readily available to them, if they choose it.

The initial phase for this type of tandem is exactly the same as for any other tandem--
students submit (or post on a blackboard) an application for tandem and once they have
found their learning partner, with whom they want to continue to learn, they can decide if
they want to follow: (a) the traditional approach-entirely autonomous learning, without
any control mechanism or (b) the “new” approach, which still consists of autonomous
learning, but with one major difference--students have to Sign a “learning contract.” This
contract is between tandem partners and the language learning center. Before signing the
contract, students are obliged to evaluate their language needs in the following areas:
listening, reading, speaking, and writing (language learning centers are able to provide
help with this). According to the results of this evaluation, students are required to set
goals for their learning and to explain their approach to achieve it. Learners should
provide concrete examples of activities they may employ during tandem interactions.
Tandem partners also have to state in their learning contract the possible frequency and
duration of their meetings. Additionally, they must agree to keep a learning journal,
which documents their tandem work: learners’ performance during each tandem meeting,

accomplished linguistic goals, etc. Finally, students are required to return to the language

21

learning center by the end of the semester with their learning journals for evaluation of
accomplished tasks. After successfirl evaluation of the learning journals, tandem
participants are able to receive an official certificate and accreditation from the
university, which documents their tandem work and accomplishments.

This new approach recognizes tandem as a valuable tool in the process of second
language acquisition and rewards serious participants with an official certificate. It should
motivate tandem participants to think about their linguistic needs right fi'om the
beginning of the tandem learning process and to develop an awareness of them. This
approach motivates tandem learners to take greater advantage of their interactions
through the added element of “forced” self-evaluation and reflection on linguistic needs
of each learner; on the other hand, it preserves learners’ autonomy--the defining element
of tandems. Learners willing to sign the learning contract are not obliged to lock
themselves in the library and focus on grammar study; on the contrary, they are
encouraged to enjoy their tandem meetings, which should be diverse, fun and
educational. The only differences between this new approach and the traditional tandem
learning are the contract signed at the beginning of the semester and the frequent self-

monitoring/evaluation of progress in the learning journal.

22

CHAPTER 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

3.0 Introduction

There is no existing literature on tandem learning in the United States. Due to the
fact that tandem research has a strong foundation in the interactions between a native
speaker and a non-native speaker as a source of linguistic and intercultural learning, some
of the studies in second language acquisition (SLA) which focused on interactions
between a native speaker and a non-native speaker; issues of output, input, and
interactional feedback are considered.

The second half of this chapter will be dedicated to the already existing tandem

research conducted in Europe.

3.1 Elements of an interaction
3.1.1 Input/interaction framework

Research on conversational interactions between second language learners and
their interlocutors has been an important element of the second language acquisition field
since the early 1980s (e.g., Gass, Mackey & Pica, 1998). One of the first studies leading
to questions of the connection between interaction and language learning was conducted
by Sato (1985, 1986), who investigated the relationship between conversation and second
language learning. In her longitudinal study, Sato observed two Vietnamese brothers
during conversations with their teachers, peers, foster parents, and Sato herself. The

results of her research suggested there was no connection between input or naturalistic

23

interaction and the grammatical encoding of past time reference (the focus of her
investigation). For this reason, Sato suggested that conversation may be only selectively
facilitative in the process of second language acquisition. It was one of the first
indications that input alone may not be sufficient for learning.

As Gass and Selinker pointed out (2001):

Input alone is not sufficient for acquisition, because when one hears language, one

can often interpret the meaning without the use of the syntax. (. . .) Little

knowledge, other than knowing the meanings of the words and knowing
something about real-world events, is needed. This is not the case with language
production, or output, because one is forced to put the words into some order.

(p.277)

Current SLA research goes beyond the comprehensible input hypothesis of
Krashen, which stated that the source of second language acquisition was input which
could be understood by the learner (Krashen, 1985). Comprehensible input is still
considered necessary, but insufficient for successful language learning (Elis, 1994; Long
1985; Long, 1996). Recently, researchers have focused on more precise understanding of
how learners process input and develop their interlanguage competence. The interplay
between input, comprehension, and output is of greater importance in the field of SLA
(Gass, 1997; Gass & Polio, 1998; Hall, 2000; Long, 1983; Long, 1996; Mackey, 1998;
Mackey, Rhonda, & Leeman, 2003; Swain, 1985).

The general idea about the benefits of interactions was formulated by Long (1996)
as part of his Interaction Hypothesis, which stated that conversational negotiations trigger

linguistic adjustments by the NS (or more competent interlocutor), which, in turn, help

24

second language acquisition because they provide opportunities for the connection of
“input, learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive way”
(p.452). Modifications of input are important because they can increase input’s
comprehensibility and may facilitate L2 development.

The connection between input and output during interaction was also investigated
by Gass (1997) in her work related to input, interaction, and second language acquisition.
Gass (1997) proposed the following five stages to account for the conversion of input to
output: apperceived input, comprehended input, intake (selective processing), integration
(matching input against existing knowledge), and output (p.3-4). It is important to point
out the difference between comprehensible input proposed by Krashen, and
comprehended input by Gass. As Gass (1997) points out, there are two crucial differences
between these inputs: (1) comprehended input--the focus is on learners and their
understanding; (2) comprehensible input--the speaker is in control of comprehensibility.

Study conducted by Mackey (1995) suggested that taking part in interaction led to
increased production of developmentally more advanced structures, and “more active
involvement in negotiated interaction led to greater development” (p.583). Only active
participation resulted in development. Observing interactions, without active participation
and opportunities for production, was not associated with the emergence of
developmentally more advanced structures. Mackey’s research supported the interaction
hypothesis and provided support for Swain’s output hypothesis, and the importance of

language production.

25

3.1.2 Output

Studies related to interactions and learners’ output have their origin in the
research conducted in French immersion classroom settings in Canada. Swain and Harley
(1978) observed in Canadian immersion programs, where students were constantly
provided with rich, comprehensible input that learners often demonstrated weaknesses in
their grammatical accuracy. Observed students had very high listening comprehension
skills and communicative fluency, but they displayed a significant amount of
grammatical errors in L2.

This suggested that large amounts of comprehensible input were not sufficient for
foreign language learners to achieve a very high level of L2 proficiency.
Communicatively—oriented, rich in input learning environment did not provide optimal
conditions for second language acquisition. Focus on form and language production were
necessary to improve learners’ performance (Harley & Swain, 1978).

In proposing the Output Hypothesis, Swain (1985) stressed that “producing the
target language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of
expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning (p.
249). She argued that students need comprehensible input and comprehensible output in

order to achieve accuracy in L2.

3.1.3 Three functions of output
Swain’s output hypothesis is strongly related to the concepts of language fluency
and accuracy. As mentioned in the previous chapter, language fluency does not always

correspond to language accuracy. Even very advanced, seemingly fluent speakers of L2

26

may produce grammatically incorrect structures. Rich input may not be sufficient for
learners to achieve accuracy in foreign language study. Comprehensible output may be
crucial in the process of L2 learning. '

For this reason, the output hypothesis, which addresses three distinct
metalinguistic functions of output and their usefulness in the process of language
learning, will be of great importance for this research. This hypothesis (Swain, 1995) is
based on the assumption that:

Output pushes learners to process language more deeply (with more mental effort)

than does input. With output, the learner is in control. By focusing on output, we

may be focusing on ways in which learners can play more active, responsible
roles in their learning. In speaking or writing, learners can “stretch” their
interlanguage to meet communicative goals. They might work towards solving
their linguistic limitations by using their own internalized knowledge, or by
cueing themselves to listen for a solution in future input. Learners (as well as
native speakers, of course) can fake it, so to speak, in comprehension, but they
cannot do so in the same way in production (p.126-l27).

In the earlier stages of SLA research, output was viewed as a method to practice
already learned skills; it was not considered a useful “learning tool.” The idea of output
as an important element of the learning process emerged with Swain’s output hypothesis.
Since the first proposals of the output hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1993), Swain has
extended its scope and identified three functions of language production, which are
related to the aspect of accuracy, rather than fluency. The three functions of output are

(Swain, 1995):

27

1. The noticing/triggering function, or what might be referred to as its

consciousness-raising role

2. The hypothesis-testing function

3. The metalinguistic function or what might be referred to as its “reflective”

role (p. 128)

The noticing (or consciousness raising) function is activated when learners want
to say something, and are not able to do so. In such circumstances, they are able to
“notice the gap” between their knowledge and their linguistic needs. According to Swain
(1995), noticing may bring learners’ attention to something they need to discover about
their L2. This noticing may trigger further cognitive processes needed to generate new
linguistic knowledge or to reorganize learners’ existing knowledge.

The second function of output is the hypothesis-testing function. Producing output
could be potentially a way of testing one’s hypothesis about the L2 and its use. As Swain
(1995) points out, some errors which appear in learners’ written and spoken production
reveal hypotheses held by them about how the L2 works. To test a hypothesis, learners
need to do something. Active production of a foreign language enables learners to test the
comprehensibility and linguistic correctness of their utterances against feedback obtained
from their interlocutors. Obtained feedback may lead either to confirmation that the
tested hypothesis was correct, or to its rejection, in case the produced output was not
understood.

This leads to the third function of output-metalinguistic function, or the
“reflective role.” Swain (1995) claims that “as learners reflect upon their own target

language use, their output serves a metalinguistic function, enabling them to control and

28

internalize linguistic knowledge” (p.126). Under certain conditions, learners will “not
only reveal the hypotheses, but also reflect on them, using language to do so. It is this
level of output that represents its metalinguistic function of using language to reflect on
language, allowing learners to control and internalize it” (p. 132).

It is crucial to point out that Swain does not propose that output should be viewed
as the only solution for second language acquisition. Her claim is rather that output
promotes the recognition of one’s capabilities and gaps in knowledge, which, in turn, can
motivate learners to engage in language related activities, such as a collaborative

dialogue.

3.1.4 Studies related to the output hypothesis

There are several studies related to the output hypothesis and to the three
functions of output: the noticing function, the hypothesis testing function, and the
metalinguistic function.

Pica (1988) investigated interlanguage adjustments as outcomes of negotiated
interactions between the NS and the NNS. One year later, Pica, Holliday, Lewis, and
Morgenthaler (1989) examined comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic
demands on learners. Both studies demonstrated that learners frequently modify their
output as a result of comprehension difficulties.

Swain and Lapkin (1995) investigated the noticing firnction of output. The
research method employed by them was the analysis of “think-aloud protocols” generated
in connection with a written activity in a formal classroom setting. Their finding

supported the claim that language production (output) resulted in students’ recognition of

29

their linguistic problems. Secondly, they found that such recognition activated cognitive
processes, leading to language learning. Learners were able through various thought
processes to consolidate existing knowledge, or generate some new knowledge on the
base of their current Skills.

Another study related to the noticing function of output was conducted by Izumi
(2002), who investigated whether language production promoted noticing of formal
elements in L2. The results of this study suggested that students who engaged in output-
input activities outperformed those exposed to input only for the sole purpose of
comprehension. The positive effects of language production were consistent with the
output hypothesis.

The most recent studies examining the concept of output have been extended to
include its additional function--“as a socially-constructed cognitive tool” (Swain, 2000),

and its importance for the collaborative dialogue.

3.2 Collaborative dialogue
3.2.1 The definition of collaborative dialogue.

The joint effort of native speaker and non-native speaker to construct discourse
promotes second language acquisition in many ways. Whenever two speakers meet in
order to communicate and to learn through the means of this communication fiom one
another, there is an opportunity for a collaborative dialogue to materialize. As Swain
explains (Swain, 2000), a collaborative dialogue is “knowledge-building dialogue.” It is a
dialogue in which students can outperform their linguistic competence through the help

of their conversational partner. In collaborative dialogue, as pointed out by Swain and

30

Lapkin (1998), the function of language use is also distinct: “Language is simultaneously
a means of communication and a tool for thinking. Dialogue provides both the occasion
for language learning and the evidence for it. Language is both process and product.”
(p.320)

In a collaborative dialogue, interlocutors work together on problem solving and
knowledge building through the means of language, but “their collective behavior may be
transformed into individual mental resources” (Swain, 2000). Learners work together
towards linguistic improvement and resolution, but in the process of the collaboration,
each learner benefits individually. In a collaborative dialogue, each interlocutor enters the
conversation with individual needs and a certain metalinguistic knowledge, which are the
basis for learning. Each person learns differently, according to their specific needs, and
this converts the collaborative dialogue into an individual learning experience. The
collectively accomplished knowledge may be used by an individual learner in second
language development. Individual benefits are obtained through this joint activity, which
could be viewed as “linguistic problem-solving through social interaction,” where saying
and responding to it converts into knowledge building mediated by language. (Swain,

2000)

3.2.2 Collaborative dialogue and its challenges

As Swain explains (2000):
The role of dialogue in mediating the learning of such substantive areas as
mathematics, science, and history is generally accepted. Yet, when it comes to the

learning of language, the mediating role of dialogue seems less well understood.

31

Perhaps this is because the notion of “language mediating language” is more
difficult to conceptualize and it is more difficult to be certain of what one is
observing empirically (p.110).

Verbalization is commonly used in almost all fields of study. It has several
frmctions: it focuses learners’ attention, helps formulate hypotheses, tests them, and is
very useful in finding solutions (Swain, 2000). Nevertheless, it is not commonly used in
foreign language instruction. In many instances, students are required to produce
dialogues just for the purpose of language production. They talk about artificial topics,

and do not utilize the language for talking about the language itself.

3.2.3 Language Related Episodes (LRE)

Dialogue as a mediator of second language learning found support in the research
of Swain and Lapkin (1998), who analyzed language-related episodes from dialogues of
two grade 8 French immersion students during their interaction.

Swain and Lapkin (1998) define a language related episode (LRE) as “any part of
a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their
language use, or correct themselves or others” (p.326). The LRE can be either “lexis
based” or “form based.” The lexis based LRE can be observed when learners seek a word
in the L2, or when they have to choose between synonyms to find the item with the best
fit. The form based LRE is related to syntax, spelling, morphology, or any other
grammatical item discussed during an interaction. Language related episodes are

connected with the concept of language used as a tool (Swain & Lapking, 1998):

32

Language serves not only a communicative function, but is itself, a psychological
tool. Like any other tool, it facilitates task performance by mediating between us
and the accomplishment of the task. The tool may facilitate our performance of
the task and may make some things possible that were not otherwise. (p.320)
Assuming that the students were using language as a “psychological tool,” Swain
and Lapkin (1998) examined their dialogues for any evidence of learning, while speaking
was analyzed as a cognitive activity which enabled learners to generate hypotheses and to
test them.
The second goal of Swain’s and Lapkin’s (1998) research was to demonstrate that
collaborative dialogue is learning:
Unlike the claim that comprehensible input leads to learning, we wish to suggest
that what occurs in collaborative dialogues is learning. That is, learning does not
happen outside performance. Furthermore, learning is cumulative, emergent, and
ongoing, sometimes occurring in leaps, while at other times it is imperceptible.
(p.321)
According to the above statement, the collaborative dialogue IS learning in process
because using either the L1 or L2 for negotiations creates new knowledge about them.
Data to support the above claims came from an analysis of the language-related
episodes isolated in the conversation of two French immersion students (grade 8 students,
enrolled in French immersion program since kindergarten). One of the students was
female and the other male. According to their teacher’s evaluation, the female student

was linguistically stronger than the male learner. This proficiency level difference was

33

considered important for the researchers because it suggested there was an opportunity
for an “expert/novice” relationship during their interaction (Swain and Lapkin, 1998).

In their study these learners were asked to carry out a “jigsaw task.” During the
task, they had to work out a story line from a series of pictures and then write it out. As
the students worked together, their conversation was recorded and later transcribed for
analysis of the language-related episodes observed during the process of the story line’s
construction. The presence of the LREs was associated with situations when students
encountered linguistic problems and tried to solve them using either their native language
or the L2. Observed language-related episodes provided evidence that language was used
as both an enhancement of one’s thinking and mental processes and as a tool for foreign
language learning. It was used to create new knowledge and to overcome communicative

obstacles.

3.2.3 Scaffolding

Creation of new knowledge because of learners’ participation in a collaborative
dialogue may be connected to another important learning process—scaffolding, which
can be observed as part of the collaborative discourse between two speakers: two native
Speakers, two non-native speakers, or a native speaker and a non-native speaker.
Scaffolding as a term is closely related to the previously discussed topics of output and
collaborative dialogue. Language production and mutual assistance among interlocutors
are necessary for scaffolding to occur.

Donato (1994) provides the following definition of scaffolding: “in social

interaction a knowledgeable participant can create, by means of speech, supportive

34

conditions in which the novice can participate in, and extend current skills and
knowledge to higher levels of competence.” (p.40)

According to Ohta (2000), scaffolding can be seriously impeded by the incorrect
type of assistance--by helping learners with what they are able to do, or by not
withdrawing assistance when learners can finish tasks on their own.

Learners’ autonomy, an important element in the process of scaffolding, was also
addressed in the study conducted by Ellis (1985), which investigated interactions between
two learners and a teacher in order to examine students’ utterances with new syntactic
patterns, which had not existed in their interlanguage. His goal was to identify the first
occurrence of two consecutive sentences consisting of new patterns. Secondly, Ellis
investigated which processes might have helped learners to produce the new structures.
He found that new syntactic patterns emerged when learners were allowed to initiate the
topic of their conversation, and were allowed some degree of autonomy. Additionally,
new structures were present when the teacher helped the students providing crucial
linguistic information at the right moment. The joint effort of the teacher and
participating students to construct linguistically correct discourse resulted in collective
scaffolding.

Donato’s study (1994) on collective scaffolding analyzed selected written
protocols of university students in the US. who worked together. Students in the third
semester of French were required to prepare an oral presentation and were told they
couldn’t use notes while presenting, but could make notes while preparing. Donato
examined students’ notes of their planning process for scaffolding. He observed that

students were helping each other in order to create linguistically correct forms. They were

35

making use of their knowledge to help each other extend their existing skills. Donato
observed 32 cases of scaffolding in a one-hour class during the preparation process for
oral presentations. One week later, during the oral presentation, 75% of the forms learned
through collective scaffolding were used correctly. Donato’s study provides crucial
evidence that collaborative tasks can provide opportunity for language learning. Through
collaborative dialogue learners added to their own knowledge and helped their peers to
do the same.

Takahashi’s study (1998) investigated the development of students’ utterances
over the period of 3 years in a collaborative context. This study was conducted at an
elementary school. Her analysis indicated that students’ ability to provide assistance
during classroom activities increased with their progress. As they became more
experienced foreign language learners, their ability to assist each other increased
significantly. In the third-year data, teacher’s assistance was reduced and students played
a more active role during the class, when compared to the previous two years. There was
an increase of student-student exchanges and children took over the scaffolding role,
previously executed by the teacher. It may suggest that the children were learning not
only the Japanese language from their instructor, but also strategies on how to manage
their own learning and the learning of others. They were imitating the techniques used by
the teacher in order to construct complex sentences through mutual assistance. In
addition, students proved resourceful during their collaborative dialogues and employed,
among others, previously learned songs while constructing complex Japanese structures.

Takahashi observed that students were able to produce correct structures above their

36

developmental levels if active assistance by the teacher or the other children was

provided.

3.3 Corrective feedback (CF)
3.3.1 The definition of corrective feedback

According to Ellis (1994), the term feedback refers in the field of second language
acquisition to “information given to learners which they can use to revise their
interlanguage” (p. 702). Feedback can be implicit (indirect, for example, as a request for
clarification) or explicit (direct correction). Corrective feedback usually occurs in
situations where the communication between interlocutors is impaired or deviates from
linguistic standards. It is a chance for L2 learners to obtain valuable information in order
to improve or update their linguistic abilities. However, not all corrective feedback is
perceived as such, and not all is noticed. A certain level of learner attention is necessary
to benefit from received feedback, and for interlanguage adjustments to occur.

Although some researchers stressed in the past that positive evidence alone was
sufficient for learners to acquire the L2 (Krashen, 1982; Schwartz, 1993), increasingly,
there is strong support that CF may play a facilitative role in language learning. Long’s
(1996) Interaction Hypothesis claims that implicit negative feedback, resulting from
negotiation of meaning, gives learners the opportunity to attend to linguistic form. Gass
(1997) took it further and argued that learners benefit from such input only if they pay
attention to the language forms they hear. According to Gass (1997), “some input may
serve no learning purpose. Rather, time or conversational pressures may be such that the

input occurs with little attention being paid to it“ (p.114). The concept of noticing is of

37

great importance because it accounts for which features of input (including feedback) will
be focused on and so may become intake.

In summary, any situation, in which there is a misunderstanding between two
interlocutors may lead to modifications of input and output in order to reach mutual
comprehension (Gass, 1997; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey and Philp, 1998; Swain,
1995). In order for such modification to occur, learners must pay attention to the

available information.

3.3.2 Learners’ perception of feedback

In a conversation between a native speaker and a non-native speaker, some type
of corrective feedback may be provided, especially in educational settings. This CF is,
however, not always noticed or acknowledged by the non-native speaker as such. In this
section, I will focus on studies, which investigated why learners may fail to notice CF,
which type of corrective feedback is noticed, and which type tends to be left unattended.

Doughty (1994) conducted a study with Australian adults learning French, with
the purpose of corrective feedback analysis. She discovered that the observed teacher had
a tendency to give feedback on learners’ sentences that had only one error and did not
frequently correct utterances with many errors. Additionally, the results of her study
suggested that the teacher provided feedback for 43% of the utterances with errors. Her
findings suggest that teachers are not able to provide feedback to all erroneous utterances;
consequently, they must make decisions on what to correct and how to do it. Students
have various options in reacting to feedback, which can range from ignoring the feedback

to repairing the error.

38

A study which investigated in depth corrective feedback and learner uptake was
conducted by Lyster and Ranta (1997). It was an observational study of French
immersion classes, with approximately 100 hours of audio-recordings. Researchers
distinguished six different types of feedback used by four teachers participating in this
study: (1) Explicit correction (teacher provided correct form or clearly indicated that a
student made an error); (2) Recast; (3) Clarification request (indication that repetition or
reformulation of a sentence is necessary due to an error, often introduced by phrases
“what do you mean by X?”); (4) Metalinguistic feedback (comments, information,
questions related to the error); (5) Elicitation (“No, not that. It’s a. . .. — teachers allowed
students to complete their sentence; or teacher asked students “how do you say it in X?”
Teachers were helping students to come up with the correct answer); (6) Repetition
(teacher’s repetition of students’ utterance with the error; teacher used higher intonation
to highlight the error). Also, a combination of various types of feedback in the same turn
was observed--multiple feedback (p.48). The goal of this study was to observe the type
and frequency of corrective feedback employed by four observed teachers. Secondarily,
researchers sought to find which type of feedback would result in students’ uptake and
which feedback would prove ineffective. Uptake was defined by them for the purpose of
this study as: “student’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and
that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to
some aspect of the student’s initial utterance” (p.49). According to Lyster and Ranta,
teachers’ feedback could result in uptake or no uptake (continuation of the topic). If there
was uptake, the error either was corrected because of the feedback, or the student was not

able to fully correct the utterance and it needed further “repair.”

39

Results of this study indicated teachers’ overwhelming tendency to use recasts
although this corrective treatment had little effect on students’ repair. Only 31% of the
recasts led to uptake. Metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, and repetition were
used infrequently by teachers although, according to the results of this study, they were
followed by more uptake than recasts. Metalinguistic feedback led to 86% uptake, and
clarification requests to 88%. Elicitations led to 100% uptake. As Lyster and Ranta
pointed out, “both elicitation and metalinguistic feedback proved to be particularly
powerful ways of encouraging repairs that involve more than a student’s repetition of the
teacher’s utterance--these feedback moves resulted in student-generated repair.”(p.56)

The arguable role of recast and its perception by foreign language learners was
investigated in further studies conducted by Lyster (1998a, b), who argued that recast was
the least effective type of feedback to promote modified output by learners. Lyster
concluded that in content-based classrooms, recasts were not very successful at drawing
students’ attention to their non-target-like output. Learners perceived it as repetition of
what they had said before, as affirmation, or as an alternative form of their utterance, but
not as correction.

One of the most significant studies related to learners’ perception of corrective
feedback was conducted by Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000). Participants were 10
learners of English as a second language and 7 learners of Italian as a foreign language
(IFL), who received feedback focused on various linguistic features, including
morphology, syntax, lexicon, and phonology. The researchers investigated how learners

responded to various types of feedback.

40

One of the crucial theoretical frameworks for this study was the concept of the
acquisition of linguistic knowledge (competence). As Mackey, Gass, and McDonough
pointed out, attention is necessary and crucial for learning, and for choosing from the
constant flow of input the elements which may be important for one’s development und
future progress. There are various levels of attention, and not all input is processed in the
same manner. Some elements of input and corrective feedback may be perceived as
important, while others may “slip by” unnoticed by learners.

Since the goal of this study was to observe learners’ perception of interactional
feedback, all participants carried out a communicative task (two-way information
exchange activities) with a native or near-native speaker, who provided interactional
feedback for the non-target-like linguistic features of NNS speech, when appropriate. Not
all errors had to be corrected.

Each participant received a picture, which was similar but not identical to the
picture of the conversational partner. The task was to find the differences between these
pictures. Each interaction lasted approximately 15 minutes and was videotaped for later
analysis and stimulated recall. The recall was conducted immediately after the
communicative task, in order to elicit learners’ perception about the received feedback.
The stimulated recall comments were categorized into six groups: (1) lexis (comments
about unknown word, synonym, etc); (2) semantic (general comments with regard to
meaning and understanding); (3) phonology ; (4) morphosyntax (sentence formation,
word order, structure); (5) no content (subjects did not say anything about received CF);

and (6) unclassifiable comments.

41

The results suggested that the received corrective feedback for the ESL learners
consisted of corrections in the following categories: 47% morphosyntactic, 41.5%
phonological, 10.5% lexical and only 1% semantic. Quite different results were obtained
for the IFL group: 48% of feedback was lexical, 31.5% morphosyntactic, 18%
phonological and 2.5% semantic. There are significant differences in the linguistic
content of feedback episodes between these two groups. The main difference was in
treatment of lexical CF. In both groups feedback about semantic items was minimal.

During the stimulated-recall session, learners had the chance to reflect on the
corrective feedback and to comment on it. The ESL learners, who received most of their
feedback on morphosyntax, did not pay to much attention to it during the recall. Only 7%
of their comments were related to the morphosyntactic category, while 27% addressed
phonology, 23% semantic, and 26% lexical items. The IFL learners demonstrated more
consistency since 54% of the content of stimulated-recall comments were related to lexis,
15% to semantics, 9% morphology, and 5% phonology.

In summary, learners were most accurate in their perceptions about lexical
feedback and about feedback related to their pronunciation. They failed to recognize most
of the morphosyntactic feedback or perceived it as other types of CF. ESL learners
tended to perceive morphosyntactic feedback as semantic, and the IFLs viewed it as lexis.

The types of feedback given to the ESL group were recast, negotiation, and
combination feedback (negotiation and recast). Recast was frequently used to address
morphosyntactic errors, while negotiations were employed for pronunciation problems.

These findings may suggest that learners do not recognize feedback about morphosyntax

42

as such or that recast is not a very effective tool while giving CF. Learners may perceive
a recast as repetition of their correct utterance, and not as feedback.

Feedback obtained during interaction between native and non-native speakers
“may benefit lexis and phonology more than some aspects of grammar” (p. 494). Another
possible explanation of results of this study is related to the concept of “cognitive
overloa ”:

...if learners were able to correctly perceive all of the feedback that they received,

this would result in a cognitive overload for them; if this is the case, then

perceiving a limited amount of feedback at exactly the right developmental time is

the optimal condition for the learner (p.494).

Ellis (2001) investigated corrective feedback and its uptake among ESL learners
in a private school in New Zealand. He found that 74% of interactional feedback resulted
in uptake. This might be explained by looking at the subjects of this study: highly
motivated adults, who paid for taking classes at a private language school and therefore
wanted to take full advantage of it. Ellis’ research points out learners’ motivation may be
of great importance. It affects how much (or how little) attention learners pay to
feedback, how the feedback is noticed, and utilized for learning.

Finally, the study by Mackey, Oliver, and Leeman (2003) focused on the amount
of feedback, the existence of opportunities for output to be modified because of feedback,
and the immediate incorporation of corrections. Results of this study suggested that much
of the feedback learners received gave learners the opportunity to modify their output.
The authors pointed out there may be differences in the amount and quality of feedback

depending on interlocutor type, learner’s age and L2 level, and the educational context.

43

According to the authors, results may be very different in a formal classroom and a
different linguistic environment, such as without a teacher, who fi'equently seems to

provide information and answers.

3.3.3 Recast

One of the six different feedback types identified by Lyster and Ranta (1997) is
recast. Gass (1997) defines recast as: “reformulations of an incorrect utterance that
maintains the original’s meaning” (p.458). Long (1996) referred to it as “utterances that
rephrase a child’s utterance by changing one or more sentence components (subject, verb,
or object) while still referring to its central meaning” (p.434). Baridi (2002) coded
corrective feedback as recast, if “it incorporated the content words of the immediately
preceding incorrect NNS utterance and also changed and corrected the utterance in some
way.” (p.20). All definitions point out that the function of recast is error correction, with
the retention of the original meaning of the sentence. There is a significant number of
studies which investigated recast in both classroom settings (Doughty & Varela, 1998;
Lyster, 1998 a; Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 2000; Lemann, 2003; Philp,
2003; Sheen, 2006) and experimental settings (Mackey & Philp, 1998; Oliver, 1995). The
effectiveness of recasts is also controversial. Research conducted by Lyster and Ranta
(1997) suggested hat recasts may not be very effective in obtaining learner uptake; other
studies demonstrated positive effects of recasts (Mackey & Philp, 1998) and argued that
one should consider delayed effects of recasts as well as directly measurable data in order

to assess their effectiveness.

44

Sheen (2006) intended to bridge these two points of view through exploring the
relationship between certain characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Her study was
based on two research questions: (1) What are the main characteristics of recasts found in
the adult L2 communicative classroom?; and (2) Which type of recasts lead to uptake and
repair? To conduct the study, Sheen used two data sets: one from an ESL classroom in
New Zealand, and the other from an EFL setting in Korea. For data analysis, Sheen used
Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) operationalization of error treatment sequences, which consist
of: (a) a trigger—utterance with an error; (b) teacher’s corrective feedback (recast for
Sheen’s study); (c) learners’ response to feedback. All recasts were provided by teachers
and coded either as a multi-move recast or as a single-move recast.

According to the results of this study, 79% of all recasts were single-move
recasts. There was no significant difference in learners’ uptake following multi-move and
single-move recasts, but as Sheen points out, three characteristics of single—move recasts
were of great importance: recasts’ length, type of change, and linguistic focus. Short
recasts (related to a word or a short phrase) resulted in a higher rate of uptake when
compared to recasts addressing a clause. Substitution (occurs when the reformulation
replaces one element with another) yielded un uptake rate of 90%, much higher than the
65% rate produced by the addition/deletion type of recasts. Sheen concluded that recasts
related to pronunciation resulted in higher uptake (92%) when compared to grammar-
oriented recasts (71%). Interrogative recasts were also more effective than declarative
corrections. Teachers focused their recasts on grammar, which accounted for more than
50% of all recasts. Vocabulary-oriented recasts were slightly more frequent than

pronunciation-oriented corrections. According to Sheen, “many classroom recasts

45

(perhaps the majority) do not involve any negotiation of meaning. In other words, they
are didactic, not conversational (. . .) Teacher’s short, segmented reformulations of the
learner’s erroneous utterances make the recast seem like explicit correction.” (p.387)

In summary, Sheen’s study suggests that explicit recasts lead to more uptake and
repair due to their focus on a single linguistic feature and the salience of the reformulated
item to learners. Classroom recasts tend to be explicit and non-conversational in nature.
Philp’s study (2003) also confirmed that learners were more responsive to shorter recasts,

which resulted in more accurate noticing when compared to longer corrections.

3.4 Focus on Form
3.4.1 Focus on Form research
Long (1991) referred to focus on form as attention to linguistic forms within the
context of performing communicative activities. In such a context, learners acquire
linguistic forms as a product of attending to them during meaning-oriented interactions
when the primary focus is with the message rather than the grammar. In a focus-on-form
approach, there are opportunities for a shift of attention fiom meaning to form. As Long
and Robinson pointed out (1998):
Focus on form refers to how focal attention resources are allocated. Although
there are degrees of attention, and although attention to forms and attention to
meaning are not always mutually exclusive, during an otherwise meaning-focused
classroom lesson, focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention
to linguistic code features-by the teacher and/or one or more students-triggered by

perceived problems with comprehension or production. (p.23)

46

Long and Robinson stress that such a shift of attention is not only characteristic
for second language learners; it also occurs to native speakers when they stop to reflect
on an appropriate form during a writing activity, or in any other situation when they have
to think about their own language. (This native speaker focus on form can be fi'equently
observed during tandem interactions, when native speakers are pushed to reflect on their
own language and its rules.) As Long and Robinson concluded, the native speaker is
usually oriented toward meaning and communication, “but factors arise that lead even the
fluent language user temporarily to attend to the language itself” (p.24). This temporary
attention to a certain linguistic feature, or noticing (registering the occurrence of certain
linguistic feature in context), is crucial to the concept of focus-on-form learning. Schmidt
(1993b) concluded that “noticing is crucially related to the question of what linguistic
material is stored in memory” (p.26). Lightbown (1998) took it further and stressed the
importance of timing in focus on form and noticing. According to her, knowing when to
offer focus on form is crucial. Explicit focus on form should be provided at precisely the
moment when the learners are able “to see the relationship between what was meant and
how it should be said. The goal is to ensure that learner notices the difference between his
or her own utterance and the target form” (p. 193).

Swain (1998) addressed noticing and focus on form in a study investigating: (1)
whether a demonstration of metatalk for students might influence their use of it, and (2)
whether there is evidence of a relationship between metatalk and language learning (p.
77). She analyzed learning-related episodes (LREs) produced by pairs of students, who
participated in a collaborative activity of reconstructing a passage, which was previously

read to them by the teacher. Prior to the activity, students were exposed to a review of

47

difficult vocabulary and a mini-lesson on certain grammatical features of the text. The I
results of this study suggested that the LRE during which students reflected consciously
on the language they were producing, may be a source of language learning; “thus
increasing the frequency of LRES in a pedagogical context through appropriate modeling,
and through Opportunities for use, may be useful in promoting second language learning”
(p.79). Verbalization of linguistic problems gave learners the opportunity and time for
conscious reflection, and as a result of it, possible learning. Additionally, as students tried
to produce the target language, they had the opportunity to notice not only the new
linguistic features in input, but also the gap in their interlanguage. In summary, this study
concluded that focus on form through conscious reflection may be beneficial for students,
in contrast to focus on formS, which, as Long pointed out, may not be very beneficial.

According to Long (1991), there is a crucial difference between focus on formS
and focus on form. Focus on forms refers to grammar-oriented instruction that seeks to
isolate certain linguistic forms in order to teach them one at a time, and to test them in the
same manner. Focus on form refers to meaning-oriented instruction with occasional shifts
of attention to form:

“Whereas the content of a lesson with a focus on forms is the forms themselves, a
syllabus with a focus on form teaches something else-biology, mathematics, (. . .)
the geography of the country where the foreign language is spoken, the cultures of
its speakers, and so on-and overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements

as they arise accidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is meaning or

communication.” (p.45-46)

48

It is learning in context and from context, without the pre-planned isolation of
each linguistic item from the rest of the language. Long argued that focus on form
instruction resulted in a higher level of learners’ proficiency and more efficient learning,
while focus on formS teaching was counter—productive because parts of the language
were deliberately taught separately--converting acquisition into a process of gradual
accumulation of parts. As Doughty and Williams summarized (1998):

the proposed advantage of focus on form over the traditional forms-in—isolation

type of grammar teaching is the cognitive processing support provided by the

“overriding focus. . .on meaning and communication” (. . .) the learner’s attention

is drawn precisely to a linguistic feature as necessitated by a communicative

demand. (p.3)

Even though there seems to be an advantage for participating in focus on form
instruction rather than in a grammar focused teaching/learning approach, Doughty and
Williams stress that “focus on form and focus on forms are not polar opposites in the way
that form and meaning have often been considered to be. Rather focus on form entails a
focus on formal elements of language, whereas focus on forms is limited to such a focus”
(p4).

There are two principal methods for achieving focus on form. Activities can be
designed in ways that require learners to communicate while also focusing their attention
on certain formal features, or corrective feedback can be provided following learners’
errors during the course of communicative activities.

The first method was investigated by Doughty (1991), who conducted a study on

the acquisition of relative clauses by 20 ESL learners from various linguistic

49

backgrounds. The results of her study suggested that the focus-on-form oriented group
outperformed the control group in their ability to relativize.

Studies suggest that corrective feedback provided in a communicative context is
helpful for second language acquisition (e.g., Doughty and Varela, 1998; Lightown and
Spada, 1990; Schachter, 1991; Tomasello and Herron, 1989).

Doughty and Varela (1998) investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of a
focus on form approach in a communicative, content-oriented science classroom. The
subjects of this study were 34 middle school students fi'om various linguistic backgrounds
(in two different classes), who were at an intermediate ESL level of proficiency and lived
in the United States. Traditionally, this type of class was conducted as content only,
without any linguistic instruction, or corrective feedback related to students’ grammatical
errors. In the course of this research project, the teacher was asked to continue with her
regular routine, with one exception--the teacher should focus on students’ incorrect use of
past tense forms (both orally and in writing), and provide them with corrective feedback
when appropriate, in addition to her regular instruction. The recommended type of
corrective feedback was recast, made salient through the teacher’s change of intonation.
The feedback was provided immediately after discovering a student’s error. Only past
tense errors were corrected, and there was no metalinguistic discussion. Each correction
focused only on one learner error and consisted of two stages: (1) repetition of the error
to draw learners’ attention; (2) recast to provide correct L2 forms. This type of corrective
feedback was slightly more elaborate than a typical recast because of the attentional
focus. In some cases the teacher would make a recast more salient through a rise in the

pitch of the voice to help the students notice the incorrect forms of their utterances.

50

Recast was used in instances of incorrect usage of past tense, or in situations where the
past tense Should have been used.

Results suggested that students exposed to focus on form during meaning-oriented
science instruction showed significant gains in oral and written production of correct
forms of past time, when compared to the control group. The control group did not make
any progress on past tense forms during the time of the study. This contrast indicated
implementation of focus on form instruction in a meaning-oriented curriculum was more
effective than providing no linguistic instruction at all to the ESL learners, outside of
their second language setting.

Additionally, there was evidence of increased awareness on the part of learners of
the correct forms of past time. As Doughty and Varela pointed out, already during the
second lab, students were beginning to self-correct before the teacher had the opportunity
to recast. In some cases, students had started to over-generalize the past tense and were
double marking verbs. Also, a few students corrected each other in a way that was similar
to the approach the teacher had taken.

In addition to providing corrective feedback, the teacher kept a journal with her
observations about the effectiveness of this focus on form method in a meaning-oriented
content. According to her, the most important element of successful corrective feedback
in a communicative setting was finding the balance between the meaning and the
corrective feedback. This involved focusing on what the student was saying, and how to
express the correctness of the form. It was not helpful to provide form-related corrective
feedback to a student’s content-oriented questions. In such a situation, the students’

attention tended to be on the information they wanted to obtain from the teacher, and they

51

were not interested in receiving form-related feedback. Secondly, the teacher emphasized
that too many corrections in the same turn should be avoided, and focus on form should
be brief and immediate.

Finally, from the students’ point of view, some of them were not comfortable
receiving more than one or two corrections during one exchange. Students expressed also
that they felt capable of paying attention to meaning and communication at the same
time, which suggested that focus-on-fonn in content-based contexts could be very helpful
and meaningful. Without some degree of focus on form, even ESL students, surrounded
by meaningful input, may not make a lot of progress, as was observed in this study
(control group) and in the study conducted by Williams and Evans (1998).

Williams and Evans (1998) conducted a semester long research study to
investigate what kind of focus and on which forms would prove meaningful in a second
language instructional process. The subjects of this study were ESL students at a large
Midwestern university, who were divided into a treatment group and a control group. The
results of their study suggested that focus on form was very useful and should be
integrated into communicative curricula, due to the fact that the treatment group
outperformed the control group in the use of the form in focus. Without any kind of focus
on form, learners demonstrated very little progress. As Williams and Evans stressed:

Their lack of progress came in spite of the fact that they live in a world filled with

spoken and written English and received plentiful input in comments,

conferences, and conversation with dedicated teachers. This was their last ESL

class, and it is unlikely that they will ever again receive consistent corrective

52

feedback or explicit instruction on their use of English. From now on, only

authentic positive evidence will be available for them. (p.155)

As the authors of this study suggested, positive evidence alone is not sufficient,
and learners, especially at the more advanced level, must receive some type of corrective
feedback or focus on form interaction in order to improve; otherwise they may fail to
progress. Secondly, Williams and Evans (1998) pointed out that not all focus on form
will be effective. It is useful if it corresponds with the developmental level of a learner
and individual readiness for a certain form.

In summary, research related to output, input, interaction, collaborative dialogue,
learning-related episodes, and corrective feedback is relevant to this study, since the
tandem method embodies all of the above. In addition to these linguistic elements, the
conversation between tandem learners represents an example of lexical learning. Studies

related to this aspect will be discussed in the following section.

3.5 Lexical learning
3.5.1 Introduction

After years of relatively low interest, vocabulary learning has been recognized as
an important element of SLA during the last couple of decades. Knowing grammar is not
enough to communicate in a foreign language. As Gass and Selinker pointed out (2001),
the “lexicon may be the most important language component for learners” (p.372). It
gives students the opportunity to express their ideas, feelings and a wide range of
meanings in a communicative setting, as well as in writing. Vocabulary is the key to

understanding others and to being understood by them. Lexical knowledge, and the

53

process of its acquisition, is very complex and dynamic. This complexity can be observed
in the wide range of studies related to various vocabulary learning aspects: incidental
vocabulary learning (Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996; Joe, 1995), semantic and
structural elaboration (Barcroft, 2002, 2001), lexical learning strategies (Cohen and
Aphek, 1981; O’Malley and Chamont, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Schmitt, 1997), the role of
context in lexical learning (Nagy, 1985; Prince, 1996), and attention and vocabulary
learning (Robinson, 1995).

Secondly, knowing a word is more than knowing its translation from L1 to L2.
According to Laufer (1997), the following elements are necessary for one to know a
word:

A. Form: spoken (pronunciation) and written (spelling)

B. Word structure: the basic free morpheme, the common derivations

of the word and its inflections

C. Syntactic pattern in a phrase or sentence

D. Meaning: referential (including multiplicity of meaning and metaphorical

expressions), affective (the connotation of the word), and pragmatic (the

suitability of the word in a particular situation)

E. Lexical relations of the word (synonymy, antonyrny, hyponymy)

F. Common collocations

Ideally, second/foreign language learners, as well as native speakers, should know
all six factors of any lexical item. Frequently, however, they may know only some of
them. In summary, word knowledge includes one’s ability to recall meaning, infer

meaning, and communicate orally and in writing. It has linguistic, psycholinguistic, and

54

sociolinguistic aspects. No single approach to lexical learning can address all skills
needed for full use of a lexical item.

Combining the complexity of a lexical item, and various approaches needed for
its acquisition, vocabulary learning presents a challenge not only for researchers, but also
for learners. The effectiveness of vocabulary learning strategies may depend on many

factors: task, the difficulty of the lexical item, the learner, the strategy, and the context.

3.5.2 Vocabulary learning strategies

“Learning strategy,” as a term, has been defined by many linguists. Ellis (1994)
defined it as:

device or procedure used by learners to develop their interlanguages (. . .)

Learning strategies account for how learners acquire and automatize L2

knowledge. They are also used to refer to how they develop specific skills. It is

possible, therefore, to talk of both “language learning strategies” and “skill
learning strategies.” Learning strategies contrast with communication and
production strategies, both of which account for how learners use rather than

acquire L2 competence (p. 712).

As Schmitt points out (1997), there is increased awareness that aptitude is “not the
governing factor in language learning success, implying that language achievement
depends quite heavily on the individual learner’s endeavors” (p.199) and on how each
learner “approaches and controls” his/her learning process and the use of L2.

Schmitt (1997) designed a large-scale study in order to assess which vocabulary

learning strategies learners actually use while learning a L2 and how helpful they believe

55

these strategies to be. He suggested two main categories of L2 lexical learning strategies:
strategies for discovery of an unknown word and strategies for consolidation of a lexical
item. Schmitt came to the following general conclusions: (1) most learners are aware that
vocabulary learning is important; (2) efficient language learners employ a variety of
strategies; (3) lexical learning strategies vary with learners’ cognitive maturity and
language proficiency. Young learners may employ word lists and flash cards, but as they
grow older they tend to abandon these strategies because they are no longer seen as
helpful.

According to Schmitt’s findings (1997), vocabulary learning strategies should be
matched to learner’s age and language proficiency to be perceived as useful. As he
explains, learners should be introduced to a variety of strategies in order to have a choice
of which to use according to their developmental level and actual needs. Additionally,
Schmitt (1997) brings to our attention that:

The currently popular communicative style of teaching emphasizes meaningful

interactive activities over form. However, given the generally favorable response

to strategies utilizing affixes and roots, both to help discover a new word’s
meaning and to consolidate it once it is introduced, it may be time to reemphasize

this aspect of morphology (p.226).

Among 40 vocabulary learning strategies presented by Schmitt to the participants
of his research study, the following three were evaluated as most-used to discover the
meaning of an unknown word: bilingual dictionary, guessing fi'om context, and asking
classmates for meaning. In order to consolidate the meaning of a word, students most

frequently employed: verbal word repetition, written repetition, studying the spelling,

56

saying the new word aloud, and studying the sound of a word. Students also perceived as
helpful the learning of idiomatic expressions together, and connecting a word with its
synonyms or antonyms. The perception of the usefulness of a vocabulary learning
strategy was strongly related to the learners’ developmental level. Similar findings were
observed in a study conducted by Cohen and Aphek (1981).

The research study of Cohen and Aphek (1981) investigated 17 English-speaking
students (nine of them were beginners, six intermediate, and two advanced) learning
Hebrew over approximately 3 months. According to Cohen and Aphek, there was an
interaction between the proficiency level of learners and the type of lexical learning task
that worked best for them. Beginners found listing tasks as most helpful, while the
intermediate students preferred contextualization strategies. These findings confirm that
the sophistication of lexical learning activities should be related to learners’ proficiency.

In summary, students perceived vocabulary learning as important, and employed a
wide range of strategies to accomplish this task. Frequently, the type of employed
strategies depended upon the age and proficiency of learners, or on the perceived

difficulty of the learned word.

3.5.3 Easy and difficult words

Lexical learning depends on many factors: employed learning strategies, learning
context, and also to a large degree, on the level of difficulty of the learned item. Some
words are easier to learn than others. Research conducted by Laufer (1997) examined
what makes a word difficult or easy to acquire. She focused on several characteristics of

the word itself which might affect the difficulty level for its learning. The analyzed

57

features of a word were: pronounceability, orthography, length, morphology, part of
speech, idiomaticity, and multiplicity of meanings.

Pronounceability was linked in Laufer’s (1997) study to learners’ L1, which may
be responsible for one’s inability to distinguish between some phonemes and
consequently for confusion and false “homophone” perception. According to Laufer,
Spanish speaking learners of English may have difficulty distinguishing between pairs
like ban/van or day/they. As Laufer stressed, there may be also a gap between learners’
ability to “hear” and to pronounce a word. Self-conscious learners may tend to avoid
words, which they cannot pronounce. If a language has high levels of sound-script
incongruence, then pronunciation and spelling errors are very likely to occur. With regard
to the length of the word, Laufer (1997) pointed out that “what can account for better
leamability is not the word’s length, but the learners’ frequent exposure to it. In other
words, it is the quantity of input that may contribute to the successful learning of the
short words, not their intrinsic quality.” (p.145)

Morphological features which were linked to difficulties with new lexical items
were, among others: irregularity of the plural form, gender of inanimate nouns, and noun
cases. According to Laufer (1997), “the learner’s ability to decompose a word into its
morphemes can facilitate the recognition of a new word and its subsequent production
(. . .) The awareness of ante- and pre- as being synonymous can help the learner realize
that prenatal and antenatal are identical in meaning” (p.146). It can be observed that
Laufer, as well as Schmitt (as noted earlier), found it useful to pay attention not only to

semantic elements of a word, but also to focus on some of its “forms.”

58

The next lexical feature, and maybe one of the largest obstacles in becoming an
accurate L2 speaker, may be idiomaticity. In Laufer’s study (1997), teachers and learners
pointed out that idiomatic expressions were much more difficult to understand and learn
to use than their non-idiomatic equivalents. Not only idioms were hard to learn, they led
also to false comprehension.

The final factor related to problems with lexical acquisition, according to Laufer,
is “multiple meanings.” Multiple meanings related to one word tend to confuse learners;
therefore, they must learn to discriminate between various meanings of the same form in
order to use each of them correctly. Taking into account all these factors, which may
affect the difficulty level of lexical items, Laufer (1997) was able to come up with a list
of factors which facilitated lexical acquisition or, on the other hand, caused problems
with it.

The following factors facilitated lexical acquisition: familiar phonemes,
phonotactic regularity, fixed stress, consistency of sound-script relationship,
morphological transparency, and one-form one-meaning situation. The difficulty-
inducing factors were: presence of foreign phonemes, phonotactic irregularity, variable
stress and vowel Change, incongruency in sound-script relationship, deceptive
morphological transparency, idiomacity, and one form with several meanings. Laufer
also distinguished two factors with no clear effect on lexical acquisition: word length and
the part of speech the item represented.

As mentioned before, Laufer pointed out that in order to truly know a word, one
should have knowledge of all its elements: form, meaning, collocations, etc. In many

instances, only a very educated native speaker may know all aspects of a word. Foreign

59

language learners frequently master only some properties of a word. As Laufer (1997)
pointed out:

There are words which learners know in the sense of knowing what they mean in

certain contexts, but which they cannot use productively. Other words vary in

how easily they can be produced: some words can be retrieved only with effort;

some are momentarily accessible (the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon) (p.142).

Finally, Laufer stressed that the lexical learning is a complex process, which
should be viewed as “a continuum” of knowledge and abilities. In the very first learning
stage, learners may be able only to recognize a word in a broader context, but
consequently, at some point they may be able to use it actively in communication, or
even use all of the word’s registers.

To summarize, there are many factors affecting why some words are perceived as
easy or difficult to learn. Knowing a word (all its forms and meanings) is complex, and

only an educated native speaker, or a very diligent L2 learner, might be able to achieve it.

3.5.4 Lexical learning from context and in context

When addressing context and lexical learning, one must distinguish between two
types of context: (1) learning context (the learning environment), which can include:
learner, teacher, peers, social and cultural context, and the availability of input and output
opportunities; and (2) textual or discourse context, in which a particular word or phrase
can be found. Textual context has been of great interest for many studies (Hucking and

Bloch, 1993; Joe, 1995; McKeown, 1985; Nagy, Herman & Anderson, 1985; Prince,

60

1996). For this tandem research, the linguistic and social environment (context) will be of
greater importance.

Hulstijn (1997) came to the following general conclusions about lexical learning
context and lexical learning in context:

oNew vocabulary items should not be presented in isolation (i.e., only with their

Ll equivalent and without a verbal L2 context) and should not be learned in rote

fashion.

oNew vocabulary items should be presented in meaningful context (preferably

authentic or quasi authentic contexts, preferably offering enough clues to allow

learners to successfully infer their meaning).

oLearners should elaborate on a new word’s form and meaning in order to

facilitate retention (p. 214-215).

As Hulstijn pointed out, learning words in isolation, out of context, and only with
their L1 translation is not enough to retain them and to have them available for future use.

Another study addressing context was conducted by Shu, Anderson, and Zhang
(1995), who suggested that significant learning from context was evident only when
unfamiliar words appeared repeatedly, and when a context was rich enough to allow the
learner to infer the full meaning of the lexical item. Frantzen (2003) took it further and
analyzed the interplay among various factors affecting contextual lexical acquisition:
context, learner’s characteristics, and the type of didactic material.

In her study, students were able to guess correctly the meaning of an unknown
word from context only in 30% of cases. She found that, “the context is often not

sufficient to determine meaning because it is either vague, ambiguous, or misleading. In

61

addition, contexts can dissuade students away fi'om the correct meanings they already
know and persuade them to infer incorrect meanings.” (p.184)

F rantzen also analyzed factors responsible for students’ inability to guess from
context. Some of them were: (1) learners’ inattentiveness--lack of attention; (2) students’
certainty about words they think they know, even though the context suggests something
else. As Frantzen (2003) stressed, one of the factors of greatest importance for lexical
learning, as well as any other type of learning, is certainly attention. This was also
addressed in the study by Pulido (2003), who concluded that words which can be too
easily guessed from context may not be retained because of the lack of learner’s need to
allocate sufficient attention to the connection between the word form and its meaning.

We can conclude from above studies that learning from context (textual or the
context of a conversation) may not be sufficient for adequate lexical acquisition since
students may incorrectly guess meanings of unknown words. In order to successfully
learn lexical items, research suggests that combining various learning techniques and
allowing for maximal contact with a new lexical item may lead to better learning in
context, and fi'om context. In addition to the utilization of various learning techniques,
learners’ attention and active use of new words may be the key factors to their retention,
as noted by Gu and Johnson (1996). Their study indicated that learners’ self—initiation,
selective attention, and deliberate activation of newly learned words consistently
predicted both learners’ vocabulary size and general proficiency. Other predictors of
success included contextual learning, dictionary use, and note-taking strategies.

In summary, the interplay between various factors (attention, context, and

learning strategies) seems to be important in second language lexical acquisition.

62

Although it seems impossible to single out one and only one factor, which could be
viewed as facilitative for vocabulary learning, most researchers tend to agree that
multiple exposures to lexical items and opportunities for active use of it are very

beneficial for lexical acquisition.

3.5.5 Pragmatic and cultural learning

As Crystal (1985) defines:

“Pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of

the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social

interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act

of communication” (p. 240).

Knowing the cultural and behavioral norms associated with the L1 could be
viewed as a base on which language learners can start to develop their second language
pragmatic skills. It is not uncommon for second language learners to transfer their
pragmatic skills from the L1 into their L2. This transfer could include the means of
expression of sociocultural values and norms, rules of politeness and appropriateness, and
even the physical distance between interlocutors during interaction. In some instances, it
can be beneficial; in others, it is a hindrance. Negative pragmatic and discourse transfer
may result in learners’ failure to communicate successfully in the L2 (Bardovi-Harlin g,
1996; Kasper, 1981; Tannen, 1994). Pragmatic failure may be the cause of native
speakers’ misinterpretation of the non-native speaker’s actions. The non-native speaker
may feel disappointed in the L2 culture because of pragrnatically unsuccessful

communication. As Kasper (1992) remarked, “in the real word, pragmatic transfer

63

matters more, or at least more obviously, than transfer of relative clause structure or word
order” (p.205). Although pragrnatics seems crucial for successful communication,
learners frequently fail to notice pragmatic inappropriateness (Bardovi-Harlig and
DOrnyei, 1998; Rose, 1999). This inability to notice cultural differences may result from
learners’ previously established knowledge of their native community (Krarnsch, 1993;
Hinkel, 1999).

Bardovi-Harling and DOrnyei (1998) concluded in their study that Hungarian and
Italian EFL learners recognized grammatically incorrect but pragrnatically correct
utterances more easily than pragrnatically inappropriate but grammatically correct
utterances. Learners at all proficiency levels demonstrated this tendency. In contrast, ESL
participants of the same study (studying in the United States) ranked pragmatic errors as
more serious than grammatical errors. Bardovi-Harling and DOrnyei explained this
difference as the effect of the learners’ linguistic environment. According to them,
“residency can be related to the difference, the environment outside the classroom. The
ESL learners had the opportunity for additional target-language interaction, although
learners take advantage of this to different degrees” (p.253). Through daily contact with
native speakers the ESL learners were able to develop significant pragmatic awareness
because of “the pressure not only of making themselves understood, but also of
establishing and maintaining smooth relationships with NSs in the host environment” (p.
253). Results of their study suggest that the pressure of direct contact with native
speakers and of the demands of such interactions seemed to have a facilitative effect on
pragmatic learning. It might motivate NNSs to notice the pragmatic elements in the L2.

Within the ESL sample in above study, “recent arrivals rated pragmatic violations as less

64

serious (...) than did learners who spent a longer period in the US.” (p. 254). In summary,
it seems that authentic input and contact with L2 speakers may facilitate pragmatic
learning and pragmatic understanding.

Wildner-Bassett (1996) and House (1996) stated that pragmatic features are
teachable through awareness-raising activities, which can be accomplished in a formal
instructional setting, or during a conversation with a native speaker. Students
participating in House’s study (1996) pointed out they believed that “consciousness-
raising helped them understand how and when they transferred routines from L1 and how
they might counteract negative L1 transfer through noticing and through making attempts
to use alternative, more L2 norm-oriented expressions” (p.247). As House remarked:

metapragrnatic information is essential in counteracting negative pragmatic

transfer and promoting the use of a more varied and more interpersonally potent
repertoire of different discourse lubricants, discourse strategies, and speech act

realizations, thus increasing learners’ pragmatic fluency. (p. 249)

House concluded that in formal instructional settings, pragmatic appropriateness
presented for advanced language learners one of the most challenging features of the L2.

In summary, pragmatic and/or cultural knowledge is very important for learners
because lack of it may result in negative presentation of oneself during interactions with
L2’s native speakers. Pragmatic features are teachable, and their learning may be

facilitated through direct contact with L2 speakers.

65

3.6 European tandem research

Only a few European studies conducted in the context of tandem language
learning investigated the intercultural aspects of tandem learning, or the general validity
of such a learning approach.

One of the most interesting investigations (partially related to this tandem
research) was conducted by Bechtel (2003). Bechtel investigated the process of
intercultural learning during French-German tandem interactions in an official, semester-
long tandem language course at the University of GieBen in Germany. His focus was
how, and if, language learning in tandem contributes to intercultural learning. In order to
answer this question, Bechtel audio-taped and transcribed data collected during
interactions between various tandem partners throughout the semester.

Bechtel’s investigation was based on the assumption that individuals are
constantly influenced by culture to perceive and to do things in a certain way. Cultural
norms and rituals are crucial for societies—-they tell people what to expect in certain
situations and how to react to them. In the case of a change in cultural parameters, a
“cultural shock” can occur. For this reason intercultural learning and contact with other
cultures should be considered of great importance in modern education, as Bechtel (2003)
pointed out.

One of the central features of intercultural learning, according to Bechtel, is the
development of one’s ability to present a cultural/political/social point of view to
members of other cultures, and the ability to understand the points of view of the others.
For the purpose of his research, Bechtel distinguished between the “I perspective,” and

the “They perspective.” The first was related to the situations when tandem partners

66

reflected and talked about their own culture and country; the second occured when the
learners talked about foreign cultures. He noted that during tandem interactions, the
“exchange” of perspectives frequently was observed, meaning that learners developed the
ability to accept and to justify the differences of the “other” culture. As a result, they
were able to develop empathy for the perspective of their tandem partner.

Bechtel concluded that intensive intercultural learning is constantly present during
tandem meetings, due to the interaction between two learners from different cultural
backgrounds. Each person is already a “live” source of cultural information, and at the
same time an “object”/representation of his/her culture.

Secondly, Bechtel pointed out that the intercultural aspect of tandem learning is
to a very high degree learner-dependent. Each learner enters a tandem with a unique set
of linguistic and cultural experiences, which make each interaction unique. Intercultural
learning, like all other learning aspects of tandem interactions, arises from context. The
intercultural aspect of tandem is always present as the primary focus of an interaction or
as the background for linguistic learning.

Bechtel stressed intercultural learning can be observed in an active dialogue
between tandem partners, in which they intend to find similarities and differences
between their cultures. Additionally, intercultural learning can be observed in the process
of conscious evaluation of the opinions of “the others” about one’s culture and country,
in order to respond to it in a non-confrontational manner, expressing at the same time
one’s own opinions. In order for intercultural learning to be successful, as Bechtel
pointed out, tandem partners should avoid prolonged monologues about their own

cultural experiences. Secondly, tandem partners should engage in a topic, which would

67

be of interest to both of them. Since intercultural learning in tandem is strongly related to
the opinions and experiences of its participants, one cannot readily distinguish between
correct and incorrect information. This inability to make this distinction could be seen
either as strength or as weakness of learning in tandem. In summary, the results of
Bechtel’s study suggested that the tandem-method provided its participants with
substantial opportunities for intercultural learning.

Another study related to intercultural learning was conducted by Woodin (2001),
who investigated the presence and development of intercultural learning through
language learning in tandem. Woodin’s investigation is based on a very broad definition
of culture. In her opinion, culture is more than countries, their history and languages;
each person has her/Iris own culture and its manifestations. Traditionally, according to
Woodin, culture was taught through literature, history and art; but in order to grasp the
full meaning of “culture” one should understand that it is dynamic and relative. It
changes with the point of view of the learner; for example Spanish culture would be
evaluated very differently from the point of view of a German person compared to an
Italian person.

According to Woodin, intercultural learning involves not only learning of the
facts of foreign culture, but also its pragrnatics. One should learn about the accepted
behavioral norms and customs in the other cultural setting. As Woodin points out, tandem
learning provides an excellent opportunity to accomplish both goals of intercultural
learning. One can learn cultural facts and appropriate ways to act in various situations in
the other culture. For this reason, the tandem method connects the “old approac ” of

factual cultural instruction with the new, more practical approach of intercultural learning

68

through interaction and direct contact with the cultural and pragmatic information. This
approach seems to be of great interest among European educators, who are still trying to
adjust to the more recent historical developments, such as the expansion of the European
Union. Even before the study conducted by Woodin, the need for educational

‘ adjustments, due to changing societies, globalization, and new political conditions, was
closely investigated in a study conducted by Schratz (1992).

As Schratz (1992) stressed, based on the recent social and political situation, the
current approach to education, ecology, and economy might not be sufficient in order to
meet growing demands on human beings. In the area of education, new learning methods
should be developed in order to address learners’ needs as well as sociopolitical demands.
As Schratz pointed out, some of the traditional educational approaches may not be very
useful in the firture; for example, people may not be easily “educable” in large groups
only. The knowledge accumulated by humanity is growmg so fast that it exceeds the
existing possibilities for its dissemination. Due to rapid global changes, it will be
increasingly harder to plan careers and future developments of the job market. All these
factors call for adjustments in most areas of human life, including foreign language
education.

In considering the above conditions, Schartz proposed a more holistic approach to
the teaching and learning of foreign languages. In general, such approach would include
better communication between teachers and learners, increased opportunities for
autonomous learning, and a shift from specific goals of individual disciplines to more
general educational objectives. According to Schartz, the tandem method represents some

of the above aspects of holistic learning, and could be of significant value for future

69

educational purposes. The tandem learning method truly involves the learners in the
learning process and allows them expression of their identity and personality in true
communication. Similar conditions could be transferable into a “formal classroom” in
order to achieve more authentic learner involvement and to make the instruction
meaningful. Similar results were presented in a study conducted by Goebel (1992), who
also stressed the need for more meaningful foreign language instruction.

In summary, all the above studies pointed out the potential benefits of the tandem
learning method. Bechtel (2003) and Woodin (2001) stressed its utility in the process of
intercultural learning. Schartz (1992) and Goebel (1992) highlighted its potential for
future educational purposes since learning in tandem allows students more meaningful
interactions than the traditional classroom setting.

It is widely recognized that communication in tandem is different from the one in
a typical classroom. Apflebaum’s (1993) study took a broader look at intercultural and
linguistic processes present during tandem meetings. Her focus was on error correction,
intercultural learning, and the participants’ perception of tandem.

Participants were three French-German tandem pairs; two tandems completed the
data collection process, and one withdrew from it (although some of the pair’s data
appear in the data analysis part of Apfelbaum’s study). The task was “story telling” in
which participants were free to choose the topics. Audio-recordings and transcripts of
these tandem meetings were used for data analysis.

Results suggested tandem partners were able to “tell stories” in the L2 with a
linguistic sophistication near the level of their L1. This may be due to the fact that full

sets of data were obtained from advanced level participants. Negotiation was employed to

70

clarify linguistic doubts or for general knowledge questions. Lexical learning was the
focus of most learning episodes during interactions between native speakers and non-
native speakers. Morphology (i.e. plural forms and articles) was the second most
addressed feature in these interactions. Syntax and word order were not addressed at all
in any of the dialogues. Although linguistic learning was present during these tandem
interactions, it did not have as strong a presence as the intercultural learning which
resulted from the meetings. According to Apfelbaum, the participants hoped to gain more
grammatical knowledge fi'om their interactions, but it was not the case. Nevertheless,
they expressed increased motivation to continue with L2 study because of their
participation in tandem.

Error corrections were present during the tandem interactions, but not all
participants felt comfortable being corrected by the native speaker. Some preferred self-
initiated corrections and self-repairs, which may be explained by the relatively advanced
level of the participants. Apfelbaum confirmed that students’ comments about error
correction were, to some degree, confusing and contradictory. For example, one of the
participants regretted she did not correct her tandem partner enough, but simultaneously
stated she did not like being corrected during tandem meetings. Finally, the study of
Apfelbaum confirmed the bilingual communication in tandem as beneficial. It seems that
using both languages in the same conversational setting, helped students develop their
abilities in fluent bilingual conversation and interaction.

Despite the limitations of a small sample size and advanced proficiency,
Apfelbaum concluded that tandem learners focused primarily on lexical learning, and

secondarily on morphological features. Syntax was not addressed at all by students

71

evaluated in her data. Errors were corrected, but infrequently and with some resentment

from tandem partners.

72

CHAPTER 4
THE PRESENT STUDY

4.0 Introduction

As mentioned in chapter 2, this study is an investigation of the linguistic and
intercultural learning aspects of the tandem method. The following four hypotheses are
investigated:

H1: There are substantial opportunities for lexical acquisition because of students’

participation in tandem.

H2: There are substantial opportunities for grammatical learning fiom context, and in

context, due to one’s participation in tandem.

H3: There are substantial opportunities for development of pragmatic knowledge and

cultural exchanges because of students’ participation in tandem.

H4: The majority of tandem participants are highly satisfied with the outcome of their

learning in tandem, and with the learning progress of their tandem partner, and would

recommend this method to others.

4.1 Participants
4.1.1 Participants’ selection

The data to be analyzed in this document were collected fi'om April through
August 2007 in Berlin, Germany. Participants for this study were recruited mainly
through the help of the Tandem Language School. This school, as a part of the Tandem

Network, offers not only the traditional classroom L2 instruction, but also tandem-

73

interactions for enrolled students. Students enrolled at the school and participating in
tandems were contacted and asked if they would be interested in voluntary participation
in this study. Tandems studying the following language combinations were initially
considered for this research: German-English, German-Spanish, and German-Polish. The
reason for the selection of these languages was my own linguistic abilities—I am fluent
in these four languages and thus able to analyze, transcribe, and understand such data.
However, as there was also interest expressed from speakers of other language
combinations, such as German-Danish, German-Czech, and German-Japanese, I decided
to explore if data collected from them could also be utilized for analysis. I met with each
of these tandems for an evaluation, which was mostly related to my linguistic abilities to
cope with the data than to the quality of their tandem interaction.

Due to similarities between German and Danish, and Czech and Polish, these
tandems were able to participate in this research. The German-Japanese tandem had to be
excluded because of my inability to transcribe and understand anything in Japanese.
There were no other requirements for participation in this study: age, race, gender, and
level of L2 proficiency were not considered factors which could exclude anyone fiom

participating.

4.1.2 Participating tandems

Fifteen tandems (each consisting of two learners or in total 30 learners)
participated in data collection for this study. Among these tandems, there were 13
“regular” tandems (learners were at compatible L2 levels and their age was in the range

of 18-40 years); and two “special” tandems, which consisted of older participants (ages

74

around 70, intermediate level of proficiency). Among the 13 regular tandems, 9
represented tandem pairs where both learners were at the intermediate level for their L23;

three tandems were at the advanced level; and one tandem was at the beginner level.

4.1.3 Tandems-general information

(The second capital letter after the first initial/initials indicates the native language of the

participant: G=German, S=Spanish, C=Czech, E=English, D=Danish)

Table 1: General information about regular, intermediate tandems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tandem Languages Male/Female
DG/RS German/ Spanish F/M

LC/AG German/Czech F/F

TG/OS German/Spanish F/M

RD/AIG German /Danish F/F

BG/MS German/ Spanish F/F

MG/JE German] English F/F

MiG/SE German/English F/M
NoS/SoG German] Spanish F/M
MaG/CS German/ Spanish M/M

 

 

 

 

 

75

Among these 9 tandems there are:

A. GENDER:

1 male-male tandem

4 female-male tandems

4 female-female tandems

B. LANGUAGES:

5 German-Spanish tandems

2 German-English tandems *

1 German- Danish tandem

1 German-Czech tandem
* According to the Tandem Language School in Berlin, there is a strong demand for
the German-English tandems, but not enough native English speakers. The strong
demand may be due to the historical past of Berlin, where most of the population
fi'om the eastern parts of the city had very limited access to the English language.
Currently, due to the demands of the employment market, English is a very important

part of everyone’s curriculum vitae.

4.2 Materials

All participants completed four questionnaires (see Appendices A, B, C, and D).
They could choose an English or a German version of it.

The first questionnaire asked for general information, such as gender, age, native
language, length and quality of previous L2 instruction. It also addressed learners’

expectations with regard to tandem learning. It was administered after the first audio

76

taping. The second questionnaire was closely related to the evaluation of tandem
interactions and the relationship of such a learning method compared to traditional
classroom instruction. This questionnaire was administered after the second or third
tandem meeting. The third questionnaire asked participants to point out the perceived
strengths and weaknesses of their typical tandem interactions. It was completed about one
week later. Finally, the last questionnaire was a multiple-choice summary of all research
questions asked in the previous three questionnaires, with a few additional items related
to the participants’ satisfaction with their tandem learning experience. It was given to

students after the completion of all audio data collection.

4.3 Procedure
4.3.1 Consent Form

Prior to the data collection process, tandem participants completed an informed
consent form. This form indicated that they were voluntarily participating in a study
evaluating the tandem learning method. It was explained to them that although widely
employed in Europe, tandem learning is almost unknown in North America, and that their
participation in this research study could help bring more attention to tandem at
universities across the United States and Canada, and broaden the cultural experience of
many students in these countries. Secondly, participants were informed that multiple
audio tapings of their interactions with their tandem partner would be necessary, as well
as completion of four questionnaires. Finally, learners were informed about the

confidentiality of collected data and their right to withdraw at any time.

77

Since consent forms are not widely employed in Germany, their function had to
be carefully explained to the participants. Not all participants wanted to sign this form,
and for this reason one tandem withdrew from participation in this research prior to the
data collection process. All other tandems who agreed to sign the consent forms

participated in the data collection.

4.3.2 Audio data

In addition to questionnaires, audio data were collected. The tapings were
conducted during regularly scheduled tandem meetings. Tandem participants informed
me about the time and place of their meetings so that their data could be collected.
Learners were encouraged not to change their routines and the style of their interactions
for the tapings. For this reason, audio data collections were conducted at various
locations, such as universities, museums, a zoo, cafés, bars, private homes, and parks.
Although some locations were noisier than others, the technology allowed me to separate
the background noise from the participating speakers, and to obtain data which were
clearly audible for analysis. The DS-30 Olympus digital stereo voice recorder was used
for data collection.

Audio data were collected 4 times fi'om each tandem. The tapings were
approximately 45 minutes for each session. Data were collected on average two times a
month. I was always present during the first taping for each tandem, taking notes of
nonverbal communication and my general observations. During consecutive tapings, I
respected the preferences of the learners, either for being alone for the taping, or with me

taking notes. My goal was to provide them with a comfortable environment in order to

78

obtain authentic data. It was more important to obtain authentic interactional data than to
be able to observe each interaction.

It is crucial to stress that learners were asked to maintain their routines, and no
conversational topics or new learning strategies were introduced to them during the
process of the data collection. Their interactions were truly authentic.

Additionally, most tandems had known each other for a fairly long time (an
average of 7 months) before participating in this research; therefore, they had established
certain routines and traditions related to their interactions, and neither my presence, nor
the taping device influenced them significantly. The only time learners appeared aware of
the recording process was during the very first meeting, but according to their statements,
due to the very small size of the recording instrument, they were quickly able to forget
about it. After completion of audio-data collection, all tapings were translated into

English and transcribed for data analysis by the researcher, Anna Driggers.

79

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

5.1 Participants selected for data analysis

This research will focus on the nine regular, intermediate tandems. The reasons for

the selection of this group are:

1.

Most of the learning which occurs in tandems occurs at intermediate levels, where
there is still a large “room for improvement” grammatically and lexically.
Advanced tandems tend to have different objectives for their meetings; often they
have known each other for a very long time (in some cases more than a year) and
fi'equently they are at the level, which could be described as “near-native
speaker.” Only on rare occasions is there a need for grammatical correction or a
new vocabulary item. These types of tandems are already transformed from a
learning situation into a friendship relationship, where pragmatic and cultural
learning are more important than the lexical and grammatical aspects. Due to this
distinctly different nature, advanced level tandem interactions should be
investigated separately. The same could be argued in relation to beginner level
tandems. First of all, these tandems are in danger of failing because learners
generally cannot easily communicate with each other. Secondly, learners may be
unable to explain any possible linguistic problems due to limited L2 resources. In
summary, beginner level tandems represent a very challenging situation, and only
very determined learners can manage it.

As previously pointed out, most tandems occur with learners at the intermediate

level. At this level, learners can communicate quite well, but they are still actively

80

developing vocabulary and improving their grammar. Even though they have
already learned most of the grammatical theory, learners are frequently unsure
how to use the grammatical features in a conversation. They still are working on
fluency, and they need a lot of feedback to achieve it. Corrective feedback seems
to be important at this level, and is very much appreciated by learners.
For all these reasons, the nine regular tandems at the intermediate level were selected
for data analysis. Future studies could potentially address similar research questions

at the beginner and advanced levels.

5.2 Individual tandem descriptions

In the following section I will shortly describe (in a form of tables) the nine
intermediate tandems chosen for this research. Information was obtained from
questionnaires, and is presented in its authentic form—as quotes. In each table, the
following points will be addressed: participants’ age and gender, reasons for having a
tandem, goals for learning in tandem, learners’ subjective feelings about error

corrections, and learners’ evaluation of their progress.

81

5.2.1 Tandem DG/RS

 

 

 

 

new words.”

Table 2: Tandem DG/RS
Participant/Gender RS /M DG/F
Age/Occupation 21/ Student 21/ Student
Reasons for “Tandem is more useful to “L2 improvement,
participation in tandem: gain L2 fluency than cultural exchange”

classroom.”

Goals for tandem “Lexis and oral fluency. It is “Lexical acquisition and
learning: hard on one’s own to learn intercultural learning.”

 

Participant’s opinion

about error correction.

“100% necessary; to

recognize one’s errors.”

“Corrections are
important. It is the only

way to learn.”

 

What did you learn

fi'om your tandem

“Almost all. Arriving in

Germany I couldn’t speak

“New vocabulary,

colloquial usage of

 

 

partner? (knowing theoryl)” Spanish, Spanish
culture.”
Did you gain cultural “Food culture. Customs and “I learned about the

knowledge in your L2
through tandem? What

did you learn?

 

traditions of German people.

How families live in

Germany.”

 

educational system in
Spain, Spanish: food,

customs and traditions.”

 

82

 

Both tandem partners were university students, having the goal to become foreign
language teachers (RS-English teacher, DG- Spanish teacher). This factor could be
viewed as a facilitator for their tandem learning since both had the ability to explain
grammar to the other person. Although having a lot of contact with their respective L2 at
the university, both RS and DG viewed their tandem meetings as crucial for development
of L2 oral fluency. According to them, formal instruction did not provide sufficient
opportunities for speaking or addressing a variety of topics.

In addition to their weekly tandem interactions, RS was frequently invited to the
home of DG and her parents, which allowed him to experience the way of life of a typical
German family, and even more, as he was a part of it while being there. I was able to
observe one of these events. Also, RS was introduced to DG’s fiiends, and was
frequently invited for social gatherings with them. This allowed him to have direct access
to the German culture and be immersed in the German way of life. He reciprocated and

introduced DG to his Spanish classmates.

83

5.2.2 Tandem LC/AG

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Tandem LC/AG
Participants/Gender LC/F AG/F
Age/Occupation 30/Journalist 38/ Student
Reasons for “Learning from a native “Because there are no
participation in tandem: speaker, gratis, opportunity other possibilities in
for personalized topics.” Germany to use Czech.”
Goals for tandem “Everyday communication, “1 want to read Czech
learning: developing the ability to literature in original and
express ideas, vocabulary.” understand Czech TV.”
Participants’ opinion “Very important. It is not “I want my partner to

about error correction.

common during everyday
conversations with a NS,

but possible during tandem’

9

correct all my errors. I’m
here not to do small-talk,

but to learn.”

 

. What did you learn

from your tandem

“Better pronunciation, a lot

of new vocabulary and

“Idioms, pragrnatics-

what to say/not in certain

 

 

 

 

partner? idioms, better grammar.” situations, speaking the
L2 without fear.”

Did you gain L2 “We compared our both “Yes, but I already knew

cultural knowledge cultures and explored why a lot about Czech

through tandem? What people do or say things (or Republic before. “

did you learn? not)”

 

84

 

Both learners (LC and AG) were very motivated, ambitious, and aware of their
linguistic needs. They gave each other written homework in addition to their meetings.
LC had the habit of paying attention to any problems she had with the L2 at work or in
everyday life situations. She wrote them down and then discussed them during tandem
meetings. Due to the above factors, the meetings between AG and LC involved intense
and in-depth metatalk. Meetings were held twice a week for 2-3 hours. They were very
much “wor ” and oriented toward producing learning outcomes. Lexical learning,

grammatical learning, and intercultural learning were observed during these interactions.

85

5.2.3 Tandem OS/T G

 

 

 

Table 4: Tandem OS/T G
Participants/Gender OS/M TG/F
Age/Occupation 24/ Student 22/ Student
Reasons for 1) Language learning “It is more fun to learn

participation in tandem:

2) Contact with NSS

L2 and use it directly.”

 

Goals for tandem

learning:

“Vocabulary, prepositions,

verbs with prepositions.”

“Vocabulary and oral

fluency development. “

 

Participant’s opinion

about error correction.

“Is crucial, but not all

errors, only important

“It’s crucial; without it I

could as well talk to my

 

 

did you learn?

 

 

customs.”

 

ones.” self.”
What did you learn “Vocabulary, colloquial “One to one translations
from your tandem language usage.” don’t work; colloquial
partner? L2.”
Did you gain L2 “Understanding of “Yes, about family
cultural knowledge academic life in Germany; values (Spanish parents
through tandem? What German traditions and are more conservative);

traditions. . .”

 

86

 

TG and OS were students interested in conversation, development of oral fluency,
and contact with native speakers of their L2. Their meetings consisted of “regular”
tandem-meetings, in most cases at the university during lunch hours, and of informal
socializing with the tandem partner and fiiends. According to them, tandem was
indispensable for oral skills improvement. OS indicated that more than one tandem can
be very beneficial because it gave one the opportunity to converse more. Knowing
German was very important for his future career, and he knew that through tandem he

could supplement his grammar-oriented university courses.

87

5.2.4 Tandem RD/AIG

 

 

Table 5: Tandem RD/AIG
Participants/Gender RD/F AlG/F
Age/Occupation 27/ Student Mid 303/ Student

 

Reasons for tandem

“To improve L2 and to meet

“I have family in

 

participation: a German person.” Denmark and future

plans of living there.”
Goals for tandem “Vocabulary.” “Vocabulary and better
learning: writing.”

 

Participant’s pinion

about error correction.

“I like it. My partner shows
that she is interested-

correcting me; and I can

“I like it. Otherwise I
can get used to speaking

incorrectly. Is important

 

 

 

improve.” for pronunciation.”
What did you learn “New words, a lot of facts “Vocabulary, colloquial
from your tandem about Germany; I also have use of L2. I have the
partner? a new fi'iend because of impression that my

tandem. “ lexicon expanded a lot.”
Did you gain L2 “German history, facts “I learned a lot about the
cultural knowledge about every-day life in educational system,
through tandem? What Germany and peoples’ social problems, and life

did you learn?

 

problems.”

 

in Denmar .”

 

88

 

Tandem RD/AlG was unique because of the more formal approach--participants
signed a learning contract (see Chapter 2) and were very aware of their learning goals and
their linguistic needs. They were meeting each week for two hours at the university’s
language learning center or at various cafe's. Tandem partners also socialized in addition
to their regular meetings. They went to the movies, restaurants and bars. Both (AIG and
RD) stressed that they were able to learn a lot, and this may be explained through their
approach. In addition to their interactions, each tandem partner prepared at home an
“essay” with new words learned during the previous tandem meeting. Essays were

corrected and discussed at a subsequent meeting.

89

5.2.5 Tandem MG/JE

 

 

Table 6: Tandem MG/JE
Participants/Gender MG/F J E/F
Age/Occupation 30/Dance student 3 1/ Student

 

Reasons for tandem

“Fluency in English. I

“Need for corrections

 

speaking. One-on-one

interaction is very effective"

participation: always hated the classroom without pressing fi'iends to
L2 learning.” do so.”

Goals for tandem “Vocabulary, grammar, but “Vocabulary. One can not

learning: most of all the practice of learn words from book and

know, if the NS would use

it in certain context or not.”

 

Opinion about error

“I want to be corrected.

“On the beginning I didn’t

 

 

 

 

 

correction. Although my partner has like it, but once I realized
good skills, I think, I could how important it is, I
improve her pronunciation.” wanted to be corrected. “

What did you learn “Vocabulary. I also “Vocabulary, my grammar

from your tandem improved my and pronunciation

partner? pronunciation.” improved.”

Did you gain L2 “I knew the USA and its “I learned a lot about

cultural knowledge culture before; but still I German culture and

through tandem? learned small details.” traditions from her.”

What did you learn?

 

90

 

MG and J B were very motivated to learn and to improve their L2 skills. In the
conversation with the researcher, MG pointed out that she was aware of J E’s relatively
high level of German. For this reason she wanted to offer her customized (J E’s needs
adjusted) instruction, in order to “keep” her as a tandem partner. As a result, MG utilized
flashcards with German idioms and proverbs during some of their tandem meetings, and
paid increased attention to J E’s errors. JE stressed that for her it was much easier to learn
German in the “real world” (tandem). It was easier to remember things learned in context
and in a casual atmosphere. She also mentioned that although she did not like error
correction at the beginning, she changed her mind once she realized how important and
beneficial it was.

This tandem was also employing a combination of various tandem meetings. In
addition to the learning oriented interactions, MG and J E went together to the zoo (where
they learned animals’ names), cinema, and a dance Show. J E also had a chance to visit

MG at her home on multiple occasions.

91

5.2.6 Tandem MS/BG

 

 

Table 7: Tandem MS/BG
Participants/Gender MS/F BG/F
Age/Occupation 23/Design student 3 1/ Student

 

Reasons for tandem

“To have a contact with a

“Because of the good

 

 

 

 

 

participation: local person and to learn the experience with tandem
L2 at the same time.” of my other fiiends.
Also, to understand
flamenco texts “
Goals for tandem “Grammar and vocabulary.” “Speaking/conversation”
learning:
Participant’s pinion “It is important. If not, one “Good and important for
about error correction. thinks that she speaks speaking error-free.”
correctly.”
What did you learn “How young people live in “Cultural knowledge,
from your tandem Germany.” vocabulary,
partner? pronunciation.“
Did you gain L2 “My tandem partner “The differences
cultural knowledge explained me many cultural between Spanish and
through tandem? What aspects of Germany. Catalan. How to make

did you learn?

 

German food.”

 

typical Spanish food.”

 

92

 

Both learners were at the lower intermediate level at the beginning of their
meetings. As MS stressed, she participated in various German courses, but was never
able to communicate or to speak. Her participation in tandem pushed her to do it. As she
pointed out, she learned “almost everything” through tandem. It allowed her to minimize
her fear of speaking the L2, which was very strong before. She described the tandem
experience as learning German while having fun interacting with a tandem partner. BG
stressed that tandem allowed her to have direct contact with Spanish culture through her
tandem partner, in addition to all benefits previously pointed out by MS. She was able to
learn not only about Spanish culture, but also about the Catalan traditions since her
tandem partner had these two cultural backgrounds.

Although focused on learning, this tandem had quite informal meetings in cafés
and bars. Additionally, tandem partners participated in various cultural/athletic activities

together, such as kayaking, cooking, parties, cultural events, and a flamenco class.

93

5.2.7 Tandem NoS/ SoG

Table 8: Tandem NoS/SoG

 

 

 

Participants/Gender NOS/F SoG/M

Age/Occupation 28/ Student 33/Engineer

Reasons for tandem “It is the best opportunity to “To practice the L2/

participation: speak the L2.” L2’s culture with a NS
in a relaxed

environment.”

 

Goals for tandem

learning:

“Grammar and vocabulary.”

“Mainly vocabulary; I
learn Grammar in L2

instruction.”

 

Participant’s opinion

about error correction.

“It’s important, because if
nobody corrects me I will
always make the same

errors.”

“Very important, but

not constantly.”

 

What did you learn

from your tandem

“New vocabulary, grammar,

facts about life in Berlin.”

“1 could practice with

her my Spanish, so I

 

did you learn?

 

 

 

partner? don’t forget it.”

Did you gain L2 “Yes, I learned a lot about “It is hard to say, but for
cultural knowledge Berlin and other parts of sure, one can get rid of
through tandem? What Germany through our trips.” stereotypes. “

 

94

 

Tandem SoG and N05 involved not only intense linguistic learning, but also
intense intercultural exchanges. Tandem partners (frequently accompanied by other
fiiends) organized many excursions to explore various German cities. Because of it, NoS
highlighted that her previous stereotypical opinion about German people changed. She
stated in one of the questionnaires, “German people are also nice and dependable.
Sometimes Spanish people have a very different idea about Germans. Tandem, definitely,
helped me to revise it.”

Her tandem partner pointed out that for him tandem provided a more stimulating
learning environment compared to a traditional classroom, where one could be exposed
to boring topics. However, both (NOS and SoG) stressed that formal learning is

important.

95

5.2.8 Tandem SE/MiG

 

 

Table 9: Tandem SE/MiG
Participants/Gender SE/M MiG/F
Age/Occupation 27/Web developer 30/Midwife

 

Reasons for tandem

“To improve my L2. One is

“L2 improvement--to

 

learning:

intelligent and vocabulary

to understand it.”

participation: always engaged during work and live in
tandem learning.” Canada.”
Goals for tandem “Grammar to sound “Speaking fluently.

Vocabulary expansion.”

 

Participant’s opinion

about error correction.

“If I say something

incorrectly I want to know

“I want to be corrected,

otherwise I don’t learn

 

 

did you learn?

 

 

 

it; it’s why I’m here.” much.”
What did you learn “Vocabulary; also when I’m “Fluency in speaking.”
fiom your tandem stuck trying to say
partner? something complicated, she

helps me with it.”
Did you gain L2 “1 have already been in “I know already the US
cultural knowledge Germany for few years, so I culture, so I’m focusing
though tandem? What know a lot.” on other things —

speaking, lexis,

pronunciation.”

 

96

 

This tandem consisted of two learners with an “aversion” to formal learning
settings. SE did not like them because of very few opportunities to speak. He knew that a
receptive understanding of an L2 and speaking it are very different. Because SE lived in
Germany, he understood the importance of tandem learning and error corrections. He
liked tandem because during such interactions he was actively engaged all the time and
could pause for clarification if he did not understand something. During tandem, he could
also learn with somebody he liked, “rather than with a random assortment of people in a
class.” A flexible schedule was also a plus since both learners were professionally
engaged.

MiG pointed out that tandem accommodated her individual needs better than
formal instruction Since she was interested in conversation and error correction more than

in formal grammatical instruction, which, as she pointed out, she was able to do at home.

97

5.2.9 Tandem MaG/CS

Table 10: Tandem MaG/CS

 

 

 

Participants/Gender MaG/M CS/M
Age/ Occupation 3 7/Student/Joumalist 3 1 / Student
Reasons for tandem “I need to pass Spanish “1 need to speed up my

participation:

exams at the university.
Also, to be able to talk to

people form Spain.”

German progress and
getting together with a

German may help me. “

 

Goals for tandem

learning:

“Vocabulary-it’s hard for
me. I can learn grammar

alone at home.”

“Vocabulary-to have
more resources for

communication.”

 

Participant’s opinion

about error correction.

“It’s very important, only so

I can recognize my errors.”

“I like it. The job of a
tandem partner is to do
it. This is a main goal of

the tandem activity.”

 

What did you learn

from your tandem

“Mainly l refi'eshed/

practiced my previous

“Grammar and

vocabulary. I think, we

 

 

partner? knowledge.” both learned grammar
fiom each other.”

Did you gain L2 “I learned about Columbia.” “Yes, about life in

cultural knowledge Germany.”

through tandem? What

did you learn?

 

 

 

98

 

According to CS and MaG, they liked tandem for the opportunities to be able to
clarify linguistic doubts as they arose in context. As CS pointed out, in a classroom he
had to share his time with others and was not able to ask questions at any given time.
During tandem interactions he fully took advantage of being able to ask questions, and as
analyzed data will Show, his curiosity resulted not only in his L2 learning, but also in

MaG’s learning about his native language.

99

CHAPTER 6
DATA ANALYSIS-LEXICAL LEARNING

6.0 Introduction

Lexis is of great importance for this study given the strong interest tandem
participants expressed in lexical acquisition in the questionnaires. This chapter will
analyze opportunities for lexical learning during tandem interactions according to
features fiequently observed among various tandems, such as single and multi-word
learning, proverbs, and idiomatic expressions. For each described phenomena, 1 will
provide a small number of typical interactional examples.

It is important to stress that conversations are transcribed in their original form,
with some errors. Their translations into English preserve some of these errors because of

focus of this research.

6.1 Opportunities for lexical learning in tandem

Lexical learning was frequently observed during tandem interactions. It had
various forms and arose on various occasions, but always in an interactional context.
Although all data analyzed here were collected from participants at the intermediate
level, a full range of opportunities for lexical learning could be observed, from the very
basic, explicit, single-word search to the very complex learning of idiomatic expressions.
In the following chapter, I will discuss the most common phenomena related to lexical
learning in tandem. I will start with explicit learning of a single word. This type of
learning is not very complicated and does not involve complex negotiations. In some

aspects, it seems similar to lexical learning in other educational contexts (e. g., in a formal

100

classroom). However, learning in tandem is different, and my goal is to point out these
differences. Next, I will address multi-word learning and the learning of idiomatic
expressions and proverbs. These situations are more complex. Learners are involved in
prolonged negotiations and clarifications of meaning. As a result of it, scaffolding can be
observed in such conversations. Learning different types of lexical items involves
different processes; for this reason the opportunities for single-word learning and multi-
word learning in tandem will be discussed separately. Presenting the full range of types
of lexical learning in tandem, I would like to demonstrate that tandem provides

substantial opportunities for lexical acquisition.

6.2 Explicit, single-word learning

Excerpts 1A, 1B, and 1C are fragments of an interaction between MG and J E. Their
meeting began with 45 minutes of a “German session” during which tandem partners
talked in German about various idiomatic expressions prepared by MG for J B. After these
45 minutes in German, the “official” tandem language was switched to English. Learners
engaged in an informal conversation, during which the explicit question of MG about the
correctness of the word eyebrows in English started a long conversation about the names
of different body parts in English and in German. Both learners ended up learning the
same lexical items in their respective L23. It is important to point out that MG and J E
were addressing more specific vocabulary, such as freckles, eyelashes, collarbone, etc.
Some of these words were new to them; others were addressed for review purposes. All

of these words were addressed spontaneously. MG and JE did not utilize a word list.

101

In summary, Excerpts 1A, 1B, and 1C were chosen for analysis because they
represent examples of direct, very explicit (“how do you say”) opportunity for lexical
learning during tandem interactions, which was fiequently observed in dialogues among

all tandems.

Excegpt 1A

Interaction between MG/J E

1 MG: What are those, eyebrows? [MG is pointing to her eyebrows]
2 J E: Eyebrows. Genau. (Exactly). Das sind Augenbogen, ja?
(These are ”Augenbogen, ” yes?)

3 MG: Brauen. (Brows)

4 JE: AugenbaruenT. Augenbrauen. Ja, das ist genauso auf Englisch.
(Eyebrowst. Eyebrows. Yes, it is exactly the same in English.)

5 MG: Hm... Eyes Brows?

6 JE: Just, eye. Eyebrow.

7 MG: Just eye? [MG writes down the word.]

8 J E: [looks at it] Genau. Das ist genau wie auf Deutsch.

(Exactly. This is exactly the same as in German.)

9 MG: And this? [MG points to her eyelashes]

10 J E: Eyelashes.

11 MG: How do you spell it?

12 J E: E-Y-E-L-A-S-H-E-S

13 MG: [Writes it down]

102

14 MG: Wimper. (Eyelashes)

15 JE: Wimper, ja. (Eyelashes, yes.)

The conversation about body parts is initiated by MG during the official “English
session” through the use of verbal and non-verbal communication. MG points to her
eyebrows and asks for confirmation of her hypothesis that the English word is eyebrows
(1). J E confirms that what MG said is correct, repeating the word eyebrows and saying
genau (exactly) (2). The word genau may have two functions. It re-confirms that MG’s
hypothesis is correct, and gives J E the opportunity to switch languages fi'om English to
German. In the same turn (2), JE asks MG if the word Augenbogen would be the German
translation of eyebrows. IE is testing a hypothesis (2). Her hypothesis is incorrect. As
Swain (1998) would point out, hypothesis formulation and testing may serve the
language learning process because learners can receive feedback and learn from it. This is
also the case in this conversation; J E’s hypothesis is incorrect, and MG provides
corrective feedback (single-move recast). It is important to stress the recast addresses
only the incorrect part of the word, making it very salient (3). J E repeats the correct form
two times (successful uptake). The second repetition is followed by her statement it is
exactly the same in English (4). This statement demonstrates that IE compares English
and German and reflects upon similarities. However, in English the word eyebrows
consists of eye+brows (eye-singular, brows-plural) while in German the word
Augenbrauen consist of Augen+Brauen (Augen—plural, Brauen-plural). MG says Hm (5),

which is her direct reaction to the just heard statement of J E that the word Augenbrauen

103

is exactly the same in English as in German. Although MG used eyebrows correctly in
her previous sentence, she asks, Eyes Brows?

MG’s Eyesbrows is directly corrected by J E (6), who stresses the singular use of
“eye” and repeats the correct form eyebrows. MG writes down the word, which is
checked by JE for its correctness (8). Since both learners are focusing on lexical items
related to “eyes,” MG asks about eyelashes, using nonverbal communication and an
explicit question about it (9). She receives the correct answer (10). In the following turn,
MG asks about the spelling of eyelashes (11), writes it down, and translates it into
German, Wimper (l 3). J E repeats the word and later says yes. It may suggest that the

word Wimper is not new to her.

This excerpt is significant for understanding tandem interactions for several reasons:

1) It demonstrates that tandem learning is not only small-talk. Most tandem
participants seem very much aware of their linguistic needs (here MG, expressing
her need/desire for a review of body parts). Learners utilize the interaction with
their tandem partner to address these needs, and to create opportunities for lexical
learning.

2) This conversation is an example of collaborative dialogue because, as Swain
(2000) would point out, a collaborative dialogue is knowledge-building and it
constructs linguistic knowledge. According to Swain, through their interaction
(dialogue) learners “regulate each other’s activity and their own” (p. 111). They
have an opportunity to produce the language and to reflect on it. “Their jointly

constructed performance outstrips their individual competences.” MG’s and J E’s

104

3)

4)

dialogue is an example of language learning through collaboration. In this
exchange, MG has contact with the new word eyelashes, and J E is able to modify
her incorrect hypothesis about the word Augenbogen. As Swain (2000) stresses,
“as each participant speaks, their saying becomes what is said, providing object
for reflection.“ (p. 113). Excerpt 1 is an example of such a situation. J E and MG
use the language and reflect on it. Such instances of reflections on “what learners
said” are described by Swain (2000) as opportunities for knowledge construction.
Learners are actively involved, paying attention to what is said--which
unfortunately causes MG to produce Eyes Brows as a reaction to the previous
statement of J E. They use the information provided by their tandem partner to
revise their hypotheses about language. In JE’s case, she corrects her incorrect
hypothesis about Augenbogen; in MG’s case, she temporarily revises her (correct)
hypothesis. As previously mentioned (Chapter 3), attention is very important in
the process of lexical learning (Frantzen, 2003). It is necessary for noticing. Also,
there seems to be a connection between learners’ motivation and attention (Ellis,
2001). Motivated learners pay more attention to feedback and look for
opportunities to learn. In Excerpt 1A, MG is very attentive to feedback and the
comments of her tandem partner.

Leaming in tandem is spontaneous. It is not limited to “pre-planned” words.
Although this conversation may look like learning a list of words, these words are
of interest for learners and arise spontaneously during the interaction. MG and J E

want to know them. Their interest is intrinsic. For this reason, their motivation is

105

high, and they pay attention to what is said. This may lead to opportunities for
lexical learning.

5) Learners are not rushed. They have time to study the spelling of new words and to
write them down. This results in the presence of lexis-based LRES, as well as

form-based LREs.

Excerpt lB

Excerpts 1B and 1C represent continuation of the previous conversation.

16 MG: And this? What’s that, which you have? Springels?
[MG points to the freckles of JE.]
17 JE: Oh, this. Freckles. [J E points to her freckles]
18 MG: In German it is “Sommersprossen.” (Freckles)
19 JE: Sommersprosssen. (Freckles) Sommer... [Writes it down.]
20 MG: And ,,freckles“?
21 JE: F-R-E-C-K-L-E-S
22 MG: OK.

23 J E: Sommersprossen. [Whispering]

In excerpt 1B, tandem partners utilize their environment, in this case, the fieckles
on the face of J E, and the previous conversational context (talking about the human body)
to address a new word. This exchange starts as MG asks J B through the means of verbal

and non-verbal communication, what ’s that, which you have? (1 6), by pointing to her

106

fieckles. At the same time, MG is hypothesis testing by calling freckles springels.
However, her hypothesis is incorrect. J E recognizes, through the nonverbal
communication, which word MG is searching for, saying Oh, this and touching her face.
Consequently, she provides the correct word (17). In the next turn, MG translates freckles
into German, even though JE has not asked for it (18). It is important to stress that in both
excerpts (1A and 1B) each lexical item is addressed in both languages. JE repeats
Sommersprossen and writes it down. MG waits patiently for her to finish, and then asks
and freckles. J E interprets this as a request for the spelling, which she provides (21). The
conversation ends with J E repeating the word Sommersprossen. This can be seen as

consolidation of the new lexical item.

This excerpt also represents collaborative learning, as described in Excerpt 1A.
New knowledge is created through interaction. Both tandem partners address at the same
time the same lexical item. Their learning pattern is quite similar; they hear a new word
and write it down. As Swain and Lapkin (1998) would state, there is a presence of lexis-
based and form-based LREs since learners address the meaning and the spelling of the

words.

Excegpt 1C
1 MG: What is this? [MG points to her collarbone]

2 J E: Collar. Collarbone.
3 MG: How do you spell it?
4 J E: C-O-L-L-A-R-B-O-N-E

5 MG: [Writes it down.]

107

6 MG: Schliisselbein. (Collarbone)

7 JE: Schliisselbein. S-C-H-L

8 MG: U-S-S-E-L-B-E-I-N

I think it has this name because it looks a little bit like a key, its end. It looks like a key,
the end of an old key.

9 J E: OK

10 MG: What is “Oberarm”? (Upper arm). Do you have special word?

1 1 J E: Do we have a special word? Upper arm. And what is this? [Points to her forearm]
12 MG: Unterarm. (Forearm)

We have two bones there. Do you know their names in English?

13 JE: I should know what they are called, but...One is... I don’t actually know. I really
should know it, but I don’t know. Sometimes I don’t know these things. This is anatomy.
14 MG: It’s OK because when I’m interested, I can look it up in a dictionary. But this,
what is this? [MG touches her wrist]

15 JE: This is your wrist.

16 MG: Handgelenk. (Wrist) And these are fingers and fingertips? [MG touches her
fingertips]

17 J E: Yes. What’s that in German?

18 MG: Fingerspitzen. (Fingertips)

19 JE: Fingerspitzen. Ja. (Fingertips. Yes.)

Excerpt 1C represents a collaborative dialogue rich in lexical LREs. It

demonstrates the extensive length and complexity of the LREs during tandem

108

interactions. When looking at Excerpts 1A, B, and C, there is evidence that tandem
learners are able to spend a considerable amount of time discussing topics chosen by
them. During these interactions, which start with an explicit question about the
correctness of the word eyebrows, participants are also able to focus on vocabulary
related to other body parts. They do not have to move on to another topic. They can study
in depth new lexical items; this is one of the advantages of tandem learning. Having no
schedule to follow, learners are able to devote sufficient time to any lexical or
grammatical item chosen by them.

Similar to Excerpts 1A and B, Excerpt 1C represents an opportunity for mutual
lexical learning. New words are repeated aloud and then their spelling is addressed. In
addition, metatalk is employed by MG (8), when she tries to explain the possible source
for the German name of a collarbone, which consists in German of two parts (key+leg).

After discussing the collarbone, upper arm, and lower arm, learners continue with
fingertips, and further in the conversation, with other body parts. Although the topic was
initiated by MG, both learners benefit from its introduction by addressing the same words

in their L23.

In summary, Excerpts 1A, B, and 1C represent a collaborative dialogue related to
mutual lexical learning of body parts. This conversation allows MG and J E to notice gaps
in their lexical knowledge and to address them. This opportunity for lexical learning has
arisen directly from their conversation. As Swain (2000) would point out, their saying

and responding to what is said represents language learning.

109

New words are frequently addressed through their loud repetition and annotation.
This pattern can be observed in all three excerpts. Such repetition is important. It suggests
that learners have a strategy when approaching new or/ and difficult words. Although
their learning is spontaneous (MG and J E do not have a plan with regard to lexical items
they will discuss, as they arise fiom their conversation), learners have a strategy for how
they address problematic words, studying their form and their meaning.

Second, and importantly, tandem learners are able to test hypotheses during
interactions. In above excerpts, MG asks about various words she seems to know, but is
not sure about them. In Excerpts 1A (1) and 1C (15), her hypotheses are correct, whereas
in Excerpt 1B (1) it is not the case. MG creates a word which is incorrect in English.
Through J E’s feedback, she is able to modify her hypothesis. The same applies to IE
(e. g., Excerpt 1A, 2). As Swain (1993) would stress, this process of modification
represents second language learning.

Finally, learners frequently employ nonverbal communication in their
conversation. The nonverbal communication is mainly utilized for word-search because it
facilitates communication. It is easy for learners to point to an object and ask for its
name. From the language-economical point of view, it is quicker than description of a
searched item.

All the above excerpts represent typical lexical learning situations, which could

be observed among all participating tandems.

110

Excerpt 2

Excerpt 2 is a fragment of a conversation between RD (native speaker of Danish)
and AlG (German native speaker). RD and AlG developed a very interesting routine for
their tandem interactions. During each tandem meeting, they wrote down the unknown
L2 words. Later, at home, RD and AlG prepared essays with these words. During a
subsequent tandem meeting, they discussed these assignments with each other.

Excerpt 2 represents a fi'agrnent of an essay-related discussion, which is
conducted in German. Since RD wrote about the refugees in Denmark, she felt that the
overall tone of her essay was very depressing...

1 RD: Ich mache sehr depressive Sentences. Sentences, was ist das?
(I made very depressing sentences. Sentences, what is this?)
2 AlG: Siitze. (Sentences)

3 RD: Séitze. (Sentences)

4 AlG: Der Satz. Siitze. (The sentence. Sentences.)

5 RD: Sitze. (Sentences)

6 AlG: Und wie heisst das auf Diinisch?

(And how do you say it in Danish?)

7 RD: Setnig. (Sentence)

8 AlG: Setnig, ist ein Satz?

(Setnig, is a sentence?)

9 RD: Ja. (Yes)

10 AlG: Wie schreibt man das?

(How do you spell it?)

111

1 1 RD: S-E-T-N-I-G

12 AlG: [Writes the word.]

Excerpt 2 starts with RD’s comment about the depressing sentences of her
homework (I). Communicating her idea in German, RD uses the English word sentences
in her utterance, not being able to come up with the German equivalent of it. Directly, in
the same tum, RD continues in German, and asks AlG about the German translation of
the English word sentences. AlG translates the word (2); RD repeats it (3). In the next
turn, AlG provides the basic, singular form of the noun, its article and then repeats the
plural form. RG repeats only the plural form, which was the focus of her previous word
search. In turn 5, AlG uses this context to ask RD about the Danish translation of the
word sentence. In the following turn, it is provided to her (7). AlG asks for confirmation
if setnig means sentence (8). She receives it (9). Finally, AlG asks for the spelling of the

new word and writes it down.

Excerpt 2 represents the following features of tandem learning:

1) It confirms that processes observed in Excerpts 1A, B, and C (explicit lexical
learning, focus on spelling, and mutual learning of the same lexical item) can be
observed as well during other interactions and are not limited to one particular
tandem (MG/IE).

2) It suggests that there is a pattern related to the explicit, single-word learning
context. The other partner is asked directly about the unknown or forgotten word,

and the answer is provided; consequently, the new word is repeated and often

112

3)

4)

written down by the learner. Frequently, if the word is also unknown in the L2 of
the other learner, he/ she asks for it and repeats all the above processes (similar
pattern was observed among all other tandems).

It represents mutual learning in collaborative dialogue. RD and AlG talk about
their essays. During their conversation, they encounter linguistic problems, notice
them, and address them. As Swain (2000) would point out, the act of attempting
to produce language focuses learners’ attention on their linguistic deficiencies and
imperfections. With the help of their partner, they are able to overcome these
difficulties and in doing so, they create opportunities for language learning. Since
the tandem learning setting is based on mutual exchanges, frequently, both
learners learn the same word and/or expression. The linguistic deficiency of RD
(not knowing the word sentence in German) created an opportunity for its
learning not only for her, but also for her tandem partner. Although AlG does not
need the word setnig for communicative purposes, she asks about it and creates an
opportunity for learning. This phenomenon occurs frequently during tandem
interactions. It suggests that during tandem meetings, learners are exposed to
opportunities for learning resulting not only fiom their immediate need for certain
word and/or grammatical item (communicative needs), but also from the needs of
their tandem partner.

Excerpt 2 introduces a new element to the concept of lexical learning in tandem,
which is connected with linguistic economy, and exactly, with the usage of
English as a “lingua fianca.” Although RD has enough linguistic resources in her

L2 to engage in negotiation of meaning using only German, she chooses not to do

113

it. Her preference is the use of English. From the economical point of view, it is a
very successful decision. There is no miscommunication between RD and AlG,
and the communication continues. Even more, both tandem partners learn the
translation of the word sentence in their respective tandem languages.

The use of English has one more function--it is one of two methods utilized by
tandem learners for a quick word-search. In Excerpts 1A, B, and C, learners
utilize nonverbal communication for word search because they can point to

objects.

In summary, Excerpt 2 represents an example of a single word learning event
during collaborative dialogue in tandem. The same lexical item is learned in both L23.
English, used as a “lingua franca,” is employed in the process of word-search. Similar

processes can be observed in the next excerpt.

Excegpt 3

Excerpt 3 represents a fragment of a conversation between BG and MS, who are
discussing MS’S project for the university. MS, a design student, is in the process of
preparing an innovative project for one of her seminars. MS is experiencing a lot of
difficulties finding the right idea and often talks about it with BG.

During this particular tandem meeting, MS presents her recent idea, and both
tandem partners are in the process of analyzing it. This project was later successfully
accomplished with significant assistance fi'om BG, who helped her Spanish tandem

partner with the whole technical part of it due to her expertise in the area.

114

1 MS: Meine Richtung ist. Wie ist, war auf Deutsch die ,,olores“?
(My direction is. How is, was in German “olores "?)

2 BG: Geruch.( Smell)

3 MS: Geruch? (Smell?)

4 BG: Geruch. Riechen. (Smell. To smell.)

5 MS: Riechen ist das Verb, aber das... The smell of?

(T o smell is the verb, but the... The smell of?)

6 BG: Geruch. (Smell)

7 MS: Geruch. (Smell)

8 BG: Geruch ist das Substantiv von riechen. Riechen, Geruch.
(Smell is the noun from to smell. To smell, the smell.)

9 MS: Wie schreibt man?

(How do you write?)

10 BG: G-E-R-U-C-H. Wie riechen nur mit ,,u.” Riechen, Geruch.
(GERUCH. Like to smell, only with ,,u. ” Riechen, Geruch.)

11 MS: So, Geruche.

(So, smells)

12 BG: Geriiche. (S

mells)

13 MS: Geriiche. Die Geriiche sind sehr wichtig fiir unsere ,,memoria.”
(Smells. The smells are very important for our ,,memoria. ”) [memoria=memory]

l4 BG: Gedfichtnis. (Memory)

115

15 MS: Gediichtnis Du kannst hier sein und etwas riechen. ..
(Memory. You can be here and you can smell something...)

16 BG: Hm...

This conversation was continued for a very long time afterwards. MS explained to
her tandem partner the whole idea of the importance of the “memory of a smell,” and
how she wanted to execute her project (through smart-tech clothing, which she needed to
design and prepare herself). Since MS was in an early developmental stage of it, both
learners engaged in a very intense brainstorming about possible solutions for her design.
Throughout its whole duration, this tandem interaction represents not only language
learning, but also language used as a cognitive tool. This tandem learning could be
viewed as a joint problem-solving activity. During this conversation, the problems were
not only linguistic, but also more practical; they were directly related to the execution of
MS’s project.

Excerpt 3 represents language learning closely interconnected with learner’s
environment. Such situation should be viewed as one of the major differences when
comparing classroom learning with tandem learning. Students participating in a
foreign/second language classroom setting are often limited to language learning in
isolation from the real world. The authentic needs of each student are seldom addressed
in the traditional learning environment; on the contrary, tandem offers more possibilities
for a practical approach since during tandem learning, the learners’ environment is an
important part of their interaction. As van Lier (2000) stated, “the learner is immersed in

an environment full of potential meanings” (p. 246), and as observed in this excerpt, and

116

many other excerpts discussed in this dissertation, learners “act and interact within and
with this environment” (p. 246). Here, MS is inspired through her project (university
environment) to talk about it, thus making her environment an important part of the
tandem learning. During typical classroom interaction, it would not be possible do this to

such extent.

Excerpt 3 begins with MS’s explicit question about the German equivalent for
olores (the smells) (1). The conversation is conducted in German, but MS uses the
Spanish word to express her thoughts. BG translates it as Geruch (2). In the next turn (3),
MS repeats Geruch with a questioning intonation, implying that she is uncertain about it.
In turn 4, BG confirms the word by repeating Geruch and adding the corresponding verb
riechen. MS confirms her understanding that riechen is the verb, but she again asks for
the noun, this time in English the smell of (5). BG repeats the same German noun Geruch
(6), which this time seems to be accepted, as MS repeats it (7) without any questioning in
her voice.

As observed so far, although BG used the correct noun 3 times before, MS did not
immediately accept her translation. The question arises as to why this happens. The data
does not provide a clear answer to it, but there is one additional factor worth considering.
BG was at the lower intermediate level in Spanish (and a much higher level in EngliSh),
which could have caused MS to perform the word search twice, first in Spanish, then in
English, where she was more confident that BG would have understood her better.
Secondly, the noun form Geruch seems at first glance to be different from the verb form

riechen, which could have caused MS to question this word at first. In languages that MS

117

knows, the noun and verb forms are very similar (English: the smell-to smell; Spanish:
oler-el olor), but not in German. BG provides an explicit explanation of it in lines 8 and
10.

As observed in this excerpt, finding the correct word is not the end of lexical
learning during a typical tandem interaction. Frequently, the word’s spelling is addressed
(9, 10), and learners talk about lexical items and reflect on them.

Two types of language-related episodes are present in this exchange: lexis-based
and form-based. The lexis based LREs could be observed in the process of MS’s search
for the lexical item. The form based LREs are observed in the focus on the spelling and
morphology (Swain & Lapkin, 1998). The first part of this conversation represents the
lexis-based LREs, and the second part represents the form-based LREs. It means that
learners are interested not only in learning the meaning of an unknown word, but also in
its orthography, and sometimes morphology. During tandem meetings, lexis-based LREs
lead fi'equently to opportunities for further elaboration on an unknown word.

The second part starts with BG’s explanation that Geruch is a noun related to the
verb riechen (8). Secondly, its orthography is explicitly explained (10). In the next turn
(11), MS tries to produce the correct plural form of the noun. She manages to add
successfully an “e” to the end of the noun, but fails to produce the umlaut. BG
immediately provides corrective feedback in the form of a recast (12). It is understood as
such, and there is direct uptake (1 3). At this point the next LRE starts. It is again a lexical
one, where MS asks about the translation of the Spanish noun memoria (13). BG directly
provides a correct translation for it (14), which is accepted immediately this time, seen in

direct repetition of the new word by MS (14).

118

In summary, all the above excerpts (1A, 1B, 1C, 2, and 3) represent instances of
opportunities for single-word learning during tandem interactions. As observed in
described conversations, word searches are frequently utilized in the process of learning a
new word in the L2. In Excerpts 1A, B, and C, nonverbal communication, or the question
what is this, or a combination of both are employed in the process of lexical search.
Excerpts 2 and 3 add a new element--English is used as lingua fi'anca for lexical searches.
Both the nonverbal communication and the use of English as lingua franca suggest that
learners are interested in quick solutions while searching for an unknown L2 word.

Although each excerpt is in its own way unique, there is a learning pattern related
to single-word learning in tandem, which could be observed among all of the analyzed
tandems, as well as in other collected data. This pattern consists of: question about an
unknown word, its provision, word’s repetition, and focus on spelling (and on occasions
on morphological features of learned words, such as their plurals, morphological
irregularities, etc.)

Lexical learning is constantly present during tandem interactions, but as observed,
it is learning in context, and often resulting fi'om the learners’ environment. Lexical
learning in tandem is closely related to the authentic and direct learner’s needs and occurs
in the context of an authentic interaction, where learners rely on the linguistic expertise of
their tandem partner. For example, learners use explicit word search markers, such as
How do you say it in Danish? (Excerpt 2, turn 6) or Do you know their names in English?
(Excerpt 1C, turn 12). These markers initiate the word search and point to the hearer’s

expertise. Through the cooperation of both learners, new knowledge is constructed. A3

119

Swain (2000) would state, learners jointly constructed performance outstrips their

individual competencies.

Although the lexical learning of a single word is strongly present during typical
tandem interactions, tandem offers many other approaches to vocabulary learning. Some
of them will be discussed in the following sections, which will address idioms, proverbs,

and multi-word interactional learning.

6.3 Idioms

In the previous section, I looked at opportunities for single-word lexical
acquisition during tandem interactions. It is a process characterized by the NNS’s direct
question or hypothesis about a lexical item in the L2, the NS’s answer to it, repetition of
the learned word (sometimes accompanied by a question about its spelling), and writing it
down. Frequently the same learning process is repeated for the other learner, if the lexical
item is unknown to him/her as well. Although addressing a single word appears to be an
easy and relatively uncomplicated task, learning of idiomatic expressions is just the
opposite. Research conducted in the field of SLA tends to support this claim. Laufer
(1997) pointed out that, “Both teachers and learners will admit that idiomatic expressions
are much more difficult to understand and learn to use than their non-idiomatic meaning
equivalents” (p.151). According to Laufer, idioms are perceived as the biggest obstacles
for advanced learners in the process of the acquisition of L2 accuracy. When addressing
idioms, there is more than one word to learn and little clue to the meaning of the idiom

from the meaning of each individual word that constructs it.

120

The tandem method, as a holistic approach to language acquisition, makes it
possible for learners to experience various aspects of L2 learning. For example, with
regard to lexical acquisition, it can range from explicit single-word-learning to complex
idiomatic discussions, even during the same tandem meeting. The excerpts below

represent a few examples of idiomatic learning observed during tandem interactions.

Excegpt 4

This excerpt is a fragment of a dialogue between MiG and SE. Prior to this
interaction, learners were conversing about SE’S weekend camping trip. SE tells his
tandem partner that he was the only one who was using a sunscreen during the trip. Two
other of his friends not only did not do it, but were making fun of him, until the moment

when they got very badly sunbumed.

1 SE: Die beide haben an mir gelacht.
(Both of them laughed about me.)
2 MiG: Sie haben dich ausgelacht. (They made fun of you. )
3 SE: Ausgelacht, SPF 40, ho, ho, ho... (Madefim of SPF 40, ho, ho, ho)
4 MiG: Ha, ha, ha...
5 SE: Aber sic sind beide dann rot wie Lobsters geworden.
(But later they turned red as “lobsters ”)
6 MiG: Wie was? (As what?)
7 SE: Lobsters. [Laughs]. Was ist ,,Lobster“ auf Deutsch?

(Lobsters. [Laughs]. How do you say “lobster” in German?)

121

8 MiG: Ist das ein Krebs? (Is it a crab?)

9 SE: Wie ein Krebs, aber linger. (Like a crab, but longer).

10 MiG: Ah, ein Hummer, vielleicht. (Ah, a lobster, maybe.)

11 SE: J a, genau. Hummer, ja. Rot wie Hummer.

(Yes, exactly. Lobster, yes. Red as lobster.)

12 MiG: Das wiirden wir nicht sagen. Wir wiirden dann krebsrot sagen.
Oder noch besser knallrot.

(We would not say that. We would rather say crab-red. Or, even better, bright red.)

13 SE: Ja, knallrot. (Yes, bright red.)

Although German and English may have many similarities, sometimes, these
similarities are not enough to successfully produce a correct idiOmatic expression in the
L2, especially when the NNS is transferring idiomatic knowledge from the L1 into the
second language. This seems to be the casein the above abstract, where SE is confused
because in English he is able to use the expression red as lobster, whereas in German the
correct form of it should be crab-red. In English, the redness would be compared to the
color of a lobster, and in German to the color of a crab. Also, the German expression
(crab-red) is quite different syntactically from its English equivalent (red as lobster).

Excerpt 4 starts with SE’s grammatically incorrect utterance. He wants to express
that his friends were making fun of him (1). He accomplishes the communicative task
with his linguistic resources and is understood, but fiom a grammatical point of view, his
expression is incorrect. MiG recognizes the grammatical errors and corrects them with a

single-move, declarative, and non-reduction recast (2). Three errors are corrected in this

122

recast: the past participle form of the verb (ausgelacht rather than gelacht), the personal
pronoun (accusative mich rather than dative mir), and the unnecessary preposition (an).
According to Sheen (2006), “reduced recasts and one-change recasts were related to
higher rates of repair than non-reduced recasts and recasts involving multiple changes”
(p. 382). This seems to be the case in the conversation between MiG and her tandem
partner. MiG’s recast (involving multiple changes) may not sufficiently highlight the
elements of SE’s sentence that are problematic. SE responds to the recast with a partial
uptake--only the past participle is corrected, as he continues with his story, which seems
at this particular moment of greater importance to him than his grammatical errors. He is
eager to tell it because it is something personal, and for him, it is funny (7). He imitates
how his friends were making fun of him ho, ho, ho, which may be his personal way of
expressing laughter, but it is not really a common expression in German. MiG corrects
even this “imperfection” with ha, ha, ha (4). It is clear that this is a correction and not
laughter as the tone of her voice is very factual. It may suggest that MiG is very serious
about her role as a teacher and does not want SE to speak less than perfect German. In the
following turn (5), SE translates word for word the English idiomatic expression to be
red as lobster, which, as previously mentioned, has a different form in German (crab-red
or red as cooked crab, but not as lobster). Translating this idiom fiom English into
German, SE demonstrates that even a quite advanced and experienced language user can
put himself into linguistic danger using idiomatic expressions in the L2, and even more,
translating these fi'om one language to another. Not only does he translate this idiom from
his L1 to L2, but he does not know, or forgets, how to say lobster in German, so he just

keeps this English word in his German translation, which leads to the clarification request

123

from MiG (6), As what? In turn 7, SE repeats the English word, laughs about the story,
and then asks MiG how he can say lobster in German. His direct request for assistance is
not immediately successul since MiG is apparently not sure what losbster means. MiG’s
question Is it a crab, suggests that maybe she does not know the English word lobster;
however, she knows the German expression crab-red, and thus MiG may be guessing
that lobster may be a crab (8). Her attempt to guess the meaning of lobster in German is
an example of hypothesis testing. At this moment, SE offers his assistance and
knowledge to further negotiate the meaning of the unknown word, and explains to MiG
that what he is searching for is similar to a crab, but longer (9). This explanation leads to
further, this time correct, guessing on MiG’s part. Although her guess is correct, MiG is
not sure about it, which can be observed in her use of the word maybe (Ah, lobster,
maybe) (10).

This collaboration, and the knowledge, of both learners results in a successful
outcome of the negotiation. Once SE hears the German word Hummer (lobster), he
indicates recognition and acceptance of it (Yes, exactly. Lobster, yes) and repeats the
idiomatic expression, in the same form as before, with the exception that he replaces the
English word lobster with its German translation Hummer (11). At this moment, MiG
provides direct, explicit corrective feedback (12) stating: We would not use this
expression. We would say crab-red. Or better bright red. MiG not only provides
corrective feedback about the idiomatic expression, but also an alternative, saying that
red as lobster can be expressed as bright red. SE accepts her second suggestion by
repeating bright red (1 3).

This excerpt represents the following characteristics of tandem interactions:

124

1)

2)

3)

4)

There is a presence of opportunity for idiomatic learning, which results fiom
conversational context. Although at first the idiom is used incorrectly, its correct
alternative form is obtained through the collaboration of both learners. SE learns
that the English idiom does not translate directly into German.

Mutual learning is present; both tandem partners notice something new. SE is
exposed to a new expression in German krebsrot and receives an opportunity to
reflect on the incorrectness of his direct translation from English into German,
since he receives negative evidence. Also, he is able to find out that krebsrot may
not be as common in German as its English version (red as lobster), and different
expressions may be preferred (i.e., bright red). Additionally, SE is able to hear the
German translation for Hummer (13). He notices is, and there is uptake of this
word. MiG is able to come in contact with the English word lobster (which is
apparently new to her), and the idiomatic expression red as lobster.

Corrective feedback is constantly provided. No error is left unattended. The
grammatical errors and ho, ho, ho are corrected either through recast (in case of
ho, ho, ho), or in the case of the idiomatic expression, through very explicit direct
feedback (we wouldn ’t say that).

Tandem participants learn through hypothesis formulation and testing. SE
produces the following expression Rot wie Lobsters. He mixes English and
German. MiG provides corrective feedback. After successful negotiation of
meaning for the word lobster, SE is able to modify his hypothesis to Rot wie

Hummer. Again, he receives negative evidence and is able to produce the correct

125

form of knallrot. As Swain (1995) would state, learners may produce output just

to see what works and what does not.

Excerpt 4 demonstrates that the usage and acquisition of idiomatic expressions are
highly complex and difficult processes. One can not always translate an idiom from L1
into L2, as SE tries to do. Regardless of these challenges, the tandem learning setting
could be the appropriate place for idiomatic hypothesis testing because both learners are
equal in this situation, and they do not need to worry about their mistakes or the other
person laughing at them, which is highly possible with an incorrect usage of an idiomatic
expression in other learning environments. Tandem provides a safe enviromnent to try
things out and to learn, as observed in Excerpt 4. Learners view tandem as a perfect place
for error corrections, and think that “the job” of their tandem partner is to correct them.
This is evident in their questionnaires, and summarized in the chapter on participants’
background information. For this reason, tandem may be one of the best environments to
learn idioms and to try using them in conversation. The second benefit of tandem for
idiomatic learning is that there are no externally imposed time constraints. Idioms can be
discussed, compared, and used in examples, as observed in Excerpt 4, and can be

observed in Excerpt 5.

Excegpt 5

Excerpt 5 is a fragment of a conversation between DG and RS. The learners are
discussing various idiomatic expressions during this interaction. They talk about the most

commonly used, or the funniest idioms in each language, compare them to similar idioms

126

in the other language, and in the process of doing it, learn not only new idiomatic

expressions, but also other lexical items and grammatical features.

1 DG: Und dann: J emandem etwas hoch und heilig versprechen.
(And then: To promise something somebody ,,high and holy“)

2 RS: Heilig?T Was ist heilig?

(Holy? What is holy?)

3 DG: Heiliger e3 e1 santo.

(A Holy man is “el santo. ")

4 RS: Ah. So es ist, mit alles versprechen, Oder?

(Ah. So it means to promise with everything, or?)

5 DG: Genau. (Exactly. )

6 RS: Prometer el oro y el Moro.

(T o promise the gold and the Moor.)

7 DG: Prometer e1?

(T o promise the?)

8 RS: El oro y el Moro.

(The gold and the Moor.)

9 DG: El Moro?

(The Moor?)

10 RS: El Moro, es Muslimo, der Muslim, der Gold verkauft. Du versprichst eh..., Gold

und der Verkaufer. Das Gold, der Gold?

127

(“El Moro, ” is a Moslem, the Moslem, who sells gold. You are promising eh..,. the gold
and the salesperson. Gold, it is ,,der, " ,,das “?

11 DG: Das Gold.

12 RS: Und el Moro, como es? Der Muslim, Oder Muslima?

(And the Moor how is it? Der Muslim or Muslima ?)

l3 DG: Der Muslim.

14 RS: Also, das benutzen wir viel.

(We use it a lot.)

15 DG: Das benutzt ihr? Ok. Das schreibe ich mir auf. Aufjeden Fall.

(You use it? Ok. I will write it down. For sure.)

16 RS: Besonders, zum Beispiel in einer Beziehung, wenn die, die... das Paar hat schon
Schluss gemacht.

(Especially, in a relationship, when the, the... the couple already is separated.)

17 DG: Das was?

(The what?)

18 RS: Das Paar. (The couple. ). Hat schon Schluss gemacht. (Has already separated.)
19 DG: Ja (Yes)

20 RS: Aber einer von ihnen war sehr verliebt in dem anderen, aber dann kommt diese
decepcion.

(But one of them was very much in love with the other one, but then comes this

,, decepcion. ”)

21 DG: Enttéiuschung (Deception. )

22 RS: Enttéiuschung. Er sagt, Oder sie sagt: Me prometi e1 oro y el Moro y nada.

128

(Deception. He says, or she says: “Me prometi e1 oro y el Moro, " and nothing.)
23 DG: Ah, so. Also, er hat ihr alles versprochen und dann war gar nichts.

(Ah, so. He promised her everything, and there was nothing)

24 RS: Ja. Ja. Enttéiuschung.

(Yes. Yes. Deception.)

25 DG: Hm. Das ist cool mit dem oro y Moro.

(Hm. This is cool with the “oro y Moro. ")

Excerpt 5 begins with DS bringing up the German idiomatic expression Hoch und
heilig etwas versprechen (To promise something somebody high and holy). This
idiomatic expression includes two adjectives: high (hoch) and holy (heilig). Once the
idiom is introduced by DG, RS repeats the word heilig with higher pitch, followed by an
explicit question about what the word means (2). Although the question is posed in
German, the answer to it comes in Spanish, when, in the following turn (3), DG explains
the meaning of a related word, Heiliger “holy man” as santo “saint.” RS indicates
understanding by saying ah, and then he gives his interpretation of the idiom (4), which is
confirmed by DG (5). Immediately afterwards, RS finds a similar Spanish idiom to
promise the gold and the Moor (6). At this moment, the tandem’s language is switched to
Spanish again. DG seems to be unfamiliar with this expression and with one of the words
in it, e] Moro (7, 9), which she explicitly addresses, asking about it. In turn 10, RS
explains in Spanish that el Moro means a Moslem (el Muslimo), and also RS translates it
into German. He then explicitly explains its meaning in this particular idiom (the Moor is

the salesperson who sells gold). To do so, he changes the language from Spanish back to

129

German. The same code switching can be observed in turn 3, when DG switches from
German to Spanish in order to explain the meaning of heilig to RS.

In both of these instances (lines 2-3 and 9-10) learners have code switch into the
native language of their tandem partner to explain the meaning of a problematic lexical
item. In both cases (turns 2/3 and 9/10) they address comprehension problems. An
explicit question is asked about the unknown/confusing word, and as result, its translation
is provided. In turn 2, RS asks Was ist heilig?, and DS answers Es el santo (4). In turn 9,
DG asks El Moro, and RS answers es Muslimo, der Muslim...

In turn 10, a new element emerges in the context of lexical learning between DG
and RS--focus on form. RS asks about the correct article for the word Gold in German
(10). Translating the meaning of the Spanish idiom into German, RS is able, as Swain
would point out, to notice the gap in his knowledge. This noticing of the gap is expressed
through eh and a short hesitation before using the noun. It is, as if he is leaving a “blank”
where the article should go. Not being sure which article to use with the word Gold, RS
does not use any in his sentence. Instead, he asks DG directly about it (10). DG
immediately answers RS’s question, supplying the correct article together with the noun
(11). It is important to stress that in the context of teaching a Spanish idiom, the Spanish
“expert” also learns something about German. The same situation repeats in the next turn.
Although he used the word correctly in turn 10, RS indicates that he is still not sure about
the correct form of the noun Moslem in German (12). He asks about it, testing two
possible hypotheses: der Muslim and Muslima. Again, his request for assistance is
directly met when DG provides the correct form of the word, and the article, as well (13).

On both occasions, there is no repetition of the correct form, but rather continuation of

130

the content-oriented conversation. The conversation shifts again to the idiomatic
expressions, as RS (14) comments that the one he just introduced is used a lot in Spain.
This motivates DG to its annotation (15). Typical of a tandem interaction, this
conversation is continued, and RS provides an example of a situation in which the
idiomatic expression could be used (16-24). In doing 30, RS encounters a lexical
problem, using the Spanish word deception in his German utterance. We do not know
why he is doing it, or if his use of the Spanish word in the German sentence is accidental.
Immediately he receives the correct German translation (Enttc'iuschung) (21). This is the
first time when he repeats the received feedback (22). RS repeats the word Enttc’iuschung

9

in turn 24. DG likes the new idiom saying this is cool with the “oro y Moro. ’

In summary, E xcerpt 5 represents an example of opportunities for idiomatic
learning. Both learners introduce a new idiom, and are introduced to one, which results in
their mutual exchange of knowledge. In the process of talking about these idioms,
additional lexis-based and form-based LREs emerge.

Finally, there are three examples of single-word search in Excerpt 5. These word
searches are different from the single-word-learning situations described in the previous
section (6.2). In Excerpt 5, the single-word searches are not the main goal of the
interaction, but rather the by-product of it. They are short, and learners do not always
focus on one-to-one translations. In turn 2, RS asks What is holy?, and DG answers A
holy man is a saint. Her translation is not very exact. RS asks about an adjective, DG
answers with a noun. The learners’ focus is meaning and communication, and not the

precision of their translations. A similar situation can be observed in turn 9, DG asks, El

131

Moro, and RS answers, El Moro, es Muslimo, der Muslim, der Gold verkaufi. The
translation includes additional information, crucial for the understanding of the idiomatic
expression. In both cases the learners’ focus is comprehension and communication, and
not as much the single-word search. In other words, as long as the sense of the word is
communicated, the exact form does not seem to be necessary. In Excerpts 1A, B, C, 2,
and 3, learning a new word was the focus of the interaction. There was a pattern of
learning, learners addressed the meaning of the word, and at least its spelling. This

pattern does not exist in Excerpt 5.

Excerpt 6

Idiomatic expressions are hard to learn, and even harder to use, because if only
one of the elements is changed, the whole meaning of an idiom is changed. Also, if the
form of the idiom is correct, but the use not, it could have embarrassing consequences for
the non-native speaker, although it may be very entertaining for the native speaker.

Excerpt 6 represents such incorrect use of a very colloquial German expression.
This expression appears to be quite easy and its form is uncomplicated; nevertheless,
non-native speakers of German tend to have frequent problems with its correct use.

The following excerpt is a fragment of a conversation between MaG and CS. This
particular tandem meeting took place in the afternoon in a cafe, which did not have air
conditioning. The temperatures outside and inside were very hot, and the German non-

native speaker (CS) wanted to express this discomfort, asking his tandem partner:

132

1 CS: Bist du heiB?

(Are you ,,hot”?)

2 MaG: [Laughs]. Eh...

3 CS: Ah, ich habe verstanden. Hast du heiB?

(Ah, I understood. Do you have hot?)

4 MaG: Nein. Ist dir heiB? Nein. Ein Moment. Ist dir warm? Das Wetter ist heiB, aber es
ist mir warm.

W0. Is it hot to you? No. One moment. Is it warm to you? The weather is hot, but it is
warm to me.)

5 CS: Bist du warm?

(Are you warm?)

6 MaG: Nein. Ist dir warm.

(No. It is warm to you.)

7 CS: Ist dir warm? Tienes calor? Tienes calor en Espar'iol.

(Is it warm to you? "Tienes calor? ” In Spanish it is “tienes calor. ”)

8 MaG: Tienes calor. Si.

(T ienes calor. Yes.)

Excerpt 6 starts with CS asking his tandem partner if he is “hot.” In German, the
expression “du bist heiss” (you are hot) has a sexual connotation. In this example, this
expression was used inappropriately. One could assume that CS does not mean to ask his
tandem partner if he is hot in a sexual sense, but hot in terms of temperature (1). This
question causes MaG to laugh. His first answer (laughter) is followed by hesitation, as

expressed by eh, and a pause. At this moment, CS suspects that there is something wrong

133

with his previous utterance. He claims that he understands the reaction of MaG, and he
then attempts to self-correct by rephrasing his question as Hast du heiss? (Do you have
hot), which appears to be a translation of the Spanish tienes color? (3). CS may be testing
whether the German expression is similar to the Spanish one. However, CS fails to
produce the correct expression, which this time results in the explicit negative feedback
no, followed by an example (4). Almost at the same instance, MaG starts to reflect on his
own output and his L1. He wants to have time to do it, saying moment. MaG reflects on
his L1 and comes to the conclusion that the weather may be hot, but the more correct
form of asking a question in German related to how one’s body temperature is, would be
expressed with the adjective warm, and not hot. Although both forms are correct, MaG
tries to find the best one. CS understands the concept of warm instead of hot, but still
uses the incorrect structure, exactly as he started this exchange. It suggests that he notices
the adjective (which MaG has made quite salient through his metatalk), but does not
notice the recast structure (which is not so salient). In turn 5, CS uses a subject + copula+
adjective construction (you are warm) instead of the impersonal dative construction (it is
warm to me). For the second time, he receives corrective feedback in the form of an
explicit no and a recast (6) and an explicit no. This results in immediate uptake, followed

by CS’S Spanish translation of the German expression (7).

Excerpt 6 represents the following features of tandem learning:
1) It is an example of how a correct form of an expression can be used in an
incorrect context. More precisely, the used expression, you are hot, has a sexual

connotation that was not intended by CS while talking to his tandem partner. In

134

this particular example, it initially caused some amusement for MaG. Secondly,
explicit corrective feedback, followed by metatalk, was provided. It is important
to stress that although the misuse of the idiom caused mild amusement during this
particular tandem meeting, it could have more serious consequences (such as
insulting somebody or being taken as a sexual invitation) in a different context.

2) These data introduced a new element of tandem learning (which will be further
addressed in the ”focus on form” chapter); that is, the interaction caused MaG to
analyze his L1, which means that the tandem method not only provides
opportunities for L2 learning, but it is an opportunity for reflections on one’s
native language.

This reflection on one’s native language may be observed as well in the next excerpt,

which will address another form of complex lexical learning--the learning of

proverbs.

6.4 Proverbs

The opportunities for language learning in tandem are almost unlimited; everything
depends on learners and their individual needs. For this reason, all lexical features can be
addressed, if needed. As learners advance and become ready for linguistic “adventures,”
they increasingly become interested in idioms and proverbs.

All participants, whose data are analyzed in this dissertation, were at least at the

lower intermediate level and could communicate quite well in their L2. For this reason,
most of them were interested in learning more sophisticated lexical items, such as low-

fiequency words, idioms, and proverbs.

135

Idiomatic expressions and proverbs were used only during some tandem
meetings, which seem consistent with the regular use of these items, since most native
speakers do not employ them in every conversation.

In the previous section, I focused on the use of idiomatic expressions, this section will
discuss proverbs. According to the Longrnan Dictionary of American English (1997), a
proverb is “a short statement that most people know, that contains advice about life” (p.
643). Proverbs are addressed in tandem in two ways: they arise accidentally from context
(Excerpt 8) or learners pre—plan their study for their meetings (Excerpt 7). It is important
to point out that only proverbs and idiomatic expressions were prepared at home by some
tandem participants in order to discuss them with the other learner during their meeting.
It may be due to the fact that learners perceived them as more difficult to teach and to
learn. Additionally, it could suggest that tandem learners are interested in learning
proverbs and idioms, and view them as worth their time. This section will start with an
interaction between MG and J E, during which learners utilize flashcards in order to

discuss German and English proverbs.

Excegpt 7

It is important to highlight that MG and J E were interested in learning as much as
possible during their tandem interactions. For this reason, they occasionally prepared a
more formal set of educational materials (e. g., flashcards with proverbs and idiomatic
expressions) which were utilized and discussed during their meetings. Excerpt 7
represents a learning episode stimulated by the use of the flashcards. It starts when I E

asks MG if a certain proverb would be used in German:

136

1 JE: Man sagt dann: ,,Man sollte das Fell des Biiren nicht teilen eher man ihn erlegt
hat?“

(Do you say: You shouldn ’t divide the skin of the bear before you have killed him?)

2 MG: Moment. Warte mal, ich glaube das ist...

(Moment. Wait, I think this is...)

3 JE: Sagt man das?

(Do people say it?)

4 MG: Ich glaube, das sind sehr gebildete Sachen. Sachen, die man nicht stindig sagt,
aber die im richtigen Moment passendl wiiren. Hm... Ich habe dieses, glaube ich, noch nie
verwendet, aber was wiirde ich statt dessen sagen? Warte mal, lass mich mal kurz
iiberlegen. Ich wiirde sagen...

(I think, they are very sophisticated things. Things, which are not used every day, but they
would be proper at the right moment. Hm...I have never used this one, but...what would I
say instead? Wait, 1 have to think for a while. I would say...)

5 JE: Zum Beispiel, also wenn jemand sagt, sie haben eine neue Wohnung, aber sie
haben sie noch nicht.

(For example, if somebody says that they have a new apartment, but they still don 't have
it.)

6 MG: Genau. Das stimmt. Freu dich nicht zu friih. Das sagt man in dem
Zusammenhang.

(Yes. It 's right. Don ’t get too happy too soon. You could say it in this context.)

7 JE: Ja. Genau. (Yes, exactly.)

137

8 MG: Oder noch besser: “Noch ist nicht aller Tage Abend.” Das sagen wir eigentlich.
(Or even better, “T he day is not over yet. " Actually, we say it.)

9 JE: Noch ist nicht aller Tage... [Talks very quietly]

(The day is not over...)

10 MG: Noch ist nicht aller Tage Abend. (The day is not over yet.)

11 JE: [Writes it down]

12 MG: 8011 ich es dir aufschreiben?

(Should I write it down for you ?)

13 JE: Stimmt das so? (Is that correct?)

[J B shows MG what she has written.]

14 MG: Noch ist nicht aller Tage Abend. J a. Das ist wirklich ein Sprichwort das wir oft
sagen. Das heisst, der Tag ist noch lang.

(The day is not over yet. Yes. This is really a proverb that we use a lot. It means, the day
is long.)

15 J Esz.

16 MG: Es kann immer noch was passieren.

(Something can still happen.)

17 J E: Genau. Wir wiirden sagen: Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched.
(Exactly, we would say: Don ’t count your chickens before they ’ve hatched.)

18 MG: Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched. Ok. Jut.

[Writes it down]

19 J E: Man kann auch sagen: don’t get too excited yet. Das ist nicht idomatisch, aber

man sagt das.

138

(You could say also: don ’t get too excited yet. This is not an idiom, but you can say it.)
20 MG: Kannst du es mir aufschreiben? Oder warte, ich mache es selbst.

(Could you write it down for me? Or wait, I will do it myself)

[Writes it down]

21 JE: Don’t get too excited.

22 MG: Freu dich nicht zu friih.

(Don ’t get happy too soon.)

Excerpt 7 starts with J E reading from the flashcard the German idiom You
shouldn ’t divide the skin of the bear before you have killed him, and asking MG if it is
used in German(l). It is an example of a situation when the NNS relies on native
speaker’s linguistic and/or socio-cultural expertise. Presumably, J E understands the idiom
because she is not asking about its meaning. J E’s question is related to the use of this
particular expression in modern German. She demonstrates a high level of metalinguistic
awareness, having the ability to understand that learning idioms from a book does not
guarantee their proper use, or more exactly, that knowing the form and/or meaning of an
idiom does not guarantee its proper implementation. As Gass and Selinker would point
out (2001), JE’s metalinguistic awareness allows her “to consider language not just as a
means to express ideas or communicating with others, but also as an object of inquiry”
(p.302).

MG signals that she needs time to think about the question, saying, wait. (2).
Finally, MG admits that she has never used this proverb herself because, as she points

out, some expressions are very sophisticated and can be useful, but only in a very exact

139

context (4). Although MG has never used this particular proverb before, she tries to come
up with an example of its possible use. IE tries to help out, and she is able to provide an
example of a situation in which the above expression could be used (5). This is a very
important contribution, which immediately helps MG to come up with other, more
common, expressions which could replace this seemingly low-fiequency proverb (6, 8).
JE repeats and writes down one of them, which, as MG points out, is used. In the
following turns, MG provides further explanations about the introduced proverb The day
is not over yet, trying to clarify its meaning (14, 16). MG focuses on this particular
proverb because, according to her, it is often used in Germany. Finally, in turn 17, J B
provides a similar English proverb: Don ’t count your chickens before they 've hatched.
The same procedure is employed: MG repeats the new proverb and writes it down (18).
Finally, one more expression related to the meaning of the previously discussed proverbs
is introduced (19), don ’t get too excited yet. In the same conversational turn, J E points out
that although it is not an idiomatic expression, it is used in English. MG writes it down

(20).

In summary, the proverb from the flashcard stimulated metatalk related to
proverbs and their use in English and German. Both tandem partners actively contribute
to the creation of new knowledge. I E discovers that the German proverb Man sollte das
Fell des Bc'iren nicht teilen eher man ih erlegt hat is not fi'equently used in modern
German and that there are better alternatives (Noch ist nicht aller T age Abend) to express
the same idea. MG is able to learn the English proverb Don 't count your chickens before

they ’ve hatched. J E and MG may even be learning something new about their L1; MG’s

140

statement I have never used this expression before suggests that during the tandem
interaction she was forced to reflect on her native language and its use. This is a very
different learning situation when compared to the foreign language classroom, where
learners are in most instances discouraged from using their Ll. In a traditional
instructional setting, there is often a strong separation between learners’ L1 and L2;
whereas in tandem, both languages are equally important in the process of one’s learning.
Learners are constantly making connections between them. For this reason, they notice
linguistic and lexical features not only in their second language, but also in the first one,
as observed in Excerpts 4, 5, and other further discussed examples.

Learning proverbs with a native speaker of one’s L2 has one more advantage. The
native speaker can tell directly if a proverb is still used in the modern version of the L2 or
if other alternative forms would be more appropriate. Since most of the proverbs were
created many centuries ago, some of them may be a little archaic today. That is, they are
understood by most native speakers, but their modern use may be very limited or they
may have been replaced by newer forms. Learning proverbs and idiomatic expressions
fi'om a book does not provide learners with the direct access to native speakers and their
linguistic experiences in their use. For all the above reasons, addressing proverbs during
interaction with a native speaker is very beneficial, regardless of whether they arise from

the pre-planned activity (Excerpt 7) or spontaneously.
In summary, in this section I described the learning of proverbs during tandem

interactions. As previously mentioned, the learning of idioms and proverbs is more

complex and difficult than the acquisition of a single word because the meaning of the

141

whole expression is not the sum of the meanings of its parts. For this reason, the learning
of proverbs and idioms can be confusing, but an accurate L2 speaker should be familiar
with the full range of existing lexical items, even if their learning presents some
challenges. As Amaud and Savignon (1997) pointed out, “Knowledge of rare words is a
valuable tool as it enables an L2 learner to access the meanings (. . .) effortlessly and
immediately, without having to devote too much energy to lexical guessing” (p.159).

The tandem method allows learners the exposure to authentic language use, and the
occasional, sometimes incidental, exposure to idiomatic expressions or proverbs.
Although the introduction of the multiword phrases during tandem may be incidental,
tandem learners frequently tend to pause and pay attention to these complex structures.
As observed in previously discussed excerpts, they have prolonged discussions about
idioms and proverbs in order to better understand their meaning and usage. One could
argue that this intensive metatalk makes learners more aware of them.

As Hucking and Coady (1997) concluded, multiword phrases constitute a significant
part of ordinary language use, but they are not learned well through purely incidental
exposure and should be addressed directly. The tandem method allows learners such
direct addressing of multiword phrases, which is often not the casein a traditional
classroom. Amaud and Savignon (1997) concluded that the foreign language classrooms
were inadequate for the acquisition of multiword phrases because (a) the non-native
foreign language teachers did not always have sufficient knowledge of idiomatic
expressions; (b) incidental exposure during lessons to multiword phrases was insufficient
for their acquisition; (0) in the foreign classroom setting, there was an occasional “lack of

awareness of the nature and importance of complex units leading to reduced attention to

142

them” (p.168). The tandem learning method provides learners with (a) a competent native
speaker, who is familiar with many proverbs and idiomatic expressions in the L1; and (b)
incidental or pre-planned contact with idioms and proverbs during tandem meetings.
Such contact frequently results in direct and explicit addressing of them. When
comparing both environments, advanced language learners may have more opportunities
for intense, prolonged contact with multiword phrases during tandem interactions when
compared to the traditional classroom setting.

The tandem environment allows students to spend a lot of time on difficult lexical
items, as observed in the above excerpts, and which can be also observed in the next few
conversations related to the instances of complex lexical learning in tandem. In Excerpts
8, 9, and 10, I will focus on multi-word learning: learning of similar sounding/looking

words or learning of seemingly easy, but still confusing L2 lexical items.

6.5 Multiword lexical learning

Chapter 6, related to lexical learning processes observed during tandem
interactions, started with examples of relatively simple, single-word learning. As
observed in Excerpts 1-3, this type of situation is not very difficult for tandem learners.
The non-native speaker can easily ask for the unknown word or its translation (verbally
or non-verbally), and the native speaker usually is able to provide a quick answer. Often,
both learners learn the same lexical item in their respective native language.

This is not always the case when learners want to address multiple words in the
same conversational turn, or words which are confusing for them because of their form or

sound similarity. According to Laufer (1997), “there is a wealth of evidence that L2

143

learners confuse words that sound and/or look alike.”(p.l46) These words can be difficult
for learners, and their learning requires more negotiation/clarification of meaning than
learning of a single word. Addressing multiple, or confusing/difficult, lexical items in the
same conversational turn represents more challenges for both learners, as shown in the
next three excerpts. As result of it, learners are not always able to discuss and learn these
items in both native languages at the same time, as it was observed during single-word
learning exchanges. Complex issues require more attention, and tandem learners focus, in
most cases, only on one language when discussing them. Additionally, when addressing
multiple words in the same turn, learners do not always focus on their exact translation
(as they do when learning single-words in tandem). In case of complexer lexical
discussions, learners’ focus seems to be on understanding and communication, rather

than on the exact translation of each single word.

Excemt 8

The following excerpt is a fiagment of a conversation between DG and RS. It is
important to point out that RS majors in English and wants to become an English teacher.
Although during the time of data collection for this study he spoke German very well, his
knowledge of English was much stronger. On some occasions a linguistic transfer from
English into German could be observed in his utterances. Prior to this excerpt, RS
explained to his tandem partner a Spanish idiomatic expression. Specifically, he
explained how to express the discomfort one has when there is something in one’s eye.

This prompted DG to pose the following question:

144

1 DG: Como se dice blinzeln?

(How do you say to blink?)

2 RS: Sera, no ver nada.l

(It would be “not to see anything. ”)

3 DG: Ha?

4 RS: No ver nada.

(Not to see anything.)

5 DG: No, blinzeln ist wenn du so machst...
(No, to blink is used when you do so...)
[Opens and closes his eyes a few times]
6 RS: Parpadear. (T o blink.)

Ah, blinzeln. Und blinken?

(Ah, to blink. And to use the turn signal?)

7 DG: Blinken ist wenn du Auto fahrst und dann blinkst du mit ..... , mit dem.... , mit

(T 0 signal is when you drive a car and then you signal with the
Wenn du abbiegst, dann blinkst du.
(When you make a turn, then you use the turn signal.)

8 RS: Blinken und blitzen.

(T 0 use the turn signal and to flash.)

with the..., with)

9 DG: Blitzen ist wenn du zu schnell fahrst, dann wirst du geblitzt.

(T 0 flash is, when you are driving too fast, then they ,, flash “ you.)

10 RS: Aber blitzen ist auch das, oder ?

(But “to flash " is also this, or?)

145

[RS opens and closes his eyes]

11 DG: Nein, das ist blinzeln.T

(No, this is to blink.)

12 RS: Und blitzen?

(And to flash ?)

13 DG: Blitzen ist wenn ein Messgeréit irgendwo auf der Strasse steht und du fahrst
zu schnell mit dem Auto, dann blitzt es dich. Dann musst du eine Geldstrafe zahlen.
(T 0 flash is when there is radar on the street, and you are driving too fast,

then you are being ‘flashed.. ” Then you have to pay a ticket.)

14 RS: OK

Excerpt 8 is initiated by DG, who wants to know how to say in Spanish blinzeln
(to blink) (1 ). The question is expressed in Spanish, even though the unknown lexical
item is in German. RS translates the verb incorrectly, as to be blinded/not able to see
anything (2). There are a few signs that he is not sure what to say. First, RS’s falling
intonation, which could signal that he is not so sure of himself in this particular context.
Second, he chooses to use the verb serd, which could be utilized in Spanish to express a
future time or something one is not sure about (e. g., a guess or a hypothesis). RS’s
answer (not to see anything) is received with ha? (3). The use of ha suggests that there is
a problem. In turn 4, RS repeats his previous, incorrect answer. It may suggest that he has
understood ha as an indication of a problematic hearing. RS’s repetition of the incorrect
translation of the German verb blinzeln leads DG to conclude that he had no understood

her question (i.e. that RS has not understood the word blinzeln). In response to it, DG

146

uses nonverbal communication to help explain what she means (5). She opens and closes
her eyes a few times, to demonstrate nonverbally the meaning of the verb blinzeln. At this
moment (6), RS provides the correct Spanish translation (parpadear-to blink). Although
there are some difficulties at the beginning of the negotiation, both partners succeed in
communicating and learning fiom each other, using both the verbal and the nonverbal
means of communication. DG accomplishes her goal and hears the correct Spanish
translation of blinzeln, and RS “accidentally” is exposed to the German version of it.
More precisely, RS notices what blinzeln means.

After acknowledging that to blink is blinzeln, RS asks what blinken would mean
in German (6). Knowing that RS is majoring in English and his knowledge of this
language is much stronger than his German, one can understand that there is potential for
confusion because English and German can often be similar.

Blinken in German means to use the turn signal, but the similar English word to
blink has two meanings: to open and close one’s eyes (German blinzeln) or to use the turn
signal (German blinken). For this reason, RS’s confusion could be related to negative
transfer fi'om English into German. DG uses an example to explain the meaning of the
word blinken (to use the turn signal), (7). In the next turn, RS adds one more similar word
to the discussion. This time he wants to know what the difference would be between the
German words blinken and blitzen. Since the word blinken was explained before, DG
concentrates on blitzen (to flash), and again through the very common example of being
“flashed” through the police radar, she tries to explain the meaning of this particular verb
(9). However, RS still seems to be confused, asking whether blitzen (to flash) means to

blink (10). He does not use the German verb blinzeln: RS communicates its meaning non-

147

verbally. DG provides explicit corrective feedback. First, she rejects the hypothesis that

blitzen could mean blinken, saying no. Second, she provides the translation for the non-

verbal use of the verb blinzeln (11). RS is still confused about these three verbs. He asks

one more time for the explication of blitzen (12), which is provided (13). DG explains,

this time with more details, the meaning of the word blitzen. RS acknowledges his

understanding with an 0K (14).

Excerpt 8 represents the following features of tandem learning:

1)

2)

Excerpt 8 represents an opportunity for lexical learning and clarification of
meaning of three very similar German verbs. This exchange is not initiated by RS
in order to learn these verbs; it is DG who wants to know the Spanish translation
for the verb blinzeln--her explicit word search starts the whole process. Since RS
is not able to translate the German verb blinzeln correctly into Spanish,
negotiation of meaning takes place, verbally and non-verbally. Once the meaning
of blinzeln is clarified, considerable effort goes into resolving RS’s problems with
regard to the verbs blinken and blitzen, which are confusing for him. RS is
comfortable with posing multiple questions to clarify the meaning of these verbs.
As Gass (1997) stated, linguistic negotiations are likely to happen between
individuals whose status (or power relationship) is similar. In tandem, both
partners are equal. For this reason, most tandem learners are not embarrassed
about asking questions or correcting each other.

Conversational interaction allows learners to notice the gap in their knowledge.

DG’s request for a translation of the word blinzeln is the result of noticing the gap

148

3)

in her knowledge. She is also able to notice the gap in RS’s knowledge of
German, as he is unable to accomplish the translation task. One may wonder if RS
also notices the gap in his knowledge at the same moment, since the tone of his
voice is definitely falling while incorrectly translating the verb blinzeln (to blink
with one’s eyes) as not to see anything. Surely, there is some confusion since RS
not only provides the incorrect translation, but also repeats it. His next question,
about the connection between the verbs blinzeln and blinken suggests that he has
noticed his linguistic problems (6). As Swain and Lapkin (1995) would state,
learners notice their linguistic deficiencies attempting to produce the target
language (DG is not able to say patpadear in Spanish). It may direct their
attention to something they need to learn about their L2 and trigger cognitive
processes that may generate linguistic knowledge, or consolidate the previous
knowledge. In the case of RS, hearing that his hypothesis about the meaning of
the word blinzeln is incorrect directs his attention to this particular verb and to
other similar sounding verbs. According to Swain (1998), noticing, hypothesis
testing, and metatalk may represent learning in progress.

Although this excerpt addresses three very similar German verbs, possibly only
one of them is new to RS, blinzeln. Blinzeln is a relatively low-frequency verb in
German--its meaning is limited only to the action of opening and closing one’s
eyes. RS has been previously exposed to the other two verbs (since he produces
them on his own during this excerpt), but without context he is not able to

distinguish them fiom each other. It is also possible that RS has misunderstood

149

(confused) the meanings of blinken and blitzen. His interaction with DG and
talking about these verbs may help RS to distinguish them.

4) The focus on lexical items represents a temporary shift from the communicative-
oriented conversation to the discussion of these three lexical items. Once the task
is accomplished, the conversation shifts again to the communicative setting and
the previously discussed topic is continued. As mentioned in the introduction to
Excerpt 8, learners were discussing idioms prior to their focus on these three
verbs. Such situation demonstrates that tandem learning can create opportunities

for LREs within the context of “real” communication.

Excemt 9

Excerpt 9 is a fragment of a conversation between N08 and SoG. The learners
talk about SoG’s visit to a pizzeria on the day prior to their tandem. According to SoG,

although he was hungry and enjoyed the pizza, it was not very good.

1 SoG: Also gestern war die Pizza gar nicht so. . . [SoG makes an ,,unhappy“ facial
expression]

(And yesterday the pizza was not so...)

2 NoS: Nein? (No?)

3 SoG: Na ja, die war gross, aber, (Well, it was big, but, )

4 NoS: Es hat nicht Geschmack, Geschmeck. (It didn ’t have taste, tasted.)

5 SoG: Geschmack. (Taste. )

6 NoS: Geschmeck. (Tasted. )

150

7 SoG: Geschmack.(Taste.)

8 NoS: Aber es hat dir nicht geschmackt, geschmeckt? (But it didn ’t taste to you?)
9 SoG: Geschmeckt schon, aber der Geschmack war, sagen wir, so lala.
(It did, but its taste was, let 's say, just ok.)

10 NoS: Das ist der Geschmack. Und so lala? Sagt man das?

(This is the taste. And “so lala ”? Do you say it?)

11 SoG: So lala, das heisst nicht so gut.

(,,So lala “ means not so good.)

12 NoS: Nicht so gut. So lala.

(Not so good. So lala.)

13 SoG: J a, es war nicht lecker. Der Rest war auch so lala.

(Yes, it was not very tasty. The other things were also not so good.)

This exchange starts with SoG’s comment that the pizza he ate the previous day
was not so... (1). He does not use any adjective in his sentence, which makes it a little
abrupt, but he is still understandable since his facial expression does not look very happy.
SoG’s facial expression “fills in” for the missing adjective and completes the sentence.
NoS seems surprised and asks no? SoG explains that the pizza was big, but (3). The word
but ends his conversational turn because at this moment his sentence is finished by NoS
(4). Trying to say that the pizza did not have taste or did not taste good to him (her
sentence could mean any of these two possibilities), NoS comes across her own linguistic
limitations not knowing which form to use Geschmack or geschmeck .Since she produces

two forms, NoS is testing a hypothesis. SoG repeats the noun Geschmack, which is one of

151

the possibilities (did not have taste) (5). There may be an explanation of why he focuses
on this possibility. The first used word, the noun Geschmack (the taste) was used
correctly. The second word geschmeck was not. Geschmeck does not exist at all in
German, and it could mean either: an incorrect variation of Geschmack, or possibly, the
past participle which is not geschmeck but geschmeckt. SoG focuses on the correct use of
the noun (the taste) by his tandem partner. NoS does not repeat Geschmack, instead, she
repeats only the second, incorrect option geschmeck (6). SoG repeats again the noun
Geschmack (7). He focuses on the noun (the taste--the pizza did not have taste); whereas
NoS on the verb (did not taste good). A verb fits her sentence structure better than a noun
since NoS uses Es hat nicht, which normally should be followed by the past participle
(geschmeckt) (4,8). In turn 8, NoS introduces self-correction as a part of this negotiation
of meaning. She repeats the original utterance (from line 4), but adds this time a “t” to the
ends of both words. She is again testing a hypothesis. She creates an incorrect noun
(Geschmackt) and a correct past participle (geschmeckt) (8). Adding the “t” to the end of
these words shifts SoG’s focus to the past participle form. In turn 9, SoG uses the
participle —geschmeckt, while answering NoS’s question, Did it taste to you? (8). In
addition, he uses the related noun, stating that although the pizza had flavor, the taste was
not good. In this answer, SoG uses both lexical items (the noun and the past participle),
which were the cause of the previous confusion (9). In the following turn (10), NoS
repeats the noun and the corresponding article, acknowledging the previous efforts of her
tandem partner (since he previously has used the noun Geschmack three times).

Secondly, she asks about the expression used by SoG --so lala, which apparently was

new for her. NoS wants to know if it is really used in this form in German (10). SoG

152

explains to her the meaning of this idiomatic expression (11), and N08 repeats both:
SoG’s explanation nicht so gut, as well as the corresponding idiomatic expression so lala
(12). This repetition of both lexical items in the same turn is an example of learner
connecting her previous knowledge with the new one. It represents an opportunity for
learning. In turn 13, SoG: uses the idiom so lala again to talk about other things that he

ate, providing one more opportunity for N08 to hear it and to see how it can be used.

Excerpt 9 is an example of a lexical learning situation during tandem interaction. This
learning situation is initiated by NoS’s confusion about the correct form of the past
participle geschmeckt. Accidentally, instead of the past participle, she produces a correct
noun form (the taste), which apparently, is also understood by SoG as such. Tandem
partners manage to work out their different perceptions and understand each other after a
few conversational turns of apparent misunderstanding. N08 is able to notice the
difference between the noun Geschmack and the related past participle geschmeckt. In
addition, she is able to have contact with a new idiomatic expression, so lala, which has
been used spontaneously by SoG during their conversation. Processes similar to these
described in Excerpt 8 are observed: noticing the gap, hypothesis testing, and negotiation
of meaning. In the process of communication, NoS is able to discover her linguistic
deficiencies: she is not able to produce the correct form of the past participle geschmeckt.
Noticing the gap in her knowledge motivates NoS to test a hypothesis about the correct
form of the participle. Her first approach is not successful: NoS produces the correct
noun Geschmack and the incorrect form of the participle geschmeck. Her tandem partner

focuses on the correct noun, repeating it. His feedback does not help N08 with the correct

153

form of the searched participle. For this reason a second hypothesis is tested in turn 9:
NoS adds a “t” to both, previously produced words. Doing so, she creates an incorrect
noun Geschmackt, and the correct form of the past participle geschmeckt. The German
native speaker responds, using geschmeckt, and N08 is able to obtain confirmation with
regard to her hypothesis.

It is important to stress that the primary focus of this conversation is neither lexical
learning, nor focus on form. It is communication. SoG is talking about his experience at
the pizzeria, and even in this short excerpt, interrupted by the temporary shifts to the
LREs, the communicative purpose is the main goal. We are able to obtain the information
that the pizza was big and that its taste was not very good. Finally, we know that the other
aspects of this restaurant visit were not very good either. Even when occasionally
interrupted, the conversation always shifts back to communication. This is an example of
incidental, contextual learning in tandem. As mentioned in chapter 3, one can distinguish
between two types of context: learning context (learning environment) and textual or
discourse context, in which a particular word can be found. Learning in tandem is
strongly connected with the first one, since learners’ life and their experiences are the
context and the topic of their interactions. This is also one of the strengths of tandem
interactions. Learning in tandem occurs in an authentic context. It is not forced, and
students do not have to perform role-plays. As van Lier (2000) pointed out, learners are
“immersed in an environment full of potential meanings,” which become available for
them as learners “act and interact with their environment” (p. 246). The interaction
between active learner and the environment leads to learning. “To look for learning is to

look at the active learner in her environment.” (p. 246-247)

154

6.6 Conclusion

In Chapter 6, I have shown the complexities of lexical learning in tandem, which
range fiom instances related to single-word learning to complex discussions about idioms
and proverbs. Lexical learning in tandem is strongly related to authentic language use and
often results from context, as observed in all discussed excerpts. Idiomatic expressions,
proverbs, and words with similar form proved to be challenging for learners of different
native languages. Nevertheless, the tandem learning environment allowed learners to
address these difficulties and to clarify their doubts. The assistance of the other learner
(tandem partner) was always crucial in these processes. Finally, it was observed that
during tandem interactions one cannot isolate the lexical learning from the grammatical
or the intercultural aspects of such a learning environment. The tandem method is a
holistic approach to language learning, and there is a constant interplay between the
grammar, lexis, and culture, as well as between the learners and their environment.

As Hulstijn (1997) concluded, contextual learning is of great importance for
successful lexical acquisition, especially when it allows learners to elaborate on new
words. It facilitates their retention. Examples of extensive negotiations of meaning and/or
elaboration on lexical items were frequently observed in described excerpts. As van Lier
(2000) pointed out, negotiation of meaning is highlighted as being a strong indicator for
learning opportunities. Tandem interactions provide opportunities for learners’
negotiations, as observed, for example, in Excerpts 4, 8, 9.

Finally, all observed excerpts represent collaborative dialogue. The learners talk and
doing so, they produce utterances that can be responded to—by others or themselves. As

Swain (2000) would stress, “what is said, is now an objective product that can be

155

explored further by the speakers or others” (p.102). “It is language learning (knowledge
building) mediated by language (semiotic tool)” (p.104). Through dialogue, learners
regulate their activity, and create opportunities to reflect on their own language, and on
the language of their tandem partner. These features of collaborative dialogue (and
tandem learning as an example of it) can be observed in all conversation presented in this
dissertation. In all excerpts, learners engage in problem solving and/or knowledge
building. In Excerpts 1-9, learners focus primarily on their lexical problems. In the next

chapter, learners focus on form in their exchanges.

156

CHAPTER 7
F ORM-F OCUSED LREs

7.0 Introduction

In the previous chapter, I focused mainly on the lexical LREs. The tandem
method allowed learners to be exposed to a wide range of lexical learning opportunities
ranging from LREs representing single-word learning to contact with complex, multi-
word structures. A similar situation was observed with regard to grammatical learning
during tandem interactions in which a variety of topics was addressed. Form-focused
LREs discussed in this chapter include instances related to pronunciation, plural forms,
articles, and other morphological features. It is important to stress that both the lexical
LREs and the form-related LREs observed during tandem interactions arise from
learners’ individual needs and reflect these needs. The LREs discussed in this chapter are
examples of authentic interactions and represent a true communicative setting, in which
learners shift their attention to form when needed in order to return to their conversations
as soon as the issue is resolved.

For the purpose of this analysis, this chapter is divided into two types of
situations: (1) pronunciation and issues related to spelling, and (2) all other grammatical

aspects (morphology and syntax).

7.1 Pronunciation and spelling

The data provide strong evidence of a significant presence of corrective feedback

and LREs related to pronunciation during typical tandem interactions. This may be

157

explained by the fact that errors related to pronunciation are easy for native speakers to
detect and relatively easy for them to correct. This fact does not mean that such errors are
easily recognized by NNSs. Often, as excerpts discussed in this chapter will demonstrate,
NNSs do not notice the incorrect pronunciation, and perceive the corrective feedback as
being about something else. Sometimes, it takes a few conversational turns to correct

pronunciation errors.

Excemt 10A

Excerpt 10 represents a fragment of a conversation between N08 and SoG.
During this conversational setting, NoS tells SoG about her recent flight from Spain to
Germany, during which she did not like the fact that everybody around her was reading
books. It gave her the impression that these books were “right in her face.” In the process
of telling this story, the Spanish native speaker (N oS) has problems with differentiating
between two phonetically similar German words: Geschichte (history) and Gesichte

(faces).

1 NoS: Du hast diese Bucher in dein Geschicht.
(You have these books- in your “face. ”)

2 SoG: Gesicht. (Face)

3 NOS: Dein Geschicht. (,,F ace. “)

4 SoG: Gesicht. (Face)

5 NoS: Gesicht. (Face)

6 SoG: Nicht Geschichte. Gesicht. (Not history, face.)

158

7 NoS: Gesicht. (Face). Ich glaube, wir Spanier haben diese Probleme. (I think we

Spaniards have these problems.)

Excerpt 10A starts with an incorrectly produced utterance. There are three errors
in this sentence. NoS does not pronounce the umlaut in the word Bucher, which should
be said “Biicher.” Second, there is a grammatical error in dein Geschicht (Accusative)
which should be “in deinem Gesicht” (Dative). Finally, there is NoS’s incorrect
pronunciation of the word Gesicht (face) as Geschicht, which sounds almost like the
German word “Geschichte” (history). SoG focuses on only one error, probably the most
important for the understanding of this sentence, which is the incorrect pronunciation of
the word Gesicht. The corrective feedback is provided in the form of a single-move,
reduced recast (2), which is followed by its repetition by NoS (3). Although NoS tries to
repeat the word Gesicht, she still is not able to do it correctly. She repeats just what she
had said. It causes one more recast (4), which results in successful uptake this time (5).
Nevertheless, SoG provides additional, more explicit corrective feedback, saying that the
correct word is Gesicht and not Geschichte (6). NoS repeats Gesicht, acknowledging that

Spanish speakers may have problems with such words.

Excerpt 10A represents the following features of tandem learning:

1) A native speaker will not always address all errors committed by the “novice.”
Sometimes the native speaker chooses some errors to focus on, and does not
discuss the others. According to Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000),

“perceiving a limited amount of feedback at exactly the right developmental time

159

is the optimal condition for the learner” (p. 494). Learners may not be able to
correctly perceive and process all feedback they receive. Too much feedback may
lead to cognitive overload. Thus, SoG’s decision with regard to reduced feedback
seems to be correct, in order for NoS to benefit from it. He reduces his recast only
to one word and is able to help N08 with its pronunciation.

In this case the “chosen” error is the incorrect pronunciation of the word
Gesicht, which could be the cause of a possible communicative misunderstanding
because the listener could understand NoS’s sentence as: (1) People had books in
NoS’s face, or (2) People had books in NoS’s story (if she were reading).
Although there is one more mispronounced word Bucher, this does not have much
effect on the communicative understanding, and its correction appears to be of
secondary importance for communicative purposes. It is also not
addressed/corrected by SoG, who focuses only on the word Geschicht. It is
corrected through a reduced, single-move recast, which involves one change.
According to Sheen (2006), a reduced recast produces significantly higher uptake
than a clause-length recast. Uptake is also present in the conversation between
NOS and SoG (5, 7). SoG is persistent with his corrections and even after hearing
NoS’s improvement, SoG provides additional, explicit corrective feedback, which
emphasizes the difference between the words Geschichte and Gesicht (6).

2) NoS admits that Spanish speakers may have problems with making the
distinction between these two words: Geschichte and Gesichte. This statement
could be viewed as a learner’s reflection on the relationship between her L1 and

L2. Understanding the similarities and differences between one’s L1 and L2 can

160

be beneficial for language learning because it allows learners to become more
aware of these factors. As already observed in Excerpt 4, learners occasionally try
to utilize their L1 in the process of the SLA. Sometimes, such transfer can be
helpful, but frequently it may cause learners to produce incorrect utterances in the
L2, as SE did (Excerpt 4). Reflecting on the relationship between their L1 and L2,
allows learners to discover the features they are transferring from their Ll into the
L2, and to see if such transfer is possible and/or correct. The feedback obtained
from the native speaker is very valuable in this process, as it can be observed in

the next excerpt.

Excerpt 10B

Excerpt 10B represents direct continuation of the previous conversation. N08 and
SoG are still engaged in the discussion about the difference between the words
Geschichte and Gesichte. This time the focus is not only on pronunciation, but also on

other grammatical items directly related to the discussed words.

1 NoS: Aber kannst du mir verstehen? Oder es kling sehr..
(But you can understand me? Or does it sound very...)

2 SoG: Nein, nein. Ich kann es verstehen.

(No, no. I can understand it.)

3 NoS: Ges.. Ges... Geschichte und Gesichte.

(Ges..Ges... History and faces)

4 SoG: Die Gesichter. (Faces. )

161

5 NOS: Gesichter. (Faces. )

6 SOG: Gesichter. (Faces. )

7 NOS: Aber meinst du cara Oder historia?
(But do you mean face or history?)

8 SOG: Ja. Ja. Ja. Ich meine cara. [Laughs]
(Yes, yes. I mean face.)

9 NOS: Ja. Ja. Ja.

(Yes, yes, yes.)

10 NOS: Gesichte ist die Historia.
(Geschichte is history.)

11 SOG: Geschichte. (Geschichte)

12 NOS: Und Gesichte ist cara.

(And Gesichte is face.)

13 SOG: Hm.

Excerpt lOB starts with NOS’s question as to whether SOG can understand her, or
not (1). This question may be directly related to the previously discussed corrective
feedback regarding NoS’s pronunciation and to the possible confusion because of
mispronounced words. SOG reconfirrns that he can understand NOS (2). At this point,
when the whole interaction related to the difference between Geschichte and Gesicht
seems to be finished, NOS decides to take it firrther. She pronounces both words in the
same conversational turn, contrasting them, as was previously done by SOG (3). Doing
so, NOS has two “false starts” (Ges... Ges...) This is evidence that she is focused on the

problematic sound distinction between these two words. It also demonstrates that she has

162

benefited from the previous exchange. NOS has noticed the difference between
Geschichte and Gesicht, as well as the problems with her own pronunciation. Although
she is able to pronounce correctly both words, she uses the plural form Gesichter and
does it incorrectly (3). NOS says Gesichte. In the next turn, SOG provides the correct
plural form Gesichter (4). His correction results in uptake (5).

The rest Of the excerpt (7-13) is directly connected to the lexis-based LRE, as
learners discuss and clarify the meaning of the previously introduced words (Geschichte
and Gesicht). NOS is not yet clear on the distinction between these similar-sounding
words and uses Spanish to ask for clarification (7). SOG clarifies the meaning in her
native language (8). NOS continues to use Spanish two more times to confirm words’

meanings (10, 12).

Excerpt 103 describes direct conversational continuation of excerpt 10A, and
although its focus is still strongly related to pronunciation, it demonstrates other form-
related and lexis-based LREs. Additionally, this excerpt represents the following features
Of tandem learning:

1) Noticing the gap and negotiation/clarification of meaning (similar to processes
Observed in Excerpt 8). NOS produces the incorrect plural form Gesichte (3). SOG
corrects it (Gesichter). His correction results in uptake (5). Above fragment
demonstrates that SOG notices the gap in NoS’s knowledge of German, addresses
it, and creates an Opportunity for learning. His corrective feedback results in
successful uptake, which suggests that NOS has noticed it. Once the plural form
Gesichter is noticed, NOS still wants to clarify its meaning. She asks in Spanish if

SOG means the face or the history. SOG confirms that he means the face (cara).

163

2)

3)

4)

The clarifying word cara is provided in Spanish, even though the rest Of the
sentence is in German (Ja. Ja. Ja. Ich meine cara).

Knowing the native language Of the tandem partner is beneficial during tandem
exchanges. SOG can clarify in Spanish tO his confused tandem partner (NOS) the
differences between the nouns Geschichte und Gesichter. During tandem
interactions, both learners are always familiar with the native language Of the
other person, and this may be beneficial, as we can Observe in this excerpt, where
SOG’s knowledge of Spanish is being utilized by NOS to clarify her doubts about
lexical meaning.

There is improvement in NoS’s performance as a result Of the tandem interaction.
NOS produces correctly, on her own, the words Geschichte and Gesichte, which
were previously discussed and problematic for her (3). This offers evidence that
tandem learning contributes to noticing and, maybe, learning. This exchange also
leads to an extended LRE that goes well beyond the simple correction and uptake
Of pronunciation. Learners dedicate enough time to clarify the meaning Of the
problematic word and to focus on them.

In the interaction between SOG and NOS, as in most other excerpts in this
dissertation, explicit focus on learners’ errors is provided exactly when needed, in
most instances after an incorrectly produced utterance, or part Of it. It allows
learners to notice the difference between their incorrect use of the L2 and the
target form. Sometimes, it takes a few turns for them to notice or to use the
corrected form correctly, as Observed in Excerpt 10. NOS needs two corrections tO

produce the target-like form Of the word “Gesicht.” As Lightbown (1998) would

164

state, her reformulated utterance gives some reason to believe that the mismatch
between her incorrect utterance and the target utterance has been noticed,

representing “a step toward acquisition” (p. 193).

In order to provide evidence that tandem interactions lead to noticing and, possibly
learning, I will discuss a fragment of a conversation between LC and AG. As result Of
learning with a native speaker, LC is able to notice the gap in her L2 knowledge and
improve her performance, producing on her own a target-like form of the previously

incorrectly pronounced word Probleme.

Excerpt 1 1A

* The German noun ,,Probleme“ should be pronounced with a long e [e:]. Since this

sound does not exist in Czech, LC seems to have difficulties with its pronunciation,

saying [8].

Excerpt 11A represents a fragment Of a conversation between LC and AG. LC
stated in the previous turns that she had some problems at work. AG jokingly asks if she
is about to be fired. As this excerpt begins, LC explains that she is referring to her

problems with German.

1 LC: Aber ich meinte vorher, ich hatte Sprachprobleme. [E]
(I was thinking before, I had language-problems.)

2 AG: Sag noch mal: Probleme. [e:]

165

(Say one more time Probleme.)

3 LC: Probleme. [E] Probleme. [E] Das E war nicht richtig.
(Probleme. Probleme. The e was incorrect.)

4 AG: J a, du hast Probleme gesagt. [8]

(Yes, you said Probleme.)
5 LC: 8011 ich das, soll ich das...

(Should I, should I...)

6 AG: SO wie Kaffee. Probleme. [e:]
(As Kaflee Probleme.)

7 LC: Ich habe Sprachprobleme. [e:]

(I have language problems.)
8 AG: Hm.

The focus of Excerpt 17A is the incorrect pronunciation Of the German word
Probleme by the Czech native speaker. In turn 1, LC pronounces it incorrectly. In
response, AG asks LC to say the word Probleme one more time and demonstrates its
correct pronunciation (2). This feedback indicates there is a problem with the word, but
does not specify what is wrong. Although in turn 3, LC repeats the problematic word
twice; she is not able to pronounce it correctly. However, LC manages to recognize her
problem, saying that the “e” was not correct. As LC says the word, it becomes an Object
for reflection. In turn 4, AG indirectly confirms that LC’s hypothesis about the “e” is
correct. Also, AG demonstrates LC’s incorrect pronunciation by repeating the word

Probleme, as it was said previously by LC. In turn 5, LC is reflecting on something she

166

should do. .. We do not know exactly what she is looking for here, but we can observe
that AG interprets this as a request for help in making the correct sound. AG helps LC
out, providing her with an example Of a very common German word with a similar “e”
(Kafl'ee), and then repeating the word Probleme in the same conversational turn (6). This

time, AG’s explanation results in successful uptake, as LC is able to produce the sound
[e I] correctly. LC redoes her own problematic utterance, this time with the correct

pronunciation.
Twenty-five minutes later, during the same tandem meeting, LC uses the word
Probleme again. At first, she uses it incorrectly, but she realizes it and immediately

corrects herself. This instance of self-correction provides evidence that the previous
extensive negotiation related to the pronunciation Of the sound [e:] resulted in noticing

the error.

Excemt 11B

In Excerpt 118, LC is telling AG about one more Of her challenges related tO the
correct use Of German. Since LC has to write e-mails to customers Of the magazine she is
working for, sometimes, she is not sure about the best way to express herself. Therefore,
during her tandem interactions, LC would refer to such instances, asking AG for help.
Excerpt 113 is an example Of such conversations. Its most important element is LC’s

self-correction (1).

167

1 LC: Diese Probleme[€], Probleme [6:], habe ich ganz oft. Das stirnmt wahrscheinlich

nicht. Das ist wahrscheinlich nicht in Ordnung. Wieviele Exemplare m6chten Sie
geliefert haben?
(These problems, problems, I have quite often. I don ’t think that this is correct. It is
probably incorrect. How many examples would you like to have delivered?)
2 AG: Geliefert bekommen.
(T 0 receive delivered.)

Excerpt 11 B starts with the incorrect pronunciation Of the word Probleme. LC
says the word incorrectly, then immediately self-corrects. This is evidence that the
previous exchange with her tandem partner about the correct pronunciation of this word

resulted in learning.

In summary, Excerpts 10 and 11 provide evidence that corrective feedback that
occurs during tandem interaction leads to noticing and production Of target-like forms.
Explicit focus on form provided by the native speaker resulted in both interactions in
improved performance of the non-native speaker. In both examples, there is a temporary
shift from focus on meaning tO focus on pronunciation. As Lightbown (1998) stressed,
sometimes it is necessary to stop the communicative activity for a while to make the
focus on form explicit. It is beneficial for language learning, and allows learners to notice
language forms that they may not notice when focusing on meaning only. The benefits
resulting from focusing on form which occurs within tandem interactions can also be

Observed in the next excerpt.

168

Excerpt 12

Excerpt 12 represents a fragment Of a conversation between MiG and SE. After returning
from a trip to Spain, SE is sharing his travel experiences with MiG during their tandem

meeting:

1 SE: Da haben wir in eine alte. Oh, was heisst das? Ich kenne das Wort.
WO Miinchen leben?

(There we have an old... Oh, how it is called? I know this word. Were the monks live?)
2 MiG: WO was leben? Was?

(Where what lives? What?)

3 SE: Miinchen? (Monks?)

4 MiG: MOnche! MOnche meinst du. Kloster.

(Monks. Monks, it is what you mean. Monastery.)

5 SE: J a, ja. Kloster ist das Wort das ich vergessen habe. [o]

(Y es, yes. Monastery is the word I have forgotten.)

6 MiG: KlOTster. KlOTster. [oz] (Monastery. Monastery.)

7 SE: Kloster. [O]

8 MiG: KloTster.[o:]

9 SE: Kloster. Das war ein alte Kloster. [0:]

(Monastery. It was an Old monastery.)

10 MiG: Ein altes Kloster. (An old monastery).

11 SE: Das Kloster? [oz]

12 MiG: Ja.

169

Excerpt 12 starts with SE’s explicit request for assistance during a word-search.
SE apparently has forgotten how to say the word “monastery” in German. He asks MiG:
How do you say it? describing the searched word. According to SE, he knows the missing
word: I know this word, but is not able to produce it (1). SE explains to his tandem
partner that this is a place where monks live. He uses the incorrect plural form of the
word “monks” (Ma'nchen instead of MOnche), and MiG does not understand him. She
points out which part of the sentence is not understood, saying Where what lives? (2). At
this moment, SE becomes uncertain about his output. He repeats the noun Mime/zen with
the rising intonation Of a question (3). MiG finally understands him (4), Monks! Monks,
it ’s what you mean. Kloster. The lexis-based LRE is successfully accomplished. MiG
supplies the missing word, monastery, which is confirmed by SE in the following turn as
what he was searching for (5).

Since German vowels can be pronounced either as long or short, and the noun
Kloster requires a long vowel [0:], which Often is problematic for foreign learners, MiG
corrects the pronunciation of her tandem partner. In turn 6, she repeats the correct
pronunciation twice. She makes her multi-move recast salient, through rising intonation
on the problematic vowel. Repeating the word twice gives SE the Opportunity to have
more exposure to it. Although the recast is made very salient, SE fails tO pronounce the
word Kloster correctly (7), which causes MiG to repeat her corrective feedback (8). After
the third exposure to the same word, SE manages to produce it correctly (9). It is a sign
that he has noticed the focus Of the corrective feedback. In the same conversational turn,

a new form-based LRE begins. In German, the gender of a noun must be reflected in the

170

article or adjective ending. SE commits an error, using the incorrect adjective ending alte
(9). SE’s error results in a recast by his tandem partner (10), which allows SE to conclude
that the noun Kloster must be neuter. His question, Das Kloster, suggests that SE is
focusing on the article of the noun, and not the adjective ending. SE’s recast also includes
a correct pronunciation Of Kloster, which provides evidence that the previous focus on
pronunciation resulted in its noticing and possibly learning.

Excerpt 12 demonstrates the following features of tandem learning:

1) It confirms that learners receive frequent feedback related to their pronunciation
during tandem interactions. It also confirms that words with sounds non-existing
in learners’ native languages may be difficult for them. In both excerpts (11 and
12) learners fail to produce relatively easy words (Probleme and Kloster)
correctly, due to the difference in vowel articulation between their L1 and L2.
These words required multiple repetitions/corrections in order to be produced
correctly. The tandem setting seems to provide a good environment for such
learning since its participants can allocate enough time for practice of
pronunciation. Such extensive focus on pronunciation could happen in a
classroom, but might be unusual in everyday conversation. Also, there is a
significant difference between addressing pronunciation in a formal classroom
and in tandem. In tandem, words that are practiced are not fiom a word list. They
always arise from context, in situations when the non-native speaker uses an
incorrect pronunciation. Due to it, pronunciation can be corrected in the exact
areas that require attention. It is a highly personalized approach. Additionally,

corrected words can be directly utilized by the non-native speaker in further

171

2)

conversation, giving him or her Opportunities for further practice, reflections on
previously learned material, and self-corrections, if necessary (Excerpts 10, 11,
12). The non-native speaker has Opportunities to reflect not only on word’s
pronunciation, but also, occasionally, on their grammatical or lexical aspects
(Excerpt 10, 12).Various LREs can be Observed during this interaction: the lexis-
based LRE (word search) and the form-based LRE (article of the noun Kloster),
which provide evidence for the tandem method as an example Of holistic learning.
LREs occur within the context Of meaning focused conversation. This shift from
meaning to form can also happen during classroom conversation, but the
difference between these two settings (tandem vs. classroom) is that during
tandem learning, the shift from meaning to form and back is initiated and
negotiated between the participants, who are peers and not student and teacher.
This shift fiom meaning to form is generally triggered by: (l) the novice not being
able to say what he or she wants tO (Excerpt 12), and/or (2) the expert noticing the
gap in the interlanguage Of the novice (Excerpts 10, ll, 12). As Excerpt 12
demonstrates, the first shift from meaning to form (LRE) is initiated by SE
through his explicit request for assistance, and the second LRE is initiated by MiG
reacting to the incorrect sentence of her tandem partner.

It is interesting tO observe that although SE positions himself as a novice
asking explicitly about the lexical item he cannot recall, he signals at the same
time that he knew this word before (2, 5). This may suggest that he may not like
being treated as a novice and wants to preserve some elements Of the position of a

semi-expert, even when asking a question. It is important to stress that other

172

participants as well (regardless Of their gender or age) demonstrate a similar
behavioral pattern. They liked to preserve some degree of the semi-expert feeling
during their language learning (questionnaires confirmed it). The tandem setting
allows it since both learners have equal power. In a typical classroom setting, the
teacher is the expert and the students are novices. In tandem, the roles (expert vs.
novice) change frequently during each interaction. It allows learners to have a low
affective filter—no fear of speaking, asking questions and correcting/challenging
each other. As Gass (1997) stated, differences in status influence the amount Of
negotiation that will take place in an interaction. Negotiation initiated by the NNS
is highly unlikely between individuals whose status or power relationship is
different. According to Gass, familiarity Of interlocutors is also an important
factor having influence on the amount of conversational negotiations. There is
less negotiation between unfamiliar interlocutors than familiar pairs. As Observed
in all previously described excerpts, there is a significant amount Of negotiations

between tandem learners and many of them are initiated by the novice.

In summary, Excerpts 10, l 1 and 12 describe a similar phenomenon, when the non-
native speaker has problems with the correct L2 pronunciation. In all cases, learners
(NOS, SE and LC) are fully engaged in their interaction, but not able tO detect their
incorrect pronunciation. Their output is not enough for better pronunciation. Multiple
corrections and feedback from the native speaker are necessary to improve their
performance. Once correct pronunciation is achieved, learners seem to be aware Of the

previous corrections and use the previously addressed forms correctly.

173

Excerpt l3

Excerpt 13 represents a fragment Of conversation between NOS and SOG. The
tandem partners are comparing various factors Of their native languages with their L28.
One of the discussed factors is pronunciation and sounds that exist or not in each
language. As observed in this excerpt, such sounds are often problematic for learners, and

may lead to miscommunication.

l NOS: In Spanien wir haben ,,Z.” Zorro, zorro.

(In Spain we have ,,z. " Zorro, zorro.) [*zorro means ,,fox“ in English]
2 SOG: J a, wir haben es auch in Deutschland.

(Yes, we have it as well in Germany.)

3 NOS: J a, weil du sagst Zauber. [zaubar].

(Yes, because you say “Zauber. ")

4 SOG: Nein. Sauber [zaubar] ist mit ,,s“geschrieben.

(No ,,sauber” is written with an ,,s ")

5 NOS: Mit ,,Z“?

(With ,,z ”?)

6 SOG: Z?

7 NOS: Zauber. [zaubar].

8 SOG: Nein, Sauber [zaubar] gibt es nur mit ,,s.” Ah, du meinst Zauber.

(No, ,,sauber“ is only with an ,,s. "Ah, you mean “zauber. ")

9 NOS: Ja.

174

10 SOG: Ah so. J a Zauber[tsaubar] ist mit ,, z“ geschrieben, und sauber [zaubar] ist mit
,,s.”

Sauber. Zauber. Was ist Zauber auf Spanisch?

(Ah yes. Yes, ,,zauber” is written with an ,,z, ” and “sauber” is with an “s. " How do you
say “Zauber ” in Spanish?)

11 NOS: Ich weiss nicht. Ein Moment. Ein Moment. [Looks in her notes]

(I don 't know. One moment. One moment.)

12 SOG: Zauber. Sauber, zauber. [Whispering]

(Zauber? Sauber, zauber.)

l3 NOS: WO habe ich es? Ah, hechicero, mago.

(Where do I have it? Ah, wizard, magician.)

14 SOG: Magia? (Magic?)

15 NOS: Hechicero. Mago. (Wizard, magician.)

l6 SOG: Mago. (Magician. )

l7 NOS: Zauber. Aber wie sagst du das? [zaubar]

(Zauber. But how do you say it?)

18 SOG: Zauber. [tsaubar].

19 NOS: Es ist... ? (It is...?)

20 SOG: Zauber, mit ,,z.” (Zauber, with an ,,z“)

21 NOS: Zauber. [tsaubar].Fiir mich es klingt gleich. (Zauber. It all sounds the same to
me.)

22 SOG: Ja? (Yes?)

23 NOS: Sauber und zauber. OK.

175

24 SOG: Zet.

Hechicero? (Magician?)

25 NOS: J a, hechicero, mago. (Yes, wizard, magician.)

El mago. In dieses Film ,,Der Herr der Ringe.”

(The magician. In the movie ,,Lord of the rings. ”)

26 SOG: ,,Der Herr der Ringe“? (,,Lord of the rings?)

27 NOS: J a, ich glaube, ich habe dieses Wort dort gesehen. Zauber.
(I think I saw this word there. Magic.)

28 SOG: Ah, so.

Excerpt 13 starts with NOS’s statement that the Spanish sound system has the
sound “2” [2]. As an example of this sound, she uses the word zorro [zoro] (1). SOG
responds that this sound exists as well in German. NOS agrees with him, saying that it
must be true, since there is a word Zauber. This word is pronounced by her as [zauber],
following Spanish pronunciation. However, according to the German phonetic rules,
Zauber should be pronounced [tsaubar], and not [zauber]. Upon hearing [zauber], SOG
assumes that NOS has said sauber (correctly pronounced as [zauber]) and states that this
word is written with an “s” (4). NOS is confused, and asks with a “z? " (5). At this
moment, SOG seems to be as much confiised as NOS is (6) and asks “z?” (6). NOS repeats
zauber (7), and receives corrective feedback fiom her tandem partner that sauber
[zauber] is written with an “s” (8).

Until this moment, each tandem partner means a different word: NOS Zauber

(magic) and SOG sauber (clean), but both pronounce it the same [zauber]. In turn 8,

176

immediately after his corrective feedback, SOG realizes that NOS means the word Zauber.

NOS confirms it (9), and SOG explicitly explains there is a difference between these two

“ 99 u 9,
Z S

words, because Zauber is written with a and sauber with an . At the same time, he
pronounces one more time the minimal pair Zauber-sauber [zauber]- [tsaubar], and asks
for the Spanish translation of Zauber. Turn 10 signals the shift in roles; SOG becomes the
“novice” while asking for the unknown Spanish word. It is also a shift from a form-
focused LRE to a lexical LRE.

Interestingly, NOS cannot provide a direct translation for the word Zauber. It
seems that she saw it before, in a written form, and is able to recall it orally, but does not
remember its meaning (11). Since she has it written, and she knows about it, she looks in
her notes for it (13), asking SG for time one moment, one moment. In the meantime, SOG
repeats the minimal pair sauber-Zauber. This whispering could represent his conscious
reflection about his native language. As previously seen, tandem language learning
provides participants not only with Opportunities for L2 learning, but also with frequent
opportunities for reflection on their L1. Finally, NOS finds the Spanish translation of the
word in her notes, and provides SOG with two translations of it. The first one is hechicero
(wizard), the second mago (magician). SOG understands fiom the Spanish translation that
it is something related to Magia. He is not repeating both words: hechicero and mago
(l4, l6). SG’s recast is only partial, reduced to one Of these two words, “mago.”

Turn 17 represents again a shift in roles. The lexical LRE is over, and form-
related learning is again the focus Of the learners’ attention. NOS is the learner again, and

SOG the expert. NOS wants to know how SOG pronounces the word Zauber (l 7). SOG

fulfills her request, but it seems to be difficult for NOS to grasp the pronunciation

177

difference between German “s” and “2,” which she admits in turn 21, saying that it is all
the same to her. SOG seems surprised (22), but NOS finally manages to pronounce both
forms correctly (23), which demonstrates that enough attention was paid to them. NOS
says 0K (23), and SOG shifts the conversation tO lexical learning, actively using and
pronouncing the previously introduced word hechicero for the first time (24). Since he
uses this word with the intonation Of a question, it is understood by NOS as such (25). She
confirms that what SOG said was correct. At the same time, she starts tO remember where
she previously encountered the word Zauber. It was in the movie “The Lord of the

Rings.”

Excerpt 13 represents the following features of tandem learning:

1) Mutual learning is evident. NOS is noticing the difference between the
pronunciation Of the sound “2” in German and in Spanish, and the difference
between the two German words sauber and Zauber. In addition, she re-discovers
the meaning of Zauber. SOG is experiencing an Opportimity for lexical learning in
terms of translation of the word Zauber in Spanish. His focus is first on the easier
word mago, and then on the more difficult word hechicero. When presented with
two synonyms at the same time, SOG’s attention is first on the easier word, and
later he focuses on the more difficult item. The tandem method allows this
flexibility. Participants can manage their own learning and choose what they want
to focus on, and in which order. Second, the tandem method allows learners tO
focus on multiple learning features during the same dialogue. As Observed in

Excerpt 13, during the same conversation each learner benefits differently. NOS

178

2)

focuses mainly on pronunciation and understanding the differences between the
Spanish and German sounds. SoG’s focus is on vocabulary. Although SOG and
NOS are focusing on different features, the base for their learning is their
conversation. Both learners are focusing on the same items, but for different
(personal) reasons. NOS is learning the correct pronunciation of the word Zauber,
and SOG focuses on its meaning. The same word is utilized by each learner
differently. There is one more aspect related to the mutual learning in tandem,
which can be Observed in this conversation. NOS actively uses the word Zauber.
She is able to produce it on her own, and makes the impression to know it.
However, when asked by SOG about the Spanish translation Of Zauber, NOS is
not able to provide it. She has to consult her notes to find the translation. SOG’s
question about Zauber resulted in a possible mutual learning of its meaning.
Excerpts 11, 12, and 13 suggested some learners are not able to hear the
difference between certain L1 and L2 sounds. It may impair learners’ ability to
articulate correctly and/or lead to miscommunication, as Observed in Excerpt 13.
As Laufer (1997) pointed out: “The L1 system may be responsible for the
learner’s inability to discriminate between some phonemes and subsequent
confusion Of words differing precisely in these problematic phonemes.” (p.142).
In Excerpt 13 (turn 21), NOS says It all sounds the same to me. Although it is
very difficult for NOS to hear the difference between Zauber and sauber, she is
able to pronounce the problematic for her word Zauber correctly (after a few
episodes of hearing it). Participation in tandem provided NOS with opportunities

for improvement Of her pronunciation.

179

3) The status of NOS and SOG is equal and this leads to intensive linguistic
negotiations (also described in the discussion Of the previous excerpt). The
learners are comfortable during their tandem meetings since they know each other
for a long period of time, almost a year. The familiarity of learners allows SOG
and N08 to have low affective filter, which can be Observed in their willingness to
ask questions (5, 10), admit their lack of knowledge (11), and negotiate.

In summary, Excerpts 10-13 describe tandem interactions related to focus on
pronunciation. On all occasions, learners received multiple instances of corrective
feedback with regard to their incorrect forms. All learners succeeded in improving their
pronunciation. Their progress suggested that participation in tandem provides learners
with substantial opportunities for improvement of their pronunciation and for noticing
instances when their utterance is not exactly the same as the target form. Corrective
feedback is important in this process. It is challenging for learners to address their own
incorrect pronunciation (Excerpts 10, ll, 12, andl3). Focus on form (pronunciation)

proved to be important.

7.2 Other F arm-based LREs

In the previous section, I discussed the form-based LREs related to learners’ focus
on pronunciation. Often, the examples Of a focus on pronunciation were closely related to
other forms of learning, such as the lexical LREs (Excerpt 10,12,13) or other form-based
LREs, when learners addressed, for example, the plural forms Of nouns or their articles

(Excerpts 10,12).

180

In the second part Of this chapter, I continue to address examples Of conversations
representing the shift from meaning to form. I will focus on conversations related not as

much to pronunciation, but to other aspects of focus on form Observed in tandem.

Excemt 14

Excerpt 14 is a fi'agment Of a conversation between CS and MaG. Tandem
partners jokingly comment about their censorship-flee tandem situation since they were
left alone for the duration Of their interaction. I (the researcher) left, to allow them an

uninterrupted tandem interaction.

1 CS: Es moglich Ohne Zensur sprechen.

(It possible talk without censorship.)

2 MaG: Es ist miiglich Ohne Zensur zuT sprechen.

(It is possible to talk without censorship.)

3 CS: Es moglich Ohne Zensur zu sprechen.

(It possible to talk without censorship.)

4 MaG: J a, aber esT istT mOglich Ohne Zensur zu sprechen.
(Yes, but it is possible to talk without the censorship.)
5 CS: Es ist moglich Ohne Zensur sprechen.

(It ’s possible to talk without the censorship.)

6 MaG: Es ist mOglichT.

(It 's possible.)

7 CS: Es ist mOglich Ohne Zensur sprechen. Ohne Zensur zu sprechen.

181

(It ’s possible talk without censorship. To talk without censorship.)

8 MaG: Este es possible, or es possible?

(This is possible, or is possible?)

9 CS: Es possible. Es possible hablar sin censura.

(Is possible. It is possible to talk without censorship)

10 MaG: Irn Deutschen musst du “es ist” benutzen.

(In German you have to use “it is. " )

11 CS: Es ist mOglich Ohne Zensur zu sprechen. Gut. Die Zensur ist mit ,, c“?
(It 's possible to talk without the censorship. Good. The “Zensur ” is with a “c "?)
12 MaG: Nein. ,,Z.”

(No. ,,Z“)

13 CS: Mit ,,z.” OK. Und das zweite ,,s”?

(With ,,z. ” 0k. And the second ,,s“?)

14 MaG: Zensur, ja das ist ein ,,s.” En Aleman normalmente usarnos ,,z“ [tsEt]

(l I!

(,,Zensur, ” yes this is an ,,s. ” In German we normally use a z
15 CS: La ,,zeta”
(The ,,z. ”)

l6 MaG: La zeta. (The ,,z“)

The previous fragment starts with a very understandable, but grammatically and

phonetically incorrect utterance by CS: Es moglich ohne Zensur sprechen. There are

three errors: (1) The word moglich is mispronounced, (2) The verb “ist” is missing fiom

182

the structure “es ist mOglic ” (it is possible), and (3) “zu“is missing fi'om the infinitive
“zu sprechen.”

In the following turn (2), MaG corrects all three of the errors through recast, but puts
a special emphasis (through rising pitch Of his voice) on the missing “to” in fiont Of the
infinitive. This strategy of making at least part Of his recast more salient seems to work
because CS corrects only this one feature Of the recast, adding in the following turn “to”
in fiont Of the infinitive “to talk” (3). However, the uptake is only partially successful;
there are two other errors, which have not been corrected by CS: his pronunciation Of the
word “mOglich” (which is still pronounced as moglich), and the phrase es ist (which is
still incomplete) (3). In the following turn (4), MaG acknowledges the correction ofzu
sprechen made by CS through yes; on the other hand, he makes salient the other two, not
yet corrected errors. MaG uses two different linguistic features to do so. First, he signals
through the word but that there is something wrong with the rest of the produced
sentence. MaG uses but to signal that what is to come contrasts with the yes that he has
just uttered (and is therefore presumably something negative). Second, he uses rising
intonation to signal to CS where the errors are (4). The rising intonation is on the words
es and ist. Making the feedback salient leads in turn 5 to the next stage Of uptake. CS
corrects the second error; the missing verb ist in the structure “it is,” but still does not
address his incorrect pronunciation Of the word moglich. Since MaG is paying a lot of
attention to the uptake and seems to have a goal of Obtaining a perfect structure from his
tandem partner, he repeats in turn 6 only the part of the sentence with the consistent
pronunciation error. Again, he utilizes the rising intonation to make moglich salient. This

results in the correct pronunciation by CS (7), and more precisely, it is followed by CS’s

183

repetition of the entire original sentence. In the process of focusing on the correct
pronunciation and the correct production of it is, CS forgets to employ his very first
uptake--the “to” in the front of the infinitive. This “forgetting” Of the “to” in the front Of
the infinitive may be caused by the cognitive overload at this particular moment. CS is
trying to work on improvement of three different errors at the same time. Although this
task is quite difficult, CS manages to correct himself immediately after his error, and
produces a perfect German structure ohne Zensur zu sprechen (7). This is a sign that he
has noticed the previous corrective feedback.

Turn (8) represents the change Of the tandem language fi'om German to Spanish,
and the change in focus of the conversation. MaG is not anymore the teacher and the
expert. Through his question “It’s possible or is possible?” (Este es possible, or es
possible) he wants to clarify his linguistic doubts with regard to his Spanish. MaG’s
question is directly related to the previous conversation and to the problematic for CS
structure Es ist moeglich; he is re—addressing the same structure, but this time in Spanish.
Relying on the expertise of CS, as the native speaker Of Spanish, MaG wants to know
whether the Spanish equivalent to the German es ist requires a subject (este) as it does in
German (es). In turn (9), CS provides the correct form es possible. He uses it as he
translates into Spanish the previously discussed in German sentence es possible hablar
sin censura. In the following turn (10), MaG returns to the German language, and to his
role as a teacher, and explicitly explains that in German one has to use “it is.” His
statement suggests also that MaG reflects on the difference between the two languages:

he is noticing the difference for himself as well as for CS. This type of explicit metatalk

184

is typical of the interactions between CS and MaG, and was also frequently observed
among other tandem learners.

In turn 11, CS repeats again, correctly, the utterance that was previously
problematic for him. All three of his previous errors are corrected. CS’s voluntary
repetition suggests that he noticed the previously received feedback, benefited fiom it,
and became more aware of the L2. In the same turn, CS uses the contextual Opportunity
to clarify his doubts about the spelling of the word Zensur. Since Zensur is written in
German with a “z” and in most other languages preserves its Latin roots and spelling with
a “0,” CS wants to know how to spell it in German, and if it is spelled as well with a “c.”
MaG explains with a clear no that in German it is written with a “z.” In turn 14, MaG
gives additional information about the general spelling rule in German. He states that

most words are written in German with a “z.” MaG is doing this explanation in Spanish.

While using Spanish, MaG fails to do it correctly in all aspects of the sentence,
pronouncing the letter “z” [tsEt] like a German person would do. CS recognizes it and

corrects this imperfection, in order to make the sentence truly Spanish (15). CS says the
correct Spanish sound for “Z” (la zeta). Uptake follows the corrective feedback when

MaG repeats the Spanish version Of “Z” (16).

In summary, Excerpt 14 represents the following features Of tandem learning.

1) Language is used for communication (the topic started in context when I left the
participants alone so they could talk without “censorship”), and as cognitive tool to
discuss various linguistic issues. It is a collaborative dialogue, as are all other

previously discussed excerpts. CS clearly outperforms his linguistic competence

185

2)

3)

4)

5)

through the help of his tandem partner. He starts this conversation with an incorrect
sentence, and manages to correct all Of his errors because of the corrective feedback
and attention received from MaG. As Swain and Lapkin (1998) would state, MaG and
CS use language simultaneously as means Of communication and a tool for thinking.
There is a mutual Objective of correct output, and one could argue it is Of perfect
output, as no error is left unattended by the tandem participants. Each of the learners
is very attentive to the performance of the other person. This attention to the needs Of
the other learner is not exclusive for this particular tandem (MaG and CS): it could be
Observed among other tandems, as it is evident in this dissertation.

Self-correction is evident (7). Learners notice corrective feedback, respond to it, and
modify their output. This presence of self-corrections provides evidence that tandem
learners benefit from their interactions.

There is no evidence that CS notices the difference between his incorrect
pronunciation of moglich and the pronunciation Of the German native speaker (MaG)
moglich until the corrective feedback concerning it is made salient. This failure to
notice one’s own incorrect pronunciation is consistent with all Excerpts described in
section 6.1. Tandem (one-on-one language learning) provides learners with
substantial Opportunities for focus on their individual problems with the L2.

Metatalk is present throughout this dialogue (and was frequently Observed among
other tandems). As Swain and Lapkin (1998) stress, the metatalk may be a source of
second language learning. CS and MaG use language to reflect on language use (10,
14), to solve their linguistic problems, and as Swain (1998) would state, “to

understand the relationship between meaning, forms, and firnction in a highly

186

context-sensitive situation” (p.69). In turn 10, MaG explicitly explains that in German
one has to use the structure es ist. Further in the conversation, learners discuss some
aspects of the German spelling (14). Again, MaG stresses the fiequent use of “z” in
German. According to Swain (1998), learners faced with a difficult language
production task (e.g., CS in Excerpt 14) should be encouraged tO talk about it because
talking about the L2 helps learners to understand language learning processes.
Metatalk represents “language learning in progress” (p.69). As Observed in Excerpt
l4, MaG and CS are able to generate and to test hypotheses (1, 8), notice their errors,
and talk about them. Additionally, metatalk in tandem is beneficial for one more
reason—there is always an expert, the native speaker, who can provide corrective
feedback and monitor the output to ensure it is error-flee. In a traditional classroom,
students Often engage in metatalk with their peers. In such situations, no one may
have sufficient expertise allowing learners to formulate incorrect hypotheses and
utterances. As Swain (1998) stressed, the availability of experts/teachers during
collaborative activities and their attention to the accuracy Of learners’ utterances “are
potentially critical aspects of student learning” (p.80). One can argue that without
MaG’s help, CS would not have been able to notice his errors and improve his L2
performance. The tandem method allows learners to have constant contact with an
expert, creating optimal conditions for learning, which is true not only for the

interaction between MaG and CS, but also for all tandems in general.

187

Excemt 15A

Excerpt 15 is a fragment Of a conversation between RD and AlG. During their
typical tandem interactions, tandem partners wrote down for each other the unknown L2
lexical items in order to address these words later. After their meetings, each learner
wrote an essay at home based on this vocabulary list. Typically, RD wrote during the
“Danish” interaction the unknown Danish words for her German tandem partner, and
during the “German” interaction, AlG did the same for RD. As explained by RD and
AlG, this approach made a lot Of sense for them because they did not have to focus on
writing down the new words during a conversation with their tandem partner. They could
just focus on speaking in the L2, and the other person took care of making a vocabulary
list. According to RD and AIS, the native speaker could write the words quicker than the
non-native speaker, and the list prepared by the native speaker was error-free. The only
problem related to this approach was that RD was not always able to read the handwriting
of AlG. Excerpt 15A represents a fragment of a conversation in German during which
RD addresses this issue. RD explains to AlG that sometimes she cannot read her
handwriting, and she should try in the future to write it more legibly. In the process Of
communication, the learners encounter linguistic difficulties and address them. Similarly

to the previous excerpt, metatalk is employed.

1 RD: Kann man sagen, du must mir deutlich sreiben?
(Can I say: You have to write for me clearly?)

2 AlG: J a. Deutlicher. Die Grundform davon ist deutlich.

(Yes. More clearly. The basic form is clearly.)

188

3 RD: Deutlich. OK.
(Clearly. 0K.)
4 AlG: Deutlicher schreiben. (To write more clearly.)
5 RD: OK.
Excerpt 15A starts with a direct question posed by RD. She wants to know, if she
could use the following expression: you have to write for me clearly (I). The sentence is

understandable, although not perfect. RD does not pronounce the word “schreiben”
Ural ban] correctly, saying sreiben [srar ban]. However, this error is not addressed at all

by AlG, who focuses on other aspects of RD’s question and the answer to it (2). AlG’s
answer could be divided into 3 stages. In the first stage, she says yes, thus confirming that
it is possible to say what was proposed by RD. In the second stage, AlG provides an
alternative to it, the comparative Of the adverb “clearly” (i.e., more clearly-—deutlicher).
In the third stage, AlG explicitly explains to RD that the basic form of the adverb is
clearly. RD repeats the basic form of the adverb deutlich, and says 0K. Since RD’s
repetition is only partial, and does not include any improvement Of her previous sentence,
AlG repeats to write more clearly (deutlicher schreiben). RD acknowledges the received
feedback again with an OK, but does not repeat the corrected structure. Although RD
receives a very explicit explanation about more clearly, her first repetition is just the

basic adjective form, and she never repeats the comparative.

After this temporary shift to form, the learners return to their communicative

orientation Of their conversation and talk about their goals for their next tandem meeting.

RD wants her German tandem partner to bring to the next tandem a German book, which

189

they could read together. Excerpt 15B represents a fragment of their conversation, when
RD and AlG discuss which type of book would be useful. During this dialogue the
incorrect usage Of the word “short stories” by RD in German shifts the focus again from

communication to form:

Excemt 158

6 RD: Aber hast du cine Buch wo es gibt Novelle?

(But do you have a book with Novelle?)

7 AlG: Erziihlung. (Short story.)

8 RD: .13. Das ist einfach fiir mich. (Yes. It is easyfor me.)
9 AlG: Einfacher. (Easier. )

10 RD: Einfacher. Nicht so... (Easier. Not so...)

In turn 6, RD wants her tandem partner to bring to the next tandem meeting a
book with short-stories. She uses the incorrect word Novelle instead OfErziihlung and
directly receives corrective feedback (7) in the form of a single-move recast Of the
incorrect lexical item. RD does not repeat the corrective feedback, but there is some
acknowledgment of it. She says yes before shifting the conversation back to the meaning.
In turn three, RD says that short stories are easy for her. In doing this, RD avoids using
the word Erziihlung and uses a pronoun instead. Since tandem partners had discussed
earlier various possibilities of reading materials which could be useful for their tandem
meetings, AlG corrects RD’s easy to its comparative form easier (9). Again, her feedback

is provided as a single-move recast. This time RD repeats the corrected form and begins

190

to continue with the conversation (10) when AlG decides to address directly and in depth

the feedback related to the comparative Of adverbs and/or adjectives, saying:

Excemt 15C

11 AlG: Das ist schon das zweite mal. Wir haben auch schon deutlich und deutlicher
gehabt. Wir machen die Steigerung im Deutschen mit einem ,,er.”

(This is the second time already. We have already had “clearly " and “more clearly. " We
are changing the grade of the adverbs in German with an “er. ")

12 RD: Steigerung? Was ist das? (The grade of an adverb? What is this?)

13 AlG: Steigerung, Komparativ heisst das. Sagt es dir was? (It 's called comparative. Are
you familiar with this term?)

14 RD: Ah, Ok. Ja, ja. (Ah. 0K. Yes, yes.)

15 AlG: Das ist eine Vergleichsform. Irn Verhéiltnis dazu ist es leichter, einfacher. (It is a
form used for comparisons. Compared to it, it ’s easier, better.)

16 RD: Ja, ja. Ok. (Yes, yes. 0k.)

17 AlG: Und das wird immer mit dem ,,er“ gemacht.

(And it is always constructed with an ,,er. ")

18 RD: Nicht immer, Oder? Wot always, or?)

19 AlG : J a, es gibt auch Ausnahmen. (Yes, there are also exceptions.)

After the second correction of the comparative form of einfach during the same

tandem meeting, AlG brings it to the attention of RD (1 l), stating very explicitly that this

is already the second time, and that she already had corrected clearly to more clearly. In

191

addition to pointing out that RD has a problem with the comparative form of adjectives,
AlG provides her with a very general rule on how to create a comparative in German and
uses the term Steigerung (11). However, RD’s reaction shows that this word is unknown
to her, as she wants to know what Steigerung is (12). In the next turn (13), AlG explains
this term to RD and wants to know if RD is familiar with it. RD confirms it as Ah, ok,
yes, yes (14). The use of Ah may indicate that RD is remembering or realizing that she
does, in fact, know about this feature of German grammar. Once it is confirmed that RD
is familiar with the concept of the comparative, AlG continues with an example Of its use
(15). AlG explains to RD that the comparative is used to compare things in a relationship
to each other. Finally, AlG generalizes that the comparative is always created through the
ending “er” (17). At this moment, RD questions this statement or more precisely the word
always, saying that this is not always the case (18). AlG confirms it as true and admits

that there are exceptions (19).

Excerpts 15A, B and C represent the following features of tandem learning:

1) Excerpts 15A, B and C are related to the avoidance of the use of the comparative
forms by RD. This avoidance prompts corrective feedback until uptake occurs.
Processes similar to those observed in Excerpt 14 are Observed in the above
conversation between RD and AlG. The expert (AlG) is very persistent with
corrections and does not stop until the issue (RD’s avoidance Of the comparative
use) is resolved. The native speaker repeats the corrective feedback, making it
more and more salient, until it is recognized by the other person as such, and

uptake follows. As Observed in Excerpt 15, sometimes each tandem participant

192

has his/her own agenda in mind. In Excerpt 15, AlG is interested in explaining to
RD the correct comparative form of German adverbs (after RD makes the error),
whereas RD is not too interested in paying attention to it, while reacting at first to
the corrective feedback only with an OK. Nevertheless, AlG is very determined
because although RD gives the impression of knowing the grammatical rule (not
being very responsive to AlG’s corrective feedback), she is not able to apply it in
practice. AlG’s determination results in metatalk about the comparative, and RD’s
noticing.

2) Excerpts 15A, B and C are examples of metatalk during tandem interactions. This
metatalk is not used to solve a communicative problem. These tandem partners
understand each other. Metatalk employed by AlG has another function; she
wants her tandem partner to improve her L2. AlG’s goal is to deepen RD’s
awareness of the comparative in German. AlG’s use of metatalk that includes the
explicit statements of rules and the use of metalinguistic terminology engages RD
in a discussion about it. Such discussion brings RD’s attention to the problematic

for her feature Of the L2, and creates an opportunity for learning.

F orm-based LREs in tandem can take many forms. They can be very long and

complex (Excerpt 14), involve explicit metatalk (Excerpt 15), or be rather short. The next

excerpt represents such a short shift from meaning to form.

193

Excegpt 16

* The correct form of the past participle of the German ver “schwimmen” (to swim) is

geschwommen.

1 LC: Ich habe geschwummen* (I have swimmed.)

2 AG: Was? (What?)

3 LC: Geschwummen. ( Swimmed.)

4 AG: Geschwommen. Du bist geschwommen. (Swum. You have swum.)
5 LC: Ich bin geschwommen. (I have swum.)

6 AG: Ja. (Yes)

7 LC: Ich bin geschwommen. Also: schwirnmen, schwarn, geschwommen.
(I have swum. In this case: to swim, swam, swum.)

8 AG: Ja. (Yes)

9 LC: [Writes it down]

Prior to this fragment of a conversation between AG and LC, the tandem partners
were talking about what they did recently in their fine time. The shift [tom the meaning
oriented conversation to the focus on form is caused by the incorrect utterance produced
by LC, who says ich habe geschwummen (1). Both the auxiliary verb habe and the past
participle geschwummen are incorrect. These errors prompt AG to ask for clarification.
Saying what she signals that something is wrong with the sentence. In response, LC does
not repeat the whole sentence, only the past participle. Since AG’s question what? could

mean: (1) that she did not understand and/or hear the sentence Of her tandem partner, or

194

(2) that there was a problem with the produced utterance, it does not provide LC with a
specific indication Of what the problem is. She answers geschwummen (swimmed), using
again the incorrect past participle. LC’s incorrectly produced past participle (3) prompts a
recast from her tandem partner. The recast consists of two parts. First, only the correct
form Of the past participle is repeated, as a direct reaction to LC’s previous turn. This is
followed by the recast Of the whole sentence, which addresses all errors: the past
participle, and the auxiliary verb. The recast results in successful uptake, where LC
correctly uses the auxiliary verb and the past participle (5). When responding to AG’s
recast, LC does not simply repeat AG’s sentence: she changes the subject fiom second
person singular to first person singular. It indicates that she noticed, processed, and
understood the correction. LC adjusts the corrected sentence to her own needs and makes
it meaningful for the communication. AG confirms that the uptake is correct saying yes
(6). LC repeats the corrected sentence. In addition, LC says aloud all basic forms of the
verb “to swim,” and again AG lets her know that it is correct (8). LC writes down the
recasted sentence and the forms Of the verb “to swim,” and the conversation returns to the

previous topic.

In this collaborative dialogue, we are able to Observe change in LC’s use of the
correct past participle and the correct auxiliary verb. The source of LC ’3 change is
feedback provided by her tandem partner. Corrective feedback allows LC to notice her
errors and to correct them. LC correctly repeats the improved utterance twice. She also
writes it down. This multiple contact with the corrected utterance could be considered an

Opportunity for grammatical learning during this exchange.

195

This excerpt represents a form-focused LRE, which is very typical for tandem
interactions. I Observed that many tandem learners had problems with the irregular past
participle forms and with the choice of the auxiliary verb (haben or sein). Excerpt 17
represents another example of this situation. The tandem method gives learners additional
Opportunities to address explicitly this very important aspect Of German grammar, to

focus on it, and to talk about it. It is an opportunity for learning.

Excemt 17

Excerpt 17 represents a fiagment Of a collaborative dialogue between NOS and
SOG. Similar to Excerpt 16, these learners are talking about their fine time using the past
tense. In the process Of doing it, NOS is able to notice her problems not only with the past

tense forms, but also with the use of German articles.

1 NOS: Gesten Abend habe ich dieses DVD gesehen, das du mir geleihen hast.
(Yesterday evening I watched this DVD that you have lent me.)

2 SOG: Die du mir. (That you me)

3 NOS: Die du mir geleihen hast. (That you have lent me.)

4 SOG: Die DVD. (The DVD.)

5 NOS: J a, die DVD. Die, die du mir geleihen hast.

(Yes, the DVD. The, that you have lent me.)

6 SOG: Geliehen hast. (Have lent.)

7 NOS: Geliehen hast. Leihen? (Have lent. Lend?)

8 SOG: Geliehen. Partizip. Geliehen hast. (Lent. Participle. Have lent.)

196

9 NOS: Leihen. Geliehen. (To lend. Lent.)

10 SOG: Ich leihe mir die DVD von dir, aber ich habe die mir geliehen.
(I borrow a DVD fiom you, but I have lent it for me)

11 NOS: Die DVD, die du mir geliehen hast, war sehr interessant.

(The DVD that you have lent me was very interesting.)

12 SOG: Hat sie dir gefallen? (Did you like it?)

During this dialogue the incorrect utterance by NOS causes the temporary shift
from meaning to form. NOS commits two errors: she uses the incorrect article (das) for
the noun “die DVD,” and the incorrect past participle (1). In the following turn, SOG
corrects only the first of the errors--the article (2), through a partial recast. Uptake
follows and the article is corrected, but the rest Of the sentence is still incorrect. Although
the article is used correctly by NOS, SOG follows up with more information related to the
noun die DVD. He provides an explicit explanation that die refers tO the DVD, making
sure that there is no misunderstanding (4). NOS confirms that she understands his
feedback (5) and uses the article “die” correctly again, but the rest Of her sentence is still
incorrect, as she uses the incorrect form Of the past participle for the third time. In the
next turn, SOG focuses on the past participle form. Another partial recast follows that
focuses on the verb forms (6). After hearing the correct form, NOS repeats it (7). She also
poses a question in the same conversational turn. Her question concerns whether the basic
form of the verb is leihen (7). SOG explains that geliehen is a participle, and repeats it (8).
He does not focus on NoS’s question about the infinitive, which she uses correctly. SOG’s

focus is on the previously incorrectly used past participle. His recast is related tO NOS’s

197

errors, and not her question about the correct infinitive form. NOS repeats the infinitive
and then the past participle. In the following turn, SOG (10) uses the verb leihen in an
example to demonstrate to NOS its use in context: in the present and the past. Once the
problem is resolved, the focus of the conversation shifts back from form to the meaning

(11,12).

Excerpt 17 demonstrates again that reducing recasts to one error for each
correction leads to learner uptake during tandem interactions. Addressing each error
separately allows learners to talk about each problem, to reflect on it, and to make sure
that it is understood. The tandem method allows learners to address all errors of their
tandem partner, if needed and/or desired. Tandem learners have enough flexibility (no
schedule to follow) to focus, for as long as they want, on the chosen by them features Of
the L2. In this excerpt, SOG is able to address the incorrect use of the article das instead
Of die by NOS, and then the past participle geliehen..

In Excerpt 17, the corrective feedback provided by SOG is quite elaborate. SOG
wants tO make sure that his tandem partner understands the essence Of it. NOS has
multiple occasions to use the corrected form in the following conversational turns. Error
correction seems to be different during tandem interactions than in a typical classroom
setting. As Sheen (2006) pointed out, recasts employed in many classrooms “do not
involve any negotiations of meaning (. . .) They are didactic, not conversational” (p.3 87).
Recasts Observed during tandem interactions involve negotiations Of meaning and are

conversational. In Excerpt 17, NOS is able to not only to respond to recast, but also reflect

198

on it, ask questions, and have multiple Opportunities to repeat the corrected structure.

Also, she can use the corrected structures in the further conversation (I 1).

In summary, Excerpts 16 and 17 represent form-based LREs during tandem
interactions. During both conversations, learners address the incorrect use Of the past
participle forms. The corrective feedback consists of recasts, frequently enhanced through
explicit explanation or additional examples. Recasts proved efficient as corrective
feedback in instances where errors were easy tO detect. Frequently, uptake followed,
which suggests that tandem learners benefit from their interactions, and the tandem

method provides them with substantial Opportunities for learning.

As with lexical learning, the form-based LREs vary among tandems. They can
address various grammatical features, such as pronunciation, spelling, past participle
forms, possessive pronouns, articles, etc. The shifts from meaning to form may vary also
in duration. Some are quickly resolved (Excerpts 16, 17) and others become quite
elaborate (Excerpt 13, 14). In some instances the shift tO form may become a whole new
topic of the conversation, especially in instances when learners discuss and compare their
first and second languages. Such a situation can be Observed in the next excerpt, which
starts as a conversation between MaG and CS about various languages and their utility
for each learner. In this context, MaG struggles to produce a correct Spanish sentence

while trying to say that he does not need French and Italian.

199

Excemt 18A

1 MaG: Frances y Italiano... NO me, no me...
(French and Italian... Not for me, not for me...)
2 CS: NO me interesa.

(Do not interest me. )

3 MaG: Nein, brauche ich nicht.

(No, I don ’t need.)

4 CS: NO 103 necesito.

(I don 't need them.)

5 MaG: NO me necesito.

(I don ’t need me. )

6 CS: NO losT necesito.

(I don ’t need them.)

7 MaG: NO 105?

(No them?)

8 CS: Los, beide. El Italiano y el Frances. Son “los.”
(Them, both. Italian and French. Are “them. ")
9 MaG: Aha, claro. NO 105 necesito.

(Aha, sure. I don ’t need them.)

10 CS: NO los necesito.

(I don ’t need them.)

Zum Beispiel ich frage dich: Quieres aprender el Frances y el Italiano? Tu me respondes:

NO 105 necesito.

200

(For example, I ask you: Do you want to learn French and Italian. You answer me: I
don ’t need them.)

11 MaG: Aha.

12 CS: Yo se que “los” se refiere a1 Frances y al Italiano.

(I know that “them " refers to French and Italian.)

13 MaG: Si claro.

(Yes, sure.)

14 CS: Ich habe grosse Probleme mit das in Deutsch.

(I have big problems with this in German.)

15 MaG: Ja? (Yes?)

16 CS: Ja. Ja. (Yes. Yes.)

17 MaG: Warte mal. Ich fiberlege gerade... FranzOsisch und Italienisch. Nein, ich brauche
es nicht.

(Wait. I ’m thinking right now... French and Italian. No, I don ’t need it.)

18 CS: Warum ,,es“? ,,Es“ ist nur eine Sache.

(Why ,,it? “ ,,It“ means only one thing.)

19 MaG: Warte mal. Moment. Un momento. Man kann es sagen: Ich brauche es nicht.
,,Es,” es ist unbestimmt.

(Wait a moment. Un momento. You can say: I don ’t need it. ,,It ” is unspecified.)

20 CS: Beide.

(Both. )

21 MaG: ,,Es“ ist sehr Offen. Es ist alles.

(,,It " is very open. It is all.)

201

22 CS: Alles.

(All. )

23 MaG: Und wenn du etwas konkreter sagen willst,
(And when you want to say more exactly, )

24 CS: Aha,

25 MaG: Eh, dann wiirdest du sagen: Ich brauche sie nicht.
(Than you would say: I don ’t need them.)

26 CS: Ich brauche sie nicht. Ellos. No 105 necesito.
(I don ’t need them. Them. I don ’t need them.)

27 MaG: J a.

28 CS: Ich brauche sie nicht. (I don ’t need them.)

29 MaG: Si. (Yes)

30 CS: Ok.

Excerpt 18A starts when MaG tries to state that he does not need French and

Italian. Since up to this point the conversation between CS and MaG has been in Spanish,
MaG tries to express this thought in Spanish as well. However, MaG is not able to say
what he wants, and he notices the gap in his L2 knowledge (Swain, 1995). He has two
false starts No me, no me... intending to say something, but not being able to do it (1). CS
tries to finish the sentence for MaG, saying No me interesa. CS thinks his tandem partner
wants to say Do not interest me (No me interesa), and he has a reason for doing so since
MaG started this Spanish sentence as No me. MaG clarifies his intentions in the next turn

(3), switching the tandem language to German in order to accomplish his communicative

202

goal. Using German MaG can clearly express his idea, which he was not able to do in
Spanish. First, MaG rejects CS’s suggestion (Nein), and then he gives his target sentence
in German as he says I don ’t need. Saying it in German, MaG also creates an Opportunity
for the translation Of his sentence into Spanish by his tandem partner, and simultaneously
an Opportunity for learning what he wanted to say in Spanish, and was not able to do on
his own. After hearing the correct translation of his sentence I don ’t need them in Spanish
(No los necesito), MG changes the utterance according tO his previous hypothesis (used
in turn 1), and says I don ’t need me (No me necesito) (5). CS corrects MaG’s error,
making his recast salient with regard to the word los (6). Making the recast salient causes
MaG to notice the pronoun los, and he questions it (7). CS explains that los means both
items: French and Italian (8). The conversation still continues in Spanish since CS is the
expert, and the grammatical problem they discuss is also a Spanish language feature.
After the salient recast, questioning it, and receiving an explicit explanation, MaG is
finally ready to accept the suggested pronoun los instead Of me (9). There is uptake. MaG
acknowledges that C S’s explanation makes sense to him saying sure, and then repeats
correctly the utterance which has been the subject of their negotiations. Although MaG
produces the correct sentence, and the communicative goal is successfully accomplished,
the conversation about this structure continues, as CS repeats the same expression in
Spanish. In addition, he provides an example of how it could be used in an everyday
conversation (10). Finally, CS again explains in Spanish the relationship between los and
the nouns this pronoun can replace (12). MaG agrees with him (1 3).

The conversation to this point has been mostly in Spanish. Once the problem is

resolved, CS changes the language to German to state that he has a big problem with this

203

in German (14). MaG acknowledges CS’s statement and at the same time questions it
(15), then he tries to come up with an example Of the same sentence in German (17).
MaG also asks CS to give him a moment to think about it since he wants to reflect about
this linguistic feature in his native language. Finally, MaG finds a translation Ich brauche
es nicht (I don ’t need it). However, this translation leads CS to questions the use Of the
singular pronoun es (18). According to Spanish grammar, it would be incorrect since the
pronoun in Spanish should agree in number with the replaced noun(s); this is why CS
says that es is only one thing. In this case es is referring to two things: French and Italian.
MaG wants again to have some time to think, asks his tandem partner to allow him to
have a moment, and then confirms again that indeed es can be used because es is not
specified. Es replaces all kinds of nouns and can mean everything (21). CS repeats aloud
that es can mean everything (22), and MaG continues for a few more turns his explicit
explanation of the various possibilities one can use to express the concept of] don ’t need
French and Italian (23, 25). This conversation continues for a few more turns when the
tandem partners discuss various examples related to the similarities and differences Of

pronoun use in German and in Spanish.

In summary, Excerpt 18A is an example of a collaborative dialogue with a very
strong focus on form. During this prolonged exchange, various form-related LREs can be
Observed. The first form-based LRE is related to the proper use of the pronouns in
Spanish, and the second one to the same issue in German. One could even argue there is a
lexical-based LRE in this conversation (turns 1-5) when MaG learns the verb “necesitar”

(to need). The whole exchange started with MaG not being able to come up with this

204

verb. He had the pronoun (which was not correct, but he did not know it in turn 1), and
the only thing he needed for communication was the missing verb. So what started as a
word search, ended up as a very extensive form oriented discussion.

Secondly, in the middle of this exchange, there is a shift from Spanish tO German.
This shift occurs in turn 14, when CS states that he has big problems with the previously
discussed grammatical issue in German. As a consequence of this shift, tandem roles are
reversed. The expert CS becomes the novice, and the novice MaG becomes the expert.

Since this shift is not caused by the need for corrective feedback, given that no
error was committed by CS, MaG has to reflect for a moment on his own L1 in order to
come up with a similar example in German to the one previously discussed in Spanish.

It is striking in this excerpt that both learners try very hard to accommodate the
linguistic needs Of their tandem partner. Both are actively engaged all the time, and go
way beyond the bare minimum in their explanations. Both MaG and CS not only
explicitly explain the usage Of los in Spanish and es in German, but also come up with
examples of their use, which gives the other learner additional exposure to the difficult
for him item, and increases Opportunities for its learning. In doing so, learners also have a
chance to reflect on their own native language and become more aware of it. It is truly an
example of a collaborative knowledge-building dialogue. What learners say during this
exchange becomes an Objective product that is discussed further by them (Swain, 2000).

The next stage Of this linguistic exploration can be Observed in the following

excerpt, which represents a direct continuation of the previously discussed conversation.

205

Excerpt 18B

1 MaG: Man muss iiber seine eigene Sprache nachdenken wenn man so sich unterhalt.
(One has to think about his own language when we talk like this.)

2 CS: Ja. Ja. (Yes. Yes.) [Laughs]

3 MaG: Normalerweise macht man das nicht.

(Normally people don ’t do it.)

4 CS: Du denkst in der Sprache. Wenn man in einer Sprache denkt, kann man die
Sprache sprechen. Wenn ich Spanisch spreche, ich denke in Spanisch. Wenn ich Englisch
spreche, ich denke in Englisch.

(You think in the language. I’ern you can think in a language, you can speak it. When I

speak Spanish, 1 think in Spanish. When I speak English, I think in English.)

Excerpt 183 represents closure of the very long conversation about the use Of
pronouns in Spanish and in German. After discussing various possibilities in both
languages (Excerpt 18A), MaG comes to the conclusion that this particular conversation
forced him to think about his native language (1). CS explains that the reason for it is
one’s ability to think automatically in the native language, or any other language a person
may speak fluently (4). In his opinion, when one can think in a language, one can speak

it.

Excerpt 183 provides evidence that tandem learners not only talk about the L2

during their interactions, but also have the Opportunity to discover and to understand

better their own native language. Thinking in the L1 and speaking it automatically does

206

not always mean that a language user understands its complexity. During tandem
meetings, native speakers, trying to explain various linguistic features Of their own native
language as they arise unpredictably during conversations, learn as well about their
metalinguistc limitations with regard to their L1. Thus, tandem participants are able to
notice the gap in their abilities to explain the L1 and may try to do something about it.
This phenomenon is Observed in the previously discussed excerpt, when MaG wants tO
reflect on his native language and tries to stop the flow Of the conversation by saying
“wait a moment” in order to have time to think about German.

Excerpt 18B is also interesting for one more reason. It shows that tandem
interactions provide an Opportunity for not only the temporary shift from meaning to
form, but also when the conversation shifts again to meaning, it is a different meaning
(for example, the language itself becomes the main topic of the conversation between CS
and MaG). So, there are possibilities for two different shifts: from meaning to a focus on
form, and from one meaning tO a different meaning (talking about the language), due to
the nature of the tandem setting. The tandem interactions provide a context in which
LREs can (and do) occur. Additionally, learners are not obliged to work on a specific
task, during which grammatical problems can occur, as fiequently happens in language
classrooms. During tandem meetings, learners’ interest in discussing grammatical

features is closely related to their communicative and authentic needs.
7.3 Conclusion

Excerpts 10-18 provide evidence that the tandem method allows learners a shift Of

their attention from the communication to focus on form in instances when they produce

207

non-target-like forms in the L2. Such shifts allow learners to notice the gap in their
interlanguage and modify their output. Tandem learners frequently engage in metatalk.
As Swain (1998) would state, they use language to reflect on language use. Their
metatalk, in the communicative context, may serve the function of deepening the

students’ awareness of forms and rules. “It is language learning in progress” (p.69).

208

CHAPTER 8

CULTURAL AND PRAGMATIC EXCHANGES IN TANDEM

“It is now broadly accepted in most parts of the world that learning a foreign
language is not simply mastering an Object of academic study but is more
appropriately focused on learning a means of communication. Communication in
real situations is never out Of context, and because culture is part Of most contexts,

communication is rarely culture-free.” (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999, p. 197)

8.0 Introduction

The tandem method presents a unique opportunity not only for lexical and
grammatical learning, but also for direct contact with the L2 culture through the face-to-
face interaction with a native speaker. In addition to the weekly learning meetings,
tandem partners frequently engage in various cultural activities. Together, learners visit
each other’s homes and meet their family members and fiiends. Almost all tandem
learners try to introduce the tandem partner to their traditional foods either by going out
tO a restaurant, which serves traditional dishes, or cooking at home. Frequently, learners
go together to museums, the theater, cinema, or social gatherings.

Having a local resident as a tandem partner is an advantage for the foreign person.
First of all, the native person is familiar with the city and can show the foreigner its “less
touristy” points of interest. Secondly, the local person has a social network; therefore,

including the foreigner in it, provides the learner with direct and easy access to the native

209

population. Thirdly, a tandem partner is able to explain, or even directly demonstrate for
the foreign person, how to successfirlly interact and behave in the new environment.
Although the foreign person experiences a lot of benefits by having a tandem partner, the
local person also benefits because Of direct contact with an L2 speaker. Through this
contact, learners are exposed to the second language and the second culture (C2).
According tO Bechtel (2003), pragmatic and cultural learning is always present in a
tandem setting, even in instances when the interaction is focused on other features of the
language.

Intercultural and pragmatic learning occurs in tandem implicitly and explicitly.
Implicit learning occurs through direct contact with the L2 and its speakers and through
authentic communication with them. Explicit learning can be Observed when the NS
explains to the NNS the norms of his/her culture.

In the following section, I will discuss some examples related to the pragmatic
and intercultural exchanges Observed in tandem setting. Excerpts of such interactions will
be analyzed in order to provide evidence that during tandem interactions, learners are
exposed to opportunities for cultural exchanges and pragmatic awareness-raising. Data
analysis will start with an example Of a very explicit cultural-pragmatic “mini-lesson” on
the features of correct social behavior in Germany. During this particular interaction, the
German native speaker (MG) explicitly explains to her American tandem partner (J E)
how one should behave in Germany in order to avoid the perception of being unfiiendly

and even rude.

210

8.1 Data Analysis

Excerpt 19 is a fragment of a conversation between MG and J E. The conversation
starts with J E asking MG if she is familiar with Holland. When talking about Germany
and Holland, the learners start to compare the people living in these countries and as
result, they start to compare how Americans perceive Germans and how Germans

perceive foreigners.

Excerpt 19

1 J E: Kennst du Holland? Ist das ein schOnes Land?

(Do you know Holland? Is it a nice country?)

2 MG: Ja. Es ist flatt, aber ich mag es auch. Es ist irgendwie das Land nicht so
interessant, wie die Menschen. Sie sind Offen. Extrem offen. Sie sind manchmal etwas
fi'ustriert, wenn die Deutschen dann nicht sofort so Offen sind. Aber es geht den
Amerikanern vielleicht auch so, weiss ich nicht...

(Yes. It ’s very flat, but I also like it. The people are very interesting, more than the
country itself They are very open. Extremely open. Sometimes they get frustrated, when
German people aren ’t so open immediately. But I think that maybe the American people
would feel the same way, I don ’t know...)

3 J E: J a, ein bischen. Es ist viel leichter die Leute kennenzulemen in den USA. Aber
nicht immer...

(Yes, a little bit. It is easier to meet people in the US. But not always...)

211

4 MG: J a. Ich glaube, man muss nur verstehen, dass man hier die Leute Ofter gesehen
haben muss bis man richtig mit denen spricht. Man hat wahrscheinlich im Verhiiltnis
nicht so viele Freunde wie bei euch, aber dafiir enger.

(Yes. 1 think one has to understand that here you have to meet a person a few times
before having a conversation. We probably don ’t have as many friends as you, but those
we have are really good friends. )

5 JE: Ja, das haben wir bemerkt.

(Yes. We could see it.)

6 MG: J a, wir haben weniger Fruende, aber enger. Dafirr kennst du sie alle gut. Meine
Freunde, als sic in den USA waren, waren auch fi'ustriert, weil sie meinen, dass man viele
Leute kennenlernen kann, aber niemanden richtig gut.

Das ist hier... anders. Denke ich. Wir sind nicht so unfi'eundlich, aber In Berlin geht es
noch.

(Yes, we don 't have so many friends, but we have closer friends. You can know them very
well. When my friends were in the US, they were also frustrated because they had the
feeling of knowing a lot of people, but nobody very well. Here things are diflerent. I think
so. We are not so unfriendly, but... In Berlin is not so bad.)

7 J E: J a, in Miinchen waren sie anders.

(Yes. In Munich, they were difi'erent.)

8 MG: Manchmal in Deutschland wenn du zu nett und zu offen und so bist, dann halten
dich die Leute fiir unhOfflich. Sie empfinden es so.

(Sometimes, in Germany, when you are too nice and too open, then other people think

you are rude. They perceive it so.)

212

9 JE: Ist das dann oberfléichlich?

(They perceive it as superficial?)

10 MG: Es ist unhOfflich, weil du den Leuten zu schnell zu nah kommst, weil du zu viele
Fragen stellst. Weil du, hm..., zu interessiert bist. Und dann fiagen sie sich: ,,Was will sie
von mir?“ Man ist am anfang distanziert, freundlich, hilfsbereit, aber nicht mehr. Ja?T

(It ’s rude because you are coming too fast too close at people. Because you are asking
too many questions. Because you, hm..., you are too interested. And then people ask
themselves: “What does she want from me? ” At the beginning, one has to maintain a
distance, being at the same time friendly and ready to help, but nothing more. Yes ? T)

11 JE: Ja.

(Yes)

12 MG: Wenn du sofort auf die Leute zugehst und zu viele fragen stellst, dann ist das in
Deutschland unhOfflich, Obwohl du freundlich bist. Es ist einfach nicht iiblich.

(When you are coming too close at people and ask too many questions, then in Germany

we will perceive it as being rude, even if you are being friendly. It ’s not common here.)

Excerpt 25 starts with J E’s question about Holland, which stimulates MG to a
reflection about this “not so interesting country” with very “Open” people (2). MG has the
feeling that Dutch people are frustrated when interacting with the German population
because the Germans are not immediately as Open as the Dutch people are. She also
wonders if American people feel the same way about Germans. J E confirms it, saying
that it is easier to meet people in the USA (3). This statement motivates MG to a very

explicit statement of the cultural differences between Germans and Americans (4). She

213

claims that in Germany people do not talk immediately to strangers and do not have as
many fiiends as in the US; but the fiiends they have are true friends. J E agrees with her
(5), saying that she was able to Observe it. Since JE seems to agree with MG, she
continues (6) saying that:

- Her German fiiends, who were in the USA, were also fi'ustrated because they

knew a lot of people, but nobody really well.

- German people are not as unfiiendly as they are perceived by foreigners;

especially people in Berlin.
Pointing out that German people are also frustrated when they are in the USA, MG
compares these two cultures, stating that German people have fewer fiiends, but their
fiiends are closer friends. MG also points out, that her fiiends where frustrated while
visiting the US because they were able to meet a lot of people, but were not able to know
them well.

After discussing the cultural differences (differences in personal relationships)
between the USA and Germany, the conversation enters its second stage, when MG
explains to her tandem partner how to behave appropriately in Germany. In turn 8, MG
points out that one cannot be too Open and too fiiendly in Germany because it creates the
impression Of being rude. JE seems to be confused and asks if these “overly fiiendly”
types of people are viewed as superficial (9). MG re-confirms her previous statement that
such behavior would be perceived as rude. She also provides very explicit examples of
behavior perceived in Germany as inappropriate: asking too many questions, looking too

quickly for contact with other people, and being too interested in them.

214

Additionally, MG explains to J E what to do when meeting somebody in Germany.
According to MG, one has to be fiiendly and ready to help, but one must keep a distance
when first meeting somebody (10). After explaining these cultural differences, MG
makes sure that IE understands it. MG performs a comprehension check, asking with a
rising pitch of her voice yes? (10). J E answers with a yes (11).

To conclude this cultural/pragmatic mini lesson MG summarizes the previous
information, adding that this is the German reality. Being too friendly, even with good
intentions, may create a perception Of rudeness because people are not used to it.

This fragment of the conversation between MG and JE demonstrates that the
tandem method provides learners with opportunities for explicit cultural and pragmatic
exchanges. In addition to learning new vocabulary and grammar, tandem learners have
the Opportunity to Obtain pragmatic information in order to exist successfully in the L2
environment. As House (1996) pointed out, metapragrnatic information is crucial in
counteracting negative pragmatic transfer and promoting learners’ pragmatic fluency.

In summary, Excerpt 25 is an example of the explicit teaching of pragmatics by
MG to her American tandem partner. This conversation is more than small talk. MG
consciously addresses the norms Of proper behavior in Germany, explains them to IE,
and assures comprehension.

Sometimes not knowing, or not fully understanding the behavioral norms in the
L2 culture, may lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding. For this reason, it is
important that learners have exposure to the correction of their linguistic errors and their
pragmatic errors. Learners should know how to use their linguistic resources in a

contextually appropriate fashion. As Rose (1999) states, an important part Of pragmatic

215

competence involves the knowledge Of what constitutes rude behavior. The next excerpt
will provide an example of a potentially rude behavior resulting from a pragrnatically

inappropriate use Of linguistic resources.

Excer_'pt 20

Excerpt 20 is a fragment of a conversation between TG and OS. The tandem
partners are engaged in talking about a party they both attended the previous weekend.
During this conversation, OS addresses his perception of improper behavior by his

German tandem partner.

1 OS: Und was hast du zu, zu Alberto gesagt, auf der Party? Eh?
(What did you say to, to Alberto, at the party? Eh?)

2 TG: [Laughs] Nichts schlimmes. Ich habe gesagt, dass er dick geworden ist.
(Nothing bad. I told him that he got fat.)

3 OS: Und was? Was hast du gesagt? Was hast du ihm gesagt?
(And what? What did you say? What did you say to him?)

4 TG: Ich habe gesagt: ,,Alberto du bist dick geworden.” J a.

(I told him: Alberto you got fat. Yes.)

5 OS: Und was hat er gesagt?

(And what did he say?)

6 TG: Nichts. Er hat gar nichts gesagt.

(Nothing. He didn ’t say anything.)

7 OS: Das hat, eh, eh, ihn betroffen.

216

(He got, eh, eh, hurt.)

8 TG: Wirklich? Aber es stimmt doch.

(Really? But this is the truth.)

9 OS: J a, das stimmt. (Yes, it’s correct.)

10 TG: Er hat gesagt, das war das deutsche Bier.

(He said, it was the German beer.)

11 OS: I a, aber es hat ihn betroffen. Ich sage es dir, damit du entschuldigen kannst.
(Yes, but he was hurt. I tell you about it, so you can apologize.)

12 TG: Spanier, die mOgen nicht, wenn man direkt ist.

(Spanish people don ’t like when one is direct.)

13 OS: Nein, wir sind direkt. Glaube ich. In solchen Sachen.

(No, we are direct. I think so. In such things.)

14 TG: Dann kann er es nicht so schlimm finden.

(Then it can 't be so bad for him.)

15 OS: Vielleicht ist es ein bischen komplex. J a, er ist ganz dick geworden. Er hat total
verandert.

(Maybe it is a little bit complex. Yes, he got quite fat. He completely changed.)
16 TG: Sich. (Himself)

17 OS: Sich verandert. Er hat sich total verandert.

(He changed. He changed completely.)

l8 TG: Aber, aber, er trinkt nicht so viel Bier, Oder?

(But, but, he doesn ’t drink so much beer, or?)

217

19 OS: I a, aber er isst viel und treibt kein Sport. Kein Fitnessstudio. Das kann man
erwarten. Das kann man dazu erwarten?

(Yes, but he eats a lot and doesn ’t exercise. No fitness-center. It is what you can expect.
You can expect in addition?)

20 TG: Das kann man erwarten. Ohne ,,dazu.” (You can expect. Without “in addition. ”)
21 OS: Und die Praposition? Daffir?

(And the preposition? Dafiir?)

22 TG: Davon.(Davon.)

23 OS: Er hat keine Mutter, die fiir ihn kocht. Viele Leute die Erasmus machen nehmen
zu. Sie essen immer Pasta, Pasta, Pasta, Kebab, Pasta. Sie essen nicht gesund.

(He doesn ’t have a mother who cooks for him. Many people who participate in Erasmus

get fat. They eat pasta, pasta, pasta, kebab, pasta. They don ’t eat healthy.)

Excerpt 20 starts with a direct, accusatory question posed by OS. He asks TG
about what she said to his fiiend (Alberto, also from Spain) during a party they both
attended (1 ). TG answers very directly that she pointed out Alberto got fat. In her
Opinion, it was not anything bad at all. OS wants to know the details of this conversation
(3, 5). TG does not understand why her comment was so bad when it is the truth (8). OS
confirms that indeed the fact is true, but Alberto was hurt by hearing it, and TG should
apologize. TG interprets Alberto’s sensitivity as resulting fiom the fact that Spanish
people do not like it when one is direct with them (12). OS does not agree with her,

saying that they are direct, but there is an element of doubt in his expression, which can

218

be Observed in his following statement I believe so (13). If this is the case, as TG points
out, Alberto should not be so upset about her comment (14).

Although the conversation continues, there is a short shift Of attention from
meaning to form in the next turn (15), when OS tries to express in German the idea that
his friend changed a lot. To do it in German one has to use the reflexive verb “sich
verilndern,” and in doing so, OS fails to use the reflexive pronoun “sich.” Corrective
feedback is provided (16), as TG says aloud only the missing reflexive pronoun. In the
next turn (17), OS corrects his sentence, first repeating the verb only with its reflexive
pronoun, and then repeating his whole previous sentence correctly.

After his error is successfully corrected, TG shifts the conversation from a focus
on form back to meaning, bringing attention to Alberto’s situation. Since Alberto blames
German beer for the change in his appearance (10), TG wonders about it. OS explains to
TG the particular reasons for Alberto’s change: eating too much and no exercise. In doing
so, OS encounters a linguistic problem (19). Although OS expresses himself correctly in
saying You can expect it, he changes his correct sentence to an incorrect one, adding an
unnecessary preposition. This is an example of hypothesis formulation and testing. OS
uses output to try out his hypotheses about the L2. OS knows that his tandem partner is
readily available to assist him in the process of choosing the correct expression. This is
also the case; TG Offers her assistance (20). Since OS was testing two hypotheses during
his previous conversational turn, TG focuses on choosing the correct version, and she
repeats it. In addition, she explains explicitly that the preposition dazu is not needed at all
in such an utterance (20). After hearing her explanation, OS still believes that the verb “to

expect something” should be combined with some preposition, and asks about it in the

219

following turn (21). TG responds, saying the preposition von which can be used with the

verb “erwarten.”

Once the issue is resolved, their conversation shifts again tO meaning. In turn 23,

OS explains that the reason for Alberto getting fat is the fact that he does not have a

mother who cooks for him. It leads to bad eating habits, which as OS points out, can be

Observed by many exchange students.

Excerpt 25 represents the following features of tandem learning:

1)

2)

3)

It is an example of intercultural and pragmatic learning. OS addresses the
perceived improper directness Of his German tandem partner, who had told OS’s
friend (Alberto) that he got fat.

OS addresses this improper behavior in order tO make TG aware of it and
encourage an apology. Thus, OS’s goal is to address the issue, understand what
happened, and explain TG the consequences Of her “German” direct behavior in
order to correct it. As Rose (1999) pointed out, it is useful to confront learners
with the pragmatic aspects Of language because it provides them with some
analytic tools to further their pragmatic skills.

During the process of this pragrnatics-oriented conversation, there is a shift to a
focus on form when needed. Two form-based LREs can be Observed. Both times,
OS encounters problems with German pronouns. During tandem learning, there is
no separation between the grammatical and cultural and/or pragmatic learning.
Learners can adjust the focus Of their conversation at any given moment, to fit

their real needs.

220

4) Although the pragmatic issues are addressed directly, the cultural differences are
discussed more implicitly. When OS says that Alberto has no mother in Germany
who cooks for him, he addresses a very Spanish cultural phenomenon. In Spain,
mothers take care of their adult children much longer than in Germany. The
concept of the family is very different in these countries. The Spanish family
tends to be “closer” and its family members Often live together; mothers take care
Of their adult children and cook for them. On the other hand, in Germany, young
adults strive frequently for independence from their parents. They take care of
themselves. For this reason, as OS points out, some Spanish exchange students
coming to Germany have to start to live not only in a different country, but also

under very different cultural conditions.

Cultural differences between Germany and Spain were discussed on many
occasions during the meetings between TG and OS. The next excerpt (from a different
tandem meeting than Excerpt 20) will provide another example Of this type of interaction.
It is a fiagrnent of a conversation about the firture plans of TG’s sister, who wants to

move from Berlin to Bielefeld.

Excegpt 21

Preceding this exchange, TG stated that she may move out of her parents’ house
and live on her own soon. In response to it, her tandem partner asks her:
1 OS: Cuando quieres irte de casa?

(When do you want to move out?)

221

2 TG: Si mi herrnana se va de casa, yo tambien.
(If my sister will move out, I will also.)

3 OS: Con ella? (With her?)

4 TG: NO, no con ella. Ella se va a Bielefeld.
(No. Not with her. She will go to Bielefeld.)

5 OS: Que es Bielefeld, una ciudad?

(What ’s Bielefeld, a city?)

6 TG: Si, es una ciudad. (Yes, it 's a city.)

7 OS: A que? (Where?)

8 TG: Oeste von Berlin. Hannover, Bielefeld.
(West of Berlin. Hannover, Bielefeld.)

9 OS: Hm. Pero que quiere hacer alli?

(Hm. But what does she want to do there?)
10 TG: Estudiar. (T 0 study)

11 OS: Que? (Mat?)

12 TG: Linguistica. (Linguistic)

13 OS: Y no lO puede hacer aqui? (And she cannot do it here?)
14 TG: No quiere. (She doesn ’t want to.)

15 OS: Porque? (Why?)

16 TG: NO quiere vivir en casa, or...

(She doesn 't want to live at home, or...)

17 OS: Por eso ella se tiene que ir a Bielefeld. No entiendo.Y tus padres que dicen?

222

(It '5 why she wants to go to Bielefeld. I don ’t understand it. And your parents, what do
they say?)

18 TG: Porque no. (My not)

19 OS: NO veo porque. Porque sa va a otro citio, si puede estudiar aqui. No es eficiente.
Va a tener que pagar dinero. Ella es muy Aleman. Quien va a pagar por eso? Tus padres
or e1 gobierno.

(I don 't see why. Why does she have to go to the other place if she can study it here? It ’s
not very eflicient. She will have to pay for it. She is very German. Who will pay for it?
Your parents or the government?)

20 TG: Mis padres. NO hay una beca.

(My parents. There is no scholarship.)

21 OS: NO me parece bien. Es muy Aleman. Si me dijeras que en Bielefeld se puede
estudiar al go muy importante, pero. ..

(I don ’t think it is a good idea. It ’s very German. If you would have said to me that in
Bielefeld one can study something important, but...)

22 TG: NO hay nada de differencia entre Bielefeld y Berlin. La cosa es que ella no quiere
vivir en casa.

(There is no diflerence between Bielefeld and Berlin. The thing is that she doesn 't want to
live at home.)

23 OS: Bueno. Si ella tiene dinero, que se vaya. Pero si no lO tiene, deberia vivir con sus
padres. Cosa muy Alemana. No se. ..

(Fine. If she has the money, let it be. But if she doesn 't, she should live with her parents.

This is very German. I don ’t know.)

223

Excerpt 21 is an example of a discussion related to the cultural differences
between Spain and Germany. Tandem participants represent their heritage, which affects
their ways of thinking and analyzing reality. TG and OS are influenced by their previous
experiences and environment. As Kramsch (1993) would state, native speakers “speak
not only with their own individual voices, but through them speak also the established
knowledge Of their native community and society” (p. 43). This makes native speakers’
ways of speaking “predictable enough to be understood by other native speakers, but it is
also what makes it difficult for non-native speakers to communicate with native speakers,
because they do not share the native-speaking community’s memory and knowledge” (p.
43).

Since Germany and Spain are quite different, people have different values and
ideas about how things should be done. Young people in Germany value their
independence and seldom live with their parents after reaching a certain age. Normally,
they move out after finishing high school. In Spain, it is not uncommon for adult children
to live with their parents. These cultural differences are important when looking at this
excerpt.

As mentioned before, prior to this exchange, TG had stated she may move out of
her parents’ home and live on her own soon. In response, OS asks her when she wants to
move out (1). She answers that if her sister will move out she will do it also (2). OS asks
if they will do it together (3), and his cultural hypothesis is directly rejected as incorrect
(4) because TG will stay in Berlin, and her sister wants to move to Bielefeld. OS is not

sure what Bielefeld is, and asks about it, guessing that it must be a city (5). This time his

224

hypothesis is confirmed, but OS wants to know more, and asks about its location (7). TG
explains to OS that the city is west Of Berlin, pointing out that Bielefeld is farther than
Hannover. Once OS knows about Bielefeld, he returns again to the previous topic, asking
what TG’s sister wants to do there, and why she cannot do it in Berlin. TG explains that
the main reason for her sister’s decision is her desire to move away fiom home (1 6).

This concept of children moving away from their parents is not well understood
by OS. He thinks that such an idea is not only strange, but also fiivolous since TG’s sister
will have to spend money she wouldn’t have to spend otherwise for living expenses. For
the rest Of the conversation, OS points out that this behavior is “very German,” and he
has difficulty understanding it.

Excerpt 27 is an example Of a discussion based on learners’ different cultural
values and prior experiences. Each tandem partner represents a different “reality” and a
different way of perceiving the environment. What seems very strange for OS, is normal
and acceptable for TG. Discussion gives both learners an Opportunity to develop cultural
awareness about their differences. Knowing that such differences exist, discussing them,
and trying to understand them is part Of intercultural learning. As Cortazzi and J in (1999)
state, developing cultural awareness is associated with being aware of members of
another cultural group. It means attempting to understand their behavior, their
expectations, and values. It also means trying to understand their reasons for their actions
and beliefs. It is a skill in communicating across cultures and about cultures.

Discussing cultural differences is a very common phenomenon among tandems.
Regardless Of whether they agree or not, learners are able to reflect on their own culture

and the L2 culture.

225

In the next excerpt, Germany and the USA are compared. It is a fragment Of a
conversation between MiG and SE. Before coming to this part of their conversation, SE
was telling MiG that when he first came to Germany he was fascinated with German
coffee because it was much better than American coffee. He drank so much of it that he

got sick and had to go to the doctor.

Exceppt 22
1 SE: In Amerika habe ich kaum Kaffee getrunken, weil das...

(I almost didn ’t drink any coflee in America because it...)

2 MiG: Das schmeckt auch nicht so gut, Oder?... (It doesn ’t taste good, or?)

3 SE: Es ist besser in Deutschland. (Yes, it is better in Germany.)

4 MiG: Ja. Das glauber ich auch. Nicht jeder, aber du kriegst viel Kaffee der gut ist.

(I agree with you. Not all coflees, but you can find a lot of good cojfee.)

5 SE: In Amerika ist es irgendwie schwach, wie ein bischen wasserig. Wéisserig, Oder
wasserig? (In America it is somehow weak, watery. “Wa'sserig, or wasserig? “)

6 MiG: Wéisserig ist schon richtig. (. . .) (Wiisserig is correct.)

7 SE: J a, Kaffee und Brot sind besser in Deuschland. (Yes, coflee and bread are better in

Germany.)

Excerpt 22 starts with SE’s statement that he drank very little coffee while living
in the USA because... (1). Before SE can finish his sentence, MiG does it for him, saying
that coffee doesn’t taste very good in the US. Posing this question, MiG demonstrates her

familiarity with the issue, but also wants to know the Opinion Of SE (2). SE confirms that

226

indeed the coffee is better in Germany (3). MiG agrees with him, but she points out that
not all coffee is better in Germany, just most of it (4). SE elaborates on the topic, saying
that the coffee in America is watery. Although his utterance is perfect, he reflects on his
use of the L2, asking MiG if he used the correct form Of this adjective “wasserig,” or if he
should use a form without an umlaut (5). Similar to OS in Excerpt 21, SE is testing a
hypothesis about the L2 and relies on the expertise Of the native speaker. MiG confirms
that what he used was correct (6). In the following turn, SE states that coffee, bread, and
beer are better in Germany. This conversation continues for a few more minutes while
learners engage in a discussion about other differences between the food in Germany and

in the USA.

When compared to the previous excerpt (Excerpt 21), these learners (MiG and
SE) are in agreement about the differences between their countries. Their agreement may
be due to a few factors: (1) the topic is more general, and (2) SE (when compared to OS)
is more experienced with Germany and its culture since he has lived there for a few
years.

In addition to the cultural exchange, SE shifts the attention from meaning to form,
asking if the form Of the adjective wiisserig is correct, or if he should use wasserig.
Although SE had used the adjective correctly, he still has doubts and uses the opportunity
to ask MiG if what he had said was grammatically correct.

This connection between cultural learning and grammatical learning is very
common during tandem interactions. It is almost impossible to separate these types Of

learning because tandem is a multicultural, holistic learning setting. This co-existence Of

227

Opportunities for multiple learning elements in tandem can also be Observed in the next

excerpt.

Excer_'pt 23

Excerpt 23 is a fragment Of a conversation between NOS and SOG. They talk
about an upcoming wedding SOG and his girlfiiend Katrin will attend. Prior to this
excerpt, learners had already discussed some differences between weddings in Spain and
in Germany. The following conversation will lead to the discovery Of another small, but
significant, cultural difference. This is a difference which very likely cannot be found in
any text book, and one likely wouldn’t know about without having direct contact with an

L2 speaker:

I NOS: Und welche F arbe ist deine Krawatte. Orange?

(And which color is your tie? Orange?)

2 SOG: Pink... Blau. Ich glaube. Ich glaube sie ist gestreift.
(Pink... Blue. I think. I think it has stripes.)

3 NOS: Aha... Wie sagt man? Mit Streifen?

(Aha... How do you say it? Stripes?)

4 SOG: Also, ist gestreift. Zwei Farben. Bischen orange, gelb.
(It has stripes. Two colors. A little bit orange and yellow.)

5 NOS: Und wie ist die Kleidung von Katrin?

(And Katrin 's dress?)

6 SOG: Sie hat ein Kleid. Lila. SO, so langes Kleid und so eine J acke.

228

(She has a dress. Purple. A long dress and a jacket.)

7 NOS: Lila. . .Eine Jacke. Mit kurze, wie sagt man, kurze...?

(Purple...A jacket. With short, how do you say it, short...)

8 SOG: Kur'ze Armel. (Short sleeves)

9 NOS: Armel. (Sleeve)

10 SOG: Armel. (Sleeves)

ll NOS: Anne]. (Sleeves)

In Spanien die Kravate von dem Mann muss mit die, muss mit die Kleidung von die
Frauen anpassen. So die Leute wissen, wer zusammen ist.

(In Spain, the tie of the man has to have the same color as the dress of the women. So that
all people know who is together with whom.)

12 SOG: Damit die Leute wissen? [Laughs]

(So that people know it?)

Excerpt 23 begins with NOS’s question about the color Of SOG’s tie. SOG is not
sure about the color, and thinks that his tie must have stripes (2). He uses the German
adjective “gestreift” which describes something with stripes. NOS focuses her attention
on this adjective, asking explicitly about it in the next conversational turn: “How do you
say it? When something has stripes? “(3). In the process of asking, NOS is not able to
produce this adjective, but she is able to describe it (3). SOG repeats gestreift for her
benefit (4).

In the following turn, NOS asks about the dress SOG’s girlfiiend has chosen (5).

SOG explains that it is a long, purple dress with a jacket. Following his statement, NOS

229

first repeats the color of the dress. Secondly, she wants to know if Katrin’s jacket has
long or short sleeves (7). In the process of saying it, NOS discovers she is not able to
produce the noun “sleeve” in German and she explicitly asks for help. As Swain (1998)
would state, she discovers a gap in her knowledge. SOG helps out and produces the noun
(8). In the next turn, NOS tries to repeat the noun Armel, but fails to pronounce it
correctly. She is not producing the umlaut (9). Corrective feedback and uptake follow.
After repeating the noun A'rmel correctly, NOS explains that in Spain (when attending a
wedding) the man’s tie has to have the same color as the woman’s dress to indicate they
are together. SOG laughs, Openly finding such tradition quite fimny and very different

from German customs.

Excerpt 23 is also an example Of the co-existence of cultural and linguistic
learning during tandem interactions (as previously observed in Excerpts 20 and 22).
Although this fragment of conversation is oriented towards a cultural information
exchange, there are two other LREs resulting fi'om it. The first one is related to the lexical
learning Of the adjective gestreift, and the second to addressing the word Armel.

Excerpt 23 starts with NOS’s question about the color of SoG’s tie. The question
is an important element Of the cultural message NOS wants to mention. She wants to
explain to SOG that in Spain it is important that the color of the man’s tie matches the
color of the woman’s dress. In order to accomplish her goal, NOS asks first about SOG’s
tie, then she asks about the second element of her cultural puzzle, the dress. Since SOG

doesn’t mention anything about any connection between the tie and the dress (which in

230

Germany is non-existent), NOS explains to him that in Spain there is a connection
between these two items.

It is important to stress that NOS presents the cultural information to her tandem
partner in a carefully constructed way. NOS actively engages the other learner in the
construction of the cultural information she wants him to know. Also, NOS uses this
interaction to clarify her own linguistic doubts. She is the expert and the novice during
this excerpt.

In the next excerpt, reverse roles are Observed. SOG is the expert and NOS the

novice with regard to pragmatic issues discussed during their interaction.

Exceppt 24

NOS needs to go to a bank to take care of some financial transactions. Since she
doesn’t have an account in Germany, it complicates the process. She doesn’t know how

to get this task done, and asks her tandem partner for his advice:

1 NOS: Aber wenn ich kein Konto habe?

(But when I don ’t have an account?)

2 SOG: Ja, das ist ein Problem, oder?

(Yes. This is a problem, no?)

3 NOS: J a, ich wollte nur Geld in seine Konto lassen.

(Yes, I only wanted to transfer money to his account.)

4 SOG: Man kann nicht Bargeld auf Konto fiberweisen. Du kannst fiagen Ob du Bargeld

auf das Konto einzahlen kannst.

231

(You cannot transfer cash to an account. You can ask if you could pay in cash to the
account.)

5 NOS: Aber wie sage ich das?

(But how do I say it?)

6 SOG: Du miichtes das Geld bar einzahlen auf das Konto von dieser Botschaft.

Bar einzahlen.Weil du hast kein Konto. Du bist aus Spanien. Du hast kein Konto in
Berlin. Am Schalter, du sagst: Hier sind 30 Euro und ich méichte es auf dieses Konto
fiberweisen. Wir kOnnen das auch zusammen machen.

(You want to pay in cash to the account from the consulate. To deposit cash. Because you
don ’t have an account. You are fiom Spain. You don ’t have an account in Berlin. When
you are at the bank, you say: Here are 30 Euros, and I would like to deposit it to this
account. We could do it together.)

7 NOS: Aber der Name, das heisst auch Uberweisung, auch wenn ich kein Konto habe?
(But the name, it is also a transfer, when I don 't have an account?)

8 SOG: Du sagst, dass du das Geld auf das Konto einzahlen miichtest.

(You say that you want to pay the money to the account.)

9 NOS: J a. Uberweisen ist von einem Konto auf das andere.

(Yes. Transfer is from one account to the other one.)
10 SOG: Einzahlen.

(To deposit.)

11 NOS: Einzahlen. [Writes it down]

(T o deposit.)

12 SOG: Auf das Konto einzahlen. Genau.

232

(T o deposit to the account. Exactly.)
13 NOS: Auf Spanisch es ist ingresar. Ingresar.

(In Spanish, it is ,,ingresar. ” “Ingresar”)

Since NOS needs to pay for something by transferring money to someone else’s
account, and does not have her own banking institution in Germany. She asks her tandem
partner (SOG) what she should do when she does not have a German account (1). SOG
confirms that this could be a problem (2). To understand this excerpt, one should be
aware of the lack Of flexibility among German banks. Not having a German account can
be problematic for foreign visitors living there. SOG suggests that NOS can ask about a
cash deposit (4). At this moment, the pragmatic issue of how to approach the possible
problem seems to be resolved.

Turn 5 signals that the issue is more complex. NOS does not know what she
should say in German at the bank. SOG explains to her what to say and how to say it. He
also Offers his help and suggests that they could do it together (6). In the process of
explaining to NOS how to make the request, SOG uses the verb to deposit twice and to
transfer once. NOS notices the difference in these verbs and asks him about it. She
wonders if she can use the verb “to transfer” also in the situation when she does not have
an account in Germany (clarification of meaning). SOG explains that she should use the
verb “to deposit” (8, 10). NOS repeats the verb, writes it down, and translates it into
Spanish (11, 13).

Excerpt 24 demonstrates that pragmatic and lexical learning are closely related. In

order to communicate successfully, one has to have the linguistic resources tO do it. In the

233

process Of learning how to make a money transfer in Germany, NOS learns how to
accomplish the tasks and what to say. She learns the difference between the terms money
transfer and deposit. In the process of pragmatic learning, NOS is exposed to a new
lexical item einzahlen, which she repeats aloud and writes down. SOG provides NOS with
multiple repetitions of the new word, which is used 9 times during this short excerpt. This
multiple exposure to the new word should be beneficial for learning.

It is also important to note that SOG Offers his help. He is willing to go with NOS tO a
bank to help her out. As Observed, the tandem method provides a multitude Of benefits tO
learners. Through contact with a local expert the foreigner can obtain direct help with
linguistic and pragmatic problems, as they arise while living in a foreign country.

The data provide examples Of learners asking their German tandem partners for help
in the following situations:

- Visit to a hairdresser (LC/AG). LC asked her tandem partner how she should talk
to the hairdresser about her haircut. Tandem partners practiced the possible
conversation during their meeting.

- University life (RS/DG). RS asked his tandem partner how he should proceed
with a group work assignment. He was not familiar with the structure and
dynamics of such a task. DS explained to him how it is normally done at a
German university and how to approach the professor about it.

- Hotel booking (RS/DG). RS did not receive a booking confirmation and was not
sure if this was a problem in Germany. His tandem partner explained that indeed
it was a sign that something was possibly wrong and suggested the follow-up on

this.

234

- Interacting with German roommates. (MS/BG). MS and BG discuss how to
approach the issue Of sharing (or not sharing) their food with other roommates.
In addition to addressing their everyday pragmatic needs during tandem interactions,
the data provide evidence there is one more aspect related to cultural learning in the
tandem setting--leamers focus on current cultural events and ask their tandem partners

about them, as shown in the next excerpt.

Excer_'pt 25

1 SE: SO, right now in Germany you have Spargel-time?

2 MiG: Yes.

3 SE: And how dO they make it?

4 MiG: How do they make? With potatoes, salad, and a hollandaise sauce.

5 SE: OK. Asparagus is pretty good. For some reason, in the US we don’t have the white
asparagus.

6 MiG: NO?

7 SE: NO, only the green.

8 MiG: Green? Is this different? I didn’t know... green. How do you pronounce it?
Aspar...

9 SE: Asparagus.

10 MiG: Asparagus. Asparagus.

11 SE: J a, they grow it, but only the green. I don’t know why. And the white is better.

The green is pretty good also, but the white is better. J a. ..

235

In America, they plant asparagus where they already have fi'uit trees. They also plant
asparagus there, around the trees, because bugs like it better and will eat the asparagus
first. It means that we have a lot Of green asparagus in America. At least, where I come

from, fiom Oregon.

Excerpt 25 represents a conversational fiagment between MiG and SE. Since the
audio tapings for this research study were conducted in the spring/ summer time in
Germany, their timing coincided with the asparagus season. Between May and July,
German families tend to eat fresh asparagus, which is brought to the cities fi'om farms
and sold everywhere. It is an important tradition, and most foreign visitors living in
Germany notice it, as does SE asking MiG about the “Spargeln-time” (1). SE is curious
about how German people prepare it in their homes, and MiG is able to explain that
asparagus is normally served with potatoes, sauce, and a salad (4). Being in Germany and
seeing that the asparagrs which is sold there is white, SE points out this difference. This
time MiG is surprised because she has never seen green asparagus before (8).

This is also the very first time she wants to use the word asparagus in this
conversation and is not able tO pronounce it. For this reason, MiG asks SE about the
pronunciation of this word. This question causes a temporary shift from meaning to form
for the next three conversational turns. In turn 8, MiG asks her tandem partner How do
you pronounce it? The demonstration Of correct pronunciation follows in turn 9. Finally,
in turn 10, there is repetition Of the word asparagus. MiG repeats the lexical item twice.
After her repetition, the conversation shifts again from form to meaning. SE provides a

detailed explanation of the production Of asparagus in his state of Oregon (11).

236

Excerpt 25 is an example Of mutual cultural exchange. MiG learns how the
asparagus is produced in Oregon, and that there is a different form of it, the green one,
which she is not familiar with. On the other hand, SE receives confirmation of his
hypothesis that there is a Spargel-time in Germany. He also Obtains information about
how it is prepared among German families. In the process of this cultural exchange, MiG
is able to notice the gap in her knowledge--her inability to pronounce the word asparagus
in English. SE helps her work on it, and she is able to pronounce it correctly after it is
demonstrated to her.

Although this topic may seem trivial at first sight, it was one Of the most
discussed cultural topics during the time of data collection. Almost all tandems had some
type Of experience with the Spargel-time and addressed this cultural phenomenon
explicitly during their tandem meetings. For example, RS/DG compared how Spanish
and German people prepare various asparagus dishes. RS pointed out that in Spain
asparagus is Often prepared as an omelet; whereas in Germany, it is served with meat and
potatoes. RS was also invited by DG and her parents twice to their home to participate in
a festive Sunday lunch Of eating asparagus in the traditional German way. The tandem
MS/BG also addressed the “asparagus” topic. Similar to the previously discussed
example of RS and DG, the German tandem partner (BG) invited the foreigner (MS) to
her house for a traditional asparagus dinner.

In summary, participating in tandem learning allows learners to be exposed to
various cultural aspects of foreign culture, and to learn about them through direct contact

with their tandem partner. In some instances, such intercultural communication allows

237

learners to become more aware Of their own culture and language, as Observed in the next

excerpt.

Exceppt 26

1 RS: Es gibt aber Spricthrter, die sehr iihnlich sind. Zum Beispiel: Aus einer Miicke
einen Elefanten machen. Hacer una tormenta en un vaso de agua. Aber ich habe 2
Muttersprachen und ich spreche auch Katalan als Muttersprache und auf Katalan heisst
das: Aus einer Miicke einen Pferd machen.

(There are proverbs, which are very similar. For example, “T 0 make an elephant from a
mosquito ” would be in Spanish “T 0 make a storm in a glass of water. ” But I have two
native languages. I speak also Catalan, and in Catalan you would say “To make a horse
from a mosquito. ”)

2 DG: Oh, Wirklich? Ein Pferd. (Oh, really? A horse?)

3 RS: Aber ein Elefant ist noch, fiber...( But an elephant is still, more...)

4 DG: GrOsser. Trotzdem, das gleiche ist gemeint, aber utnerschiedliche Worte sind
benutzt.

(Bigger. Although different words are used, the meaning is the same.)

5 RS: Am tollsten finde ich: Man kann nicht auf zwei Hochzeiten gleich tanzen.
{Laughs}

(What I like the best is “You cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. ”)

6 DGzAber man muss schon die Sprache gut sprechen, um die Spricthrter zu verstehen.

(One has to know a language quite well to understand proverbs.)

238

After discussing many idiomatic expressions and proverbs in Spanish and in
German, RS states there are some expressions which are similar in both languages. RS
uses as an example the German idiom To make an elephant fiom a mosquito (to
exaggerate). In Spanish, there is a similar expression, which has the same meaning, but
the single words forming it are different. The Spanish people say To make a storm in a
glass of water. Since RS has two native languages, Spanish and Catalan, he is able to
give another example of the same idea, expressed in Catalan. Interestingly, the Catalan
idiom is much closer to the German one. The Catalan people say To make a horse from a
mosquito. DG expresses her interest in the Catalan idiom, noticing the difference between
the elephant (German proverb) and the horse (Catalan proverb). She seems a little
surprised by it (2). RS shares DG’s interest in looking for these differences and
discussing them. RS continues with DG’s statement and compares these two different
animals. He wants to say that an elephant still is bigger, but has problems expressing it
(3). DG helps him with the superlative of “big.” Finally, DG concludes that although
different words are used, the meaning is basically the same (4). The next conversational
turn (5) shifts the focus back to the German proverbs, and RS comments that his favorite
proverb is One cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. He laughs.

DG concludes this dialogue saying that one has to know a second language quite
well to understand proverbs. DG’s statement demonstrates that learners participating in
tandem are able to develop increased cultural and linguistic awareness. They reflect on

their L1 and L2 use, compare them, and in doing so, create Opportunities for learning.

239

8.2 Summary

The tandem method provides learners with Opportunities for lexical, grammatical,
and cultural exchanges, which are interconnected. These one-on-One meetings with an L2
speaker that take place in tandems are a source of opportunities for implicit cultural and
pragmatic learning since the other person is a living representative Of his or her native
culture. Additionally, there are instances of Opportunities for explicit pragmatic and
cultural learning during tandem meetings. Such learning is important because, as
Kramsch (1993) stated, “the ability Of the learner to behave both as an insider and an
outsider to the speech community whose language he or she is learning, depends on his or
her understanding Of the cultural situation.” (p.182)

When looking at the examples described in this dissertation, it is evident the
learners address numerous elements of L2 learning as they arise in context and fiom
context. This holistic approach to second language learning during tandem makes it quite
different from some formal classrooms, where teachers may tend to focus more on
grammar than vocabulary, and rarely on culture.

As Cortazzi and Jin (1999) pointed out, there are many deficiencies related tO
addressing cultural content in formal schooling. According to them, teachers and students
should raise their awareness of intercultural issues. In addition, more textbooks should
include explicit intercultural elements. Finally, teachers should be more conscious Of
intercultural competence, in the way that many are now conscious Of communicative
competence. The raising Of cultural awareness in classrooms would help foreign language

learners to understand other cultures and be able to communicate across cultures.

240

The tandem method provides Opportunities for raising cultural awareness. It
allows learners to have multiple, repetitive exposures to the lexical, grammatical, cultural
and pragmatic elements of the L2. It gives learners the Opportunity to discover the
differences and similarities between their languages and cultures (Excerpts 19, 21, 22, 23,
25). As Cortazzi and J in stated (1999), a cultural focus on intercultural competence may
not only encourage the development of identity, but also “encourage the awareness Of

others’ identities and an element of stabilization in a world of rapid changes” (p.219).

241

CHAPTER 9
ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRES

9.0 Introduction

The previously discussed chapters focused on examples Of lexical, grammatical,
cultural, and pragmatic learning during tandem interactions. They were based on data
fiom audio recordings. This chapter will focus on the second part of the data--the
questionnaires completed by the participants of this study. I will highlight their

perceptions of the tandem method.

9.1 Questionnaires-general information

The data for this study were collected from April through August, 2007, in Berlin,
Germany. The data consist of two parts: multiple audio-tapings of each tandem pair and
four questionnaires completed by each participant.

The questionnaires were developed in collaboration with my supervising
professors from Michigan State University and the Tandem Language School in Berlin--
“Tandem Berlin e.V.,” which also provided significant logistical support during the data
collection process. The questionnaires were Offered to participants in English or German,
so they could choose the language they felt most comfortable with for completion. All
German native speakers and 70% of the non-native speakers of German completed the
questionnaires in German. Only 3 participants completed the four questionnaires in
English. Each participant completed the questionnaires independently, by taking them

home and working in privacy. Their results will be presented in this chapter.

242

9.2 Questionnaire 1

The first questionnaire addressed participants’ biographical information: gender,
age, native language, occupation, and length Of previous L2 instruction. Participants were
also asked about their expectations with regard to tandem learning and reasons for
studying an L2. This information is presented in Tables 2-10, in chapter 4. This
questionnaire was administered during one of the first meetings between tandem partners
and the researcher. The following two additional questions fi'om Questionnaire 1 will be
addressed in this section:
OWhy are you learning the TL? (Tandem language)

oWhat is more important for you right now: focus on grammar or on vocabulary? Why?

9.2.1 Why are you learning the TL?
* Numbers in parentheses indicate the number Of participants who provided the preceding

statement. A total of 18 participants are discussed in this study.

All possible answers provided by the learners are listed. None Of the answers was
suggested to participants by the researcher. Any repetition of statements arises fiom

shared beliefs.

0 Because I’m interested in the TL and I enjoy it (5)
0 For everyday communicative purposes (4)
O I would like to be able to express myself better in the other language (3)

0 TO learn more about the German culture (3)

243

0 To improve my vocabulary (3)

0 German is very important for my future job (3)

0 Because I live in Germany (3)

o For the vacation time in Spain (2)

O I have an “English-phobia” and want to learn a different language (2)

o I would like to read the literature in original language

0 I would like to understand TV and radio in the L2

0 TO conduct interviews in German (one Of the participants was a journalist)
0 To teach the language in the future

0 To speak fluently

o I would like to write better in German

0 To understand the text Of Flamenco in Spanish

0 I hope to live in Germany in the future

0 I had an amazing German teacher in high school and fell in love with the language
0 TO work in a Spanish speaking country in the future

0 To pass a language exarrr at the university

0 Personal growth

The six most common reasons for participation in tandem, in descending order, were:
0 Interest in the language learned in tandem
0 Communicative purposes

0 Learning about the cultural aspects Of L2

0 Lexical learning

244

O Pragmatic reasons, such as better job opportunities in the future due to the knowledge
Of L2

0 Living in Germany and, consequently, learning the language spoken in the country

9.2.2 What is more important for you now: focus on grammar or vocabulary? Why?
1. Vocabulary (13)

Some of the reasons for choosing vocabulary were:

0 I know already the grammar quite well (4)

0 To have more resources for communication

0 I had learned grammar at school

0 Idioms

0 “Vocabulary is harder to learn from the book since you don’t always know if a native
speaker would use this certain word in this sentence. Grammar is on the other hand
universal.”

0 “Normally, I focus on grammar most of the time, but I would like to improve my
vocabulary as well because I think that the lack of vocabulary restricts my explanations
and conversations when speaking. I try to learn new words, but it’s always difficult.”

o I can study the grammar at home with my books

2. Both-grammar and vocabulary (5)
Out Of five participants agreeing with this statement, one pointed out that his goal was,
“Not only tO speak grammatically, but also to use the correct vocabulary, as a German

person would do.”

245

3. Grammar only
Nobody agreed with this statement.

None Of the tandem participants chose only grammar as a learning focus. 13 out
of 18 learners (72.2 %) pointed out that expanding their vocabulary was more important
than focusing on grammar during their tandem interactions. For 5 participants (27.7 %),

both the grammar and the lexical items were equally important.

246

9.3.0 Questionnaire 2

The second questionnaire addressed the following issues: reasons for participation
in tandem, length and frequency of individual tandem meetings, participants’ preferences
and perceptions Of the differences between L2 learning in a classroom with a teacher or

with a tandem partner, and finally error correction.

9.3.1 Why did you decide to participate in tandem?

Below answers represent spontaneous tandem participants’ statements:
0 TO improve my TL (8)

0 To speak the language (4)

0 To gain cultural knowledge (4)

0 To meet German people (3)

o Tandem is more relaxed than classroom learning (2)

0 Tandem provides a very intense learning Opportunity (2)

0 It’s gratis (2)

0 It’s a good Opportunity to study with a native speaker

O I like to teach my partner

0 We can talk about the country

0 We can talk about what is interesting for us

0 Tandem is much better to learn to speak fluently than any other type of formal
instruction

0 Tandem is fun because I can use directly the learned language

0 Because other people recommended it

247

o I felt that I needed, despite living with Germans and conversing most of the time
in German, someone who was willing to correct my mistakes and help me learn the

language in a casual atmosphere, but without pressing friends to do that.

In summary, the most common reasons for participating in tandem were:
0 Improvement Of the TL

0 Speaking opportunities

0 Cultural knowledge gains

0 Meeting German people

One of the most interesting comments obtained fi'0m this questionnaire was: “I
felt that I needed, despite living with Germans and conversing most of the time in
German, someone who was willing to correct my mistakes and help me learn the
language in a casual atmosphere, but without pressing friends to do that. ” This sentence
summarizes very well some of the main reasons for tandem learning. Even when living in
a country where the L2 is spoken, a non-native speaker, who can communicate quite
well, may fail to make further progress without paying attention to the grammar, lexical
items, and the usage of the L2 in various contexts. Tandem language learning provides
learners with Opportunities to focus on the language, use it, think about it, talk about it,
and learn through corrections in a casual atmosphere. It is also not a conversation group
organized by the university, where one meets a different partner every week; it is a
meeting in a private setting with a comfortable atmosphere, which allows tandem

partners to develop, in most cases, a fiiendship based on mutual trust. As Observed in the

248

excerpts, this setting seems to have a very positive effect on the learning process, where
learners can feel comfortable enough to ask questions and express doubts, and where they

can receive the corrective feedback they want.

9.3.2 How often do you meet with your tandem partner?
0 One time a week, 2 hours. (3)

0 One time a week, 1-1.5 hours. (2)

0 One or two times a week, 2-3 hours.

0 At least once a week, for 2-3 hours.

0 Two times a week, 3—4 hours.

According to the responses from questionnaires, most tandems met once a week
for 2 hours. Some had more frequent meetings, but nobody met more than two times a
week.

During data collection, I could Observe that not all tandem partners were able to
meet each week, due to their busy schedules at the university or work. Many tandems
tried to recoup the lost time through more frequent meetings during the following weeks
or through longer tandem meetings after. All participants seemed interested in

maintaining regular meetings with their tandem partners.

9.3.3 In your opinion, what is a better learning method, in a classroom with a

teacher or through tandem interactions? Why? What are the main differences?

249

A) Tandem is better (4)

o If you already have some basic knowledge of the TL, tandem is definitely better
(intense, direct Opportunities for clarification of doubts). In a classroom, one has to share
the time and the teacher with others.

0 Time efficient

O Flexibility

0 One can choose the topics

0 More effective

0 ”I find it much easier to remember things I learn in a real world environment, for
example, it is easier for me to remember names Of foods or utensils if I have to ask for
them in an actual restaurant setting.”

0 ”In a classroom, you only get a few Opportunities to speak each session. Passively
understanding the language and actively speaking are completely different. In tandem,
you can also learn the vocabulary for the contextual situations (easier learning), and in a

classroom from a word-list, which is very difficult to remember.”

B) Formal classroom instruction is better (1)

(But only if the quality is very good, as stated by this participant.)

C) Both are important for different reasons (13)
O “In a formal instruction one can learn the theory and the grammar. Tandem is good to
practice it.”

o A combination Of both methods is perfect

250

0 “Even though I prefer tandem learning, I think that both classroom and tandem
complement each other.”

0 “Both are important because the native speaker cannot explain all grammatical
problems”

When looking at the results, 73% Of participants agreed that the combination Of
both tandem and formal classroom instruction functions the best, largely because the non-
native speaker is not always able to explain the grammar of his native language to the
other partner. For this reason, the combination of formal instruction (with a teacher in a
classroom) with the intense one-on-One communicative approach of tandem resonated
well with the participants Of this study.

Only one person, with the least experience with the tandem learning method,
stated that classroom learning can be better: but only if it has a very good quality of
instruction. This participant had only 4 previous tandem meetings with his partner,
compared to most other tandems with a few months Of experience.

Finally, 22% of participants preferred tandem learning over a classroom

experience because of its effectives and opportunity to learn language in context.

251

9.3.4 The main differences between tandem and classroom learning, as stated by the
participants of this study

Table 11: Tandem vs. classroom learning

 

 

 

 

 

TANDEM CLASSROOM

Language usage in context Theory and grammar

One can speak as much as he or she wants Systematic learning environment
Better learning environment for vocabulary Good for basic learning

One can practice pronunciation better Teacher can explain grammar

 

Free choice Of the topics

 

Economical, most Of the time gratis

 

Relaxed atmosphere

 

Equal powers, both are students/teachers

 

More fun learning experience

 

More intense learning experience 1:1

 

The school doesn’t teach colloquial language,
and later, one cannot understand people on

the street, tandem does it

 

One doesn’t have to share the time/teacher

 

Cultural knowledge can be gained

 

One is always engaged, it’s not boring

 

Vocabulary is learned in context

 

You learn from a NS, and not a book

 

 

 

 

252

Again, most Of the participants pointed out that in a formal classroom setting one
would have more Opportunities for structured learning of grammatical items, but time
would be shared with other people, and learning would be less time-efficient and
sometimes boring. Tandem learning was evaluated as learning in context, where
participants could gain cultural knowledge, learn new vocabulary more easily (because Of
the contextual setting), and speak as much as they want. Most of the participants in this
study viewed classroom learning as a setting with plenty of input, but tandem provided

them with the Opportunity to produce meaningful output.

9.3.5 Did you like it when your tandem partner corrected your errors? Why yes or
no?

A) Yes (17)

0 “It is the main goal of tandem to be corrected”

o”Error correction is crucial to realize what is wrong” (2)

O”On the beginning, I didn’t enjoy being corrected, but once you realize how
important it is to have your bad habits corrected, I began to prefer having my
grammar or vocabulary corrected”

0 “I want to be corrected, otherwise I will not learn”

0 “It’s why I’m doing tandem”

0 “It’s important that there are corrections because one thinks many times that he/she
speak correctly, but Often it’s not the case”

0 “It’s very important to correct the pronunciation“

253

0 “When my partner corrects me she shows interest, and I can improve”

0 “It’s important; otherwise I can talk to myself”

B) Yes, but (2)

0 “Error corrections are important, but not all the time. More important in tandem is the
opportunity to speak, without constant interruptions.”

0 “It’s crucial, but not every minute. Only serious and fiequent errors should be

corrected.”

100% Of the tandem participants wanted error correction; among them 11% preferred to
be corrected, but not all the time, and not all their errors. They wanted to communicate
without tOO many interruptions. According tO them, only serious or fi'equent errors should

be corrected.

9.3.6 What did you learn from your tandem partner?
0 New vocabulary (10)

0 Grammar usage (5)

0 Cultural knowledge (5)

0 Better pronunciation (4)

o Colloquial usage Of the language (4)

O Idioms (3)

0 Almost everything

0 That we cannot translate everything from one language to the other

254

o I gained a new friend

0 I developed better listening skills in the TL

Learning new vocabulary was mentioned by 55% of participants. Also, the correct
usage Of the grammar and gains in cultural knowledge seemed to be of greater
importance. The data strongly support the results of this questionnaire. Most tandems

were very strongly oriented towards lexical learning, which occurred frequently.

255

9.4.0 Questionnaire 3: Cultural exchanges

Through the third questionnaire, participants had the Opportunity to point out the
strengths and weaknesses of typical tandem interactions based on their personal
experience. Students were also asked about the cultural and pragmatic aspects of tandem

learning. This questionnaire was administered immediately after collecting Questionnaire

2 fiom them.

According to participants’ responses, the following cultural activities were conducted
during their tandem interactions:

0 Dance lessons taken together

0 Cooking Of national dishes for the tandem partner (most tandems)

0 Trips to different German cities (many tandems visited nearby cities, like, Potsdam)
0 Attendance at concerts (varying from classical music to rock)

0 Meeting the friends and family Of the tandem partner (frequently pointed out)

0 Parties

0 Canoe trip

0 Open-Air Opera visit

0 Theatre visit

0 Going out to cafes, restaurants and bars (most tandems)

9.4.1 Did your partner help you understand the culture of his/her country better?

Which new things did you learn about it?

256

0 “My Opinion about the German people changed. They are also very nice and
dependable. Sometimes, Spanish people have a very different stereotypical image of the
German people.”

0 German traditions and the traditional German dishes

0 “The differences between Spanish and Catalan languages”

0 “I learned a lot about the Danish school system, immigration problems, health care
system, and the life in Copenhagen”

0 German history

0 “That the Spanish parents are more conservative than German”

0 University life in Spain

0 Christmas traditions in Spain and eating habits in Spain

0 “Why and how the German culture is different from my own. We compared fiequently

our both cultures”

Participation in tandem gave both parties a unique opportunity to have a
prolonged and direct contact with a native speaker Of their L2. Due to such fiequent and
prolonged interactions, intensive cultural exchanges were present. Tandem participants
gladly shared their cultural knowledge and were curious to learn about the culture Of their
tandem partner. As a result, some participants were able to revise their stereotypical
thinking of other nations, as shown, in the statement provided by one Of the research
participants from Spain: “My Opinion about the German people changed. (. . .)
Sometimes, Spanish people have a very different stereotypical image of the German

people.”

257

9.4.2 Participants’ evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of tandem

Table 12: Participants’ evaluation of tandem

 

Advantages of tandem learning

Disadvantages of tandem learning

 

One can learn directly from a native
speaker

There are not disadvantages (4)

 

A lot of cultural information

You don’t have to prepare anything, if
you don’t want to; no negative
consequences-mo bad grades areg'ven“

 

 

Time flexibility At the beginning, there is some tension,
because one has to work with an
unknown person

Gratis Subjective points of view. One has to

understand that it represents only one
persons’ point of view.

 

A lot of speaking Opportunities

Not all tandem partners can explain the
grammar Of their own language.

 

One can meet German people

Less grammar

 

One can learn how the language is
spoken in a “real life” situation

A weakness could be if one wouldn’t
have a partner who was both a good
teacher and a willing learner.

 

More interesting than learning in a
class

Normally, it’s only oral

 

Eliminating the fear of speaking

 

A lot of fun while learning

 

One can pause for clarification when
something is not understood

 

Better learning environment than the
classroom

 

not falling asleep

More interesting conversations, one is

 

Flexible schedule, one can meet

she wants

whenever it’s possible and how Often

 

what he feels is needed.

More practical approach. One can learn

 

One can improve listening
comprehension a lot through tandem

 

 

 

*for people who are really motivated and want to learn this is not a disadvantage

258

 

9.4.3 Learners’ tips for a well functioning tandem:

1) “It is important that both partners have a similar level of their L2. If one tandem
participant is much more advanced in the L2 than the other person, it could happen that
only one language will be used, and the tandem would loose the equilibrium and the
justification.”

2) “It is important to have a tandem partner with whom one has a good connection, and
who is dependable.”

3) “Both partners have tO be motivated. It is good to talk about expectations and goals for

learning.”

259

9.5 QUESTIONNAIRE 4: EVALUATION OF TANDEM LEARNING METHOD

Table 13: Questionnaire 4

SA=strongly agree, A= agree, XA=tO some degree agree, D= disagree, SD = strongly disagree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SA A XA D SD

1. I’m very satisfied with the outcome of my 16 2
participation in tandem 89% 1 1%
2. I have learned a lot of new words through 9 7 2
tandem interactions. 50% 39% l 1%
3. My pronunciation improved because of the 6 8 4
tandem program. 33.3% 44.5% 22.2%
4. My grammar improved a lot through tandem 2 7 7 2
interactions. 1 1% 39% 39% l 1%
5. The tandem program was a waste of time for 1 17
me. 5.55 94.45%
6. I could have learned more with a different 6 12
tandem partner. 33.3% 66.7%
7. I speak more in the classroom than during 1 3 l4
tandem exchange. 5.5% 16.7% 77.8%
8. I like to have my tandem partner correct my 16 2
errors. 89% 1 1%
9. I have learned a lot about my partner’s 4 9 5
culture through tandem. 22% 50% 28%
10. I prefer learning in a classroom with a l l 9** 7
teacher than through tandem. 5.5% 5.5% 50% 39%
11. I corrected my tandem partner’s 3 12 3

ronunciation a lot. 16.7% 66.6% 16.7%
12. I corrected my tandem partner’s grammar a 3 12 3
lot. 16.7% 66.6% 16.7%
13. I corrected the structure Of my partner’s 6 7 5
sentences frequently. 33.3 39% 27.7%
14. I think my partner can better speak my 5 11 2
native language because Of me. 28% 61% 11%
15. I liked interacting with my tandem partner. 18

100%

16. My tandem partner learned a lot Of new 8 9 1
vocabulary from me. 44.5% 50% 5.5%
17. I have learned a lot of new vocabulary from 12 6
my tandem partner. 66.7% 33.3%
18. I speak more during my tandem interaction 17 1
than in the classroom. 94.5% 5.5%
19. The tandem program is very beneficial for 16 2
langge learners. 89% 1 1%
20. I wish I could continue with tandem 16 2
learning in the future. 89% 11%
21. I will never again participate in a tandem 18
program, because it was a bad experience. 100%
22. I understand my partner’s culture better 6 7 5
because of the tandem experience. 33.3% 39% 27.7%

 

** 70% of this group stated that the combination Of both is useful (Nr. 1 O)

260

 

Questionnaire 4 summarized participants’ satisfaction with the various aspects Of
tandem learning. When looking at item 21 (I will never again participate in a tandem
program because it was a bad experience for me), 100% Of the respondents disagreed
with this statement. Similar satisfaction levels were observed with regard to Item 1 (I’m
very satisfied with my participation in tandem), where 89% strongly agreed with this
statement and 11% agreed. Item 15, which again measured learners’ satisfaction with
their tandem interactions (I liked interacting with my tandem partner), confirmed that
participants Of this study were very content with their tandem interactions, and that they
enjoyed interacting with their tandem partners. 100% of respondents agreed with the

statement: “I liked interacting with my tandem partner.”

The next group of questions was related to lexical learning: 2, 16, and 17. Item 2
(I have learned a lot of new words through my tandem interactions) yielded the following
results: 50% Of respondents strongly agreed, 39% agreed, and 11% agreed to some
degree that they learned a lot of new vocabulary through tandem. With regard to Item 16
(My tandem partner learned a lot Of new vocabulary from me), participants provided the
following answers: 44.4% strongly agreed, 50% agreed, and 5.6% agreed to some degree.
For item 17 (I have learned a lot of new vocabulary from my partner), the results were:
66.7% strongly agreed and 33.3% agreed. All three items provided support for lexical
learning although tandem participants tend not to overestimate their influence on their
partner, only 44% stated they strongly agreed that their partner learned a lot of new
vocabulary from them, but 66.7% strongly agreed that they had learned a lot of lexical

items fiom their partner.

261

Questionnaire 4 also addressed the issue of corrective feedback in items 8, 11, 12,
and 13. Item 8 (I like when my tandem partner corrects my errors) received the following
responses: 89% Of all participants strongly agreed and 11% agreed they like to be
corrected by their tandem partner. Tandem participants stated (33.3% strongly agreed,
39% agreed, and 27.7 % agreed to some degree) they corrected the structure of their
partner’s sentences frequently (Item 13). All participants agreed with the statement that
they corrected a lot Of their partner’s pronunciation (Item 11) and grammar (Item 12). For
both items, identical results were Obtained: 16.7% strongly agreed, 66.6% agreed, and

16.7% agreed to some degree.

9.6 Summary

From the questionnaires and the level of satisfaction of tandem participants, the
tandem learning method, although not perfect, received very favorable ratings. The
participants were very satisfied with tandem’s practical, efficient, and very
communicative approach. They hoped to continue with this learning method in the future
(Item 20: 89 % strongly agreed, 11% agreed) and they thought the tandem program was
very beneficial for language learners (Item 19: 89% strongly agreed, 11% agreed.)

Such favorable feedback should be considered by language educators for future
implementation of tandem learning as part Of foreign language instruction. Through a
combination Of classroom and tandem learning, one could achieve a very stimulating
environment, which could contribute tO better learning outcomes and higher learner
satisfaction. Tandem participants stated that although they were very satisfied with their

tandem learning, some type of formal instruction was still very beneficial.

262

CHAPTER 10

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

10.0 Introduction

In this chapter, I will review the research hypotheses Of this study and evaluate
them in light of the results Obtained from questionnaires and data analysis. Secondly, I
will address implications Of the findings for the field Of language pedagogy. Finally, I

will suggest directions for further studies related tO this research.

10.1 Review of research hypotheses

The hypotheses Of this study were first introduced in Chapter 1, section 1.3, and are
repeated here:

H1: There are substantial Opportunities for lexical learning because Of students’
participation in tandem.

H2: There are substantial Opportunities for grammatical learning fi'om context and in
context due to one’s participation in tandem.

H3: There are substantial Opportunities for development Of pragmatic knowledge and
cultural exchanges because of students’ participation in a tandem.

H4: The majority of tandem participants are highly satisfied with the outcome Of their
learning in tandem, and with the learning progress Of their tandem partner, and would

recommend this method to others.

263

This study sought to confirm as true, not true, or partially true the above four hypotheses
through careful data analysis and evaluation of questionnaires. Results will be presented

in the following sections.

10.2 Evaluation of hypotheses

10.2.1 HYPOTHESIS 1: There are substantial opportunities for lexical learning because

of students’ participation in tandem.

As Observed in chapter 5, the tandem method provides learners with various
Opportunities for lexical learning, which can range from single-word learning to complex,
multi-word learning situations. Lexical learning in tandems is in most instances incidental
and directly related to learners’ needs. Learners are fully responsible for their progress
and the content of their meetings. Although in most cases tandem interactions are
unplanned, some instances Of students engaging in more formal management Of their
lexical learning were noted--as they worked at home on written assignments (RD/AlG) or
previously prepared didactic materials were used during interactions (flashcards with
proverbs and idioms).

Although these activities have some characteristics Of formal learning, they were
not Obligatory for learners; on the contrary, they were chosen by them because learners
decided it was what they wanted and/or needed to do. During tandem interactions,
learners are always in charge Of their own learning and the learning Of their tandem

partner. This mutual dependence was also reflected in lexical learning during tandem.

264

Multiple examples of both learners learning the same lexical item in their respective L2s,
in the same conversation, were present. This type of lexical learning is an advantage Of
the tandem method. Lexical learning during tandem is also different from lexical learning
in other educational contexts because it gives learners opportunities for prolonged
discussions about new words. As Observed in the discussed excerpts, learners were not
only exposed (Often multiple times) to new words and their spelling, pronunciation,
contextual use, and translation, but also had a chance for their immediate use in a
meaningful conversation.

In summary, lexical learning in tandem took various forms and arose on various
occasions, but always in an interactional context. Secondly, lexis-based LREs were
present in all tandem learning contexts when learners discussed grammatical issues,
cultural topics, or explicitly focused on lexis. Every time learners wanted to say
something and were not able to do so, they had the Opportunity to learn from it, which
they frequently did. In addition to output, the other source for lexical learning in tandem
was the L2 input provided by native speakers. Learning fi'om a native speaker and with a
native speaker allowed both tandem partners to learn about their L23 and reflect about
their L1 3. Tandem learners were able to develop an increased awareness of their own
native language (e.g., use Of proverbs) because of tandem interaction and the need to
explain it to the foreigner.

It can be concluded that the tandem method provided substantial Opportunities for
lexical learning and development of lexical awareness in the L2 and L1. The tandem

method allowed learners to learn new words, idioms, and proverbs. Also, it gave them the

265

opportunity to recognize and utilize words to which they had been previously exposed,
but hadn’t managed to gain control over.

Finally, based on the responses to the questionnaires, tandem learners were well
aware of tandem as an opportunity for lexical learning; they pointed to lexical learning as
a very important element of tandem learning for them. The majority of learners (13 out of
18) admitted vocabulary was their main focus in learning because it provided more
resources for communication and was related to their interest in idiomatic expressions.
As one learner pointed out, “Vocabulary is harder to learn from the book, since you don’t
always know if a native speaker would use this certain word in this sentence.” Another
learner stated, “Normally I focus on grammar most Of the time, but I would like to
improve my vocabulary as well because I think that the lack of vocabulary restricts my
explanations and conversations when speaking. I try to learn new words, but it’s always
difficult.” These statements provide very important information that students perceive
vocabulary learning from a book as difficult, and learning while conversing with a native
speaker makes more sense to them.

Answering Questionnaire 4, the majority Of learners strongly agreed with the
statement that they learned a lot of new words through tandem. The statement, “My
tandem partner learned a lot Of new vocabulary from me,” provided the following results:
44.4% strongly agreed with this statement, 50% agreed, and 5.5% to some degree agreed.
For item 17 (I have learned a lot of new vocabulary fi‘om my partner), the results were:
66.7% strongly agreed and 33.3% agreed. Responses to all three items provided support

for lexical learning.

266

When looking at both learner satisfaction expressed through questionnaires, and
the multitude of examples related to lexical learning during tandem interactions in all
possible contexts (lexical, grammatical, and cultural), the tandem setting provides

learners with substantial opportunities for lexical learning.

10.2.2 HYPOTHESIS 2: There are substantial opportunities for grammatical learning

from context and in context due to one’s participation in tandem.

Although grammatical learning is not the main goal of the tandem method, which
primarily focuses on communication, form-based LREs were very fiequently observed
during tandem meetings. In a regular, everyday communicative setting, understanding
can be reached even when the non-native speaker speaks ungrarnmatically. Often,
nobody corrects such sentences because it would be socially inappropriate, and in most
instances, both parties would feel uncomfortable with it (the native speaker and the
foreigner). During tandem interactions, a very different reality is created since both
participants are experts and learners at the same time. The customary social norms do not
apply in such contexts in most cases. Tandem participants want to learn. Their
conversation with a native speaker is not small talk. It goes beyond communication, as
they want to learn from the other person. As such, learners are well aware (or with time
and experience become well aware) that corrective feedback is crucial for them in order
to achieve L2 accuracy. For this reason, although participants Of this study pointed out
they were significantly more interested in lexical learning during tandem interactions and

grammatical learning was their secondary goal, form-based LREs were Observed in the

267

majority of tandem meetings because the second factor, corrective feedback, came into
play.

Learners were not interested in grammatical instruction, per se, but they were very
aware they wanted to receive corrective feedback, which was perceived as crucial for
their learning. When answering the question: “Did you like it when your tandem partner
corrected your errors? Why yes or no?” all participants answered affirrnatively. In their
Opinion, the main goal Of tandem was to be corrected. Error correction was crucial for
learners to realize what was wrong with their L2 production. As one participant stated,
“On the beginning I didn’t enjoy being corrected, but once you realize how important it is
tO have your bad habits corrected, I began to prefer having my grammar or vocabulary
corrected.” Most participants pointed out that without corrections they were in danger Of
committing the same errors all the time. Learners also pointed out they perceived error
correction as their tandem partner’s interest in the interaction and in them.

Such a positive outlook on error correction resulted in the frequent presence of
corrective feedback during typical tandem meetings. Such feedback led to grammatical
(and sometimes lexical) learning, and provided learners with substantial opportunities for
improvement. Questionnaire responses confirmed learners’ strong preference for
corrections: 89 % of participants strongly agreed and 11% agreed they liked to be
corrected by their tandem partner (Item 8, Questionnaire 4). Tandem participants stated
(33.3% strongly agreed, 39% agreed, and 27.7% to some degree agreed) they corrected
the structure Of their partner’s sentences frequently (Item 13, Questionnaire 4). All
participants agreed with the statement that they corrected a lot of their partner’s

pronunciation (Item 11, Questionnaire 4) and grammar (Item 12, Questionnaire 4). For

268

the last two items (grammar and pronunciation) identical results were Obtained: 16.7%
strongly agreed, 66.6% agreed, and 16.7% to some degree agreed.

In sum, the participants were well aware of the importance of corrective feedback,
welcomed it, and fi'equently corrected the errors of the other learner. Correcting each
others’ errors, learners frequently became involved in metalinguistic discussions about
corrected items. Due to all the above described factors, the tandem learning method

provided learners with substantial opportunities for grammatical learning.

10.2.3 HYPOTHESIS 3: There are substantial Opportunities for development of
pragmatic knowledge and cultural exchanges because of students’ participation in

tandem.

As previously discussed, the tandem method provides learners with Opportunities
for lexical and grammatical learning, which arise from interaction. During interactions
with native speakers, learners are also exposed to culture and pragrnatics. One could
argue that already this direct contact with a native speaker of one’s L2 is a cultural
experience, and thus, an opportunity for learning. Of course, not all contact results in
learning, but as noted in Chapter 8, tandem learners tend to engage in extensive
discussions about their respective cultures. They compare them, comment on them, and
discuss their similarities and differences.

Sometimes, the tandem learners tried to help each other to become pragrnatically

and culturally more aware by explaining the rules Of proper behavior in certain situations.

269

They gave each other corrective feedback with regard to the appropriateness Of their
pragmatic skills when interacting with members Of the C2 (Excerpt 19).

Learners of German fiequently asked native speakers how to approach certain
situations in Germany in order to have a successful outcome (Excerpt 24). This could be
categorized as an explicit request for pragmatic information and an opportunity for
cultural/pragmatic learning.

In addition to their tandem meetings, learners often participated together in
various cultural activities, including trips to different German cities, attendance at
concerts (varying from classical music tO rock) and various parties, a canoe trip, Open-
Air Opera visits, theatre visits, dining in restaurants, and going out to cafés.

When answering the following question: “Did your partner help you understand
better the culture of his or her country? Which new things did you learn about it?,”
participants pointed out they were able to learn about traditions, history, university life,
and everyday life in the L2 country. They were also able to revise their previous, Often
stereotypical, Opinions about native speakers of their L2, as shown in the following
quote: “My opinion about the German people changed. They are also very nice and
dependable. Sometimes, Spanish people have a very different stereotypical image Of the
German people.”

In summary, participation in tandem gave learners a unique opportunity to have
prolonged and direct contact with a native speaker of their L2. Due to such frequent and
prolonged interactions, intensive cultural exchanges were present and stereotypes were
revisited. Respondents agreed they learned a lot about their tandem partner’s culture

(Questionnaire 4, Item 9).

270

Combining the nature of tandem interactions (one-on-one contact with a native
speaker), evidence Of cultural learning obtained from analyzed data, and the positive

feedback from questionnaires, Hypothesis 3 can be confirmed as well.

10.2.4 HYPOTHESIS 4: The majority Of tandem participants are highly satisfied with
the outcome of their learning in tandem and with the learning progress Of their tandem

partner, and would recommend this method to others.

According to the questionnaires, Hypothesis 4 can be confirmed as well. When
looking at Item 21, Questionnaire 4 (I’m very satisfied with my participation in tandem),
89% of the participants strongly agreed and 11% agreed with this statement. Item 15,
Questionnaire 4 (I liked interacting with my tandem partner), also confirmed that
participants Of this study were very satisfied with their tandem interactions. 100% of

respondents agreed with this statement.

10.3 Summary

Analysis Of all data indicates that the tandem method provides learners with
substantial Opportunities for lexical, grammatical, cultural, and pragmatic learning.
As Swain (2000) would state, “as learners speak, their ‘saying’ becomes ‘what they said’,
providing an object for reflection. Their ‘saying’ is cognitive activity, and ‘what is said’
is an outcome Of that activity. Through saying and reflecting on what was said, new

knowledge is constructed.” (p. 113)

271

This construction of new knowledge occurs during tandem interactions in a truly
communicative setting, which is very learner oriented. In tandem, learners’ linguistic
needs can be directly addressed as they arise. The tandem learning setting is also very
flexible. Learners can choose what they want to talk about. They are able to spend a
considerable amount of time focusing on their difficulties while learning the L2,
discussing them, engaging in metatalk, and reflecting on both their L1 and L2. Such
instructional situations, in which students set their own agendas and are always in charge
Of their own learning, are not very common in typical classroom interactions.

Further, the tandem method gives each participant the opportunity to be a novice
and an expert in the same educational setting. In tandem, both learners have equal status
during their interactions and both are entitled to interrupt the flow of the conversation at
any time they have linguistic or cultural difficulties in order to ask the other person for
help. This shift fi'om communication to a focus on form, lexis, or culture fi'equently
results in various LREs.

This equal position Of tandem learners also makes this educational setting
different fiom traditional classroom learning, where the teacher decides what will be
learned and how it will be done.

During tandem interactions, learners are also able to question and to challenge the
Opinions Of the expert (the other learner), and they do not have to agree with every
instance Of corrective feedback. In a traditional classroom setting, learners are expected
to respect the teacher and not to disturb the flow of the lesson too much. In some
traditional classrooms (which I have personally experienced), the teacher has a monopoly

on expressing opinions. Such a situation would not be possible in a successful tandem

272

setting, where each person has the right to his or her own point Of view, and each
person’s opinion is equally important.

As previously discussed, tandem learning allows learners to spend considerable
amount of time discussing various aspects Of their languages. The data presented in this
dissertation demonstrate that when learners engage in metatalk, they are able to increase
their L2 awareness and reflect about their native language. While answering questions
about their own language, tandem participants are forced to analyze it in order to explain
it to the other person. As Swain (2000) points out, “Through dialogue they regulate each
other’s activity, and their own. Their dialogue provides them both with Opportunities to
use language, and Opportunities to reflect on their own language use. Together their
jointly constructed performance outstrips their individual competencies” (p.111).

The collaborative dialogues of the tandem meetings represent opportunities to
shift from a focus on meaning in communication to form. language is used as a cognitive
tool to talk about linguistic processes. As Swain and Lapkin (1998) would state, such
dialogue “provides both the occasion for language learning and the evidence for it.
Language is both process and product” (p.320). Through scaffolding, and help fi'om the
other more proficient learner, tandem participants are able to overcome their limitations
and produce structures beyond their previous level. What occurs in their collaborative

dialogue is learning.

273

10.4 Conclusion

The results of this dissertation suggest that the tandem learning method provides
second language learners with substantial opportunities for lexical, grammatical, cultural,
and pragmatic learning.

The tandem method represents language learning within the context of “real”
communication. In this manner, it differs fiom purely form-focused classrooms as well as
communicative classrooms or other communicative settings that lack any kind of focus
on form. Thus, tandem represents a unique approach to language learning.

As Observed in chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9, the tandem participants regard their
meetings as educational and frequently take advantage of the interaction with the native
speaker Of their L2 to ask questions, test linguistic hypotheses, and deepen their
understanding of the second language and culture. Since their interaction is one-on-one, it
is very intense and provides learners with constant opportunities to speak and to practice
their L2 skills in a very comfortable learning environment, where both participants are
able to maintain equal status. Also, many tandem partners take their responsibility as an
“expert” very seriously, and they do not want the other person to speak their native
language less than perfectly. Such an approach results in prolonged linguistic and/or
cultural discussions. Frequently, corrective feedback is provided. Collected data provides
evidence that some native speakers can be very persistent with their feedback and do not
stop until the other learner notices and corrects his or her errors. This highly customized
feedback could be seen as one of the strengths of the tandem method and an Opportunity

for second language learning.

274

Such an intense and personalized approach seems to be very well liked by the
participants of this study since 100% of them were satisfied with their learning in tandem,
according to the questionnaires’ responses. However, the participants of this study
pointed out that supplementing the tandem method with some type of formal classroom
instruction is very beneficial because the native speaker is not always able to explain the
nuances Of his native language to the other learner and is not always able to give
linguistically accurate feedback. For this reason, the combination of formal classroom
instruction with the tandem method seems to be advisable. The classroom learning
provides learners with intense theory instruction and well structured learning, but learners
are not able to speak as much as needed in order to become fluent in their second
language. During tandem meetings, learners can practice the previously learned theory
and actively use the second language. Both approaches, the classroom learning and the
tandem method, have their advantages and disadvantages. However, when combined,
they seem to supplement each other very well creating a well balanced learning
environment.

Additionally, the tandem method addresses all five Standards for Foreign
Language Learning (communication, communities, cultures, connections, comparisons)
developed by the American Council on the Teaching Of Foreign Languages, and for this
reason its implementation should be considered by American educators.

Finally, the tandem method helps its participants to become life-long learners who
can use their second language for personal enjoyment and enrichment: thus, it creates the

crucial link between formal learning and independent learning.

275

10.4 Areas for future research

Since this research focused on the Opportunities for lexical, grammatical, and
cultural learning during tandem interactions at the intermediate level, investigation of the
same research questions could be carried out at other levels Of proficiency. Research
comparing the differences between tandems of various nationalities would be Of interest.
It is possible that German-American tandems would have different dynamics than
German-Spanish, or German-Japanese tandems. Finally, the new more formal approach

to tandem introduced at the Freie University in Berlin merits investigation.

276

Appendix A

QUESTIONAIRE 1
PARTICIPANTS BACKGROUND

Please, provide the following information.
(* LT=Language you are practicing with your tandem partner for your own benefit)

1.

2.
3.
4

Your age:

Your gender:

Native language:

Language you are practicing with your tandem partner for your own benefit (LT):
Occupation (if you are a student, please, indicate what are you studying):

Hobbies:

Where and for how long have you been studying LT? List all previously attended institutions:

 

 

 

 

 

What is your current level Of LT? At which level you are currently enrolled at your language
school?

Why are you learning LT?

 

 

 

 

 

10. Studying LT right now, what is more important for you: focus on grammar or on vocabulary?

Please explain reasons for your choice.

11. Why did you decide to study this language?

277

Appendix B

UESTIONAIRE 2

1. Why did you decide to participate in a tandem program?

2. How Often do you meet with your tandem partner? For how long?

3. In your opinion, what is a better learning method: in a classroom with a teacher or through
interaction with your tandem partner? Please, explain shortly your point Of view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. In your Opinion, what are the 3 most important differences between tandem learning and
classroom learning?

5. DO you like when your tandem partner corrects your errors? Why do you like it, or why don’t you
like it?

6. What have you learned so far from your tandem partner?

7. What do you hope your tandem partner has learned from you?

278

Appendix C

UESTIONAIRE 3

1. Did you and your partner socialize outside of your tandem-learning situation? How Often? What
did you do? Did you meet any Of his/her friends or family?

2. Did you partner help you understand better the culture of his/her country? What new did you learn
about it?

3. Would you recommend to a fiiend to participate in a tandem program?

4. In your Opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses Of the tandem learning method?

279

Appendix D

UESTIONAIRE 4

SA=strongly agree

A: agree

XA=tO some degree agree
D= disagree

SD = strongly disagree

OOOQONM-RUJNp—n

NNHI—Ii—ih-II—I—lI—ID—lI—II—l
v—Ooooflam-thr—O

22.

because I did not like it
I understand better my partners’ culture because Of tandem

Participant’s background
1. Gender: F M

2. Age:
3. Native language:
4. Native country:

 

 

 

5. Level of German:

6. Occupation:

 

 

7. Other foreign languages you can speak:

280

. I’m satisfied with the outcome of my participation in the tandem program SA
. I’m using new words because of tandem interactions

. My pronunciation improved because Of tandem

. My grammar improved through tandem interactions

. Tandem program was a “waste Of time” for me

. I could learn more with a different tandem partner

. I speak more in the classroom than during tandem exchange

. 1 like when my tandem partner corrects my errors

. I have learned a lot about my partners’ culture through tandem

. I prefer learning in a classroom with a teacher than through tandem
. I have corrected my partner’s pronunciation a lot

. I have corrected my partner’s grammar a lot

. I have corrected my partner’s sentences

. I think my partner can better speak my native language because Of me
. I liked interacting with my tandem partner

. My tandem partner learned a lot Of new vocabulary from me

. I have learned new vocabulary from my partner

. I speak more during my tandem interaction than in the classroom

. Tandem program is beneficial for students

. If available, I will continue with tandem in my native country

. I will never again participate in tandem program

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA

>3, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
t: ritrrrérrrrrrrrrrrrr
cu UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

mmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmmmmm
eeUecheceeceeeeceeU

U)
GB

Appendix E

FRAGEBOGEN 1
ALLGEMEINE INFORMATION ZUM TEILNEHMER
Wenn Sie mehr. Platzfiir Ihre Antworten brauchen, benutzen Sie bitte auch die Rfickseite dieses Blaaes.

Bitte beantworten Sie folgende Fragen.
(*LT=Die Sprache, fiir die Sie das Tandem machen)

ll.
12.
l3.
14.
15.

16.

17.

Alter:

Geschlecht:

Muttersprache:

Die Sprache, firr die Sie das Tandem machen:

Was machen Sie zur Zeit? Bitte den genauen Beruf bzw. Studiengang angeben:

Interessen:

Wie lange lemen Sie schon die Sprache firr Sie dasTandem machen? WO haben sie diese Sprache
vorher glemt und wie lange? Bitte ftrhren Sie ausfiihrlich auf.

 

 

 

 

 

18.

19.

Wie wiirden Sic Ihren aktuellen Sprachkenntnisstand bezeichnen? Auf welchem Niveau sind Sie
zur Zeit auf der Sprachschule?

Mit welchem Ziel lemen Sie die Sprache?

 

 

 

 

 

 

20.

21.

Worauf konzentrieren Sie sich beirn Sprachelemen zur Zeit -eher auf die Grammatik Oder auf die
Erweiterung des Wortschatzes? Warum? Bitte begriinden Sie Ihre Antwort.

Was hat Sie motiviert die Tandem-Sprache zu lemen?

281

Appendix F
FRAGEBOGEN 2

1. Warum haben Sic sich entschlossen an Tandem-dem Sprachaustausch mit einem Tandempartner-
teilzunehmen?

2. Wie oft trcffen Sic sich mit Ihrem Tandem Partner? Wie lange dauert cin Trcffen?

3. Wie fimktionicrt Ihrer Meinung nach dcr bessere Sprachunterricht? Durch betreutes Lemen in
einer Sprachschule Oder durch den Austausch mit einem Tandem Partner? Erklfiren Sic das bitte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Worin untcrscheidcn sich die beiden Obcn gcnannten Lemmethodcn im Wcsentlichcn? Nennen Sic
bitte drci wichtigsten Punkte.

5. Wie stehcn Sic dazu, von Ihrem Partner bei Fehlem korrigiert zu werden? Bitte begrfindcn Sic die
Antwort.

6. Was haben Sie so weit von Ihrem Tandem Partner gclemt?

7. Was hoffen Sic, dass 1hr Tandem Partner von Ihnen gelemt hat?

282

Appendix G

FRAGEBOGEN 3
"‘ Tandem Mcthodc-bcdcutct hier das Treffen von 2 Personcn um die Sprache des Partners zu lemen.

5. Haben Sic zu Ihren Tandem Partner cine Freundschaft aufgebaut? Was und wie oft haben Sic
etwas zusammen untemommcn? Haben Sic dic Freunde/Familic dcs Tandem Partners
kcnncngclcmt?

6. Konnte 1hr Tandem Partner Ihnen sein Land und seine Kultur etwas nahcrbringcn? Haben Sic
etwas Ncucs dazugelcmt? Was?

7. Wiirdcn Sic die Tandem Methodc weitcr cmpfchlcn?

8. WO schcn Sic dic Starkcn und Schwachen dcr Tandem Methodc?

283

Appendix H

FRAGEBOGEN 4

SA= ich stirnmc dem ganz zu

A:

ich stirnme dem zu

XA= ich stimmc dem tcilwcisc zu

D=
SD

\OOOxJChgh-hyJNv-d

10.
11.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

ich stimmc dem nicht zu
= ich stimme dcm fibcrhaupt nicht zu

. Ich bin mit dem Erbcbnis mcines Tandems zufiicdcn

. Durch den Austausch bcim Tandem benutzc ich neue WOrtcr

Durch das Tandem hat sich meine Aussprache vcrbcsscrt

. Durch das Tandem hat sich mcinc Grammatik vcrbcsscrt

Das Tamdcm war fiir mich cine Zcitvcrschwendung

. Mit einem andcrcn Tandem Partner kOnntc ich mchr lemen

. Ich spreche mchr in dcr Sprachschule als mit meinem Tandem Partner
. Ich findc cs gut, wenn mcin Tandem Partner meinc Fehlcr korrigiert

. Durch das Tandem habe ich viel fiber die Kultur dcs Partners gclcmt

Ich bcvorzugc das Sprachclemcn in einer Sprachschule als Tandem

Ich habe dic Aussprache meincs Partners korrigiert

Ich habe die Grammatik meincs Partners korrigiert

Ich habe die Struktur dcr Siitze meincs Partners oft korrigiert

Durch mcine Hilfc spricht mcin Partner meinc Muttersprache besser

Ich mochtc den Austausch mit meinem Tandem Partner

Mcin Tandem Partner konntc durch meine Hilfc scincn Wortschatz vcrgrOBem
Ich konntc mit Hilfc meines Tandem Partners meincn Wortschatz vcrgrOBcrn
Ich spreche mit meinem Tandem Partner mehr als in dcr Sprachschule

19. Die Tandem Methodc ist sehr hilfrcich fiir Studenten
20. Ich fandc cs wfinschcnswcrt,

die Tandem Methodc in meinem Hcimatland fortzuffihrcn

21. Ich werdc nic wicdcr cin Tandem machen, weil cs mir nicht gcfallcn hat
22. Das Tandem hat mir dic Kultur dcs Partners nahcrgcbracht

Allgemeine Informationcn zum Teilnehmer

Geschlecht: W M
Alter:
Muttcrprachc:
Hcrkunftsland:

1hr Niveau dcr F remdsprache, die sic im Tandem lemen:
Beruf:

Andcrc Fremdsprachcn, die Sic sprechen:

 

 

 

 

NP‘ME‘P‘E"?

284

SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA
SAAXA

DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD
DSD

SAAXADSD
SAAXADSD
SAAXADSD

Appendix I
Symbols used in this dissertation for discourse transcription
1. Errors are marked in “hold”
2. T- rising intonation
3. l-falling intonation

4. [ ] rcscarchcr’s comment and/or non-verbal communication

285

References:

Appel, M., & Mullen, T. (2000). Pedagogical considerations for a web-based tandem
language learning environment. Computers and Education, 34, 291-308.

Apfelbaum, B. (1993). Erzc'ihlen in Tandem. Tiibingcn: Gunter Narr Vcrlag.

Amaud, P., & Savignon, S. (1997). Rare words, complex lexical units and the advanced
learner. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp.
157-173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition.
Language Learning, 52, 323-363.

Bardovi-Harlig, K.(l996). Pragmatics and language teaching:Bringing pragrnatics
and pedagogy together.InL.F. Bouton (Ed.)Pragmatics and language learning.
Vol. 7, (pp. 21-39). Urbana, IL: University Of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Bardovi-Harlig, K.,&DOrnyei,Z.(l998).DO language learners recognize pragmatic
violations?: Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-262.

Bechtel, M. (1997). Hypothesen zum intcrkulturcllcn Lerncn irn Tandem. In Bredella,
Lothar, Christ, Herbert & Legutke, Michael K. (Eds), Thema Fremdverstehen
(pp.120-136). Tiibingen: Narr Vcrlag.

Bechtel, M. (2003). Interkultrurelles Lernen bim Sprachenlernen im Tandem: Eine
diskursanalytische Untersuchung. Tiibingcn: Narr Vcrlag.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). TOO many words: Length Of utterance and
pragmatic failure. Journal of pragrnatics, 8, 47-61.

Boogards, P. (2001). Lexical units and the learning Of foreign language vocabulary.
Studies in L2 Acquisition, 23, 321-343.

Braidi, S. (2002). Reexamining the role Of recast in native speaker/non-nativc speaker
interactions. Language Learning, 52, p.1-42.

Brammcrts, H. (1998). Strategien bcim selbstiindigcn Lerncn im Tandem. Der
fremdsprachliche Unterricht F ranzb'sisch, 34, 57-59.

Brammcrts, H. (1998). Lernpartncrschaft mit einem fernen Tandempartner. Babylonia.
Zeitschrififiir Sprachunterricht und Sprachenlemen, 2, 36-39.

Brammcrts, H. (1999). Tandem: Lernpartncrschaften fiber das Internet. In Donath,
Reinhard (Ed.), Internet and Multimedia in der Erwachsenenbildung (pp. 49-54).
Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Leipzig: chtt.

286

Brammcrts, H., & Hedderich, N. (1998). Lcmen im Tandem per Internet. In U. Jung,
(Ed.), Praktische Handreichungfiir F remdsprachenlehrer, 2. verb. u. crw. Aufl. (pp.
251-255). Frankfurt/M: Lang.

Brammcrts, H., & Kleppin, K. (1998). Autonom lemen mit einem fernen
dcutschsprachigen Tandempartner. In Donath, Reinhard (Ed.), Deutsch als
F remdsprache -Projekte im Internet (pp. 42-46), Stuttgart, Diisscldorf, Leipzig: Klett.

Brammcrts, H., & Kleppin, K. (2000). Ubersetzcn im Tandem. F remdsprache Deutsch,
23, 40-44.

Brammcrts, H., & Kleppin, K. (2000). Kooperatives Dolmetschen in mehrsprachigcn
Lemgruppen. F remdsprache Deutsch, 23, 44-46.

Brammcrts, H., & Little, D. (1996). Leitfadenfiir das Sprachenlernen im Tandem iiber
das Internet. Bochum: Brockmcycr.

Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, A., & Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 3, 221-236.

Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161-170.

Cortazzi, M., & J in, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Materials and methods in the EFL
classroom. In Hinkel, E. (Ed), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning
(pp. 196-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 2"d edition. Oxford:
Blackwell.

DausendschOn-Gay, U., Giilich, E., & Kraflt, U. (1992). Gcmcinsam schreibcn.
Konversationcllc Schrcibinteraktionen zwischen deutschen und franzOsischcn
Gcspréichspartncrn. In H. Krings & G. Antos (Eds), T extproduktion. Neue Wege der
F orschung (pp. 219-255). Trier: Wisscnschaftlicher Vcrlag.

Delgado, M., Leute, B., Torres, M., & Wolff, J. (1983). Gcsprachspartner statt
Lchrbuchdialoguee. MOglichkeiten und Grcnzen dcr TANDEM-Kurse. Spracharbeit,
2, 3-10.

Donnato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second langauge learning. In J.Lantolf & G.

Appel (Eds), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: evidence from
empirical study on SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13:
43 1-469.

287

 

 

Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners.
In J. Alatis (Ed), G URT 1993 (pp. 96-108). Washington DC: Georgetown University
Press.

Doughty, C.,& Valera, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In: Focus on Form in
Classroom Second Language Acquisition, (pp.114-138).Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Doughty, C.,& Williams, J. (Eds), (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dubin, F.,& Olshtain, E. (1993). Predicting word meaning from contextual clues:
Evidence from L1 readers. In T.Huckin, M.Haynes, & J.Coady (Eds), Second

language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 181-202). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Edge, 1., & Gick, C. (1997). Language Awareness and Empowerment in Foreign
Language Teacher Education: Lernen im Tandem. F remdsprachen lehren und lernen,
26, 127-143.

Ehnert, R. (1987). Die sogcnanntc interkulturelle Begcgnung ist Alltag: TANDEM in der
Universitéit. Fremdsprachen und Hochschule (F uH), 19, 79-93.

Ellis, R. (1985). Teacher-pupilk interacation in second language development. In S. Gass.
& C. Madden (Eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury
House.

Ellis, R. (2000).Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research, 4, [93-220.

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction, Language Learning, 51, 1-
46.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Faust, G., & Schneider-Giirkan, U. (1984). Dcutsch-tiirkischer Tandemsprachkurs: Ein
Erfahrungsbcricht. Deutsch lemen, 4, 67-70.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation Of meaning.

Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-23.

Frantzen, D. (2003).F actors affecting how second language Spanish students
derive meaning fiom context. Modern Language Journal, 87, 168-199.

GaBdorf, Annette. (2001). Integration von Tandcmlcrnen in ein Hochschulcurriculum

zur Fremdsprachenlehrerausbildung: Die F ontys Hogescholen Sittard. In
Brarnmerts & Kleppin (Eds), (pp.131-137).

288

Gass,S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in
second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern
Language Journal, 82, 299-307.

Gass,S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory
course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass,S.,&POlio,C. (1998). The role Of interaction in native speaker comprehension
of normative speaker speech. The Modern Language Journal, 82,308-318.

Gass,S.,&Varonis, E. (1984). The effect Of familiarity on the comprehensibility of
normative speech. Language Learning, 34, 65-89.

Gass,S.,& Varonis,E.(l994).Input, interaction and second language production.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, I 6, 283-302.

Gick, C., & Miillcr, M. (1992). TANDEM Oder Zwei Menschen lernen zusammen
Fremdsprachen. Balanceakt zwischen zei Sprachen. In Eichhcim, Hubert (Ed.),
F remdsprachenunterricht - Verstehensunterricht. Wege und Ziele I (pp. 25-44).
Miinchen: Goethe-Institut.

Gracf, R. (1990). Lcmen durch lehren. Anfangsunterricht irn Fach FranzOsisch. Der
fremdsprachliche Unterricht, 100, 10-13.

Gu, Y., & Johnson. R. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning
outcomes. Language Learning, 46, 643-679.

Goebel, R. (1992).Binnendiffercnzierter Sprachunterricht. In: M. Rosanelli (Ed.), Lingue
in T andem-A utonomie und Spracherwerb, (pp. 119-133). Merano: Edizioni Alpha &
Beta Vcrlag.

Herfurth, H. (1996). Tandem - ein Verfahren zum Fremdsprachenlcmen und
Fremdsprachenerwcrb in Sprachbegegnungen. F remdsprachen lehren und lemen, 25,
1 60-1 80.

Hcrfurth, H. (1995). Zum Stellcnwert von Sprachbegcgnungen nach dem

Tandemverfahren im deutsch-franzOsischen Kontcxt. Zielsprache F ranzb'sisch, 27,
1 95-201 .

Hinkel, E. (1999). Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Studies
of Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252.

289

 

 

Hucking, T., & Bloch, J. (1993). Strategies for inferring word-meaning in context: A
cognitive model. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds), Second language
reading and vocabulary learning ( pp. 153-176). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1997). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: a
review. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 21 , 181-193.

Hulstijn, J ., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental Vocabulary Learning by
advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary

use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 327-
339. .

Hulstijn, J. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning. In J.
Coady & T. Huckin (Eds), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 203-224).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hulstijn, J ., & Laufcr, B. (2001). Some Emprical Evidence for the Involvement Load
Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition. Language Learning, 51 :3, 539-558.

Hunt, A., & Belgar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary.
Reading in Foreign Language, 17, 1-31.

Joe, A. (1995). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning. Second Language
Research, 11, 149-158.

Judd. E. (1999). Some issues in the teaching Of pragmatic competence. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 1 52-1 67). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Kasper, G. (1981). Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interimsprache. Tfibingen: Narr Vcrlag.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231..

Kleppin, K. (2000). Focrdcrung dcs autonomen Lcmers durch Relcxion ueber die eigencn
F ehlcr. F remdsparchen und Hochschule, 58, 41-48.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pcrgamon Press.
Krashen,S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26, 175-182.

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional
evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.

Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: some intralcxical factors
that affect the learning Of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds), Vocabulary:

290

Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp.140-155). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language:
The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26.

Lewis, T. (2001). Integration autonomen Lernens in das Curriculum: Das T andem-
Modul an der Universita't Sheflield. In Brammcrts & Kleppin (Eds), 123-129.

Liu,E., & Shaw, P.(2001). Investigating learner vocabulary: A possible approach to
looking at EFL/ESL learner’s qualitative knowledge of the word. IRAL, 39, 171-
194.

Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In: C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp.
177-197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lightbown, P.,& Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching: effects on second language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 12, 429-448.

Little, D. (2001). Language awareness and the autonomous language learning.
Language Learning, 6, 93-104.

Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speaker. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193.

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/ non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of
input. Applied linguistics, 4, 126-141.

Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S.Gass & C. Madden
(Eds), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In
K. Hyltcnstam & A. Viberg (Eds), Progression and regression in language (pp. 196-
221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M.H. (1996). The role Of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of second language Acquisition (pp.
413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on F orm: Theory, research and practice, In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds), Focus on Form in classroom L2 acquisition (pp.15-
41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

291

 

 

Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in
SLA: Models and recast in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82,
357-371.

Lyster, R.(I998a).Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation
to error types and learner repair in immersion classroomsLanguage
Learning, 48, 183-218.

Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation Of
form in communicative classroom. SSLA, 19, 37-66.

Mackey, A. (1998). Input, interaction, and second language development: An
empirical study of question formation in ESL. SSLA, 21 ,557-587.

Mackey, A., Gass. S., & McDonough (2000). How do learners perceive interactional
feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22,471-497.

Mackey,A.&Philp,J.(1998). Recast, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language
Journal, 82, 338-356.

Mackey, A., Rhonda, O., & Leeman, J .(2003).Interactional input and the incorporation
of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads.

Language Learning, 53:1, 35-66.

Martin Torres, G.,& Wolff, J. (1983). Interkulturelle Kommunikationsprobleme beim
Sprachenlernen - dargestcllt an Mticrstiindnissen zwischen Spaniem und Deutschen.
Neusprachliche Mitteilungen, 4, 209-216.

McKeown, M. (1985). The acquisition Of word meaning from context by children of high
and low ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 249-267.

Miillcr, M. (1988). Autonomichrdernde F ormen beim Fremdsprachenlcrnen.
Fremdsprachen und Hochschule (F uH), 23, 22-48.

Nation, I. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Nagy, W., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading
Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.

Neurohr, E. (1999). Deutsch-franzOsisches Tandem in Japan: Auf dem Weg zu Sprach-
und Europabewusstsein. Materialien Deutsch als F remdsprache, 52, 111-128.

Nodari, C. (1996). Autonomic und Fremdsprachenlernen. F remdsprache Deutsch,
Sondernummer 1996, 4-1 0.

292

 

 

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS/NN S conversation. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, I 8, 45 9-48 1 .

Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Newbury House.

Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “Noticing the gap.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition,25, 99-126.

Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and

linguistic needs Of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal,
86, 1-19.

Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker-nonnative speaker negotiation:
What do they reveal about second language learning? In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-
Ginnet (Eds), Text in context: Cross disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp.
198-237). Lexington, MA: Heath.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language
learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.

Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated
interactionLanguage Learning, 38, 45-73.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an
outcome Of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Learning,
11, 63-90.

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F ., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners'
interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners?
TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59-83.

Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of
language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition
research (pp. 45-141). Adelaide, South Australia: National Curriculum Resource
Centre, Adult Migrant Education Program.

Polio, C., & Gass, S. (1998). The role Of interaction in native speaker comprehension Of non-
native speaker speech. Modem Language Journal, 82, 308-319.

Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus
translations as a fimction Of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 478-493.

Raasch, A. (1972). Fonnes nouvellcs du cours dc francais dans le domaine extrascolaire. Le
Francois dans le Monde, 89, 28-32.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning,
45, 283-331.

293

 

 

Rost-Roth, M. (1999). Formulierungshilfcn und Fehlerkorrckturen als Erwerbspotentiale.
F reie Konversationcn irn Gruppenunterricht und Tandem-Interaktionen. Deutsch als
F remdsprache, 36, 160-165.

Rose, K. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.),Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 181-196). New
York: Cambridge Universinrcss.

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and
typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds), Learner strategies in language learning
(p. 15-30). New York: Prentice Hall.

Scollon, R. (1999). Cultural codes for calls: The use of commercial television in teaching
culture in the classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching
and Learning (pp. 181-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics Of recast and learner
uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10,4, p. 361-392.

Sato, C. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the
connection. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 23-45). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.

Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language
Research 7, p. 89-102.

Schartz, M. (1992). Autonomes Lemen zwischen individuellcn Bediirfnissen und
gesellschaftlichen Veranderungen. In M. Rosanelli (Ed.), Lingue in Tandem
Autonomic und Spracherwerb (pp. 133-147). Meran: Alpha & Beta Vcrlag.

Schmidt, R. (1993b). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragrnatics. In G. Kasper
& S. Blurn-Kulka (Eds), Interlangauge Pragmatics, (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford
University Press.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary Learning Strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCartthy
(Eds), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp.199-227).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schratz, M. (1992). Autonomes Lemen zwischen individuellcn Bediirfirisscn und
gesellschaftlichen Veracnderungen In: Marurizio Rosanelli (Ed.), Lingue in T andem-
Autonomie und Spracherwerb, (pp. 133-145). Merano: Edizioni Alpha & Beta
Vcrlag.

Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence
and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 147-163.

Schwienhorst, K. (1997). Modes of interactivity-Intemet resources for second language
learning. In D. Kranz, L. Legenhausen, & B. Liiking (Eds), Multimedia - Internet -
Lernsoftware: F remdsprachenunterricht vor neuen Herausforderungen? (pp. 105-
110). Munster: Agenda Vcrlag.

294

 

 

 

Schwienhorst, K. (1998). Matching pedagogy and technology. Tandem learning and
learner autonomy in online virtual language environments (pp. 115-127). In R.
Soetaert, E. De Man, G. Van Belle (Eds), Language Teaching On-Line. Ghent:
University Of Ghent. pdf version

St.John, E., & Cash, D. (1995). German language learning via email. ReCall, 7, 47-51.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 23 5-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G.Cook &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour
of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In: C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 64-
81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Takahashi, E. (1998). Language development in classroom interaction: A longitudinal
study of Japanese F LES program from a sociocultural perspective. Foreign Language
Annals, 31, 392-406.

Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tarnoc,E.,& Liu,G.(1995).Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition
theory. In G.COOk & B. Seidlhofer (Eds), Principle and practice in applied linquistics:
Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. (pp.107-124). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.

Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors. Studies in
Second Language Acquisiton 11, 385-395.

Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordancc: Social-interactive learning fiom an
ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf, (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning (pp.245-261). Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.

Vences, U. (1999). Wir bauen uns ein OkO-Haus - Interkulturelle Erfahrungen mit
Tandemarbeit (mit Praxis-Arbeitsblatt). Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 4 6,
299 - 308.

Vences, U. (1998). Sprachenlernen im Tandem - Vom Schiileraustausch zur
interkulturellen Bcgegnung. In Interkulturelles Lemen (pp. 101 - 109). Arbeitshilfen
fiir die politische Bildung. Bonn: Bundeszentralc firr politische Bildung.

Wildner-Basset, M. (1994). Intercultural pragrnatics and proficiency: Polite noises for
cultural appropriateness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3-17.

Wilkinson, S. (2002). The omnipresent classroom during summer study abroad:
American students in conversation with their French host. Modern Language Journal,
86, 1 57-1 73.

295

 

 

Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness Of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325-
340.

Williams, J ., & Evans, J. (1998).What kind of focus and on which forms? In: C. Doughty
& J. Williams, (Eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition

(pp. 139-156) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WOmcr, M. (1993). Eine Sprachkursrcise in die franzOsische Partnerstadt. Zielsprache
F ranzb'sisch, 25 , 174-182.

Wolff, J. (1982). Von der wirklichekeitsnahem Organisation des Untenichts zur
lcmfoerdemden Organisation dcr realen Kommunikation-TANDEM-Kurse.
Zielsparche Deutsch, 3, 21-28.

Wolff, J. (1984). TANDEM-Kurse: Fremdsparchen im Austausch. Der fiemdsparchliche
Unterricht. 18/71, 240-242.

Wolff, J. (1985). Das TANDEM-Koncht und die interkulturellen Zentren. Hinweise fiir
experimentierfreudige Fremdsprachenlehrer. Jahrbuch Deutsch als F remdsprache,
1 I , 271-285.

Wolff, J. (1985). Keine Uni Ohne TANDEM. Info DaF, 2, 156-166.

Wolff, J. (1986). MOglichkciten und Grenzen des Partner-Lernens am Beispiel der
TANDEM-Kurse. Hochschulausbildung, 1, 56-62.

Wolff, J. (1999). Halt "Tandem,” was es verspricht? Empirische Untersuchungen zur
Effektivitiit von Tandem. Materialien Deutsch als F remdsprache, 52, 141-148.

Woodin, J. (2001). Die F Orderung interkultureller Kompetenz beim Sprachenlernen im
Tandem. In Brammcrts & Kleppin (Eds), Selbstgesteuertes Sprachenlernen im
Tandem (p. 45-49) Tiibingen: Stauffenburg Vcrlag.

296

 

 

‘ s

fifth/UNES-

3 1293 02956 92

III

l

‘11}41