Jean W. LeLoup and Robert Ponterio, SUNY Cortland; Moderators, FLTeach

Foreign language (FL) teachers have always been ahead of the curve in integrating technology in FL instruction and learning, seeing the benefits of technology even without an extant research database to confirm their judgment. The number of computer applications, communications technologies, and sheer volume of offerings on the Internet has grown at an amazing rate over the past 15 years, and many FL educators, heeding instinct, common sense, and anecdotal information, have embraced these new technologies as useful instructional tools. There is, however, a small but increasingly vocal cadre of second language acquisition (SLA) researchers who question whether the use of new technologies in language instruction furthers second language acquisition (Chapelle, 1997; Cubillos, 1998; Ervin, 1993; Garrett, 1991). Researchers lament the lack of sufficient empirical evidence to support this general belief (Burston, 1996; Salaberry, 1996) and have attempted to collect such evidence through literature reviews and calls for principled and theoretically based studies (Chapelle, 1997; Liu, Moore, Graham, & Lee, 2002; Warschauer, 1997; Zhao, 1996).

Conceptual Framework

Before discussing the effects of technology use on SLA, we must first delineate a theoretical perspective through which to view the research. While there are several competing theories of SLA, much of the research supports an interactionist position, underscoring the concomitant effects of the external linguistic environment and internal individual learner variables on language acquisition (Ellis, 1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). The tenets of comprehensible input, intake, output, negotiation of meaning, and attention to both form and meaning are posited to have an impact on a learner’s interlanguage progression. Sociocultural perspectives on language learning, as influenced by the work of Vygotsky (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Warschauer, 1997), provide a complementary position that considers language learners in direct relation to their social and cultural surroundings and condition. This theoretical background—reflecting both interactionist and sociocultural perspectives on second language acquisition—will frame the discussion in this digest.

While a broad range of technologies may support teaching, this digest will examine those technologies involved in computer and Internet use for purposes of FL instruction and learning and will use the term CALL (computer-assisted language learning) to include “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning” (Levy, 1997).

Problems with the Research Base

Lack of consensus. Researchers have yet to come to agreement on just what promotes and what hinders SLA. Much of the technology research base is centered on the investigation of computer use that facilitates or promotes those things that we believe aid language acquisition (e.g., interaction, target language input and output, acculturation, motivation) rather than on the measurement of outcomes. Therefore, much of the research base deals with analysis of learner discourse, self-report data, and qualitative surveys on affective reactions to technology use. Whether or not a causal relationship exists between these variables and learning outcomes or even if they are relevant influences remains a matter of speculation by researchers.

Limited population of subjects. Most research on SLA and technology use has been carried out using subject populations at the college level. Very little research in this area has been done at the K–12 level, but this is where most language instruction takes place in the United States.

Mixed methodologies. Some studies are qualitative while others are quantitative. Many analyses combine an array of studies, including some that are purely experimental and others that employ descriptive statistics. Mixed methodologies and heavy reliance on self-report data present additional difficulties in categorizing and generalizing across studies.

Impact of the technology medium. Many studies fail to take into consideration or control for the potential negative effects of computer use in terms of inexperience or aversion, such as for students with limited word processing skills. Potential short-term “false positive” or inflationary results stemming from the sheer novelty of computer use for normally mundane but necessary language learning tasks are often overlooked as well. There is also some evidence that CALL represents a different mode or form of communication than that occurring without computer technology. The resulting data from these studies should be analyzed with that in mind.

What Does the Research Indicate?

Sociocultural issues. From a sociocultural perspective, much of the research demonstrates the ability of CALL to provide an arena for natural, meaningful, and realistic language production and reception between and among native and nonnative speakers of the target language. Language learners engaged in computer-mediated contact with others—for example, in chat rooms where writing becomes speaking—tend to produce more language than in face-to-face discussions. In addition, participation appears to be equalized across learner populations; that is, the discussion is not dominated by a small number of students, as often occurs in the regular classroom. This may be due to the reduction of social context clues and nonverbal clues that tend to inhibit participation. There is also a greater ratio of student talk to teacher talk. Researchers cite a marked increase in cultural awareness on the part of students as well. (See Cubillos, 1998; Gray & Stockwell, 1998; Liu et al., 2002; Ortega, 1997; Salaberry, 1996; Singhal, 1998; Warschauer, 1997; Warschauer & Healey, 1998; Zhao, 1996.)

Affect. Language learners report a positive attitude toward computer use overall when engaged in language learning tasks. Use of email for interaction, for example, appears to reduce anxiety and increase motivation. Indeed, nearly all studies in the literature reviews report positive student attitudes as defined by lower anxiety levels, higher interest, and greater student participation. In particular, learners express a preference for tasks that promote social interaction between and among native speakers and nonnative speakers. (See Gray & Stockwell, 1998; Liu et al., 2002; Singhal, 1998.)

Language awareness. The use of CALL—for example, writing assistant software programs such as Daedelus InterChange—can help learners become more aware of errors and their nature so that they can monitor them in the future. In addition, instructors can use learner data produced through CALL to monitor progress and identify salient features in learners’ interlanguage. (See Cubillos, 1998; Warschauer, 1997.)

Nature of language production. There is some evidence that the language produced while engaged in CALL is qualitatively better, more coherent, cohesive, and expressive than the language learners produce in face-to-face classroom communication. There is also some indication that language learners engage in a wider variety of discourse functions and that the modifications in speech that necessarily derive from an interactionist perspective are present in greater number in CALL tasks. (See Chapelle, 1997; Cubillos, 1998; Liu et al, 2002; Ortega, 1997; Warschauer, 1996, 1997.)

Language skills. Writing is perhaps the skill most investigated by SLA researchers. As indicated above, language learners demonstrate increased target language production when using writing assistants (e.g., Système-D, Atajo, Quelle). This increased production is sometimes judged to be qualitatively better than that produced without the use of computer assistance, but the results are not unanimous in this regard. (See Chun, 1994; Gray & Stockwell, 1998; Hyland, 1993; Kern, 1995; Liu et al., 2002; Singhal, 1998; Warschauer, 1997; Warschauer & Healey, 1998.)

Very few studies concentrate specifically on the skill of listening. Clearly one benefit of CALL in this area is the increased access to target language input presented in a variety of ways. The multimedia capabilities of CALL enable learners to engage in a complex listening experience, complete with visual cues from the interlocutor. The greatest advantage touted in research on listening and CALL is that the multimedia nature of the activities addresses the use of different modalities, thus appealing to a wider variety of learning styles. (See Liu et al., 2002.)

Few studies focus on speaking, though speech recognition software has been explored as a possible aid to language learning. The general consensus is that, while this software shows promise for future research, it is not yet sufficiently developed or reliable to justify its use in FL studies. (See Liu et al., 2002.) As for studies on the use of CALL to improve reading skills, the primary emphases have been the use of glosses and vocabulary acquisition. In both areas, students using computer technologies to assist in comprehending reading passages and identifying vocabulary outperformed control groups of students who did not have this assistance available or chose not to use it. (See Cubillos, 1998; Liu et al., 2002.)

Additional Thoughts on SLA and Technology

More important than the use of technology per se is the quality of what is done with this medium. A badly conceived interactive task or activity is poor whether it is done on a computer or face to face. Using technology is not enough. In order to promote successful learning, tasks must be meaningful, have a true interactional component, and have a comprehensible purpose for the language student (Chapelle, 1997; Liu et al., 2002; Warschauer & Healey, 1998). Future CALL research endeavors should begin with this premise.

Note: As a complete literature review with concomitant references is far beyond the scope of this digest, several overarching issues are addressed, and some general research-based results are discussed. The reference section offers several extensive literature reviews and SLA books for additional reading.

References

Burston, J. (1996). CALL at the crossroads: Myths, realities, promises and challenges. ARAL, 19(2), 27-36.

Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 19-43.

Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence.System, 22(1), 17-31.

Cubillos, J. H. (1998). Technology: A step forward in the teaching of foreign languages. In J. Harper, M. Lively, & M. Wiliams (Eds.), The coming of age of the profession: Issues and emerging ideas for the teaching of foreign languages (pp. 37-52). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ervin, G. L. (1993). Can technology fulfill its promise? IALL Journal, 26(2), 7-16.

Garrett, N.(1991).Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75(1),74 -101.

Gray, R., & Stockwell, G. (1998). Using computer mediated communication for language and culture acquisition. On-CALL, 12(3). Retrieved July 8, 2003 fromhttp://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/oncall/gray123.html

Hyland, K. (1993). ESL computer writers: What can we do to help? System, 21(1), 21-29.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.

Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.) (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language acquisition.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research.London: Longman.

Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research on computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of the literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 250-273.

Ortega, L. (1997). CACD in the L2 classroom: What do we know so far? Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93.

Salaberry, M. R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer mediated communication. Calico Journal, 14(1), 5-34.

Singhal, M. (1998). Computer mediated communication (CMC): Technology for enhancing foreign language/culture education. On-Call, 12(1). Retrieved July 8, 2003 fromhttp://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/oncall/singhal121.html

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-81.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.

By Danielle Zavalla, Spring 2010.

English teachers around the world should have rejoiced when one invention had finally inspired people of all ages to value the importance of punctuation, leading to a movement, where even the most casual message insisted on using the dreaded colon. Yet, there was no celebration. Instead, there was a digital revolution that changed all the rules of how punctuation could be used. This revolution was the creation of computer scientist Scott E. Fahlman. His invention originally consisted of only the two images: :-) and :-( . These simple character combinations eventually inspired thousands like them, and in turn, led to what is known today as the emoticon.

On September 19, 1982, Fahlman, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon, created the emoticon somewhat as a joke. As a member of an online computer science community bulletin board, he saw that there was an issue with people incorrectly reading sarcastic messages in a serious tone. After attempts by several others to create a marker that would work to identify jokes from non-jokes, Fahlman suggested the now famous :-) and :-( . The newly born emoticons stuck and began to spread quickly throughout Carnegie Mellon, and eventually the world; however, Fahlman did not expect anything to come of his clever idea, let alone for it to become a universally used concept. Because of this, he had not kept any documentation of his original post. For several years, the creator of the emoticon was not able to prove what he had done. Nor was anyone else.

Luckily for the history of the emoticon, Microsoft’s Mike Jones initiated and sponsored a search for the long lost post. After an in-depth hunt, members of the CMU computer science team led by Jeff Baird unearthed the historic post while searching through Carnegie Mellon’s computer science back up tapes. Credit was finally given to the emoticon’s inventor on September 10, 2002, just nine days before the 20th anniversary of its conception.

In online forums, instant messaging applications, and mobile text messages, users write in a casual manner, just as if they were speaking to one another. The only problem with this casual environment is that facial expressions and vocal cues are absent from the interchange. Acting as a digital replacement to these missing components, the emoticon has been very important in determining how successful the electronic media have become. The actual term “emoticon” is an Internet creation combining the words emotion and icon. Internet users found the emoticons to be perfect for the role as an emotional outlet in the strictly text-based environment.

The addition of an emoticon can add a personal touch and suggests the tone that one should read the message. Emoticons are most often used in text messaging; these messages tend to limit the number of characters that can be sent, in which leads to the problem of not being able to express one’s intended tone in such a limited space. This is precisely why the emoticon has become so vital to this form of communication. For example, the addition of a “ :-)” would explain to the recipient that the message is meant to be friendly despite any sarcasm that could otherwise be read negatively. By adding these symbols, emoticons can clarify and add a personal touch to the message forming a whole new dynamic.

Text messaging has gone from being a once expensive and rare form of communication to the primary form of contact between young mobile phone users in a span of about 20 years. With its growing popularity, the emoticon has been able to stay an important part of text messaging. In some extreme cases, the emoticon has even been used to replace words altogether. Simply responding with a smiley can be used to signify that you agree or are pleased with the message. Responding to bad news with a sad face can be an easy way to show that you are genuinely sympathetic to the sender. Sometimes it can be hard to find the right words and it works out perfectly that there exists a symbol that can express those feelings.

Fred Berenson

Japanese emoji, or emoticons, bring an entirely new interpretation to Herman Melville's classic, Moby Dick.

Emoticons have grown into a new type of language. This is being shown most dramatically in a new project called Emoji Dick. The plan for this fascinating use of emoticons is to rewrite the novel Moby Dickstrictly using emoji—the Japanese word for emoticon. The purpose of this project is to see how language and culture are affected by digital technology; in this instance, the emoticon. The idea is that the infinite number of emoticons available could effectively replace the written language as we know it. This may seem like a stretch but emoticons have been referred to as the digital age’s hieroglyphs. Just like hieroglyphs, these images can be used to tell stories, but unlike hieroglyphs, emoticons seem to be easily understood by a greater number of people. Despite the multitude of connotations each emoticon may have, common users seem to have incorporated them into their digital vocabularies. Fahlman did not intend to create a new world language, but emoticons have clearly evolved into a simpler form of universal communication.

The use of emoticons has become so commonplace that it has even inspired people to write entire books about proper usage. By 1993, David Sanderson wrote a dictionary, entitled Smiley’s, to offer new users tips on when and how often emoticons should be used. With a growing user base in the Internet community, usage was beginning to open to more people, thanks to more user-friendly Internet browsers like Netscape and AOL. Books like Sanderson’s gave the novice surfers an idea of how to casually converse using online communication. In a short time, the smiley had become so popular that it created a new form of art, spawning over thousands of different variations including: “ o{-<]: “ meaning skateboarder and “@>--->---- “ meaning rose. Online communication no longer limits its users; it simply comes down to how creative a person can be using a keyboard.

In 1998, AOL introduced an automatic feature for AIM (AOL Instant Messager) that translated the character smileys into a cartoon image on its community messaging board. Following suit, cell phone providers and other online communication software began building image-based emoticons into their programs as well. Even Microsoft’s Word has recognized the input of a “:-)” to be automatically corrected to look like “J“.

The popularity of emoticons has even made its way into the food industry. In 2006, the Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) was the first to brand an emoticon. The symbol, “ :-{) “ or “milk-mustache” was used to target a teen audience and may well have contributed to a 1.2% sales increase.

In the short period of time emoticons have been around, they have managed to become a global phenomenon. Originally used by computer experts, emoticons are now being used by children around the world with the same ease and effectiveness. They have allowed people to communicate with almost the same emotional level that a face-to-face conversation could have. In the fast-paced world that we live in today, it only makes sense that emoticons be embraced as a necessity for effective electronic communication.

Sources:

Andert, Stephen. Web Stalkers: Protect Yourself from Internet Criminals & Psychopaths (911). Kitrell: Rampant Techpress, 2005.

Fahlman, Scott. Personal Communication with Alan Jalowitz. 27 Jul. 2010.

Fahlman, Scott. “SMILEY:25 YEARS OLD AND NEVER LOOKED HAPPIER!”SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, Carnegie Mellon. 1 Mar. 2010. <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/smiley/>.

Gil, Paul. “Emoticons & Smileys 101: Understanding The Smiley Shapes of Internet Heiroglyphs.” About Internet for Beginners: Your Guide to Participating in Online Culture and Navigating the Web and Internet. Jan. 2010. 1 Mar. 2010. <http://netforbeginners.about.com/cs/netiquette101/a/bl_emoticons101.htm>.

Kharif, Olga. “The Man Who Brought a :-) to Your Screen.” Business Week 23 Apr. 2001.

Law, Sally. “The Revolution Will Be Crowdsourced (and Cute).” The New Yorker (2009). The New Yorker. 23 Sept. 2009. 1 Mar. 2010. <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2009/09/the-revolution-will-be-crowdsourced-and-cute.html>.

Leggatt, Helen. “MilkPEP introduces world’s first branded emoticon - Social Marketing - BizReport.” BizReport - News & Insight for Online Marketers. 27 Feb. 2007. 1 Mar. 2010. <http://www.bizreport.com/2007/02/milkpep_introduce_worlds_first_branded_emoticon.html>.

McCarthy, Caroline. “The Web smiley’s motto: Grin and bear it - CNET News.” Technology News - CNET News. 13 Mar. 2007. 1 Mar. 2010. <http://news.cnet.com/The-Web-smileys-motto-Grin-and-bear-it/2100-1025_3-6166439.html?tag=mncol>.

Sanderson, David W. Smileys. Sebastopol: O’Reilly, 1993.

Shannon, Victoria. “15 years of text messages, a ‘cultural phenomenon.’” The New York Times 5 Dec. 2007, Technology sec.

Glynda A. Hull, University of California, Berkeley

By MAYA ITAH · Daily Trojan

As "globalization" increases, so does the loss of human languages. People find it easier to conduct business and communicate with those outside their own culture if they speak more widely used languages like Chinese, Hindi, English, Spanish or Russian. Children are not being educated in languages spoken by a limited number of people. As fewer people use local languages, they gradually die out.

Globalization and other factors speed language loss. Globalization is endangering languages, as people prefer to conduct business and communicate in widely used tongues like English, Chinese and Hindi. Public education, the Internet and print and television media also speed the rate of language loss. Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation

Why It Matters

At least 3,000 of the world’s 6,000-7,000 languages (about 50 percent) are about to be lost. Why should we care? Here are several reasons.

The enormous variety of these languages represents a vast, largely unmapped terrain on which linguists, cognitive scientists and philosophers can chart the fullcapabilities—and limits—of the human mind.

Each endangered language embodies unique local knowledge of the cultures and natural systems in the region in which it is spoken.

These languages are among our few sources of evidence for understanding human history.

Other Implications

Those who primarily speak one of the world’s major languages may find it hard to understand what losing one’s language can mean--and may even feel that the world would be better off if everyone spoke the same language. In fact, the requirement to speak one language is often associated with violence. Repressive governments forbid certain languages and cultural customs as a form of control. And conquered people resist assimilation by speaking their own languages and practicing their own customs.

On the positive side, one language can enrich another—for example, by providing words and concepts not available in the other language. Most languages (including English) have borrowed words of all kinds. Learning another language often brings an appreciation of other cultures and people.

The study of endangered languages also has implications for cognitive science because languages help illuminate how the brain functions and how we learn. “We want to know what the diversity of languages tells us about the ways the brain stores and communicates experience,” says Peg Barratt, NSF division director for behavioral and cognitive sciences. “Our focus is not just on recording examples of languages that are soon to disappear, but on understanding the grammars, vocabularies and structures of these languages.”

Preserving While Documenting

Documentation is the key to preserving endangered languages. Linguists are trying to document as many as they can by describing grammars and structural features, by recording spoken language and by using computers to store this information for study by scholars. Many endangered languages are only spoken; no written texts exist. So it is important to act quickly in order to capture them before they go extinct.

To help preserve endangered languages, E-MELD (Electronic Metastructure for Endangered Language Data) aims to boost documentation by:

duplicating and digitizing high-quality recordings in an archival form;

emphasizing self-documenting and software-independent data;

giving linguists a toolkit to analyze and compare languages;

developing a General Ontology for Linguistic Description (GOLD) to allow interoperability of archives, and comparability of data and analysis.

In another kind of archiving, Joel Sherzer, Anthony Woodbury and Mark McFarland (University of Texas at Austin) are ensuring that Latin America's endangered languages are documented through The Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America (AILLA). This Web-accessible database of audio and textual data features naturally–occurring discourse such as narratives, ceremonies, speeches, songs, poems and conversation. Using their Web browsers, scholars, students and indigenous people can access the database, search and browse the contents and download files using free software.

Documentation is the right thing to do for both cultural and scientific reasons. According to NSF program director Joan Maling, we must explore as many different languages as we can to fully understand this uniquely human capacity—"Language" with a capital L. “Just as biologists can learn only from looking at many different organisms, so linguists and language scientists can learn only from studying many different human languages,” she says. “Preserving linguistic diversity through documentation is critical to the scientific study of language.”

Related Links:

"Endangered Languages" - WAMU Interview with David Lightfoot, NSF Assistant Director for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, March 7, 2007

"The Birth and Death of Languages" - Lecture (video) by David W. Lightfoot, NSF Assistant Director for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, April 12, 2006

"The Rosetta Project" -An online digital library of reference materials for all documented human languages

Wikepedia Definition