1887
Volume 111, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In the course of a preliminary analysis of data used in an investigation into the effect on the rate of interaction in the target language of the "level of proficiency" and the "type of task", some unexpected results for participation pattern led the analyst to pursue additional lines of enquiry. A decision was taken to consider gender in a subsequent analysis. Gender had been suggested by previous studies as being capable of affecting the learners' L2 access and performance. Some of the data of the wider investigation were re-analyzed with gender as an independent variable in lieu of, then together with, the level of proficiency. This paper reports on the results of the wider investigation and describes the findings of the analysis of data with gender as an independent variable. To set the scene for the discussion of the results relevant to gender, the paper discusses a sampling of studies on gender and communication. The results of the analysis concurred with those of at least four separate studies in which it had been suggested that gender tended to affect the learners1 target language access and performance in ways that may influence their language learning.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.111-112.07kas
1996-01-01
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BAIRD, J.E.
    (1976) : Sex differences in group communication: A review of relevant research. The Quarterly Journal of Speech62: 179–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BAKIR, M.
    (1986) : Sex differences in the approximation to standard Arabic: A case study. Anthropological Linguistics28 (1) : 3–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BARASCH, R.M. and JAMES, C. V.
    (eds.) (1994) : Beyond the Monitor Model Comments on Current Theory and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Boston, MA: Heinle – Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BENTON, A.H.
    (1973) : Reactions to demands to win from an opposite sex opponent. Journal of Personality 41: 430–442.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BLACK, M.B.
    (1969) : A note on gender in eliciting Ojibwa semantic structures. Anthropological Linguistics11 (6) : 177–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BOSTROM, R.N. and KEMP, A.P.
    (1968) : Type of speech, sex of speaker, and sex of subject as factors influencing persuasion. Central States Speech Journal30: 245–252.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BRADLEY, P.H.
    (1980) : Sex, competence and opinion deviation: An expectation state's approach. Communication Monographs47: 105–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1981) : The folk-linguistics of women's speech: An empirical examination. Communication Monographs48: 73–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BROOKS, L.
    (1974) : Interactive effects of sex and status on self-dis-closure. Journal of Counselling Psychology21: 469–474.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CARROLL, S. and Swain, M.
    (1993) : Explicit and implicit negative feedback. An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15 (3) : 357–386.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. CARROLL, S. , ROBERGE, Y. and SWAIN, M.
    (1992) : The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics13: 173–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. CHAUDRON, C.
    (1983) : Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners’ recognition and recall. TESOL Quarterly17 (3) : 437–458.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DOUGHTY, C. and PICA, T.
    (1984) : Small group work in the esl classroom: Does it facilitate second language acquisition? Paper at the18th Annual tesol Convention, Houston.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1986) : ‘Information gap tasks’ : An aid to second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly20 (2) : 305–325.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. DUFF, P.A.
    (1986) : Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. InR.R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: conversation in Second Language Acquisition, 147–181. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ELLEY, W. B. and MANGUBHAI, f.
    (1983) : The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly19 (1) : 53–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. ELLIS, R.
    (1985) : Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. (1990) : Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom. Oxford, etc.: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1991) : The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. InE. SADTONO (ed.), Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom. Singapore: relc.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1994) : Modified Oral Input and the Acquisition of Word Meanings. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference of the South African Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (SATESOL), 5–7August 1994, 10–45. University of the North, Northern Transvaal.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. FAECH, C. and KASPER, G.
    (1986) : The role of comprehension in second language learning. Applied Linguistics7: 257–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. FULLER, J.W. and GUNDEL, J.K.
    (1987) : Topic-prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning37 (1) : 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. GASS, S.M. and VARONIS, E.M.
    (1986) : Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. In R.R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: conversation in Second Language Acquisition, 327–251. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. GOURAN, D.S.
    (1968) : Variables related to consensus in group discussions of questions of policy. Speech Monographs36: 387–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. GXILISHE, S.
    (1994) : Is second language learning a ‘feminine’ activity? South African Journal of Higher Education8 (2) : 103–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. HUNT, K.W.
    (1966) : Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English43: 732–739.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1970) : Syntactic Maturity in Schoolchildren and Adults. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development34 (134).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. HARPER, R.
    (1970) : The effects of sex and levels of acquaintance on risk-taking in groups. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of North Dakota.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. JAMES, D. and Drakich, J.
    (1993) : Understanding differences in.amount of talk: A critical review of research. In D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and conversational Interaction, 281–312. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. JUDD, E.L.
    (1983) : The problem of applying sociolinguistic findings to TESOL: The case of male/female language. In N. Wolfson and E.L. Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, 234–241. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  31. KASANGA, L.A.
    (1994) : Task type, interaction, and second language acquisition. A study of oral productions by Zairean EFL students. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of York, United Kingdom.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (in press -a) : Peer speech repairs in efl classroom activities. Tesl Reporter, 29 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (in press -b) : Peer interaction and L2 learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52 (4).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. KAYIBA, K.
    (1988) : The effect of formal instruction on monitored and on spontaneous naturalistic interlanguage performance: A case study. TESOL Quarterly22 (3) : 509–515.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. KRASHEN, S.D.
    (1977) : The monitor model of adult second language performance. In M. Burt , H. Dulay and M. Finocchiaro (eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language, 152–161. New York: Regents.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (1978a) : The monitor model for second language acquisition. In R. Gringas (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, 1–26. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (1978b) : Second Language Acquisition. InW.O. Dingwall (ed.), A Survey of Linguistic Science. 2nd ed., 317–338. Connecticut: Greylock.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1980) : The input hypothesis. InJ.E. Alatis (ed.), Current Issues in Bilingual Education. (Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics), 168–180. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (1981) : Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford, etc.: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1982) : Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  41. (1985) : The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
  42. KRASHEN, S.D. , BUTLER, J. , BIRNBAUM, R. and ROBERSTON, J.
    (1978) : Two studies in language acquisition and language learning. I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics39/40: 73–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. LAUFER, B.
    (1990) : Why are some words more difficult than others? Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. International Review of Applied Linguistics28 (4) : 293–307.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. LEET-PELLEGRINI, H.M.
    (1980) : conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. GILES , W.P. Robinson and P. SMITH (eds.), Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. LEVENTHAL, G.S. and LANE, D.W.
    (1970) : Sex, age, and equity behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology15: 312–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. LONG, M.H.
    (1980) : Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (1981a) : Input, interaction and second language acquisition. InH. Winitz (ed.), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379), 259–278. New York: N. Y. Academy of Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1981b) : Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning31 (1) : 135–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (1983a) : Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the négotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics4 (2) : 126–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (1983b) : Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. InM. Clarke and J. Handscombe (eds.) , On TESOL ‘82, 207–225. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (1983c) : Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition5 (2) : 177–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (1983d) : Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. tesol Quarterly 17 (3) : 359–382.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. LONG, M.H. and CROOKES , G.
    (1987): Interaction points in second language classroom processes. In B.K. Das (ed.), Patterns of Classroom Interaction in Southeast Asia. 177-203. Singapore: Regional Language Centre.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. LOSCHKY, L.
    (1989): Negotiated interaction. The roles of task and culture. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Hawaii at Maoa.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. LOW, G.D. and MORRISON, D.M.
    (1980) Skyscraper. Skyscraper. Skyscraper: Some new perspectives on monitoring and the language learner. Working Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching (University of Hong Kong) 3: 30-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. MARKHAM, P.
    (1988): Gender and perceived expertness of the speaker as factors in esl listening recall. TESOL Quarterly22(3): 397-406.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. MARSHALL, J. E. , HESLIN , R.
    (1975): Boys and girls together: Sexual composition and the effect of density and group size on cohesiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology31: 952-961.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. MAYALA, N.-K.
    (1991): Learners' knowledge of verb form-function relationships at different stages in the acquisition of English as a second language: A study of college learners' interlanguage in Zaïre. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Durham, United Kingdom.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. MCHOUL, A.W.
    (1985): Two aspects of classroom interaction: Turn-taking and correction. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders13(1): 53-64.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. MCLAUGHLIN, B.
    (1978): The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning28(2): 309-332.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (1987): Theories of Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. MEDITCH, A.
    (1975): The development of sex-specific speech patterns in young children. Anthropological Linguistics17(9): 421-433.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. MEEKER, B.F. and WEITZEL-O'NEILL , P.A.
    (1977): Sex roles and interpersonal behaviour in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review42: 91-105.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. MORRISON, D.M. and LOW , G.D.
    (1983): Monitoring and the second language learner. In J.C. Richards and R.W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication, 228–250. London & New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. MUBENGA, K.-S.
    (1988) Teaching Listening Comprehension to Zairean Students: The Effect of Training on the Performance of EFL Listening Tasks. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. NSAKALA, L.
    (1990) : Errors in the speech of Zairean students of English: with reference to rate and lexical diversity. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of York, United Kingdom.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. NTAHWAKUDERWA, B.C.
    (1987) : Form and function in the interlan-guage of Zairean learners of English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. OXFORD, R.L. , Nyikos, M. and Ehrman, M.
    (1988) : Vive la difference? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals21 (4) : 321–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. PEARSON, A.B. and Lee, K.S.
    (1992) : Discourse structure of direction giving: Effects of native/nonnative speaker status and gender. TESOL Quarterly26 (1) : 113–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. PEARSON, J.C.
    (1976) : The effects of sex and sexism on the criticism of classroom speeches. Unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana University.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. (1981) : The effects of setting and gender on self-disclosure. Group and Organizational Studies: The International Journal for Group Facilitators6: 334–340.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (1985) : Gender and Communication. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm C. Brown.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. PICA, T.
    (1987) : Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics8 (1) : 3–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. PICA, T. and doughty, C.
    (1984) : The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Paper at theColloquium on Classroom-Centered Research at the 18th Annual tesol Conference, Houston.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. PICA, T. and DOUGHTY, C.
    (1985a) : Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. M. Gass and C. Madden (eds.) , Input in Second Language Acquisition, 115–132. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (1985b) : The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. InC. Faerch and G. Gasper. (eds.) , Foreign Language Learning in a Classroom Setting. Special Issue of Studies in Second Language Research 7: 233–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. (1988) : Variations in classroom interaction as a function of participation pattern and task. In J. Fine (ed.), Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research, 41–55. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. PICA, T. , DOUGHTY, C. and YOUNG, R.
    (1986) : Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications help? I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics72 (1) : 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. PICA, T. , HOLLIDAY, L. , LEWIS, N. , BERDUCCI, D. and NEWMAN, J.
    (1991) : Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition12 (2) : 343–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. PICA, T. , HOLLIDAY, L. , LEWIS, N. and MORGENTHALER, J.
    (1989) : Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11 (1) : 63–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. PICA, T. , YOUNG, R. and DOUGHTY, C.
    (1987) : The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly21 (4) : 737–758.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. RIVERS, W.
    (1987) : Interaction as the key to teaching language for communication. InW. RIVERS (ed.), Interactive Language Teaching, 3–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. SCARCELLA, R. and OXFORD, R.
    (1992) : The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. SCOTTON, C. and BERNSTEN, J.
    (1988) : Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialogue. Applied Linguistics9 (4) : 372–383.
  85. SHARWOOD-SMITH, M.
    (1986) : Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics7 (3) : 239–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. STAFFORD, C. and COVITT, G.
    (1978) : Monitor use in adult second language production. I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics39/30: 103–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. STALEY, CM.
    (1978) : Male-female use of expletives: A heck of a difference in expectations. Anthropological Linguistics20 (8) : 367–380.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. SWAIN, M.
    (1985) : Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. InS.M. Gass and C. Madden (eds.) , Input in Second Language Acquisition, 235–253. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. SWAIN, M. , LAPKIN, s. and ANDREW, CM.
    (1981) : Early French immersion later on. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development2 (1) : 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. TANNEN, D.
    (1990) : You Just Don't Understand. Women and Men in conversation. London: Virago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. TANNEN, D. ( ed. )
    (1993) : Gender and conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. UNDERWOOD, G. and Jindal, N.
    (1994) : Gender differences and effects of co-operation in a computer-based language task. Educational Research36 (1) : 63–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. WELLS, G.
    (1987) : Learning Through Interaction: The Study of Language Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. WHITE, L.
    (1987) : Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics8 (2). 95–110.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.111-112.07kas
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error