“Three months on, I still sound like an Anglophone”: Tales of Success and Failure told by English and French Tandem Partners
Abstract
This paper reports on two ways in which success and failure can be operationalized and quantified in a non-institutional L2 learning context such as language tandem setting. We draw on the SITAF database, where we gathered 25 hours of video-recorded conversations held by 21 pairs, each consisting of a native speaker of English and a native speaker of French. The tandems performed collaborative tasks in both languages, thus giving each participant ample opportunity to be both the ‘expert’ and the ‘novice’ (learner) part of the dialogue. The tandem partners met regularly and autonomously outside of the recording sessions, and making progress in their L2 was one of their declared goals. Two possible measures of success in achieving this goal are: (1) the quality and quantity of learner uptake which followed the expert’s corrective feedback (CF) during the recorded conversations. Significant differences between the two L1 groups were observed: while 52% of the CF given by the native French speakers met with total uptake, over 52% of the English CF generated no uptake at all; (2) the participants’ own narratives of progress, as both the experts and the learners, obtained through questionnaires they filled out at the end of the program. Our study aims to contribute to the discussion on the stakes of successful L2 informal learning (with a focus on the acquisition of L2 pronunciation) by adopting a perspective which combines learners’ spoken output data and learners’ perceptions of their own language learning activity.
Keywords
corrective feedback; tandem learning; uptake; phonetic developmen
References
Brammerts, H., & Calvert, M. (2003). Learning by communicating in tandem. In T. Lewis & L. Walker (Eds.), Autonomous language learning in tandem (pp. 45–59). Academy Electronic Publications.
Cedefop (2014). Terminology of European education and training policy: A selection of 130 terms (2nd ed.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications/4117
Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘native versus non-native speaker’. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 236–240.
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1–21.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
El Tatawy, M. (2002). Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2, 1–19.
Escudero, P., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2001). Reinventing the native speaker: or ‘What you never wanted to know about the native speaker so never dared to ask’. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1(1), 275–286.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Blackwell.
Horgues, C., & Scheuer, S. (2014). “I understood you, but there was this pronunciation thing…”: L2 pronunciation feedback in English/French tandem interactions. Research in Language, 12(2), 145–161.
Horgues, C., & Scheuer, S. (2015). Why some things are better done in tandem? In J. A. Mompeán & J. Fouz-González (Eds.), Investigating English pronunciation: Trends and directions (pp. 47–82). Palgrave Macmillan.
Horgues, C., & Scheuer, S. (2018). L2 pronunciation feedback in English-French tandem conversations. In J. Volín & R. Skarnitzl (Eds.), Pronunciation of English by speakers from other languages (pp. 260–281). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (Special Issue 2), 265–302.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85–110). Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., Gass. S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.). (2021). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press.
O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433–466.
Paikeday, T. (1985). The native speaker is dead! Paikeday Publishing.
Saito, K. (2021). Effects of corrective feedback on second language pronunciation development. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 407–428). Cambridge University Press.
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
Scheuer, S., & Horgues, C. (2020). Corrective feedback in English/French spoken tandem interactions. In C. Tardieu & C. Horgues (Eds.), Redefining tandem language and culture learning in higher education (pp. 147–160). Routledge.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field. NALL [Research Network on New Approaches to Lifelong Learning] Working Paper, 19.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392.
Slavkov, N., Melo-Pfeifer, S., & Kerschhofer-Puhalo, N. (2022). The changing face of the “native speaker”: Perspectives from multilingualism and globalization. De Gruyter Mouton.
Wakisaka, M. (2018). Face-to-face tandem and etandem: Differences that influence the maintenance of tandem learning activities. Revista Do GEL, 15(3), 42–5
Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 France
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8772-1051
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
1. License
The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.
If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".
ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).
3. User Rights
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
4. Co-Authorship
If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.
