Mobile Learning Revolution: Implications for Language Pedagogy

Mobile technologies including cell phones and tablets are a pervasive feature of everyday life with potential impact on teaching and learning. “Mobile pedagogy” may seem like a contradiction in terms, since mobile learning often takes place physically beyond the teacher's reach, outside the walls of the classroom. While pedagogy implies careful planning, mobility exposes learners to the unexpected. A thoughtful pedagogical response to this reality involves new conceptualizations of what is to be learned and new activity designs. This approach recognizes that learners may act in more self-determined ways beyond the classroom walls, where online interactions and mobile encounters influence their target language communication needs and interests. The chapter sets out a range of opportunities for out-of-class mobile language learning that give learners an active role and promote communication. It then considers the implications of these developments for language content and curricula and the evolving roles and competences of teachers

Multimodal language processing in human communication

Multiple layers of visual (and vocal) signals, plus their different onsets and offsets, represent a significant semantic and temporal binding problem during face-to-face conversation. Despite this complex unification process, multimodal messages appear to be processed faster than unimodal messages. Multimodal gestalt recognition and multilevel prediction are proposed to play a crucial role in facilitating multimodal language processing. The basis of the processing mechanisms involved in multimodal language comprehension is hypothesized to be domain general, coopted for communication, and refined with domain-specific characteristics. A new, situated framework for understanding human language processing is called for that takes into consideration the multilayered, multimodal nature of language and its production and comprehension in conversational interaction requiring fast processing

Teacher’s semiotic games in mathematics laboratory

The paper uses a semiotic lens to describe the teacher’s interventions in classroom discussions, with all the students or only o group of them. The frame is semiotic-cultural and considers teacher’s production within students’ productions, during the development of a mathematical activity. This frame uses the model of the semiotic bundle to describe the various semiotic contributions (by the teacher and the students) and allows focussing some important strategies, called semiotic games, used by the teacher to support students’ mathematics learning

Teacher’s semiotic games in mathematics laboratory

The paper uses a semiotic lens to describe the teacher’s interventions in classroom discussions, with all the students or only o group of them. The frame is semiotic-cultural and considers teacher’s production within students’ productions, during the development of a mathematical activity. This frame uses the model of the semiotic bundle to describe the various semiotic contributions (by the teacher and the students) and allows focussing some important strategies, called semiotic games, used by the teacher to support students’ mathematics learning

Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo

Gesture in multimodal language learner interaction via videoconferencing on mobile devices

This thesis focuses on how adult English language learners exploit and experience gesture while communicating with one another via mobile technologies. Mobiles create opportunities for multimodal language learning beyond the classroom (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2017), however, modes such as gesture are mediated and transformed by technology in complex ways (Hampel & Stickler, 2012). In a small-scale qualitative study, learners from a range of nationalities who were studying on language programmes in the UK were connected in dyads via Skype videoconferencing (VC) in order to complete information gap tasks using tablets, 2-in-1 devices, and smartphones. These communicative tasks had been intentionally designed around a diversity of informal ‘settings’ (Benson, 2011) which included cafés, museums, and historical buildings. Following the tasks, participants took part in stimulated recall interviews in order to reflect on their multimodal forms of communication. This exploratory, qualitative study examines gesture from a theoretical perspective which links the mode to spoken language (Kendon, 2004; McNeill, 1992; Norris, 2004) and positions gesture within the wider framework of the negotiation of meaning (Varonis & Gass, 1985). As the role of speech-associated gestures within language learning via technology has not been widely researched, an interdisciplinary methodology had to be designed to analyse the video recorded data from the learners’ tasks. This is based on transcription procedures from gesture-speech analysis (McNeill, 1992; McNeill & Duncan, 2000). As gesture in this study is understood as being closely aligned to speech, a multimodal unit of analysis was combined with the Varonis and Gass (1985) framework of the negotiation of meaning. The multimodal method allowed for the categorisation and analysis of gesture to investigate how learners may co-orchestrate the two modes in relationship to their deployment of mobile technologies from beyond the classroom. The participants were asked to reflect on their interactions from multimodal perspectives and interview data were triangulated with the task performances. Theoretical and pedagogical conclusions are drawn as to the manner in which learners exploit gesture as an integral part of the negotiation of meaning

Complaint sequences across proficiency levels: the contribution of pragmatics and multimodality

El objetivo de esta tesis es contribuir a la investigación en pragmática del interlenguaje y multimodalidad. El objetivo principal es explorar como aprendices de lengua en distintos niveles de lengua realizan quejas desde la perspectiva del análisis de la conversación (Kasper, 2006). Un análisis multimodal de la conversación se ha realizado para examinar cómo diferentes modos interactúan en la construcción de la conversación. El marco teórico presentado en el estudio se centró en la naturaleza de la pragmática (Crystal, 1985; Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983), pragmática del interlenguaje (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993), análisis de la conversación (Sacks et al., 1974), nivel de lengua (e.g. Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012), el acto de habla de las quejas (e.g. Trosborg, 1995; Laforest, 2002), y la multimodalidad (Jewitt, et al., 2016).The aim of this thesis is to contribute to the research on interlanguage pragmatics and multimodality. The main purpose is to explore how learners at different proficiency levels perform complaints and responses to complaints following a conversation analysis approach (Kasper, 2006). Furthermore, a multimodal conversation analysis is conducted in order to examine how different modes interact in the construction of the conversation. To meet the objectives of the thesis, the theoretical framework presented in the study focused on the nature of pragmatics (Crystal, 1985; Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983), interlanguage pragmatics (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993), conversation analysis (Sacks et al., 1974), proficiency (e.g. Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012), the speech act of complaints (e.g. Trosborg, 1995; Laforest, 2002), and multimodality (Jewitt, et al., 2016). This framework served to explore participants' performance of complaints sequences at different proficiency levels, specific conversational features such as backchannel and overlapping, paralanguage and kinesics

The multimodal origins of linguistic communication

Why is language unique? How and why did it emerge? Such questions are emblematic of the Western intellectual tradition, and while some even today see them as intractable, a majority consider the problem of language origins as difficult but possible to address scientifically: “the hardest problem in science”. Such questions are the domain of language evolution: an interdisciplinary and inclusive research area unified by a common goal: to explain the emergence and subsequent development of the species-specific human ability to acquire and use language. In this brief introduction, we describe the transition of the field from mostly theoretical “grand questions” to mostly empirical research focused on narrowly defined puzzles. Increasingly many such specific, empirically addressable puzzles revolve around the motif of sensory modality, which – we argue – is as central to determining the origins of linguistic communication as to understanding its present nature