Posted: Jul 09, 2012 2:26 pm
by don't get me started
I have written something like three drafts every month for this, and been disappointed at each and every one.

Yeah, tell me about it....
I'm writing three papers this month. One for a non-peer reviewed publication, the other two for peer-review. No matter how many times I revisit it, it's never right. I have to admit that I'll never be a really successful writer. I'm far happier giving presentations, using language as a living, protean thing.
No surprise that I have directed my research efforts at conversation analysis (CA) rather than generative grammar and all of that side of language.

By the way, one of the studies I referenced was relating to Finnish.
It found that when non-native speakers (NNS) of Finnish were in interaction with native speakers of Finnish (NS), the NNS tended to focus on grammatical correctness, but the NS brushed over it. The example given was of a NNS trying to get the inflection right and the NS just saying get on with it.

NNS has been telling a story about two babies mixed up at birth.

NNS: Sitte he (0.2) huomaa- huomu- huoma=
NS: Jo o [huomas]
NNS: [huomat] huomas
NS: Joo
(0.4)
NS: Mitas siina tapahtu sitte...

The brackets indicate pausing and the square brackets indicate overlapping speech.

In this case the NNS was performing a word search...specifically, attending to the 'correct' form.
The NS provided the 'correct 'form and after a short pause moved the interaction forward.
Notice how the NNS contined the word search even during overlapping speech, but the NS brought the search to a halt by supplying the 'correct' form, and established that the concept was understood and there was no further need to dwell on the form of the verb 'notice'.

Refrence:
Salla Kurhila.
Different Orientations to Grammatical Correctness PP 143-158 in
Applying Conversation Analysis
K. Richards and P. Seedhouse
Macmillan