Improving Paralanguage Education
Running head: IMPROVING PARALANGUAGE EDUCATION
Improving Paralanguage Education in Computer-Mediated Communication
Using Multi-User Virtual Environments
Douglas W. Canfield
IT678: Seminar in Instructional Technology
Michael Waugh – Fall Semester 2008
1
Improving Paralanguage Education
2
Improving Paralanguage Education in Computer-Mediated Communication
Using Multi-User Virtual Environments
Paralanguage education continues in many ways to “not get enough attention” (von
Raffler-Engel, 1980, p. 225) in SLA research to achieve a connection to second-language
learning in any codified way (Fujimoto, 2003; Pennycook, 1985). Notwithstanding this neglect
to research the praxis of paralanguage acquisition, there is a significant body of literature
describing and examining the importance of paralanguage to communicative competence in both
face-to-face (F2F) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) for the learner of a second
language (L2). The greater part of studies on SLA and paralanguage in F2F communication
explore one of three subjects: the crucial culture-specific role of paralanguage, the implication
of the magnification of paralanguage education for communicative competence, and suggestions
for teachers to facilitate student acquisition of the L2 paralanguage (Galloway, 1980; Lazaraton,
2004; Pennycook, 1985; von Raffler-Engel, 1980). The majority of computer-assisted language
learning (CALL) studies on SLA and paralanguage in CMC focus on text-based environments,
attempting to reaffirm classic studies that not only is the adapted paralanguage in text-based
CMC comparable in adequacy to F2F communication (Walther, 1992; Walther, Loh, & Granka,
2005) but in certain regards superior by fostering greater equality (Finholt & Sproull, 1990; Rice
& Love, 1987; Scharlott & Christ, 1995).
Yet within this body of literature, few studies explore in any detail the effects of the
available paralanguage channels in any given mediated or F2F environment on L2 acquisition,
nor on the larger issue of transfer from paralinguistic research to the praxis of L2 education. A
lacuna exists in the literature concerning the transfer of paralinguistic practices in CMC to the
use of paralanguage in F2F communication. Also, literature specific to the recent rise of multi-
Improving Paralanguage Education
3
user virtual environments (MUVEs) is nascent in SLA scholarship, yet these environments
afford the use of face and body movements, gestures, and voice, allowing for a more life-like
expression and study of paralanguage that can ostensibly be more readily transferred to F2F
situations, something that even current L2 classroom contexts are not oriented to do. As eighty
percent of active Internet users will use virtual worlds within three years due to their
collaborative and community-related aspects (Pettey, 2007), more needs to be known about the
transfer of paralanguage from CMC to F2F communication and how MUVEs may constitute a
fundamental paradigm shift in SLA. This knowledge will allow for the construction of
pedagogical frameworks in these new technologies to inform the effective praxis of paralanguage
education. In particular, these questions need to be addressed:
•
How important is paralanguage education to overall communicative competence
in SLA?
•
How different is current (pre-MUVE) CMC paralanguage from F2F
paralanguage?
•
Is paralanguage less effective in CMC? Do we use different cues, and can those
cues be transferred to F2F situations?
•
How might MUVEs impact future pedagogical frameworks for target language
(L2) instruction of paralanguage?
A potential focus of further review of this subject could be on the essence of the difference
in the use of paralanguage in CMC and F2F and the potential impact of MUVEs on this
difference. Although there are a substantial number of studies about paralanguage and CMC,
their role in SLA and CALL (and the potential role of MUVEs in revolutionizing this role) is still
marginal and deserves further development.
Improving Paralanguage Education
4
Following Pennycook (1985), paralanguage would be defined as the facets of discourse that
fall outside linguistic structures or content and comprises the following aspects:
•
kinesics, which includes body movements, gestures, and facial expressions, as well
as the tangential area of chronemics, or the use of time in nonverbal
communication;
•
proxemics, which involves the communicative role in a culture of spatial
arrangements and variations in distance, as well as the “closely related and often
overlapping area” (Pennycook, 1985 p. 264) of haptics, which has to do with the
socio-communicative role of touch;
•
prosody, which Pennycook (1985, p. 266) calls “paraverbal features”, and refers to
the nonlexical elements of speech, such as stress and intonation, as well as the
cultural role of silence in speech segments.
Method for the Literature Review
To properly evaluate the extant literature germane to the field of paralanguage in CALL
(and CALL use of paralanguage in virtual environments in particular), electronic searches of
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) would be conducted along each salient binary lexical
set for the following terms: SLA, CMC, paralanguage, kinesics, proxemics, prosody, haptics,
F2F, MUVEs, Second Life (SL) and CALL. The diversity of the key terms in the proposed
search is reflective of the multiplicity of subject disciplines involved (applied linguistics, CALL,
education, psychology, communication, etc.) and their complex interrelationships. Moreover, the
study of paralanguage in MUVEs is terra nova in the research field, and the studies that directly
compare paralanguage in F2F communication, CALL CMC, and CALL MUVEs are heretofore
Improving Paralanguage Education
5
non-existent. This would necessitate a expansion of scope to an overview of paralanguage in
SLA, CMC, and CALL, as well as in predecessing virtual environments like multi-user
dimensions and object-oriented multi-user domains. Pertinent articles retrieved via article
databases (ERIC, IEEE, JSTOR,etc.), would lead to secondary searches via Google Scholar
based upon additional articles culled from citations during a first reading. Research of three sorts
would be included: theoretical or foundational work relevant to MUVEs, SLA, CMC, and
paralanguage, previous literature reviews, and empirical research that addresses MUVEs, CMC,
SLA, and paralanguage. Some conceptual/analytical and applied concepts articles would be
included where empirical research is lacking, with a view to desiderata for future studies. It
would examine four distinct loci: the importance of paralanguage in SLA, the difference
between CMC and F2F paralanguage, the effectiveness and transferability of CMC
paralanguage, and the impact that MUVEs could have on CMC. Collectively, these would serve
to inform how the affordances of MUVEs could enhance paralinguistic competence, and what
types of studies a reasearcher (like me) should undertake.
Improving Paralanguage Education
6
References
Finholt, T., & Sproull, L. (1990). Electronic groups at work. Organization science, 1(1), 41-64.
Fujimoto, D. (2003). Nonverbal Communication and Pragmatics. The Language Teacher Issue
27.5, May 2003. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.jaltpublications.org/tlt/articles/2003/05/fujimoto
Galloway, V. (1980). Perceptions of Communicative Efforts of American Students of Spanish.
Modern Language Journal, 64(4), 428-433.
Lazaraton, A. (2004). Gesture and Speech in the Vocabulary Explanations of One ESL Teacher:
A Microanalytic Inquiry. Language Learning, 54(1), 79-117.
Pennycook, A. (1985). Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Paralanguage, Communication, and
Education. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 259-282.
Pettey, C. (2007, April 24, 2007). Gartner Says 80 Percent of Active Internet Users Will Have
A" Second Life" in the Virtual World by the End of 2011 Retrieved November 16, 2008,
from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=503861
Rice, R., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic Emotion: Socioemotional Content in a ComputerMediated Communication Network. Communication Research, 14(1), 85.
Scharlott, B., & Christ, W. (1995). Overcoming relationship-initiation barriers: The impact of a
computer-dating system on sex role, shyness, and appearance inhibitions. Computers in
Human Behavior, 11(2), 191-204.
von Raffler-Engel, W. (1980). Kinesics and Paralinguistics: A Neglected Factor in SecondLanguage Research and Teaching. Canadian Modern Language Review, 36(2), 225-237.
Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Relational
Perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52.
Walther, J., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let Me Count the Ways: The Interchange of Verbal
and Nonverbal Cues in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Affinity. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 36.