Applied Linguistics 24/4: 519±544 # Oxford University Press 2003

Who's Helping Whom?:

Learner/Heritage-Speakers' Networked
Discussions in Spanish
ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK
UC Davis, USA

This paper explores the interaction between heritage speakers (HS) and L2
learners of Spanish in a synchronous computer-assisted learning environ-
ment. Students enrolled in an intermediate level language course were paired
with heritage speakers in order to collaboratively solve a two-way jigsaw
task. The transcripts of their interactions were examined for points of
negotiation, given the general prediction that negotiations of meaning will
stimulate both groups to notice their linguistic gaps and modify their
respective output accordingly. The results illustrate that both groups trigger
and resolve miscommunications, although HS assist their L2 partners much
more often. The notion of `heritage speaker' is discussed along with an
assessment of the potential linguistic bene®ts of networked exchanges from
both L2 learners and heritage speakers.

INTRODUCTION
The interactionist model predicts that oral discussions between native
speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS), as well as those that only
involve NNS, will prime second language learners to notice their linguistic
limitations, which is an essential step in the SLA process (Gass 1997). The
notion of negotiation is central to this priming process and can be de®ned as
`communication in which participants' attention is focused on resolving a
communication problem as opposed to communication in which there is a
free-¯owing exchange of information' (Gass 1997: 107). Typically, negotia-
tions arise in the foreign language classroom when students must accomplish
a communicative task and then encounter a non-understanding along the
way.1 Researchers have referred to the process of `pushing down' from the
original line of discourse in order to resolve these miscommunications or non-
understandings (Varonis and Gass 1985). The conversation is momentarily
put on hold while the particular item, be it lexical or grammatical, is
negotiated. These linguistic negotiations become precious moments when
new structures can ®rst be noticed or primed for acquisition.
Pellettieri (1999) and Blake (2000) have shown that these `priming'
bene®ts also obtain for learner/learner discussions within the medium of
synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC). Networked com-
munication, in particular, has often been singled out as bene®cial for
520 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

neutralizing the negative e€ects of asymmetrical power relationships and

unequal status among participants (Warschauer 1996). According to this
view, partners in CMC tend to concentrate more on the message since they
have no recourse to their partner's physical appearance or body language.2
While the literature con®rms the positive mediating e€ects of NS/NNS face-
to-face oral discussions (Long 1983; Varonis and Gass 1985; Pica 1994;
Mackey 1999), and NNS/NNS networked interaction (Pellettieri 1999; Blake
2000), no one has probed the pairing of L2 learners with heritage speakers.
The present investigation is the ®rst CMC study to include bilingual students
whose heritage language, Spanish, is rapidly becoming the unocial second
language of California as well as other parts of the USA. One might normally
expect, in a similar fashion to NS/NNS oral exchanges, that heritage speakers
would eventually come to spur L2 learners on to notice gaps in their linguistic
knowledge and, subsequently, help them to mediate and resolve their
misunderstandings. But the notion of the heritage speaker (HS) is not
unproblematic, as we discuss below. Spanish heritage speakers are far from
forming a homogeneous grouping with respect to their language abilities.
They obviously share certain linguistic and cultural characteristics with
monolingual Spanish speakers, but there also exist signi®cant di€erences,
depending on the individuals' present and past opportunities to use Spanish in
their daily lives.
This study examines whether the reported bene®ts of CMC also hold for
exchanges between heritage speakers of Spanish and L2 learners (HS/NNS)
when these groups are asked to solve tasks within a computer-assisted
learning environment. Accordingly, this study seeks to answer the following
questions:
1 Do heritage speakers and L2 learners negotiate meaning in the CMC
environment in a similar fashion to that of learner/learner pairs, as has
already been documented in the literature (e.g. Pellettieri 1999; Blake
2000)?
2 If so, do HS/NNS exchanges re¯ect increased attention to lexical and/or
grammatical features of the language?
3 Who triggers these negotiations most frequently, the HS or NNS, and who
is responsible for resolving them? In other words, who's helping whom?
Do heritage speakers bene®t from these networked exchanges as much as
L2 learners, or does the HS dominate the ¯ow of discourse as native
speakers tend to do in NS/NNS face-to-face encounters?
4 Does the explicit demand for textual output, a requirement of CMC
`chatting', promote the use of new vocabulary items and/or grammatical
structures by both groups of participants?
From a pedagogical perspective, Spanish courses at the university level
designed speci®cally for `native speakers' (i.e. heritage speakers) are
¯ourishing and continuing to expand to serve the needs of these bilingual
students, alongside the regular Spanish curriculum for L2 learners (ValdeÂs
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 521

2000). Little thought has been focused on the question of whether these two
di€erent groups can work together to realize their speci®c learning objectives
(for one exception, see Quintanar-Sarellana et al. 1997). The present study
seeks to ascertain the e€ect of networked HS/learner discussions, given the
general principle of the Interactionist Hypothesis, which predicts that
negotiations of meaning will stimulate both groups to notice their linguistic
gaps and modify their respective output accordingly.

BACKGROUND

Task-based negotiation
The bene®ts of having learners realize tasks with native speakers (i.e. NS/NNS
discussions) are widely recognized. The native speaker can provide the learner
with large quantities of input that is made comprehensible by means of
various interactional modi®cations such as repetitions, expansions, clari®ca-
tions, and questions (Long 1981). The native speaker, in particular, can also
supply recasts that are grammatically accurate and pragmatically appropriate.
In spite of its many advantages, the NS/NNS pairing can also create an
unequal power relationship that, at times, might even discourage negotiation
(Varonis and Gass 1985). Learner/learner discussions appear to `prime' the
SLA pump even more than NS/NNS exchanges since their negotiations are
more frequent, more involved, and less inhibited by imbalances of linguistic
knowledge and discourse dynamics (Varonis and Gass 1985). The present
study investigates whether or not heritage speakers can bring to the task the
bene®ts of advanced linguistic knowledge without the drawbacks of the
unequal power con®guration sometimes implied by the presence of
monolingual native-speakers. After all, in comparison to L2 learners with
only four quarters of university Spanish, heritage speakers are more
advanced, even if they may not have had contact with the full array of
registers that monolinguals enjoy.
A task-based inquiry into SLA research also looks more speci®cally at the
notion of output, in addition to the traditional concerns surrounding input. In
Swain's Output Hypothesis (1985, 1995) language production is seen as
playing a crucial role in the SLA process. Swain (1995) outlines three
potential functions of output: (1) it provides an opportunity for meaningful
use of one's linguistic resources; (2) it allows the learner to test hypotheses
about the target language; and (3) it encourages the learner to move from
semantic to syntactic processing. Swain argues that comprehension of input is
a process driven by semantics; in other words, learners do not always need to
parse the sentences they hear in order to arrive at the intended meaning.
Production, on the other hand, requires the learner to utilize syntax in order
to produce coherent, meaningful utterances. When a learner is `pushed'
during output, he/she is encouraged to convey meaning in a precise and
522 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

appropriate manner. This momentary `push' may be critical for language

acquisition, since it promotes noticing:
Learners may notice that they do not know how to express precisely
the meaning they wish to convey at the very moment of attempting to
produce itÐthey notice, so to speak, a `hole' in their interlanguage
(Swain 2000: 100).

As learners realize that there exists a linguistic problem in their output, they
might modify their utterance in some way or attempt to use new linguistic
forms (i.e. hypothesis testing). Another possibility is that the learner may look
to the interlocutor for some sort of external feedback (e.g. a recast or
modi®cation) to help remedy the situation. In either case, the learner's
attention is being directed to the more formal properties of the utterance,
especially the L2 syntax, while expressing the meaning he/she wishes to
convey. The bene®ts of negotiation and `pushed' output have been well
documented in studies of face-to-face interaction (Pica et al.1989; Gass and
Varonis 1994; Swain and Lapkin 1995). These bene®ts also hold true in a
synchronous computer-mediated environment, as demonstrated by Pellettieri
(1999). Accordingly, we assume `pushed output' to be a relevant concept for
both face-to-face and CMC exchanges.
In reviewing the actual instances of non-understanding in the literature, it
appears that lexical items are negotiated most frequently (Brock et al. 1986;
Sato 1986; Pica 1994). It is reasonable to assume that a conversation will come
to a halt when a lexical item crucial to the solution of the task is unknown to
at least one of the interlocutors. If the conversation is to `pop [back] up' to the
main line of discourse (Varonis and Gass 1985), the lexical item must be
negotiated in some way, or that particular issue must be abandoned
altogether. Grammatical items, on the other hand, can often go unnoticed
since they carry a lesser communicative load. More speci®cally, the relative
communicative value of a particular grammatical item is determined by its
inherent semantic value and redundancy within the utterance (VanPatten
1996). This notion of communicative value explains why it is possible to
communicate an idea, albeit not accurately, with less-than-perfect grammar.
When, if ever, do learners' negotiations centre around morphosyntax?
Pellettieri's research (1999) illustrates that the majority of negotiations are
triggered by vocabulary items, but that morphosyntax does come into play
when the nature of the task demands it. This corroborates the ®ndings of
Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993), who suggest that task type directly a€ects
the amount of morphosyntactic negotiations produced. More speci®cally,
those tasks that encourage grammatical negotiation include a written
component in which the participants are asked to jointly compose a short
piece of discourse as a means of concluding the communicative task (see
Swain and Lapkin 2001 for examples of joint discourse). Furthermore,
researchers have become increasingly clever in designing structure-focused
tasks that have proven e€ective in eliciting production of certain morpho-
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 523

logical and syntactic features of the target language (c.f. Mackey 1994, 1999;
Doughty and Long 2000).

The heritage speaker

As previously mentioned, the notion of a heritage speaker is not easy to
de®ne, both conceptually and operationally. Heritage speakers (HS)Ðalso
referred to as native speakers, quasi-native speakers, residual speakers, bilingual
speakers, and home-background speakersÐcomprise a highly heterogeneous
group of individuals, whose common trait is the use of a language other
than English in the home.3 More speci®cally, a heritage speaker can be
de®ned as:

a student who is raised in a home where a non-English language is

spoken, who speaks or merely understands the heritage language, and
who is to some degree bilingual in English and the heritage language
(ValdeÂs 2000: 1).

This de®nition covers a broad range of individuals who have some knowledge
of a non-English language as a product of the home environment, without
necessarily being dominant in that language. For Spanish, ValdeÂs (1997) has
developed a typology of eight di€erent kinds of HS, ranging from those who
have been schooled in a Spanish-speaking country to those who exhibit only
receptive competence in the language. The diverse competencies of these
bilinguals has made it dicult to provide them with appropriate instruction
when they decide to study a language that is, in many senses of the term,
their mother tongue. In fact, the pro®le of any heritage speaker poses serious
problems for the limited theoretical notion of `native speaker'. Although most
HS do acquire Spanish in early childhood, this type of acquisition is not
identical to the experience of an individual who is exclusively raised and
educated in a strictly monolingual context. In many cases, an HS raised in a
bilingual US context may not receive the quantity or continuity of input
needed to attain full pro®ciency in Spanish (Montrul 2002). In addition,
certain formal features of the language may su€er simpli®cation and loss due
to an interrupted process of acquisition at the age when intensive exposure to
English begins (Silva-CorvalaÂn 2001).
When speaking about the abilities of an HS, it is important to keep in mind
that HS are not imperfect versions of the monolingual `native speaker'. They
are fundamentally di€erent from monolinguals, and therefore should not be
judged according to monolingual norms. Yet culturally speaking, heritage
speakers are not exactly like their monolingual English-speaking counterparts
either. Understandably, the issue of cultural identity goes to the very heart of
the concept of the heritage speaker. Many researchers (e.g. Grosjean 1992),
®rmly believe that one must adopt a holistic view of the bilingual,
acknowledging the unique and complex interaction of the individual's
languages with his/her environment. Indeed, we ®nd it more useful to
524 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

interpret the notion of heritage speaker within a functional de®nition of a

bilingual, concentrating on how he/she uses each language in di€erent
communicative situations.
Similar to other bilinguals, HS of Spanish display a wide range of
competencies in various aspects of language use. Bachman (1990) has
proposed that language competence consists of grammatical, textual,
illocutionary, and sociolinguistic competence. These four areas can be further
divided to account for a speaker's control over vocabulary, syntax, morpho-
logy, as well as his/her ability to employ di€erent registers, express ideas with
idiomatic expressions, and make cultural references. Using Bachman's
schemata as a guideline, one can recognize the complexity of language
pro®ciency and, consequently, move beyond the idealized notion of `native
speaker'. In fact, a particular heritage speaker may be lacking in the area of
textual competence, while at the same time displaying a skilful mastery of
idiomatic expressions and other cultural markers. As ValdeÂs (1997) points out,
many HS have limited textual competence in Spanish because their schooling
was primarily in English. In other words, they have acquired Spanish in the
oral medium, and may not have had the opportunity to see or use this
language in its textual form. In addition, many HS have heard and used
Spanish strictly in the home environment, and as a consequence, their lexicon
may be restricted to serve those particular functions.
Another important issue related to the heritage speaker is the idea of
`standard' Spanish. Many HS employ more stigmatized varieties of Spanish, in
comparison with the academic Spanish generally found in textbooks. Also,
many of the forms used by these speakers are examples of rural norms,
archaic speech, colloquial usage, or contact phenomena with English.
Unfortunately, these linguistically well-documented phenomena are often
misinterpreted in the community and schools as signs of linguistic
de®ciencyÐor for some, as palpable signs of `alingualism', rather than as
manifestations of linguistic variation. In the present study we expect to
encounter tokens of all of these phenomena, and we foresee that code-
switching will be inevitable due to the common language background
(English) of the study's participants.

METHODOLOGY
Participants
During the fall quarter, 1999, eleven university heritage speakers enrolled on
a course `Spanish for Native Speakers' were paired with another eleven L2
learners from an intermediate Spanish class. Our university has a separate
language series for heritage speakers. Under normal circumstances, heritage
speakers would not interact with L2 learners until reaching upper-division
courses. The CMC exchanges provide a unique opportunity to allow these two
student populations to work together.
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 525

As explained above, the heritage speakers varied in their exposure to

monolingual Spanish-speaking communities as a function of when they
arrived in the USA. Three students (type I) were raised in Spanish-speaking
countries until about age 10. At the time of the study, they had been living in
the USA for eight or more years with their parents who were native Spanish
speakers. These individuals self-reported that their Spanish was better or
equal to their English. Another group of eight students (type II) were raised in
the USA with at least one parent being a native speaker of Spanish. Some
Spanish was spoken at home, but they expressed a preference for English as
their dominant language.

Data collection
Each HS/NNS pair was asked to solve the `apartment hunting' task, which
from previous research (Blake 2000) has proven so e€ective in eliciting
linguistic negotiation from learner/learner pairs. This activity can be described
as a two-way jigsaw task that requires each participant in the pair to share
their portion of a totality of information as they work convergently toward a
single goal (Pica et al. 1993). Because of the nature of the jigsaw task, the
participants enjoy increased opportunities to experience comprehension of
the input, feedback on production, and modi®cation of interlanguage forms
(Pica et al. 1993: 17).
Task type was an important consideration for this study since it is widely
recognized that interaction is an extremely task-sensitive phenomenon. There
are many types of communicative tasks (for a taxonomy, see Pica et al. 1993),
and they di€er from one another in four major ways: (1) the responsibilities of
the interlocutors (which one holds the information); (2) the interaction
requirement (optional or obligatory); (3) goal orientation (convergence or
divergence); and (4) outcome options (one or more than one ®nal outcome).
In this model, the jigsaw task is viewed as the one most likely to generate
opportunities for the learners to interact and negotiate meaning. This does not
mean, however, that the other tasks (such as problem solving, decision
making, or opinion exchange) are not valuable in their own right. The less
restrictive tasks (i.e. opinion exchange) can also serve as a platform for
interaction, especially in the realm of controversial topics. In short, the tasks
must be used wisely in conjunction with the speci®c goals of the classroom or
the research agenda.
The partners were seated at computers located in di€erent buildings and
instructed in English to connect to each other online via the RTA chat
program (http://davinci.cs.ucdavis.edu). They were told they were connecting
to another student of Spanish without reference to the linguistic background
of their partner. All focus was directed to solving the task at hand via the chat
tool. They then proceeded to solve the `apartment hunting' task using only
Spanish. The goal of this task was to share their respective apartment listings
(4 each, a total of 8) and ®nd the perfect ®t given their assigned personalities,
526 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

which provided points of con¯ict as well as agreement. The details of their

assigned personalities (type A vs. type B) were given in English through Web
pages (consult http://philo.ucdavis.edu/zope/home/rbkake/task6.html). The
separate apartment listings were in Spanish and had been taken from a
Madrid apartment-®nding Internet service. The RTA chat program allowed
these pairs to engage in synchronous CMC and kept a record of all of the
keyboard exchanges. The pairs communicated online for about an hour in
order to come to a consensus on which apartment they wanted to rent. All
pairs successfully agreed upon one apartment, which required them to share
their four listings as well as their assigned likes, dislikes, and budgetary
restrictions.

Data analysis
The transcripts were then examined for points of negotiation: non-under-
standings, misunderstandings, clari®cations, con®rmations, and expansions.
The exchanges were labelled according to Varonis and Gass' (1985) model for
negotiations of meaning: the trigger (the utterance that causes a non-
understanding), the indicator (the beginning of the negotiation of meaning
that pushes down from the original line of discourse), the response (a solution
o€ered by the partner), and the reaction (an optional recognition of the
resolution of the non-understanding and a signal to resume the normal line of
discourse). Particular attention was given to identifying subsequent instances
of output that might suggest that acquisition had actually occurred. There
were a total of thirty negotiation events, as illustrated and described in the
following section.

RESULTS
The eleven pairs generated thirty instances of negotiations during their
respective hour-long CMC sessions. For an unfocused task such as the
`apartment hunting' task,4 the amount of negotiations of meaning is
consistent with previous ®ndings (Blake 2000). Table 1 shows the distribution
by lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic negotiations.
As can be seen from Table 1, the negotiations were primarily lexical in

Table 1: Total negotiations of meaning

Negotiation type Tokens

Lexical 24
Grammatical 4
Pragmatic 2
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 527

nature (24), as has been reported in the literature (Blake 2000: 132). This
result is not surprising because of the nature of the task, which involved
reading the apartment listings and understanding the descriptions and
Spanish abbreviationsÐvocabulary, not syntax, is crucially important to
choosing the best apartment from many advertisements. The transcripts show
that the pairs communicated mostly in Spanish, although they did resort to
English at times in order to clear up some lexical misunderstandings.5 Code-
switching did occur for both types of participants but it seemed to be
restricted, once again, to the lexical domain. The exchange in (1) is
representative of a successful lexical negotiation.6
(1) NNS/HS (type II) lexical confusion RESOLVED
NNS: que signi®ca `piso a estrenar?' [INDICATOR]
what does `brand-new ¯at' mean?
HS: que esta nuevo [RESPONSE]
that it's new
NNS: ay que bueno [REACTION]
that's good
Although two heads were better than one most of the time, not all lexical
negotiations reached a successful resolution, as illustrated in (2), although
they come tantalizingly close to the correct answer.
(2) NNS/HS (type II) lexical confusion UNRESOLVED
NNS: tambien, crees que c/c signi®ca califacion? [TRIGGER/INDICATOR]
also, do you think that c/c means heating?
HS: okay, entre los dos tenemos 6 necessidades,
contemos cuantos hay en cada apartemento,
okay, between the two of us we have 6 necessities,
let's count how many there are in each apartment,
HS: no se [RESPONSEÐunresolved]
I don't know
HS: no creo que quiera decir califacion
I don't think it means heating
NNS: tampoco [REACTION]
I don't either
In four cases, grammatical item(s) were the immediate cause of a
miscommunication. Although not always the case, the communicative load
of a grammatical item (i.e. preposition, pronoun, or verb form) can sometimes
be sucient to cause a communicative breakdown. In (3), the negotiation is
®rst triggered by an inappropriate use of a preposition followed by improper
copula selection (coded in bold).7
(3) HS (type II) ! NNS grammatical confusions
NNS: De donde es la profesora? Tengo una pregunta? [TRIGGER]
Where is the professor from? I have a question?
528 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

HS: es de Mexico porque?

she is from Mexico, why?
NNS: Lo siento . . . Donde es la profesora?
I'm sorry . . . Where is (existence) the professor?
HS: como? [INDICATOR]
what?
HS: donde esta la profesora? [RESPONSE]
where is (location) the professor?
NNS: Si, lo siento! [REACTION]
Yes, I'm sorry!
HS: no te preocupes, ella esta aqui
don't worry, she is here
Another grammatical miscommunication, shown below in (4), dealt with
clitic pronoun placement. The L2 learner transfers the canonical English SVO
word order to Spanish object clitics, which results in a clari®cation request
from the HS with the correct word order, as well as the correct shift in point of
view to 2nd person singular (te). This helpful information on placement
further confuses the NNS, who focuses on the change in person, rather than
the error in word order. A resolution is reached when the HS speaker provides
a more detailed explanation and models the correct form and word order,
much as a teacher would do in the classroom.
(4) HS (type II) ! NNS grammatical confusions
HS: tambien esta amueblado
also it is furnished
NNS: que es electro domesticos?
what is electric appliances?
NNS: La profesora ayudame! [TRIGGER]
The professor help me! (informal command form used to
indicate a declarative)
HS: te esta AYUDANDO? [INDICATOR]
she is HELPING you?
NNS: Si, te esta ayudando . . . es mas correcto?
Yes, she is helping you . . . is it more correct?
HS: como? [INDICATOR]
what?
NNS: `te esta ayudando' es la forma corecta?
`she is helping you' is the correct form?
HS: si tu quieres decir que te estan ayudando a `ti'
entonces tu tienes que decir `me esta ayudando' [RESPONSE]
if you want to say that they are helping `you' (emphasis)
then you need to say `she is helping me.'
NNS: O si, gracias. Ahora, busque a los apartamentos.
Es bien? [REACTION]
Oh yes, thanks. Now ®nd the apartments. Is that okay?
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 529

The exchange in (4) illustrates two separate problems. The learner has used an
imperative word order to express a declarative sentence (clearly a transfer of
word order from English). The HS correctly guesses the intended meaning and
makes a correction from her point of view, using the second person singular
clitic te. Subsequently, the learner fails to shift the point of view of the event
to the ®rst person, and a secondary negotiation ensues. This raises an
important issue concerning feedbackÐwhich aspects of feedback do learners
pay attention to? This is especially important for grammatical miscom-
munications, since errors in word order (4) or preposition use (4) are often
accompanied by other syntactic or semantic diculties, and thus may require
a more involved negotiation routine in order to clear up the misunder-
standing.
The two pragmatic confusions encountered in the transcripts were the
result of non-understanding on the part of the L2 learner. This is not at all
surprising since L2 pragmatic competence usually lags behind grammatical
competence (Bardovi-Harlig 1999). Since pragmatic cues are hard enough to
interpret in face-to-face exchanges, the computer medium certainly does not
convey e€ectively subtle points of humour and irony. In (5), the L2 learner
fails to grasp the fact that the HS is only joking about hiding their co-ed living
arrangement from her parents. The learner insists on truthfulness, while the
HS playfully suggests that concealment is more expedient, but she is really
pulling the learner's leg on this one. The HS responds to the learner's
confusion and protests with ironic and humorous retorts until the end of the
exchange when a direct statement of `I'm kidding you' ®nally brings the L2
learner to the realization that he has missed the pragmatic import of the
conversation. The L2 learner signals with a happy face that he now
understands, which successfully resolves this pragmatic miscommunication.

(5) HS (type I) !NNS pragmatic confusions

HS: Me llamo Anna
My name is Anna
HS: Y tu?
And you?
NNS: me llamo Juan
my name is Juan
NNS: eres una mujer?
are you a woman?
HS: Es lo que creo
I believe so
HS: Eres un hombre?
Are you a man?
NNS: si
yes
HS: Si, soy una mujer
Yes, I am a woman
530 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

NNS: para clari®car algo,

to clarify something,
NNS: no pude alquilar un apartamento con una mujer . . .
I could not rent an apartment with a woman . . .
HS: ah no? Como eres hombre, creo que se lo voy a
tener que esconder a mis papas [humour]
oh no? Since you're a man, I think I'm going to have to
hide it from my parents.
NNS: no voy a esconder nada, si ese esta en realidad
I'm not going to hide anything, if this is reality
NNS: pero no es la realidad
but this is not reality
NNS: por eso
because of that
NNS: podemos hacerlo,
we can do it,
HS: Bueno, lo podemos hacer pero no se lo cuentes a
mis papas . . .
Okay, we can do it but don't tell my parents. . .
HS: Solo estoy bromeando
I'm only joking
NNS: :) [NNS ®nally understands that it's a joke]
The transcriptions were further analysed to reveal who was responsible for
resolving the communicative breakdowns. As Table 2 illustrates, the majority
of the resolutions can be attributed to the heritage speakers with lexical
confusions being the principal trigger.
In (6), the L2 learner is forced by the communicative task to ®nd an
equivalent for English to save (a digital computer ®le). In Spanish there are at
least three separate entries for this English verb: guardar (`to save/store
information or objects'), ahorrar (`to save money/time'), salvar (`to save a
life'). As Swain (1985, 2000) has noted, the demands of producing output
forces learners to put their linguistic resources into action and make speci®c
grammatical choices. Technically speaking, example (6) involves a lexical/
semantic choice rather than a purely syntactic one. However, the general
principle of the output hypothesis still applies to this example because the
communicative task forces the learner to choose among several possible
Table 2: Resolutions of linguistic diculties by type and speaker
HS NNS NNS self-correction

Lexical 18 5 1
Grammatical 3 Ð 1
Pragmatic 2 Ð Ð
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 531

options. Furthermore, we assume that the lexicon plays an important role in

making grammatical choices, and that lexical and grammatical development
are highly interrelated processes (see Bates and Goodman 1999 for a review of
research that supports this position). In this particular case, this learner opts
for the already known meaning of salvar, which is a false cognate in this
particular context. This provokes a clari®cation request from the HS. Once the
HS understands the context, the proper Spanish verb guardar can be suggested
and the breakdown is resolved.
(6) HS (type I) ! NNS lexical confusions
NNS: esta bien, como terminamos esa programa, lo
salvamos el texto? [TRIGGER]
®ne, since we ®nished that program, we save it the text?
HS: salvamos que? [INDICATOR]
we save what?
NNS: la informacion, no?
the information, right?
NNS: para Ana?
for Ana?
NNS: Eva
NNS: para Eva
for Eva
HS: si hay que guardar la informacion [RESPONSE]
yes we have to save the information
HS: Lo quieres guardar bajo el nombre de NNS, Aguilar,
Anna, o Juan?
Do you want to save it under the name NNS, Aguilar,
Anna, or Juan?
NNS: no importa
it doesn't matter
NNS: pon los dos.
put both.
HS: o voy a guardar bajo el nombre `Aguilar y NNS' entonces
I am going to save it under the name `Aguilar and NNS' then
...
NNS: bien!
good!
HS: ya lo guarde
I have already saved it
Five lexical confusions were resolved by the L2 learner, who took the
initiative in helping the heritage learner understand an unfamiliar vocabulary
item. In four of these ®ve cases, the learner was working with a type II
heritage speaker, but in one instance, a learner assisted a type I heritage
speaker in ®nding the correct word for central heating.8 The L2 learners have
more exposure to certain formal lexical items normally found in the classroom
532 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

that are not necessarily part of the bilingual repertoire. Example (7) represents
a fragment of an exchange in which the learner assists the HS with the verb
anÄadir (`to add'), a fairly common word in L2 classroom discourse. It is clear
from the exchange that this particular HS had no previous exposure to this
verb's use or meaning.

(7) NNS ! HS (type II) lexical confusions

NNS: solo tiene un numero, si?
it only has one number, right?
HS: creo que si
I think so
HS: porque luego comiensa a describirlo
because later it begins to describe it
NNS: bueno. puedes anadirlo [TRIGGER]
good. you can add it
HS: pondre solo el numero?
should I put just the number?
HS: que es anadir? [INDICATOR]
what is to add?
NNS: si. y que que es de lista `a'
yes. and that it's from list `a'
HS: esta bien
®ne
NNS: anadir signi®ca poner mas [RESPONSE]
to add means to put more
HS: o si
oh yes [REACTION]
NNS: lo has anadido. perfecto!
you have added it. perfect!
HS: que bueno
that's good
HS: bueno ya acabamos?
good, so we're done?

In (8) the NNS, again, takes the lead in resolving the communicative
breakdown, but in this case, the lexical item provided comes from a colloquial
register rather than the standard language. Since the HS was not familiar with
the more standard word for `patio' terraza, the learner was forced to ®nd
another comprehensible synonym; she chooses the word porche `porch' to
illustrate the concept.9 This is another case in which negotiation of meaning
provides the participants with opportunities to make the most of all of their
linguistic resources.

(8) NNS ! HS (type II) lexical confusions

HS: que es una terraza? [TRIGGER]
what is a terrace?
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 533

HS: Tambien quiero que haiga un lava platos.

I also want there to be a dishwasher.
NNS: este precio es bueno para mi tambie.
this price is good for me also.
HS: que bueno
that's good
HS: terraza? [INDICATOR]
terrace?
HS: He estado leiendo de unos apartamentos que se rentan
I have been reading about some apartments for rent
NNS: creo que esta palabra esta correctaÐuna terraza es
un porche [RESPONSE]
I think that this word is correctÐa terrace is a porch
HS: oh

In reviewing the transcripts, special attention was directed towards instances of

output that resulted from previous negotiations. Both (9) and (10) are
examples of such output, and suggest that the forms in question are in the
process of being acquired. In (9), the learner ®rst solicits help from the HS, who
then provides the Spanish equivalent of `furnished', It seems that the learner
incorporates this word into his/her working vocabulary and, subsequently,
uses it to ask two di€erent questions.

(9) HS (type II) ! NNS lexical confusions

NNS: oh, si. es mal, no recordi que quiero un
apartamento `furnished' [TRIGGER]
oh, yes. it's bad, I didn't remember that I want a
`furnished' apartment
NNS: como se dice `furnished' en espanol? [INDICATOR]
how do you say `furnished' in Spanish
HS: amueblado [RESPONSE]
furnished
NNS: amueblado. bueno. gracias [REACTION]
furnished. good. thanks
NNS: vale. mira un apartamento amueblado? [OUTPUT]
ok. look at a furnished apartment?
NNS: que sientas? Preocupas si el apartamento es
amueblado? [OUTPUT]
what do you feel? Do you worry if the apartment is
furnished?
HS: encontre uno!
I found one!

In (10), a similar pattern is at work: the NNS asks the HS to clarify the use of
calentoÂn, and then uses the very same word later on in the exchange.10 The
transcripts provide solid evidence that the NNS were not familiar with these
534 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

particular lexical items prior to the negotiation sequence. Most importantly,

the knowledge gained from the negotiation was recycled and used
appropriately at a later point in time.
(10) HS (type II) ! NNS lexical confusions
HS: Eso me parece bien. Yo necesito algo con calenton
porque soy muy friolenta [TRIGGER]
That sounds good to me. I need something with a heater
because I get very cold.
NNS: Que es calenton? [INDICATOR]
What is a heater?
HS: Tambien te queria decir que tengo muy poco dinero
y necesito algo de menos de 100.000 pesetas. Un
calenton es algo para que no te de frio. Un heater [RESPONSE]
Also I wanted to tell you that I have very little money
and I need something for less than 100,000 pesetas. A
heater is something so that you don't get cold. A heater
HS: Me gustaria tener algo con lavaplatos porque yo soy
muy limpia
I would like to have something with a dishwasher because
I'm very clean
NNS: El alquilar del apartamento que (a mi) me gusta es
muy caro. Yo solo necesito la cocina y la terraza.
The rent of the apartment that I like is very expensive.
I only need the kitchen and the terrace
NNS: Pienso que nos encontro un apartamento. Tiene
una cocina, electrodomosticos, y cuesta 85.000
pesetas. Pero no se si tiene un calenton. [OUTPUT]
I think that I ®nd us an apartment. It has a kitchen,
appliances, and costs 85,000 pesetas. But I don't know
if it has a heater.
HS: Hay un apartamento que tiene cocina, calefaccion,
lavaplatos y esta junto el Metro San Bernardo.
Vale 31.000 pts
There is an apartment that has a kitchen, heating, a
dishwasher and it's right next to Metro San Bernardo.
It costs 31,000 pesetas
HS: calefaccion es lo mismo que un calenton
heating is the same thing as a heater
A modi®cation of output does not always result from a breakdown in
communication. At times, the mere act of producing an utterance stimulates
L2 learners to re¯ect upon their own language use, which is one of the
bene®ts that Swain sees in forced output. Similar to the language-related
episodes described by Swain and Lapkin (1995),11 the L2 learners in this study
did experience moments of self-correction, as illustrated in (11). In this
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 535

exchange, the NNS asks a question incorrectly using the indicative tense in
the subordinate clause, and then modi®es his choice of mood, as required by
the syntactic structure. In order to arrive at the right form without external
feedback, the learner had to do a mental search of his existing knowledge. It is
precisely this cognitive process occurring between the ®rst and second
instance of output that may be of crucial importance to second language
acquisition (Swain and Lapkin 1995).

(11) NNS self-correction of syntactic confusion

HS: puedes explicar porque querias un balcon, cocina, y muebles
can you explain why you wanted a balcony, a kitchen, and furniture
NNS: ok
HS: yo te ayudo si quieres
I will help you if you want
NNS: quieres que yo habla mas?
do you want me to talk (indicative) more?
NNS: quieres que yo hable mas?
do you want me to talk (subjunctive) more?
HS: si tu quieres
if you want

Given the linguistic backgrounds of the participants, it was not surprising to

encounter dialectal features of Chicano Spanish in the transcripts similar to
the example given in (10). For some language instructors, the question
arises of whether or not it is bene®cial for L2 learners to be exposed to
forms that are not considered part of the `standard' norm. The exchange in
(12) is a clear example of such a usage: the HS/NNS pair negotiates the
meaning of the verb agarrar (to take, to grab). In colloquial usage, the
meaning of this verb has been extended in the Chicano community to
other semantic domains normally reserved for verbs like recibir (to receive),
obtener (to obtain), and conseguir (to get, to obtain).

(12) HS (type II) ! NNS lexical confusion

NNS: te gusta el numero tres de mi?
do you like number three of me?
HS: si me gusto, pero tambien me gusto el mio.
Entonces si vamos agarrar credito por este ejercicio [TRIGGER]
yes I liked it, but I also liked mine. Well we are going
to get credit for this exercise.
NNS: que es agarrar? [INDICATOR]
what is to get?
HS: a recibir [RESPONSE]
to receive
536 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

NNS: a bueno. yo tambien. entonces su apartamento esta

bien. solo falta la terraza? [REACTION]
oh good. me too. then your apartment is ®ne. the only
thing missing is the terrace?
Learning features of colloquial Spanish should not be considered a barrier
to mastering the standard norms. On the contrary, from the L2 learner's
perspective, more is always better. Ironically, the L2 learner would probably
choose recibir (to receive) when referring to university credit, if left to his/
her own devices. Yet, the L2 learner hasn't acquired the use of agarrar (to
take, to grab), which is commonly used in both Chicano and Mexican
varieties to express a physical action like `grabbing'. In this case, the verb
agarrar has been extended to a non-physical domain, which resembles its
function in other expressions of the type agarrar una gripe `to catch cold' or
agarrar una borrachera `to get drunk'. Similarly, agarrar creÂdito is under-
standable in a colloquial context; it communicates a message, but at the
same time, may sound somewhat odd to speakers not familiar with Chicano
Spanish.12 Accordingly, both the heritage and the L2 learner need to re®ne
their repertoires, but in di€erent ways. The heritage speaker needs to
narrow the contexts in which agarrar is used, while the L2 learner must
incorporate this high frequency verb into his/her lexicon. Clearly, both
types of learners will need more input in order to bring about this lexical
expansion.
A complete analysis of these exchanges brings to mind yet another
important issue: the interaction between the reading material of the task
and the instances of output. It is predictable that the L2 learners will make use
of the written input of the apartment ads as they attempt to produce the target
language while chatting with a partner. Swain and Lapkin (1995: 386) explain
`when learners cannot work out a solution, they may turn to input, this time
with more focused attention, searching for relevant input.' This appears to be
the case in (13), in which the NNS ®rst struggles with the word for
`furnishings' and then ®nds the answer he was looking for in the reading.
This new vocabulary item is later reinforced by the HS, and ®nally it is
attempted, again, by the learner. Although the ®nal output is not entirely
accurate, this does not mean that the interaction has been unproductive. It
simply underscores the fact that acquisition is often a process of trial and
error, and that many opportunities for production are needed to gain control
over linguistic forms. In addition, the L2 learner is trying to make associations
between the new lexical item amueblado `furnished' and a possible synonym,
completo `complete, fully furnished'.
(13) HS (type I) ! NNS lexical confusion
HS: cuales otras cosas?
what other things?
NNS: en una apartamento
in an apartment
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 537

NNS: como un sofa, y las sillas, y un escritorio

like the sofa, and the chairs, and a desk
NNS: los (furnishings) . . .
NNS: se ve bien, tambien, pero no esta amueblado
[picks it up from the reading]
it looks good, also, but it is not furnished
NNS: estoy de acuerdo contigo,
I agree with you,
NNS: numero 3 esta el mejor
number 3 is the best one
NNS: puedo tener control de otras ventana?
can I have control of other windows?
HS: Creo que tienes razon. Ademas de estar amueblado, tiene
calefaccion, television, etc. [reinforced by HS]
I think you're right. In addition to being furnished, it has heating,
television, etc.
...
HS: Lo unico que no tiene es el lavaplatos
The only thing it doesn't have is the dishwasher
NNS: completo? es amuebable? [OUTPUT, although not accurate]
complete? is it furnished?
Up to this point, we have shown several successful negotiation routines.
There were, however, several exchanges in which important morphosyn-
tactic errors did not spark any kind of negotiation nor self-correction. For
example, in (14) the NNS repeatedly fails to notice an incorrect syntactic
structure in her output. This error, although quite obvious, does not
provoke a communicative breakdown or a correction by the HS. Spanish, a
pro-drop language, has no need for a dummy subject such as `it', while in
English ®lling the subject slot is obligatory. In (14), the NNS repeatedly fails
to realize that Spanish is a pro-drop language and inserts an object clitic
pronoun to ®ll the subject position. This kind of transfer from the L1 goes
un-negotiated by the pair and seemingly un-noticed by the HS in this
exchange.
(14) Failure to notice a syntactic problem
HS: En donde esta la lista de apartamentos?
Where is the list of apartments?
NNS: Si, encontro una apartamento con un terraza y una cocina
pero no lo habla de un calenton o maquina de llava los trastes
Yes, I ®nd an apartment with a terrace and a kitchen but it (object
pronoun) doesn't talk about a heater or a machine to wash dishes.
HS: En donde lo encontraste?
Where did you ®nd it?
NNS: Lo esta en Alberto Aguilera? Tienes una lista con todos las
cosas que queremos?
538 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

It (object pronoun) is in Alberto Aguilera? Do you have a list with

all the things we want?
...
HS: si, pero es diferente
yes, but it is di€erent
NNS: Como es lo diferente?
How is it (object pronoun) di€erent?
HS: son diferentes apartamentos
they are di€erent apartments
...
NNS: Lo tiene un terraza o una cocina?
Does it (object pronoun) have a terrace or a kitchen?

Native English speakers often struggle with the more ¯exible Spanish word
order, and with the clitic pronoun system in general (VanPatten 1984, 1990),
but the role of interaction in the development of these, and other complex
structures, is still unclear.

DISCUSSION
The central concern of this study was to investigate the nature of HS/NNS
interactions in a CMC environment. Based on the exchanges we have
described in the previous section, it is apparent that HS and L2 learners
negotiate meaning and engage in the same types of interactional modi®ca-
tions as learner/learner pairs. The transcripts reveal instances of clari®cation
requests, expansions, recasts, self-corrections, and other interactional strat-
egies that have been well documented in both face-to-face and CMC
environments. This result was expected, but HS/NNS exchanges bring to
mind other theoretical interests as well.
Turning to our second research question and the issue of lexical
negotiations, these HS/NNS exchanges reveal that negotiations of meaning
have a positive e€ect on vocabulary use. In addition, the demands of
electronic chatting, which force the participants to produce output, often
provide an immediate record of subsequent uses of new vocabulary items that
might indicate a change in the L2 learners' linguistic knowledge. However,
this study was not designed to determine whether or not these advances yield
only short-term gains or signify more permanent additions to the L2 lexicon.13
Although the subjects in this study were not administered a delayed post-test,
Swain and Lapkin (1998) provide examples con®rming a strong relationship
between output and delayed recall of lexical items. Accordingly, future studies
should include a delayed recall measure to explore more thoroughly this
apparent connection between forced output and acquisition.
In terms of syntax, the data would suggest that modi®cations to
interlanguage grammar proceed exceedingly slowly in comparison to
vocabulary growth. The transcripts indicated only a handful of grammatical
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 539

negotiations in spite of many syntactic and morphological errors, many of

which seemed to go unnoticed by both participants.14 Perhaps a battery of
tasks with a more speci®c `focus on form', along with more instructor
intervention (Nobuyoshi and Ellis 1993: 205), may be the only way to
stimulate the L2 learners to notice these kinds of gaps in their grammar. In
addition, interaction may be bene®cial in the acquisition of certain forms,
while proving ine€ective in the development of others. For example, Mackey
(1999) found positive e€ects for active involvement in conversational
interaction and the development of question formation in ESL learners.
Question formation, the target linguistic feature of Mackey's investigation,
seems to be an ideal candidate for the interaction hypothesis since asking
questions is an inherent part of most communicative tasks. More empirical
studies must be carried out in an attempt to generalize these ®ndings to other
grammatical structures (Mackey 1999: 583).
With respect to the particular concerns of heritage speakers and L2 learners,
the results illustrate that both groups trigger and resolve miscommunications,
although the HS assist their L2 partners much more often. This does not lead
us to conclude that the exchanges were unproductive for the heritage
speakers. On the contrary, we believe that these types of CMC exchanges can
provide HS with opportunities to expand their bilingual range or command of
multiple registers, as has been advocated by ValdeÂs (1997). More speci®cally,
such tasks may force heritage speakers to discuss topics that are not part of
their usual repertoire. Due to the small sample size in this study, we could not
determine if the di€erent types of heritage speakers (Type I or Type II) had an
e€ect on the task-based interactions. Future studies should target more
speci®cally how di€erent types of heritage speakers shape NNS/HS negotia-
tions.
This study also demonstrates that the output hypothesis (Swain 1985),
which has been exclusively used in the realm of L2 learning, can also be
applied to the linguistic concerns facing heritage speakers. Bills (1997: 227)
explains that many heritage speakers su€er from varying degrees of language
loss (i.e. attrition), marked by a `dis¯uency' that can take many forms. Bills
(1997) further illustrates how forced output of Spanish often highlights this
dis¯uency, whether it is a simple lexical gap or a more profound indication of
language loss. It is possible that output within an interactionist framework can
help remedy this dis¯uency to some extent, since one of the primary
functions of output is automaticity of language processing (Gass 1997: 148;
McLaughlin 1987). In the computer context, output is yet another way of
increasing heritage speakers' ¯uency in Spanish.

CONCLUSIONS
The present study investigates HS/NNS exchanges in an environment that
mitigates the demands for immediate performance (i.e. face-to-face speech)
and provides textual support to facilitate output by both groups. From an
540 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH

interpersonal perspective, Varonis and Gass (1985: 84) have suggested that
learner/learner pairings encourage negotiation because learners recognize
that they have a `shared incompetence', while NS/NNS exchanges often
discourage negotiation because there is an `inequality in the status of the
participants' (Varonis and Gass 1985: 86). These observations seem to be
useful for the analysis of the pairing of L2 learners and heritage speakers.
Many heritage speakers have misconstrued, and often negative, appraisals of
their own Spanish abilities. As a result, when faced with a monolingual native
speaker of Spanish, they are often intimidated, fearing that their Spanish is
`not good enough'. This linguistic insecurity is sometimes reinforced by social
class di€erences as well. When interacting with L2 learners of Spanish (NNS),
however, the opposite reaction is more likely, especially over the Internet
where physical anonymity is the order of the day. The heritage speakers ®nd
themselves in a non-inhibiting situation, as do the learners, which may tend
to encourage language output, with all the bene®ts discussed above. Both HS
and NNS are learners of Spanish, but the HS, clearly, are able to bring to bear
their superior linguistic knowledge. In these circumstances, the HS may
justi®ably feel that he/she is the linguistic expert or authority, which is a
con®dence-boosting experience. In CMC exchanges, heritage speakers
constitute a respected source of information, as they should be.
With respect to the NNS populations, being paired with someone above
their competency level has obvious bene®ts. Porter (1986) found that the
mixing of pro®ciency levels is advantageous, especially for the intermediate
learner paired with a higher-level partner. Porter suggests that the
intermediate learners were in an ideal situation to receive input that was
just beyond their current level of competence. These ®ndings are particularly
applicable to the HS/NNS match-up, in which the HS undoubtedly has more
linguistic expertise.
Another powerful feature of these synchronous discussions previously
mentioned is the added processing time that is generally unavailable to
learners in face-to-face exchanges. Following Levelt's (1989) model, Payne
and Whitney (2002: 14) explain that `Thus [in CMC] the processing demand
is reduced, or, more precisely, the amount of language that an individual has
to parse, comprehend, and respond to is lower for a given time period.' This is
one signi®cant advantage of a text-based medium: it facilitates comprehension
of input (Warschauer 1997). This is not to say that the HS/NNS exchanges
done in a face-to-face environment would not have yielded a similar set of
results. But the CMC discussions free the participants from having to be in a
particular place at the same time and emphasize the textual aspects of
communication. Likewise, CMC tools greatly facilitate data collection, as we
have already discussed.
With respect to output, the learners have an opportunity to pre-plan their
utterances, to perceive visually the utterance they are creating, and then to
edit the initial response. The same holds for lexical retrieval, a frequent
problem for non-balanced bilingual speakers (de Bot 1992: 14). Just as in the
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 541

case of the L2 learners, the CMC medium gives heritage speakers more
production time to search their lexicon and ®nd the appropriate items. The
possible bene®ts of this visual saliency have also been discussed by Pellettieri
(1999), who suggests that the CMC environment allows learners to compare
directly their original utterance with a modi®ed version, or with a recast
supplied by their partner. Visual saliency is also related to working memory,
allowing the learner to strengthen memory traces by referring back to a
preceding exchange. These particular features of the text-based medium imply
valuable advantages for the second language learner.
Heritage students with developing literacy skills are rarely considered an
asset to the standard university-level Spanish curriculum.15 But this study
would suggest the opposite is true: Spanish heritage speakers can be a
valuable resource to L2 learners, given a careful presentation of collaborative
tasks. At the same time, heritage speakers also pro®t from their exchanges
with L2 learners, both in terms of re®ning their vocabulary breadth and
reinforcing a more positive self-image of their superior cultural and linguistic
knowledge of Spanish. The fact that these bene®cial pairings can also be done
on the Web through CMC expands an institution's possibilities for maximizing
the potential of all of its language resources, locally or at a distance.
(Revised version received February 2003)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Eva Barela and the students at the University of California, Davis for
their help in the data collection phase of the study. We also appreciate the insightful comments
from anonymous reviewers. An earlier version of this paper was presented at AAAL 2001, 27
February, 2001, in St Louis, MO.

NOTES
1 For the purposes of this paper, the terms
`second language acquisition' and `foreign
language classroom' are not mutually ex-
clusive. Since linguistic negotiations occur
in both contexts, research on negotiation
can be applied to both second and foreign
language acquisition.
2 For a contrary viewpoint, see Sproull and
Kiesler (1986), who argue that CMC might
actually impair interactions, by reducing
the amount of nonverbal information. Our
focus attends more to CMC's positive out-
comes of reduced social cuesÐspeci®cally,
how this textual medium may allow inter-
locutors to mitigate the negative e€ects of
asymmetrical power relationships, espe-
cially with interactions between learners,
rather than NNS/NS pairs.
3 This de®nition is an adequate one for
heritage speakers who reside in the United
States, where it is presumed that English is
the language of the majority.
4 For a de®nition of focused and unfocused
tasks, see Ellis (1997: 210±11).
5 Diacritics in Spanish do not appear in the
chat transcripts, but we do not believe this
causes any signi®cant misunderstandings.
6 Technically speaking, what is being nego-
tiated is input from the text, not from any
of the two interlocutors. In this study, we
will include this as a negotiation event
since `attention is focused on resolving a
communication problem' (Gass 1997: 107).
7 In Spanish, both ser and estar can be
equivalents of English `to be,' but only
estar is used to indicate location, unless
542 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH
reference is made to an event, in which
case ser is used. The distinction between ser
and estar is infamously dicult for L2
learners.
8 Exchange between learner and type I
heritage speaker:
HS: . . . necesito calentamiento central
HS: like central heating
NNS: esta bien, la calefaccioÂn, no?
In this exchange, the HS opts for the term
calentamiento, which he/she most likely
derives from the familiar verb calentar `to
heat'. However, the noun form calenta-
miento is only used to describe a warm-up
in the sports context, or in the physical
sense of warming, i.e. global warming.
9 The Spanish word porche originates from
porxe/porxo `overhang' in Catalan (Diccio-
nario de la Real Academia EspanÄola, date of
entry inclusion 1843). Although the L2
learner's explanation satis®es the heritage
speaker, the semantics of porche and terraza
are slightly di€erent. In Spanish a porche
refers to the covered entrance of a house,
whereas a terraza is a ¯at roof or a balcony.
It is likely, however, that the L2 learner is
using porche as an Anglicism.
10 The word calentoÂn in used in Northern
Mexican and Chicano Spanish to refer to
a water heater.
REFERENCES
Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considera-
tions in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999. `The interlanguage of
interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda
for acquisitional pragmatics.' Language Learn-
ing 49/4: 677±713.
Bates, E. and J. Goodman. 1999. `On the
emergence of grammar from the lexicon' in
B. MacWhinney (ed.) The Emergence of
Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
pp. 29±65.
Bills, G. 1997. `Language shift, linguistic
variation, and teaching Spanish to native
speakers in the United States' in C. Colombi
and F. AlarcoÂn (eds): La ensenÄanza del espanÄol
a hispanohablantes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company. pp. 263±82.
Blake, R. 2000. `Computer mediated commun-
11 A language-related episode is de®ned as a
moment in `which a learner either spoke
about a language problem he/she
encountered while writing and solved it
either correctly or incorrectly; or simply
solved it without having explicitly identi-
®ed it as a problem' (Swain and Lapkin
1995: 378).
12 This usage of agarrar creÂdito also suggests a
possible syntactic calque from English: `to
get credit' for a course or assignment. In
Spanish, the focus is more on who grants
credit rather than who receives it: me van a
dar creÂdito por . . . `They will give me credit
for . . .' The English preference for SVO
word order, as in `I got . . .', seems to
in¯uence the choice of agarrar in this
context.
13 For a study that addresses the impact of
CMC exchanges on vocabulary acquisition
over time, see Blake and GonzaÂlez-Pagani
(2002).
14 Heritage speakers often lack the metalin-
guistic ability to talk about grammatical
constructs in Spanish such as the subjunc-
tive, clitics, etc.
15 For an example of the curricular inclusion
of heritage speakers as tutors for L2
learners, see Quintanar-Sarellana et al.
(1997).
ication: A window on L2 Spanish interlan-
guage.' Language Learning and Technology 4/1:
120±36.
Blake, R. and M. V. GonzaÂlez Pagani. 2002.
`Two heads better than one: On-line L2
chatting and vocabulary growth.' Presented
at the 1st UC Language Consortium
Conference on Language Learning and
Teaching, UC Irvine, 9 March 2002,
http://uccllt.ucdavis.edu/hli/papers/a.htm.
Brock, C., G. Crookes, R. Day, and M. Long.
1986. `The differential effects of corrective
feedback in native speaker conversation' in
R. Day (ed.): Talking to Learn: Conversation in
Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House. pp. 229±36.
de Bot, K. 1992. `A bilingual production
model: Levelt's `Speaking' model adapted.'
Applied Linguistics 13/1: 1±24.
 ROBERT J. BLAKE and EVE C. ZYZIK 543
Doughty, C. and M. H. Long. 2000. `Eliciting
Second Language Speech Data' in L. Menn
and N. Bernstein Ratner (eds): Methods of
Studying Language Production. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 149±77.
Ellis, R. 1997. SLA Research and Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second
Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Gass, S. and E. Varonis. 1994. `Input, inter-
action and second language production.'
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16:
283±302.
Grosjean, F. 1992. `Another view of bilingual-
ism' in Harris, R.J. (ed.): Cognitive Processing
in Bilinguals. Amsterdam: North Holland.
pp. 51±62.
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking. From Intention
to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Long, M. 1981. `Input, interaction and second
language acquisition' in Winitz (ed.) Native
Language and Foreign Language Acquisition.
New York: Annals of the New York Academy
of Science. pp. 259±78.
Long, M. 1983. `Linguistic and conversational
adjustments to nonnative speakers.' Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 5: 177±93.
Loschky, L. and R. Bley-Vroman. 1993.
`Grammar and task-based methodology' in
G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds): Tasks and
Language Learning: Integrating Theory and
Practice. Vol 1. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual
Matters. pp. 123±67.
Mackey, A. 1994. `Targeting morpho-syntax
in children's ESL: An empirical study of the
use of interactive goal based tasks.' Penn
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 10/1:
67±89.
Mackey, A. 1999. `Input, interaction, and
second language development: An empiri-
cal study of question formation in ESL.'
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21:
557±87.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second Lan-
guage Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Montrul, S. 2002. `Incomplete acquisition and
attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions
in adult bilinguals.' Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition 5/1: 39±68.
Nobuyoshi, J. and R. Ellis. 1993. `Focused
communication tasks and second language
acquisition.' ELT Journal 47/3: 203±10.
Payne, J. S. and P. J. Whitney. 2002. `Devel-
oping L2 oral proficiency through synchro-
nous CMC: output, working memory and
interlanguage development.' CALICO Journal
20/1: 7±32.
Pellettieri, J. 1999. `Negotiation in cyberspace:
The role of chatting in the development of
grammatical competence' in M. Warschauer
and R. Kern (eds): Network-Based Language
Teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 59±86.
Pica, T. 1994. `Research on negotiation: What
does it reveal about second-language learn-
ing conditions, processes, and outcomes?'
Language Learning 44: 493±527.
Pica, T., L. Holliday, N. Lewis, and
L. Morgenthaler. 1989. `Comprehensible
output as an outcome of linguistic demands
on the learner.' Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 11: 63±90.
Pica, T., R. Kanagy, and J. Falodun. 1993.
`Choosing and using communication tasks
for second language instruction' in
G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds): Tasks and
Language Learning: Integrating Theory and
Practice. Vol 1. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual
Matters. pp. 9±34.
Porter, P. 1986. `How learners talk to each
other: input and interaction in task-centered
discussions' in R. Day (ed.): Talking to
Learn: Conversation in Second Language
Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
pp. 200±22.
Quintanar-Sarellana, R., T. Huebner, and
A. Jensen. 1997. `La utilizacioÂn de nuestros
recursos linguÈõÂsticos: los estudiantes hispa-
nohablantes como tutores de espanÄol como
idioma extranjero' in C. Colombi and
F. AlarcoÂn (eds): La ensenÄanza del espanÄol a
hispanohablantes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company. pp. 8±44.
Sato, C. 1986. `Conversation and interlan-
guage development: rethinking the connec-
tion' in R. Day (ed.): Talking to Learn:
Conversation in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp. 23±45.
Silva-CorvalaÂn, C. 2001. Linguistic conse-
quences of impoverished input in bilingual
first language acquisition. Plenary talk, 4th
conference on the acquisition of Spanish and
Portuguese as first and second languages,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
October.
Sproull, L. and S. Kiesler. 1986. `Reduced
544 NETWORKED DISCUSSIONS IN SPANISH
social contact cues: Electronic mail in organ-
ization.' Management Science 32: 1492±512.
Swain, M. 1985. `Communicative competence:
Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development'
in C. Madden and S. Gass (eds): Input in
Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House. pp. 235±53.
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 Honor of H.G.
Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp. 125±44.
Swain, M. 2000. `The output hypothesis and
beyond: Mediating acquisition through col-
laborative dialogue' in J. P. Lantolf (ed.):
Sociocultural Theory and Second Language
Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp. 97±114.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1995. `Problems in
output and the cognitive processes they
generate: a step towards second language
learning.' Applied Linguistics 16: 371±391.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1998. `Interaction
and second language learning: two adoles-
cent French immersion students working
together.' Modern Language Journal 82: 320±
37.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2001. `Focus on
form through collaborative dialogue: Explor-
ing task effects' in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and
M. Swain (eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks:
Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Test-
ing. New York: Longman. pp. 99±118.
ValdeÂs, G. 1997. `The teaching of Spanish to
bilingual Spanish-speaking students: Out-
standing issues and unanswered questions'
in C. Colombi and F. AlarcoÂn (eds): La
ensenÄanza del espanÄol a hispanohablantes.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 8±
44.
ValdeÂs, G. 2000. Spanish for Native Speakers,
Volume 1. AATSP Professional Development
Series Handbook for Teachers K-16. New
York, NY: Harcourt College Publishers.
VanPatten, B. 1984. `Learners' comprehension
of clitic pronouns: More evidence for a word
order strategy.' Hispanic Linguistics 1/1: 57±
67.
VanPatten, B. 1990. `The acquisition of clitic
pronouns in Spanish: two case studies' in
B. VanPatten and J. Lee (eds): Second
Language Acquisition / Foreign Language Learn-
ing. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
pp. 118±39.
VanPatten, B. 1996. Input Processing and Gram-
mar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Varonis, E. and S. Gass. 1985. `Non-native/
non-native conversations: A model for
negotiation of meaning.' Applied Linguistics
6: 71±90.
Warschauer, M. 1996. `Comparing face to face
and electronic discussion in the second
language classroom.' Calico Journal 13/2±3:
7±26.
Warschauer, M. 1997. `Computer-mediated
collaborative learning.' Modern Language
Journal 81/4: 470±81.