摘要

根據第二語言習得的研究，性別在會話互動中扮演重要的角色，但是鮮少有文章探討性別是如何影響外語學習者在任務導向互動(task-based interactions)中的語言相關片段(language-related episodes, LREs)，以及這些影響是否與因性別而異的談話風格(gender-differentiated speech styles)有關。本文建立在既有的研究成果上，加入了談話風格的分析，以期能探討說話者性別(speaker gender)以及性別配對(gender composition of dyad)(異性組或同性組)如何影響任務導向互動中語言相關片段的多寡及解決情形，並發掘談話風格(speech styles)如何影響談話者本身及對方的語言相關片段，以致在第二外語習得上有不同的學習機會。
24位臺灣籍的英語學習者(共12位女性及12位男性)參與了這項研究，每一位學習者皆被分配到一組同性兩人小組和一組異性兩人小組去對話。每一位學習者在每組小組當中用第二語言(英語)完成了一項文本重組活動 (text-reconstruction task)及用第一語言(華語) 完成了看影片回想(stimulated recall)。在文本重組活動中的語言產出是要用來分析語言相關片段的，而語言相關片段過去已由實證研究顯示有助於第二語言習得。在看影片回想階段的回想評論則是要用來分類說話者的談話風格。根據Lakoff 和 Tannen (1984)的文章，談話風格分為疏遠型、討好型、友誼型、及清晰型四種風格。
研究結果顯示說話者性別和性別配對(異性組或同性組)都不會對語言相關片段的提問及回答頻率產生顯著影響，然而，性別配對卻會顯著影響到回答的答案是否正確。比起在同性組的表現，女性和男性在異性組時皆比較容易給予正確的解答。關於談話風格，疏遠型和清晰型兩種談話風格則呈現性別差異：疏遠型有較多男性，而清晰型有較多女性。可能是因為女性比男性更用心地配合這份文本重組活動的規定，於是積極地專注在語言是否正確，導致女性呈現出就事論事的清晰型風格。說話者的談話風格並不會顯著影響她/他自己在語言相關片段的提問頻率及回答情形。然而，有趣的是說話者的談話風格竟會顯著影響到與談人的回答意願。疏遠型人(較多男性)較可能提高與談人的回答意願，因而可以聽到較多答案；相反地，清晰型的人(較多女性)較容易降低與談人的回答意願，因而聽到較少答案。女性似乎進退兩難，因為傾向配合本活動，於是表現出清晰型的談話風格，但是卻因清晰型的談話風格降低了與談人的回答意願。
本研究探討性別及談話風格在第二語言會話互動中扮演的角色，期望結果有助於教學上的課堂分組，例如藉由異性組來提高正確度、同性組提高流暢度；及理論上解釋因性別而異的談話風格為何存在，並進而指出因性別而異的談話風格會影響到與談人的語言相關片段。

ABSTRACT

While research in second language acquisition (SLA) suggests that gender plays an important role in conversational interactions, few studies have investigated how gender influences language-related episodes (LREs) in task-based interactions in foreign language learners and whether the influence of gender is related to gender-differentiated speech styles. The current study built on existing findings by including analysis of speech styles in order to investigate how speaker gender and gender composition of dyad (i.e., mixed- vs. same-gender dyad) affect the frequencies of incidences and resolutions of LREs in task-based L2 interactions, and how gender-differentiated speech styles affect the speakers’ and the interlocutors’ LREs, thus creating different learning opportunities for SLA.
Subjects were 24 Taiwanese learners of English, consisting of 12 females and 12 males. Each one of them needed to interact in both a same-gender dyad and a mixed-gender dyad. Each learner completed a text-reconstruction task in a dyad in the L2 (English) and a stimulated recall in the L1 (Mandarin Chinese) individually. Their language production in text-reconstruction tasks was analyzed for the use of LREs, which have been empirically demonstrated to benefit SLA. Their recall comments in stimulated recall sessions were collected for the analysis of speech styles. Drawing on the study of Lakoff and Tannen (1984), the current study divided the speech styles into four categories: distance, deference, camaraderie, and clarity.
Results indicated that neither speaker gender nor gender composition of dyad (i.e., mixed- vs. same-gender dyad) influenced the frequencies of incidences or resolutions of LREs; however, gender composition of dyad significantly determined whether the LRE resolutions would be targetlike or non-targetlike. Both females and males appeared to resolve LREs in a more targetlike way when working with a mixed-gender partner than with a same-gender partner. With respect to gender-differentiated speech styles, they were found in the styles of distance and clarity, with more males adopting the distance style and more females the clarity style. One possible explanation of this finding is that females were more attentive and cooperative than males to the goal of the text-reconstruction task which required participants to focus on linguistic accuracy. Therefore, more females than males displayed the style of clarity who emphasize the pure expression of factual information in conversational interactions. One’s speech style did not significantly influence her/his own performance on the initiations or resolutions of LREs. However, it is interesting to find that one’s speech style significantly affected the interlocutor’s willingness to give LRE resolutions. Speakers of the distance style (more males) were more likely to increase the interlocutors’ willingness to offer LRE resolutions and thus received more input. On the other hand, speakers of the clarity style (more females) tended to decrease the interlocutors’ willingness to give provide LRE resolutions and thus received less input. The result appears to be a double bind for females in task-based interactions. Females tended to abide by the goal of text-reconstruction task and adopted clarity style, which nonetheless turned off their interlocutors’ willingness to offer LRE resolutions.
This study investigated the role of gender and speech style in L2 interaction. By linking gender and speech styles to L2 interaction, this study provides a preliminary finding on the gender-differentiated speech styles and their effects on L2 interaction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT (Chinese) i
ABSTRACT (English) iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2. Goals of the Current Study 5
1.3. Organization of the Thesis 5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1. Interaction Hypothesis 7
2.1.1. Negotiation for Meaning 7
2.1.2. Possible Merits of Negotiation for Meaning 8
2.1.3. Language-Related Episodes (LREs) 13
2.1.4. Factors Affecting Negotiation for Meaning 15
2.2. Gender and Interaction 20
2.2.1. Gender in L1 Interaction 20
2.2.2. Gender in L2 Interaction 24
2.3. Research Questions 29
2.4. Hypotheses 30
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 31
3.1. Participants 31
3.2. Instruments 31
3.2.1. Text-reconstruction Task 31
3.2.2. Stimulated Recall 32
3.3. Procedure 33
3.4. Coding and Analysis 34
3.4.1. Language-related Episodes (LREs) 34
3.4.2. Stimulated Recall 38
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 46
4.1. Results and Discussion of Research Questions 1 and 2 46
4.1.1. Results of Research Question 1: The Incidences of LREs 46
4.1.2. Results of Research Question 2: The Resolutions of LREs 49
4.1.3. Discussion of Research Questions 1 and 2 52
4.2. Results and Discussion of Research Questions 3 and 4 56
4.2.1. Results of Research Question 3: Gender-differentiated Speech Styles 56
4.2.2. Results of Research Question 4: The Relationship between Gender-differentiated Speech Styles and Speakers’ LREs 57
4.2.3. Extra Results: The Relationship between Gender-differentiated Speech Styles and Interlocutor’s LREs 59
4.2.4. Discussion of Research Questions 3 and 4 60
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 67
5.1. Summary of the Findings 67
5.2. Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications 71
5.3. Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research 72
REFERENCES 74
APPENDIX A Taipei Goes Green 81
APPENDIX B Election results mixed as KMT wins more seats but loses total vote 82
APPENDIX C Transcription Notations 83

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Mean number of incidences of LREs in each dyad type………………......47
Table 2 Female participants' speech styles by the type of gender dyad……………57
Table 3 Male participants' speech styles by the type of gender dyad……………...57
Table 4 Speakers’ speech styles and their own LREs……………………………...58
Table 5 Speakers’ speech styles and their interlocutors’ LREs……………………59



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. LREs initiated by females and males in the mixed-gender dyads and same-gender dyads………………………………………………….…....47
Figure 2. LREs initiated by females and males in different dyad types…………....48
Figure 3. Percentages of LRE resolutions in each dyad type…………….…….…..50
Figure 4. LRE resolutions given by females and males in different dyad types.…..52

REFERENCES

Aries, E. (1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups. Small Group Research, 7(1), 7-18.

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 29-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cheshire, J., & Trudgill, P. (1998). The Sociolinguistics Reader (Vol. 2). New York: Arnold.

Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell.

Coates, J. (2004). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language (3rd ed.). London; New York: Longman.

Crookes, G., & Rulon, K. A. (1985). Incorporation of corrective feedback in native speaker/non-native speaker conversation. Center for Second Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

De la Fuente, M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 81-112.

Farris, C. (2000). Cross-sex peer conflict and the discursive production of gender in a Chinese preschool in Taiwan. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(5), 539-568.

Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social problems, 25(4), 397-406.

Garcia-Mayo, M. (2002). The effectiveness of two form focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156-175.

Garcia-Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed? IRAL(38), 35-58.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S. M. (2000). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982a). Discourse Strategies (Studies in Interactional Linguistics 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982b). Discourse Strategies (Studies in Interactional Linguistics 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 175-199). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985a). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 149-161). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985b). Variation in native speaker speech modification to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37-58.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 327-351). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative diiscourse. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71-86). New York: Plenum.

Holmes, J. (1992). Women's talk in public contexts. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 131-150.

Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.

Holmes, J. (1997). Women, Language and Identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1(2), 195-223.

Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Harlow, Eng. New York: Longman.

Jeon, K. S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: characterizing linguistic development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 379-403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krashen, S. (1985).The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Kuo, S. (2003). Involvement vs. detachment: gender differences in the use of personal pronouns in televised sports in Taiwan. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 479-494.

Lakoff, R., & Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational strategy and metastrategy in a pragmatic theory: The example of Scenes from a Marriage. Semiotica, 49(3), 323-346.

Loewen, S. (2003). The effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 63-83.

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sceinces, 379, 259-278.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question fromation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.

Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction in SLA: a research synthesis and meta-analysis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-497.

McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 323-338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 31-47.

Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97-111.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., Berducci, D., & Morgenthaler, L. (1991). Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(3), 343-376.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63-90.

Pica, T., Young, D. J., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction in comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737-758.

Plough, I., & Gass, S. M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. (pp. 35-56). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Quinn, B. (2010). TAIPEI GOES GREEN. Advanced 彭蒙慧英語, October, 20-22.

Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based Interactions between Second Language Learners: Exploring the Role of Gender. Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies (pp. 53-77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shih, Y. (1984). A sociolinguistic study of male-female language differences (in Chinese). Teaching and Research, 6, 207-229.

Storch, N. (1998a). A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative text-reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52(4), 291-300.

Storch, N. (1998b). Comparing second language learners' attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 7(4), 176-191.

Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363-374.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44-63.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 285-304.

Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Morrow; Ballantine Books.

Tannen, D. (1993). The relativity of linguisitc strategy: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction (pp. 165-188). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tannen, D. (1994a). Conversational strategy and metastrategy in a pragmatic theory: The example of scenes from a marriage. In D. Tannen, Gender & Discourse (pp. 137-173). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tannen, D. (1994b). Gender & Discourse. New York Oxford University Press.

Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners' output. Language Learning, 47(4), 589-636.

Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-90.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

West, C. & Garcia, A. (1988). Conversational shift work: A study of topical transitions between women and men. Social Problems, 35(5), 551-575.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-151.

Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29 (3), 325-340.