Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T04:53:06.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Learning Through Interaction

What Role Does Gender Play?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Teresa Pica ,
Lloyd Holliday ,
Nora Lewis ,
Dom Berducci  and
Jeanne Newman
Teresa Pica
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Lloyd Holliday
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Nora Lewis
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Dom Berducci
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Jeanne Newman
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This investigation of NS–NNS interaction in same- and cross-gender dyads on four information exchange tasks revealed that male and female NNSs made and received a comparable number of opportunities to request L2 input and modify interlanguage output during interaction with female NSs, but during interaction with male NSs, these opportunities were significantly lower for female than for male NNSs. In addition, more request-response exchanges were found on tasks in which either the NS or the NNS was given initial control over task-related information. Findings of the study were attributed to cultural similarities and differences in the interactional behaviors of the participants.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 343 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Brouwer, D., Gerritsen, M., & DeHaan, D. (1979). Speech differences between men and women: On the wrong track? Language in Society, 8, 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, J., O'Barr, W., & Lind, A. (1978). Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal, 2, 1375–1379.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tasks: An aid to second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who's got the floor? Language and Society, 10, 383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, P. (1983). Language, gender, and society. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp. 89–110). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Frank, F., & Anshen, F. (1983). Language and the sexes. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and NNS/NNS negotiation in meaning. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hartman, P., & Judd, E. (1978). Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1985). Some contributions of mothers' speech to their children's syntactic growth. Journal of Child Language, 12, 367–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holliday, L. (1987). NS-NNS negotiations in spoken interaction to eliminate comprehension difficulties. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Holliday, L. (1988). Let them talk: A study of native-non-native interaction in conversation. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 4, 89–100. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
Holliday, L. (forthcoming). Metalinguistic input to language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its nature, development, and origin. London: Allyn & Unwin.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (1974). Norm-makers, norm-breakers: Uses of speech by men and women in a Malagasy community. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 125–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1980). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1984, 10). The intersection of sex and class in the social origins of sound change. Paper presented at NWAVE 13, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and women's place. Language and Society, 2, 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E., Erickson, B., Conley, J., & O'Barr, W. (1979). The social significance of speech in the courtroom. In Giles, H. & Clair, R. St. (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 66–87). Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Mackay, D, & Fulkerson, D. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 661–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markham, P. (1988). Gender and perceived expertness of the speaker as factors in ESL listening recall. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martyna, W. (1978). What does “he” mean? Use of the generic masculine. Journal of Communication, 28, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Barr, W., & Atkins, B. (1980). “Women's language” or “powerless language”? In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 93–110). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Pica, T., (1987). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Falodun, J., Farrah, I., Kanagy, R., Unger, J., & Zhang, Z. (1989, 03). Communication tasks for second language learning. Paper presented at Temple University Japan Distinguished Lecture Series, Tokyo and Osaka.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., & Lewis, N. (1990, 03). NS-NNS negotiation: An equal opportunity for speech modification? Paper presented at the annual TESOL convention, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L, Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (fin press). Choosing and using communication tasks in language teaching and research. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and second language learning. London: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Porreca, K. (1984). Sexism in current ESL Textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 705–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1983). Nutritional needs of language learners. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (Eds.), On TESOL 82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching (pp. 175–189). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1984). A universal input condition. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Universals and second language acquisition (pp. 167–183). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with “context” in the interlanguage theory. Applied Linguistics, 6, 190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spender, D. (1980). Man maid language. London: Routledge & Kegan-Paul.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Treichler, P., & Kramarae, C. (1983). Women's talk in the ivory tower. Communication Quarterly, 31, 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woken, M., & Swales, J. (1988). Expertise and authority in native-nonnative conversations: The need for a variable account. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1984). Pretty is as pretty does: A speech act view of sex roles. Applied Linguistics, 5, 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1986). Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1988). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In Fine, J. (Ed.), Second language discourse: A textbook of current research (pp. 21–38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). “Don't ‘Dear’ me.” In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 79–92). New York: Praeger. (Reprinted from Working Papers in Sociolinguistics, 1978, Austin, TX: SEDL)Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversations. In Thorne, B. & Henley, N. (Eds.), Language and sex difference and dominance (pp. 105–129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1989). Identity in IL development and use. Applied Linguistics, 10, 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar