L2 Morphosyntactic Development in Text-Based Computer-
Mediated Communication
M. Rafael Salaberry
Department of Spanish Italian & Portuguese, Pennsylvania State University
ABSTRACT
It has been claimed that CMC represents an ideal environment for promoting L2 development.
Previous findings have shown the use of more complex structures in the target language in electronic
versus face-to-face environments (e.g., Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995;
Warschauer, 1996a,b). The present study compares the effect of pedagogical tasks implemented
in synchronous face-to-face tasks versus text-based computer mediated communication. The
target grammatical feature is the development of past tense verbal endings in Spanish as a second
language. The analysis reveals that the first signs of change in developmental stages of morphosyntactic
development are more clearly identified in the computer based interaction task
than in the face-to-face oral task. It is, thus, possible that aspectual distinctions marked through
morphosyntactic means are made more salient in a written interactional format that maintains
the functional focus of typical on-line face-to-face exchanges.
1. L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT IN TEXT-BASED
COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
The discourse properties of classroom (spoken) interaction have been extensively
analysed in second-language (L2) acquisition literature (e.g., Chaudron, 1988;
Day, 1986; Johnson, 1995; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). In contrast, the discourse
environment of text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC)
represents a new communication medium (e.g., Clark & Brennan, 1991; Rheingold,
1994; Spears & Lea, 1994; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Walther et al., 1994).
As a consequence, analysis of L2 development in CMC remains relatively
unexplored (but see Ortega, 1997; Thorne, 1999; Warschauer, 1997). There are
several factors that distinguish face-to-face spoken communication and text-based
CMC. For example, in text-based CMC environments, paralinguistic (intonation
Correspondence: M. Rafael Salaberry, Department of Spanish Italian & Portuguese, Pennsylvania
State University, 352 N. Burrowes, State College, PA 16802. Tel: (814)–865–1155 or
(814)–867–1677 (Home/Office). Fax: (814) 863–7944. E-mail: salaberry@psu.edu.
Manuscript submitted: April, 1999
Accepted for publication: October, 1999
Computer Assisted Language Learning 0958–8221/00/1301–0005$15.00
2000, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 5–27 © Swets & Zeitlinger
contour, stress, pitch, etc.) and nonlinguistic (nonverbal) cues are mostly absent.1
Furthermore, turn-taking is negotiated at the level of the written language and, as
a consequence, the cohesion pattern of CMC extends over a long discourse
domain (i.e., is more disconnected at the level of adjacent contributions).
Given such noticeable differences in these communication media, a number
of empirical studies have compared the effects of discourse environments (i.e.,
face-to-face versus text-based CMC) on the development of second languages.
The particular focus of most studies has been on classroom conversation patterns,
sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence, and complexity of language
structures (e.g., Beauvois, 1992; Chapman, 1996; Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992;
Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996a, b). Interestingly, most of these studies have
claimed that text-based CMC possesses several advantages over face-to-face
communication for the development of the L2. For instance, it has been claimed
that students produce more target language during text-based computer-based
interaction than in oral classroom activities (e.g., Kern 1995; Warschauer,
1996a). It has also been argued that students involved in synchronous CMC
(e.g., local area networks) show an increased level of motivation for using the
target language as well as reduced anxiety about classroom participation (e.g.,
Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996b). Finally, it has
been claimed that synchronous computer interaction fosters sociolinguistic
competence (Chapman, 1996; Chun, 1994). In sum, most previous studies have
addressed the relevance of factors brought about by CMC that may contribute
indirectly to L2 development (i.e., quantity of language production, motivation
and anxiety). Few studies, however, have directly addressed the effect of CMC
environments on the sequence and rate of development of grammatical features
of the target language such as morphology or syntax. For that purpose, the present
study will analyse the potential effect of pedagogical tasks implemented in
synchronous text-based CMC with a focus on the morphosyntactic development
of Spanish as a second language.
2. PEDAGOGICAL MANIPULATION OF TEXT-BASED CMC
CONSTRAINTS
Arguably, electronic communication may constitute a useful environment for
implementing a variety of pedagogical activities to promote and accelerate L2
development. First, text-based CMC provides a natural way to link a focus on
meaning with a focus on form. Previous pedagogical arguments that proposed
6 M.R. SALABERRY
1 One notable development in CMC environments has been the appearance of what are called
smileys or emoticons: graphic symbols that depict emotional states of the writer. Emoticons
describe facial expressions to compensate for the absence of similar information through
physical proximity normal in face-to-face contact.
an exclusive focus on meaning or an exclusive focus on form have been
replaced by the proposal that L2 instruction should focus students’ attention on
form while maintaining a focus on meaning (e.g., Johnson, 1996; Loschky &
Bley-Vroman, 1993; Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996). For instance, Bialystok
(1990, p.131, my italics) argues that ‘communication strategies . . . reflect the
ways in which the processing system extends and adapts itself to the demands
of communication. Sometimes traces are left as the system strains to achieve
the balance between intention and expression.’ Along the same lines, Tarone
(1995) argues that some interactional contexts may provide learners with the
right opportunities to expand and refine their interlanguage systems: synchronic
variation in language production is related to diachronic variation. Hence, it is
necessary to design the type of pedagogical tasks that will lead learners to pay
attention to the functional demands of the tasks at the same time that they consider
the formal means to achieve that goal. In this respect, Swain (1995, p.141)
argues that collaborative tasks ‘lead learners to reflect on their own language
production as they attempt to create meaning’. The learning goal set by
Swain—as applied for the purpose of developing morphosyntactic knowledge—
may be more easily attainable in the context of text-based electronic
communication because students’ attention to form (particularly verbal endings)
is more explicit than in normal oral discourse. At the same time, a focus
on meaning represents the ultimate goal of CMC interactions, irrespective of
the relative degree of attention to form (e.g., Chapman, 1996; Chun, 1994;
Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996a, b).
Second, goal-oriented processing of the L2 appears to be an important factor
in L2 development (e.g., Anderson, 1990; Lantolf, 1995; Schön, 1983;
Zinchenko, 1979). We note also that interaction in CMC settings is normally
associated with goal-oriented language use (e.g., e-mail discussion forums
based on voluntary participation). In consequence, text-based electronic communication
is more likely to generate a deep level of cognitive processing by
linking goals and means to obtain those objectives (see Kern, 1995;
Warschauer, 1996a, b). For instance, Zinchenko (1979, p.309) argues that
‘material connected with the goal of an action is recalled more effectively than
the same material when it is connected with the means of an action’. Similarly,
Schön (1983, p.68) claims that the reflective practitioner ‘does not keep means
and ends separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic
situation’. In the area of L2 acquisition in particular, Lantolf (1995, p.28)
claims that interacting in the L2 (Long, 1985) or noticing the formal features
of the L2 (Schmidt, 1990) are necessary but not sufficient conditions for L2
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 7
development. In turn, language play is ‘the learner “doing something” with
what they notice in their interactions with their linguistic environment’. Furthermore,
late research in the area of L2 pedagogy has shown that instructional
activities that incorporate a strong reliance on students’ goals and objectives
may be more likely to generate successful learning. For example, Gillette
(1994, p.212, my italics), following the analysis of a case study of three effective
and three ineffective second-language learners, states that the ‘the students’
goal in using a given language learning strategy helps determine its
effectiveness . . . successful language learning depends on an individual’s willingness
to make every effort to acquire an L2 rather than on superior cognitive
processing alone’.
Finally, pedagogical activities implemented in text-based CMC environments
provide L2 teachers with additional tools to focus students’ attention on
their language performance. For instance, given that electronic exchanges of
most types can be saved and archived, both learners and teachers have the
opportunity to analyse their own scripts at any time after the CMC session has
occurred (see Salaberry, in press).2 Most importantly, teachers may design various
pedagogical activities focusing students’ attention on language form which
was generated by the students themselves while negotiating meaning during
CMC sessions (e.g., Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Swain, 1995; Willis, 1996). Moreover,
the easy access to such transcripts has additional pedagogical advantages.
For instance, teachers may be better able to conduct action research given that
the collection of data does not necessarily undermine their time investment on
class preparation—a time-consuming activity for most teachers. In the following
sections I will focus on the potential advantages brought about by CMC for
the development of past-tense morphology in particular.
3. L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT IN CMC SETTINGS
Given that the development of inflectional morphology is especially emphasized
in most instructed settings at university level (at least in US institutions),
it is important to analyse the relative impact of pedagogical activities implemented
in CMC with the purpose of having an effect on the morphosyntactic
development of non-native languages. In this respect, Harley (1989) suggests
that the conditions that may have a key role in the acquisition of aspectual differences
in relatively rich inflectional languages (such as French and Spanish)
are: (a) increased frequency and saliency in the input, (b) greater and more
8 M.R. SALABERRY
2 Even though oral exchanges may be taped and transcribed as well, the investment of time
and effort is relatively high compared to the simple procedure required to generate a copy
of the electronic conversational exchange.
focused opportunities for output, (c) goal-directed interaction in small group
contexts, and (d) the appeal to students’ metalinguistic awareness. Not surprisingly,
all of these conditions appear to be representative of computer-mediated
interaction environments in L2 learning (e.g., Beauvois, 1992; Chapman, 1996;
Chun, 1994; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996a, b).
In effect, the inherent characteristics of the discourse of text-based CMC
(e.g., written mode of communication, absence of paralinguistic and nonverbal
information) may represent a pedagogically sound environment for
increasing metalinguistic awareness in the L2. As mentioned above, in normal
oral conversation the process of conveying a particular message in the L2 may
not explicitly lead to making a connection between language meaning and language
form. For instance, Sato (1988, p.393, my italics) argues that conversational
interaction is not sufficient ‘to ensure the acquisition of particular
complex syntactic structures . . . while encounters with written language, and
the more complex syntactic structures this contains, may well turn out to be
crucial’. In electronic communication, in particular, learners can rely on a
buffer zone (the editing window) that gives them the opportunity to reflect on
the best type of language form to express their ideas (an additional source of
working memory, if you will).3 In addition to this advantage, face-to-face
interactional dynamics such as managing the floor (a defining feature of oral
conversations) do not impose as high a price on attentional resources in CMC
environments as it is usually the case in spoken conversation (Clark & Brennan,
1991). Hence, participation in the type of ‘written conversation’ exemplified
by CMC may constitute a pedagogically effective learning environment
to accelerate the process of morphosyntactic development of the target language.
In the next section I will analyse the main features of past-tense inflectional
morphology in Spanish and English and the effect of functional and
formal factors on the development of past-tense endings among Spanish L2
learners.
4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF VERBAL MORPHOLOGY IN
ADULT L2 ACQUISITION
4.1. Temporality in verb morphology: Tense and aspect
In both Spanish and English, verbal morphology conveys information about
temporality as in, for instance, the distinction between present and past tense
(e.g., the ‘ed’ past tense morpheme in English). However, while the English
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 9
3 In cases when there is no such ‘buffer zone’ between writing and posting messages, the
writer still has the benefit of additional time compared to on-line oral discourse.
‘ed’ verbal ending marks tense distinctions only (i.e., past), Spanish uses a single
verbal ending to signal both tense and aspectual distinctions. The difference
between tense and aspect is important: whereas tense signals the time
reference of a situation (e.g., present versus past), aspect defines its internal
temporal contour (e.g., bounded versus unbounded). For instance, in past tense
Spanish, the perfective aspect (preterite) depicts the temporal situation as a
single unanalysable whole, whereas the imperfective (imperfect) describes the
internal temporal structure of the same situation (Comrie, 1976). The following
examples show the distinction in Spanish and English:
Juan durmió (PRET) John slept
Juan dormía (IMP) John slept/John was sleeping
Juan estaba durmiendo (IMP) John was sleeping
It should be pointed out, however, that aspectual distinctions—in both English
and Spanish—are also dependent, e.g., on the temporal features intrinsic
in the semantics of the verbal predicate in its unmarked, lexical form. Vendler
(1967) proposed a classification of verbs into four different types according to
their inherent semantic values: states (last indefinitely), activities (arbitrary
beginning and end point: process), accomplishments (inherent end point: durative),
and achievements (inherent end point, but no duration: punctual). The
following examples of verb types show the differences among lexical aspectual
classes: statives (to be, to have, to want), activities (to run, to walk, to
breathe), accomplishments (to write a novel, to build a house, to make a chair),
and achievements (to notice something/someone, to realize something, to
reach the peak). Such classification of verb types is important because Andersen
(1991) proposed that Spanish L2 learners follow a sequence of eight developmental
stages for the acquisition of verbal morphology. He further argued
that the first four acquisitional stages are dependent on the association of particular
verb types with specific verbal endings: achievements with preterite,
and states with imperfective (see also Salaberry, 1999; Wiberg, 1996).4
4.2. Learning context: Instructed and non-instructed settings
As shown above, the scope and complexity of the information about temporality
encoded in inflectional morphology posits a challenge for L2 learners.
Not surprisingly, several researchers have considered verbal endings to be
prime candidates for non-target-like acquisition (e.g., Bley-Vroman, 1989;
Coppieters, 1987; Flynn & Manuel, 1991; Paradis, 1994; Schmidt, 1995;
10 M.R. SALABERRY
4 Andersen posited that the four additional stages (5 to 8) represented the use of verbal endings
that contradicted the lexical aspectual value of the verb to account for the native-like
use of both verbal markers irrespective of verb type used.
Schwartz, 1993). For instance, Schwartz states that inflectional endings are
among the most difficult features of non-native languages for adult learners’:
‘highest amount of variability and lowest degree of success’ (p.159). Similarly,
Paradis claims that semantic distinctions such as tense–aspect contrasts are
associated with critical period effects. Interestingly, Schwartz and Paradis
(inter alia) also argue that learners with access to natural communication settings
(immersion in the target language) may be more successful than classroom
learners in learning past-tense verbal morphology. Previous data,
however, have shown that among natural learners (i.e., with no access to
explicit instruction in the L2) the development of verbal endings is a slow and
gradual process which in some cases takes years, and in others merely leads
to fossilization (e.g., Klein et al., 1995; Perdue & Klein, 1992; Sato, 1988;
Schumann, 1987). For instance, Perdue and Klein (1992) argue that during the
first stages of L2 acquisition, learners develop a basic variety of the target language
which represents an equilibrium between semantic, pragmatic, and
phrasal constraints. Perdue and Klein remark that some natural language learners
fossilize at this stage, while others develop their basic variety further to
make it conform to target-language standards. The learners who continue
developing their L2 system are the ones who perceive lexical and structural
inadequacies between the basic variety and the L2. In other words, communication
demands (functional needs) may constitute a necessary but not sufficient
condition to reach native-like mastery of the L2 (see also Sato, 1988;
Schumann, 1987).
On the other hand, some studies have shown that classroom instruction may
have an effect on L2 development (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 1995; Bergström,
1995; Buczowska & Weist, 1991; Salaberry, 1998). For instance, Bardovi-
Harlig (1995, p.157) states that ‘tutored learners seem to surpass untutored
learners in formal accuracy, an apparent advantage of instruction’. Even more
strongly, Buczowska and Weist (1991) argue that tutored L2 learners do not
follow the same developmental sequence of L1 learners or untutored L2 learners
in the acquisition of inflectional markers of tense and aspect in particular.
They further argue that the strongest version of Pienemann’s (1987, 1989)
teachability hypothesis should be revised: natural sequences only place constraints
on pedagogical practices, but they do not necessarily determine the
specific developmental stages of tutored learners. Classroom students who
have direct access to form-focused instruction, however, are faced with the
problem of having access to a limited range of contextualization of the target
language. Such contextualization appears to be essential for the processing of
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 11
discourse-based grammatical markers represented in inflectional morphology
such as tense and aspect.
It appears, then, that successful second-language learning of morphosyntactic
distinctions (e.g., verbal morphology) may be dependent on the defining
features of both academic and natural settings: a formal analysis and
practice of the target grammar structure in combination with the functional
communicative demands of linguistic interaction.5 That is to say, a principled
combination of a focus on meaning and a focus on form may increase rate and,
possibly, sequence of acquisition. In this respect, Tarone (1995) argues that
developmental stages of acquisition may be accelerated or even ‘skipped’ in
interactional contexts where the learner is forced to produce language that
challenges the current L2 system being used by the learner (see also Swain,
1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). This type of interactional context is best represented
when the interlocutor is focused solely on the learner and communicating
with her. The type of interaction based on functional demands (argued
for by Swain & Tarone), however, may not be readily available to learners in
the form of face-to-face contacts in a classroom setting.6 Alternatively, as
argued above, functional demands may, in principle, be successfully implemented
in CMC settings (Beauvois, 1992; Kern, 1995; Salaberry, 1996;
Warschauer, 1997).
5. INVESTIGATING CMC AND FACE-TO-FACE CONTACT:
A PILOT STUDY
To the best of my knowledge, there are no empirical studies that have analysed
the potential effects of text-based CMC on the development of L2 morphosyntactic
features, even though such grammatical markers figure prominently
in most classroom-based instruction. For that purpose I conducted a pilot study
to compare language used in face-to-face versus CMC conversational settings
among four classroom learners of L2 Spanish.7 More specifically, the pilot
12 M.R. SALABERRY
5 The benefits of form-focused instruction are based on the assumption that language use
varies along a style-shifting continuum that goes from unattended speech (vernacular) to
most attended speech (careful style/grammatical intuitions) (Tarone, 1988). The rules present
in the highly ‘monitored’ styles may eventually spread to the vernacular style across
time (Gatbonton, 1978).
6 Recent attempts to trigger instructional effects in the acquisition of verbal morphology based
on the implementation of pedagogical constraints (e.g., authentic readings, focused noticing
exercises, and controlled and free writing activities) have not, however, proved successful
(e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds, 1995). On the other hand, some more successful pedagogical
studies with a strong emphasis on the provision of positive input—as measured by
immediate post tests—have failed to maintain instructional gains in the long run (e.g.,
Harley, 1989, for the acquisition of French passé composé–imparfait).
7 Most previous empirical studies on the acquisition of L2 aspect have relied on the analysis
of data from a limited number of subjects: a single learner (e.g., Kumpf, 1984; Robison,
1990; Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Trévise, 1987), two learners (Andersen, 1991; Sato, 1988), or
up to ten subjects (Schumann, 1987).
study focused on the use of past-tense verbal morphology in L2 Spanish across
three language tasks (written grammar test, face-to-face interaction and electronic
interaction). The study addressed two research questions:
1. What are some of the most obvious features of the communication patterns
exemplified in text-based electronic interaction compared to face-to-face
interaction?
2. Is the use of morphological markers of temporality negatively and equally
affected by increased functional demands present in both face-to-face and
text-based electronic interaction vis-à-vis the use of similar verbal endings
in the controlled grammar task?
5.1. Subjects
The data for the present study are represented by three tasks performed by four
English-speaking students studying Spanish as a second language at a major
research university in the US. The following is a brief description of the most
important characteristics of the academic background of each subject (see
Table 1 for a summary).
S1 took Spanish in high school and completed the first two academic
semesters of Spanish at college level. At the time of the first interview she
was enrolled in the lower-level third semester Spanish course. She was planning
to continue studying Spanish in the future because she had enjoyed her
experience at the college. S2 had had extensive experience with Spanish at
the high school level (4 years) and had taken the lower-level third semester
of Spanish in college. He was enrolled in the upper-level third semester class
at the time of the interview to fulfill the language requirement of his department.
S3 studied Latin in high school because he thought it was easier than
other ‘spoken’ languages. He took the first two academic semesters of Spanish
at the college level and he was enrolled in the upper-level third semester
course at the time of the interview. He was an English major and he was
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 13
Table 1. Summary of Learners’ Academic Background.
High school (years) College (semesters) Course level
Subject 1 2 2 Lower 3rd
Subject 2 4 1 Upper 3rd
Subject 3 0 2 Upper 3rd
Subject 4 4 (French) 2 Upper 3rd
planning to take a course in Spanish literature in the future. S4 studied
French in high school. At college level she had taken the first two academic
semesters of Spanish and she was taking the upper-level third semester class
at the time of the experiment. She had spent one year in France as an
exchange student and was fluent in French. While in France she visited
Spain for two weeks.
5.2. Procedure of data collection
The analysis of the development of Spanish past-tense morphology is important
because, as mentioned above, past tense aspectual distinctions in Spanish
(i.e., preterite and imperfect) are not explicitly represented in English inflectional
morphology. For the purpose of this study, only three broad stages of the
developmental sequence proposed by Andersen will be considered for the
analysis of data: present tense (no past-tense marking), preterite (achievements
and accomplishments), and imperfect (states).8
The four participants were asked to perform the following three main tasks:
1. A 28-item written cloze test based on a series of vignettes depicting the
main events of the Hitchcock movie Psycho as in the following example:
1. El jefe (darle) dinero a la empleada para
depositar en el banco. (Trabajar) para la compañía,
pero no (estar) contenta y (querer)
otro trabajo.
The boss (to give) money to the employee to
deposit in the bank. (To work) for the company, but
she (negative—to be) happy and (to
want) another job.
In terms of lexical aspect, the 28 verbs corresponded to 14 telic events
(achievements), 6 atelic events (activities) and 8 statives. In terms of inflectional
morphology, native speakers agreed on the use of the preterite as appropriate
in 17 out of the 28 items. It was assumed that the conditions for the task
(e.g., relaxed time constraints compared to other tasks) were likely to increase
the degree of attention to language form (e.g., Ellis, 1987; Ochs, 1978). The
data from this task were used as base-line data for the assessment of the learners’
use of past-tense verbal endings in L2 Spanish, in conditions that allowed
for a high level of monitoring of form.
14 M.R. SALABERRY
8 An alternative approach is to analyse the use of past-tense aspectual markers with regard to
discourse factors such as foreground–background contrasts. However, there is an inherent
overlap in the prediction offered by the account based on the lexical semantic value of the
predicate and the discourse-based approach, since completed events and punctual events
sometimes define the notion of foreground (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 1995, p.266). Furthermore,
Bardovi-Harlig claims that the distinction of the predictions of each approach ‘may be too
fine-grained for a study of interlanguage’ (p.286).
2. An informal oral interview in which the learners spoke about their experiences
learning Spanish in both academic and non-academic settings. The
interviews were conducted by the researcher and two students were interviewed
at once to generate as much student–student interaction as possible.9
3. An informal computer-mediated written exchange based mostly on the
topic of what the students did over the weekend. Computer mediation was
accomplished with the software program ‘Aspects’. The conversation
exchanges occurred in real time.10
The oral interview lasted approximately one hour for each pair of subjects,
and was audiotaped, videotaped and transcribed in its entirety (the total
amount of recorded time for all interviews was approximately two hours and
forty minutes). For the collection of data in the CMC session the software program
‘Aspects’ was loaded to several computer terminals facing the wall in a
regular classroom to avoid possible eye contact among participants. Discussions
in ‘Aspects’—unlike e-mail lists—represent a synchronous type of communication:
sending and receiving messages is almost instantaneous. In the
chat session of the ‘Aspects’ program the students type their messages on the
bottom half of the screen where they can edit their comments before sending
them. When participants hit the ‘enter’ key messages are posted to all participants
logged on that session. Messages are appended to previously posted
messages and students can scroll back and forth the top half of the screen to
review previously posted messages. All messages were identified by the name
of the sender. At the end of each session the transcript of the discussion was
saved and printed for the present analysis. As was the case for the oral interview,
each CMC session lasted approximately one hour.
6. DATA ANALYSIS
The data were analysed with respect to the use of morphological markers of
past tense (verb endings) in the three different contexts represented in this
study. The type of data collected for this study did not allow for the use of
inferential statistics. In contrast, the analysis was mostly qualitative as the
nature of this exploratory study was intended to analyse the factors that should
be considered in the research design of more controlled studies. The data, however,
were quantified when necessary for the purpose of showing general
trends in the use of past-tense verbal morphology across tasks.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 15
9 In one case, one student (S1) was alone during the oral interview because the other participant
scheduled for that session had dropped out of the study. On the other hand, S4 was interviewed
with a fifth participant who did not complete the grammar task and whose data were,
consequently, not considered for this analysis.
10 There was a delay time of at least one week and not more than two weeks between each task
(the differences in delay times were due to particular constraints of the students’ schedules).
The results of the first task (grammar test) were transformed into percentages
of adequate suppliance of past-tense verbs (correct options were determined
by means of judgement data from three native speakers who reached
100% agreement in their choices). The percentages of correct responses per
subject are shown in Table 2. As we can see, all learners supplied a high percentage
of the past-tense forms of the verbs represented in the passage. Furthermore,
the incorrect use of the morphological markers of past tense (i.e.,
preterite or imperfect) was relatively low (except for the case of subject 2). In
sum, all learners demonstrated a relatively high level of knowledge of the target
grammatical structure when they were provided with adequate amounts of
planning time.
The data from the interaction tasks were tabulated in a similar way. First, all
verbs referring to a past time context were coded for verbal morphology. Then
the number of verbs used by each learner was counted and later classified by
aspectual marking in both the oral and electronic communication sessions.11
Tables 3 and 4 show the results from the open-ended communication tasks. A
comparative analysis of these data shows that the length of the conversational
exchanges mediated by computer was shorter than similar exchanges in the oral
conversation. This is not surprising because typing a response requires more
time than simply providing an oral response. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of
the transcripts showed that students were more likely to shift the focus of the
conversation during the electronic communication sessions than in the face-toface
session. Hence, the researcher was less likely to keep the focus of the discussion
on past-tense events. As a consequence of the above-mentioned factor,
the number of verb tokens in past-tense contexts was lower for the computermediated
conversation. In the following section I will present a more extended
analysis of the data with respect to the potential different outcomes between
interactional settings (i.e., CMC and face-to-face environments).
16 M.R. SALABERRY
11 The number of verbs marked with present tense reported in Tables 3 and 4 corresponds to
verbs used in past-tense temporal contexts: present tense instead of imperfective or perfective
past tense.
Table 2. Results of Grammar Task in Percentages.
Subject Use of past tense Incorrect (preterite/imperfect)
S1 28 (100%) 0/0 (0%)
S2 23 (81%) 5/2 (25%)
S3 21 (93%) 0/3 (11%)
S4 27 (97%) 0/1 (4%)
7. DISCUSSION
The present discussion will focus on three major factors arguably represented
in these data: use of verbal morphology, evidence of scaffolding, and indicators
of power relationships. First, with respect to the use of past-tense verbal
morphology across tasks, some initial changes in the development of morphological
endings were more evident in the CMC session than in the oral session.
Two other findings were related to the nature of the interaction across
communication media: interlocutor scaffolding was likely to promote the use
of target-like morphological markers of past tense in both electronic and faceto-
face environments, and power relationships among interlocutors were more
salient in the face-to-face session than in the oral session (e.g., limited
researcher’s control of the use of the target grammatical form in the CMC session).
I will discuss these findings in the order in which they were presented.
First, it is important to point out that the CMC session shared at least one
important feature with each one of the other two tasks: it was an open-ended,
on-line communication task (cf. face-to-face oral conversation) and it was
implemented in a written environment (cf. grammar task). In consequence, the
written format of the CMC session was expected to increase the likelihood that
learners would monitor language form (cf. Sato, 1988), at the same time that
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 17
Table 3. Verbal Predicates Used in Past Time Contexts in the Face-to-Face
Conversation.
Speaker Verb tokens Preterite Imperfect Present
S1 57 39 (68%) 2 (4%) 16 (28%)
S2 70 54 (77%) 10 (14%) 6 (9%)
S3 67 34 (51%) 33 (49%) 0 (0%)
S4 107 37 (35%) 70 (65%) 0 (0%)
Table 4. Verbs Used in Past Time Contexts in the CMC Session.
Speaker Verb tokens Preterite Imperfect Present
S1 36 29 (81%) 3 (9%) 3 (9%)
S2 17 16 (94%) 1 (6%) 0
S3 37 25 (68%) 12 (32%) 0
S4 39 21 (54%) 18 (46%) 0
the functional demands of the CMC task were made comparable to the functional
goals implemented in the oral face-to-face session. Indeed, the data
revealed some differences in the use of past-tense markers across interactional
settings that may signal developmental changes. For instance, whereas both S1
and S2 used present-tense morphology in contexts requiring past-tense marking
in the oral face-to-face setting, the same learners rarely used present tense
during interactions in the CMC session (cf. data from Tables 3 and 4). Furthermore,
a more detailed analysis of types and tokens of the data reveals that
some learners marked some verbs with both past-tense markers (i.e., preterite
and imperfect) in the CMC session but not in the face-to-face session. For
instance, S3 used the imperfect past-tense marker 33 times (tokens) with seven
verb types in the face-to-face session: 24 tokens of the total number (approximately
75%) corresponded to two verbs: tener (to have) with 8 tokens and ser
(to be) with 16 tokens. In contrast, in the data from the electronic interaction,
S3 used the verb tener three times with the imperfective and twice with the perfective,
and the verb ser once with the imperfective and five times with the perfective.
That is, S3 started to mark stative verbs with both past-tense markers
(i.e., imperfect and preterite), and in so doing he appears to be moving away
from exclusive reliance on the use of a single verbal ending (imperfect) for stative
verbs (e.g., to be and to have). Recall that within Andersen’s framework
such behaviour represents a closer approximation to target-like performance.
It is important to point out that, in the above-mentioned data, S3 was not
merely shifting the use of aspectual markers associated with stative verbs from
imperfective to perfective. For instance, in the following excerpt from the
CMC task the stative verb tener que (to have to) was marked with perfective:
R: Muy bien ¿Cómo pasaste el fin de semana?
S3: Bien. Tuve que ir a la ciudad de Nueva York para ver al doctor.
R: Well. How was your weekend?
S3: Good. I had to go to NY to see the doctor.
However, a few turns later the same student used the imperfective marker,
a reflection, perhaps, of the yet unstable nature of this incipient developmental
stage.
R: ¿Qué recuerdas de la operación?
S3: Tenía que esperar en la sala de esperas por más tiempo que
tenía que estar en el salón.
R: What do you remember from the operation?
18 M.R. SALABERRY
S3: I had to wait in the waiting room for a longer time than I had
to spend in the (operation) room.
The importance of the above-mentioned example is that the learner appears
to be approximating native-speaker standards in which the use of past-tense
verbal endings reflects semantic aspectual distinctions not represented in the
learner’s native language.
A final difference between interactional settings that should be noted is the
fact that the percentage of verbs marked with imperfective is lower in the electronic
communication environment than in the face-to-face session. This is
possibly due to the fact that background information (correlated with imperfective
aspect) is more likely to be expressed in longer pieces of discourse (oral
discourse) (see Silva-Corvalán, 1983). In sum, the above-mentioned contrasts
in the use of past-tense morphology across communication environments were
based on the analysis of specific developmental features of the acquisition of
past-tense marking (cf. Andersen, 1986, 1991; Salaberry, 1999) that may have
important consequences for language development. In particular, it was shown
that the first signs of change in past-tense morphological marking were more
evident in the CMC setting than the face-to-face session. Arguably, the specific
characteristics of the medium of communication represented in CMC may
increase the chances that learners will focus their attention on both function
and form, thereby increasing the likelihood that morphological development
will occur in such an environment rather than in face-to-face settings (see Salaberry,
in-press; Thorne, 1999).12
Apart from the analysis of the use of verbal morphology, it is important to
note two relevant differences in interactional dynamics between each communication
medium. First, both conversational settings reflected a relative
degree of scaffolding. Scaffolding is defined here as the conditions created by
a knowledgeable person that may help the less experienced participant extend
and improve his/her knowledge of the language system (e.g., Donato, 1994).
The process of scaffolding, however, was most evident in the electronic communication
session. For instance, the following exchanges between S1 and the
researcher in the CMC session reveal the powerful effect of a knowledgeable
peer in the use of a morphological marker not completely under the control of
the learner (see Ahmed & Lantolf, 1994; Donato, 1994).
R: ¿Por qué? ¿Qué hacían que no te gustaba S1?
S1: En clase, hacíamos ejercicios que no los ayudan. Todos los
ejercicios estaban muy aburrido.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 19
12 In fact, it is possible that the small scale of this exploratory study was not sufficient to reveal
substantial quantitative differences across treatments. Subsequent studies based on a larger
number of subjects may provide confirmatory data of the above-mentioned trend identified
in the present study.
R: Why? What did you do that you didn’t like S1?
S1: In class we did exercises that do not help. All the exercises were
very boring.
In fact, the previous potentially pedagogical environment was also representative
of interactions among learners as was the following case between S3
and S1:
S3: Un hombre necesitaba dinero y él tenía dos hombres se lleva a
su marida.
S1: ¿Por qué necesitaba dinero? ¿Por qué no trabaja?
S3: A man needed money and he had two men take his wife.
S1: Why did he need money? Why doesn’t he work?
In essence, the process of scaffolding triggered the few instances of the use
of imperfect by S1. Arguably, this process may have been more successful in
the CMC session for a variety of reasons, most likely a combination of them,
including access to the written medium as well as the reliance on more opportunities
for interaction with other students (see below).
Another important factor related to interactional dynamics was that the different
demands of each communication medium generated differences in
power relationships. In effect, the nature of the power relationship of normal
face-to-face communication was represented differently in the CMC environment
(see Clark & Brennan, 1991; Spears & Lea, 1994; Walther et al., 1994;
inter alia). For instance, as mentioned in the data collection procedure, the particular
agenda of the interviewer (researcher) was to trigger as many instances
of past time contexts as possible in both communication settings. This goal
was easy to accomplish during face-to-face interaction as revealed by the fact
that students never changed the major topic of discussion initiated by the
researcher even though they were encouraged to do so from the very beginning.
In the following excerpt S1 and S2 took turns to address the question
posed by the researcher (responses show only opening statements from each
speaker).
R: ¿Cómo aprendieron español?
S1: Cuando era en la escuela secundaria . . .
S2: Ah tomé cuatros años de español en la escuela secundaria . . .
S1: Sí, yo también la escuela secundaria . . .
R: How did you learn Spanish?
20 M.R. SALABERRY
S1: When uhm I was in high school uhm . . .
S2: Ah I took four years of Spanish in high school . . .
S1: Yes, I did too . . .
In contrast, the written mode of the CMC session altered the sense of the
immediacy of face-to-face communication, with the consequence that students
were more likely to bring forth their own agendas and to challenge the
researcher’s selection of discussion topics. Sometimes students ignored the
researcher’s questions and, in other cases, they provided succinct answers followed
by their own personal questions about other topics (which they
addressed to other students):
R: ¿Qué hacían?
R: Me refiero a clases de español que ustedes tomaron antes.
S2: ¿S1, qué tipo de cerveze te gusta?
S2: Cerveza, lo siento.
S1: Escucho a música, como, hablo con mis compañeros, y bailo.
S1: No tomo cervezas.
S2: ¿Bailas en clase?
S2: Creo que no.
R: What did you do?
R: I’m talking about the Spanish classes that you took before.
S2: S1, what type of beer do you like?
S2: Beer I mean.
S1: I listen to music, eat, speak with my classmates, and I dance.
S1: I don’t drink beer.
S2: Do you dance in class?
S2: I don’t think so.
The previous finding is not surprising considering that both roles and topics
may be affected by the context in which the data are collected. For instance,
Coughlan and Duff (1994, p.189) state that in laboratory-like tasks ‘participants
may subvert the immediate goal . . . in their search for appropriate interactional
roles during the course of a task’. Arguably, the characteristics of the
medium represented in CMC provided students with a more likely
environment than the face-to-face session to depart from the established goals
prompted by the researcher. In fact, Swain (1995) describes the reasons why
an empirical study targeting the use of aspectual distinctions in L2 French did
not reveal any differences in the use of the selected target grammatical
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 21
structure. The analysis of the transcripts of students’ talk-on-task revealed that
‘the researcher’s goal (in this case to focus students’ attention on the passé
composé and imparfait) was to a considerable extent undermined in the sense
that students set their own agenda as to what they discussed, according to their
linguistic needs in expressing their intended meaning’ (p.140).13
In sum, it may be argued that communication in an electronic environment
will have an impact on various patterns of classroom interaction, which, in
turn, may have consequences on the L2 acquisition process. For instance,
Johnson (1995, p.90) argues that ‘patterns of classroom communication that
are established and maintained between teachers and students will influence
students’ opportunities to use language for classroom learning and for second
language acquisition’. In fact, even before the extended use of computer technology,
Tikhomirov (1979, p.276, my italics) argued that, with the extended
use of computers for data storing and communication, ‘we are confronted . .
. with the reorganization of human activity and the appearance of new forms
of mediation in which the computer as a tool of mental activity transforms
this very activity’. In this respect, CMC may constitute ‘a new communication
environment capable of creating new conditions for language interaction’.
Furthermore, as stated above, if students are able to participate in L2
exchanges according to their own agendas it is more likely that their use of
the target language will be goal-directed (Anderson, 1990; Zinchenko, 1979).
Finally, the fact that students were more likely to bring up new topics for discussion
in the CMC session than in the face-to-face session (usually related
to opinions, social activities and routines instead of narratives of their academic
experience) has research methodological consequences. That is, the
lower use of past tense morphology—as a consequence of topic-shifting—in
the CMC session represents an experimental constraint to be considered in
future studies.
8. CONCLUSION
The appearance and rapid establishment of a new communication medium,
variously represented by e-mail exchanges, electronic bulletin boards, and,
especially, synchronous CMC—has presented L2 researchers and pedagogues
with new challenges and potential for language development. In particular, it
has been claimed that CMC may represent an ideal environment for promoting
L2 development. Previous findings have shown the use of more complex
22 M.R. SALABERRY
13 In fact, Swain did find significant differences between experimental groups in other measurements
of L2 production other than past-tense verbal endings.
structures in the target language in electronic versus face-to-face environments
(e.g., Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996a, b).
In contrast, the present analysis has been restricted to the study of a single
morphosyntactic feature: past-tense verbal endings in L2 Spanish. The analysis
of data from the present study revealed that the first signs of change in
developmental stages of morphosyntactic development were more clearly
identified in the computer-based interaction task than in the face-to-face oral
task. It is, thus, possible that aspectual distinctions marked through morphosyntactic
means are made more salient in a written interactional format
that maintains the functional focus of typical on-line face-to-face
exchanges.14 Furthermore, the present study has provided additional support
for previous arguments about the likelihood that power relationships are differently
instantiated in electronic and face-to-face environments, that interlocutor
scaffolding may be equally beneficial in both interactional settings,
and that CMC sessions introduce novel methodological factors for the analysis
of L2 discourse data.
As a final caveat, it is important to add that the findings from this pilot study
are preliminary. Needless to say, no claim is made as to the validity or generalization
of this pilot study. In contrast, the main purpose of this study was the
identification and analysis of the various factors and constraints that should be
considered in the implementation of a full-scale research study for the eventual
pedagogical design of L2 activities based on the use of new technological
tools. The previous analysis of several factors identified in these data will,
hopefully, provide a point of departure for more extensive studies.
REFERENCES
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994) ‘Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning
in the zone of proximal development’, Modern Language Journal 78: 465–83.
Andersen, R. (1991) ‘Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in second
language acquisition’, in T. Huebner & C. Ferguson (eds) Crosscurrents in Second Language
Acquisition and Linguistic Theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anderson, J. (1990) Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: Freeman.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1994) ‘Anecdote or evidence? Evaluating support for hypotheses concerning
the development of tense and aspect’, in E. Tarone, S. Gass & A. Cohen (eds)
Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995) ‘A narrative perspective on the development of the tense/aspect system
in second language acquisition’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17:
263–89.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 23
14 The low cognitive saliency of the aspectual marker of past tense in Spanish is determined at
the levels of perceptual complexity (bound morpheme) and semantic complexity (discoursebased
nature of point-of-view aspect).
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Reynolds, D. (1995) ‘The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense
and aspect’, TESOL Quarterly 29: 107–31.
Beauvois, M. (1997) ‘High-tech, high-touch: From discussion to composition in the networked
classroom’, Computer Assisted Language Learning 10: 57–69.
Bergström, A. (1995) The Expression of Past Temporal Reference by English-Speaking Learners
of French. PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
Bialystok, E. (1990) Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second Language
Use. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989) ‘The logical problem of second language learning’, in S. Gass & J.
Schachter (eds) Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Buczowska, E. & Weist, R. (1991) ‘The effects of formal instruction on the second language
acquisition of temporal location’, Language Learning 41: 535–54.
Chapman, D. (1996) Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and Japanese Immersion: A
Case Study on Developing Sociolinguistic Competence Through E-mail. Paper read at
Symposium on New Technologies and Less Commonly Taught Languages, at University
of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chun, D. (1994) ‘Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence’,
System 22: 17–31.
Clark, H. & Brennan, S. (1991) ‘Grounding in communication’, in L. Resnick, J. Levine & S.
Teasley (eds) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Comrie, B. (1976) Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coppieters, R. (1987) Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language
63: 544–73.
Coughlan, P. & Duff, P. (1994) ‘Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an
activity theory perspective’, in J. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds) Vygotskyan Approaches to
Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dietrich, R., Klain, W. & Noyau, C. (1995) The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Language.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Donato, R. (1994) ‘Collective scaffolding in second language learning’, in J. Lantolf & G. Appel
(eds) Vygotskyan Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ellis, R. (1987) ‘Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the
past tense’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 1–20.
Flynn, S. & Manuel, S. (1991) ‘Age-dependent effects in language acquisition: An evaluation
of “critical period” hypotheses’, in L. Eubank (ed.) Point Counterpoint: UG in the Second
Language, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Gatbonton, E. (1978) ‘Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech: a gradual diffusion
model’, Canadian Modern Language Review 34: 335–47.
Gillette, B. (1994) ‘The role of learner goals in L2 success’, in P. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds)
Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Harley, B. (1989) ‘Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment’, Applied
Linguistics 10: 331–59.
Herring, S. (1996) Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural
Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24 M.R. SALABERRY
Johnson, K. (1995) Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. (1996) Language Teaching and Skill Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kelm, O. (1992) ‘The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction:
A preliminary report’, Foreign Language Annals 25: 441–545.
Kern, R.G. (1995) ‘Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on
quantity and characteristics of language production’, The Modern Language Journal 79:
457–76.
Kumpf, L. (1984) ‘Temporal systems and universality in interlanguage: A case study’, in F.R.
Eckman, L.H. Bell and D. Nelson (eds) Universals of Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lantolf, J. (1995) The Function of Language Play in the Acquisition of L2 Spanish. Paper read
at Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish as a first or second language, at Penn State
University.
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993) ‘Grammar and task-based methodology’, in G. Crookes
and S. Gass (eds) Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon,
GB: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (1999) Aspectual Tenses in Spanish L2 Acquisition: A UG Perspective.
Paper read at AAAL Annual Meeting, at Stamford, CT.
Ochs, E. (1979) ‘Planned and unplanned discourse’, in T. Givón (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol
12: Discourse and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.
Ortega, L. (1997) ‘Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the
research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion’, Language Learning &
Technology 1: 82–93.
Paradis, M. (1994) ‘Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for
bilingualism and SLA’, in N. Ellis (ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages.
London: Academic Press.
Perdue, C. & Klein, W. (1992) ‘Why does the production of some learners not grammaticalize?’
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 259–72.
Pienemann, M. (1987) ‘Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages’, in C.W. Pfaff
(ed.) First and Second Language Acquisition Processes. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pienemann, M. (1989) ‘Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses’,
Applied Linguistics 10: 52–79.
Rheingold, H. (1994) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New
York: Harper Perennial.
Robison, R. (1990) ‘The primacy of aspect: Aspectual marking in English interlanguage’, Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 12: 315–30.
Salaberry, R. (1996) ‘A theoretical framework for the design of CMC pedagogical activities’,
CALICO 14: 5–36.
Salaberry, R. (1998) ‘The development of aspectual distinctions in classroom L2 French’, Canadian
Modern Language Review 54 (4): 504–42.
Salaberry, R. (1999) ‘The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2
Spanish’, Applied Linguistics 20 (2): 151–78.
Salaberry, R. (in press) ‘Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: Learning
objectives and technological capabilities’, Modern Language Journal 84 (1): 26–37.
Sato, C. (1988) ‘Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development’, Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 10: 371–95.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 25
Schmidt, R. (1995) ‘Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of
attention and awareness in learning’, in R. Schmidt (ed.) Attention and Awareness in Foreign
Language Learning. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii.
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986) ‘Developing basic conversational ability in a second language:
A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese’, in R. Day (ed.) Talking to Learn: Conversation
in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
Schumann, J. (1987) ‘The expression of temporality in basilang speech’, Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 9: 21–41.
Schwartz, B. (1993) ‘On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic
behavior’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 147–63.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1983) ‘Tense and aspect in oral Spanish narrative: Context and meaning’,
Language 59: 760–80.
Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Spears, R. & Lea, M. (1994) ‘Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated
communication’, Communication Research 21: 427–59.
Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986) ‘Reducing social contract cues: Electronic mail in organization’,
Management Science 32: 1492–512.
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 honor of H.G.
Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995) ‘Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:
A step towards second langauge learning’, Applied Linguistics 16 (3): 371–91.
Tarone, E. (1988) Variation in Interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.
Tarone, E. (1995) ‘A variationist framework for SLA research: Examples and pedagogical
insights’, in F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham & R. Rutkowski (eds) Second
Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Thorne, S. (1999) Beyond Bounded Activity Systems: Heterogeneous Cultures in Instructional
Uses of Persistent Conversation. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State
University.
Tikhomirov (1979) ‘The psychological consequences of computerization’, in J. Wertsch (ed.)
The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. New York: Sharpe, Inc.
Vendler, Z. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Walther, J., Anderson, J. & Park, D. (1994) ‘Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction:
A metaanalysis of social and antisocial communication’, Communication
Research 21 (4): 460–87.
Warschauer, M. (1996a) ‘Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language
classroom’, CALICO 13: 7–25.
Warschauer, M. (1996b) ‘Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication’,
in M. Warschauer (ed.) Telecommunication in Foreign Language Learning: Proceedings
of the Hawaii Symposium. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second
Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Warschauer, M. (1997) ‘Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice’, Modern
Language Journal 81: 470–81.
Wiberg, E. (1996) ‘Reference to past events in bilingual Italian–Swedish children of school
age’, Linguistics 34: 1087–114.
26 M.R. SALABERRY
Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Edinburgh, England: Longman.
Zinchenko, P. (1979) ‘Involuntary memory and the goal-directed nature of activity’, in J.
Wertsch (ed.) The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. New York: Sharpe, Inc.
L2 MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT 27

source: https://webspace.utexas.edu/mrs2429/www/Salaberry2000CALL.pdf