Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:14:50.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L2 classroom interaction and its links to L2 learners’ developing L2 linguistic repertoires: A research agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2020

Joan Kelly Hall
Joan Kelly Hall*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
*
Email: jkh11@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A great deal of research on second language (L2) input has provided useful linguistic evidence for the development of generalizations about and hypotheses on the usage-based nature of L2 knowledge. However, despite the fact that classrooms are one of the most ubiquitous sites of L2 learning, we still know very little about the linguistic quality of naturally-occurring classroom interactions and their consequential role in shaping learners’ linguistic repertoires (Ellis, 2016). These data are needed in order to understand how differences in L2 classroom interactional activities affect L2 learner language. This is the focus of the set of research tasks I lay out in this paper. After a brief overview of usage-based research on language and a summary of the methodological contributions of conversational analysis (CA) and interactional linguistics (IL) to such research, I will explicate a research agenda comprising five tasks for investigating the links between L2 classroom interaction and L2 learners’ developing linguistic repertoires. By making clear the interrelationships between teaching and learning, findings from the studies will offer new insights into L2 pedagogy and the key role that L2 teachers play in designing the linguistic environments of their learning contexts and shaping learners' linguistic repertoires.

Type
Thinking Allowed
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 100 - 115
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antaki, C. (2011). Six kinds of applied conversation analysis. In Antaki, C. (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 1–14). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, G. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers ‘so’ and ‘oh’ and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 661–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
CEAPP. (2014). Corpus of videos and accompanying transcripts from educational contexts. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., Titak, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Frequency effects and second language lexical acquisition: Word types, word tokens, and word production. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(3), 301–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement 2016), 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D. (2006). Deviant case analysis. In Jupp, V. (Ed.), The SAGE dictionary of social research methods (pp. 68–69). London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2012). Frequency effects. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of SLA (pp. 260–265). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience, cognition, language complexity, and complex adaptive systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. (2011). Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 285–312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J. (2017). On the concept of action in the study of interaction. Discourse Studies, 19(5), 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, W., Walton, C., & Antaki, C. (2011). Giving feedback to care staff about offering choices to people with intellectual disabilities. In Antaki, C. (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 161–183). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, P. (2014). Data and beyond. Journal of Child Language, 41, 18–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, E., Pine, K., & Lewis, C. (2007). Using the microgenetic method to investigate cognitive development: An introduction. Infant and Child Development, 16(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, C., Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2013). Units and/or action trajectories? In Szczepek, R., Reed, B., & Raymond, G. (Eds.), Units of talk – Units of action (pp. 3–56). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fox, B. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (2010). Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. (2019). Classroom interaction research: The state of the art. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, G., Kupetz, M., & You, H.-J. (2019). Embracing social interaction in the L2 classroom: Perspectives for language teacher education – an introduction. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1995). ‘Aw, man, where we goin?’ Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1997). Differential teacher attention to student utterances: The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics & Education, 9(3), 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2007). Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 510–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2018a). From interactional competence to interactional repertoires: Reconceptualizing the goal of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2018b). Essentials of SLA for L2 teachers: A transdisciplinary framework. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2019a). An EMCA approach to capturing the specialized work of L2 teaching: A research proposal. In Haneda, M. & Nassiji, H. (Eds.), Perspectives on language as action: Essays in honor of Merrill Swain (pp. 228–245). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2019b). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to a usage-based understanding of language: Expanding the transdisciplinary framework. Modern Language Journal, 103(supplement), 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K., Khor, S. Y, & Wang, T. (May, 2019), The linguistic formatting of request sequences: A usage- based understanding of the systematic relationship between teacher questions and student responses. Paper presented at ICOP-L2 conference, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). The links between teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, J. L. (1990). Applied ethnomethodology: Looking for the local rationality of reading activities. Human Studies, 13(1), 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, A., Wilkinson, S., & Butler, C. (2014). Intervening with conversation analysis in telephone helpline services: Strategies to improve effectiveness. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1985). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. (Ed.), Structures of social action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative sociology (3rd ed., pp. 208–230). London, UK: SAGE.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., Robinson, J., Elliot, M., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(10), 1429–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kääntä, L. (2012). Teachers’ embodied allocations in instructional interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(2), 166–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khor, S. Y., Hall, J. K., & Wang, T. (2019, October). The linguistic formatting of request sequences: A usage- based understanding of the systematic relationship between teacher questions and student responses. Paper presented at LANSI, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, NY.Google Scholar
Kim, D., & Hall, J. K. (2002). The role of an interactive book reading program in the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 332–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, D., Malabarba, T., & Hall, J. K. (2018). Data collection considerations for classroom interaction research: A conversation analytic perspective. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (2011). Working with childbirth helplines: The contributions and limitations of conversation analysis. In Antaki, C. (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 98–118). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and appliedlLinguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laury, R., Etelämäki, M., & Couper–Kuhlen, E. (2014). Introduction: Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics. Pragmatics, 24(3), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, N., Mikesell, L., Joaquin, A. D. L., Mates, A. W., & Schumann, J. H. (2009). The interactional instinct: The evolution and acquisition of language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1204–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (2012). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2006). Emergentism – Use often and with care. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 729–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2007). Opening up video databases to collaborative commentary. In Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 537–546). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2015). Multidimensional SLA. In Cadierno, T. & Eskildsen, S. (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 22–45). Berlin, Germany: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Mehan, J. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and socialization in a Samoan Village. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S. (1996). Introduction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 1–51). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2007). Language socialization: An historical overview. In Duff, P. & Hornberger, N. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2012). Preference. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J., & Heritage, J. (2015). How patients understand physicians’ solicitations of additional concerns: Implications for up-front agenda setting in primary care. Health Communication, 31(4), 434–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahlström, J. (2002). The interactional organization of hand raising in classroom interaction. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 47–57.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. (1996). Introduction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 1–51). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sert, O. (2013). Integrating digital video analysis software into language teacher education: Insights from conversation analysis. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2012). Basic conversation analytic methods. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In Kuhn, D., Siegler, R. S., Damon, W., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 464–510). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2015). Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. (2009). Universal and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The conversation analytic role-play method. In Antaki, C. (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 119–139). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2014). The Conversation Analytic Role-Play Method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S., Fox, B., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
van Compernelle, R. A. (2010). Incidental microgenetic development in second-language teacher-learner talk-in-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar