Border Crossings? Exploring the Intersection of Second Language Acquisition, Conversation Analysis, and Foreign Language Pedagogy JUNKO MORI East Asian Languages & Literature University of Wisconsin-Madison 1204 Van Hise 1220 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 Email: [email protected] This article explores recent changes in the landscape of second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign language pedagogical (FLP) research. Firth and Wagner’s (1997) proposal for the reconceptualization of SLA has been supported by SLA and FLP researchers who share the sentiment concerning the need for increased attention to social and contextual dimensions beyond the diversity of their theoretical and methodological orientations. In the meantime, a growing number of studies have adopted conversation analysis (CA), the sociological methodology on which Firth and Wagner have built their arguments, to examine data involving second language speakers, even though not all these studies may be viewed as addressing the issue of language learning and therefore may not belong to the category of SLA studies. The review of developments in the last decade points to potentials and remaining issues in using CA to conduct SLA and FLP research and to draw pedagogical implications.

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE FIELD OF SECOND language acquisition (SLA) has reconfigured itself in the last decade, and it is clear that Firth and Wagner’s (1997) manifesto and the subsequent debates featured in The Modern Language Journal (MLJ) have been influential in this transformation. Along with this development, my own academic identities have experienced parallel alterations, on some occasions, regardless of my own will. Ten years ago, I considered myself a member of an emerging group of functional linguists who, being inspired by the sociological methodology of conversation analysis (CA), had investigated the bidirectional relationship between grammar and interaction. As a researcher of a non-Western language, I was first introduced to the work of Firth The Modern Language Journal, 91, Focus Issue, (2007) 0026-7902/07/849–862 $1.50/0
C 2007 The Modern Language Journal

and Wagner through the 1996 special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics titled Conversation analysis of foreign language data, to which both of them contributed (Firth, 1996; Wagner, 1996) along with other CA researchers (Bilmes, 1996; Jefferson, 1996; Moerman, 1996; Streeck, 1996). The following year, this time as a foreign language teacher and teacher trainer, I was lured into the debates featured in the MLJ , which then persuaded me to apply the methodology that I had studied to interactions involving second language (L2) learners, whom I faced on a daily basis. Now, 10 years and several presentations and publications later, I am occasionally bewildered by the fact that some people call me an SLA researcher. Am I, or am I not? Or, more important, where are the current borders between these burgeoning fields, and how and by whom are they patrolled? In their 1997 MLJ article, Firth and Wagner criticized the then “mainstream” SLA research, which, according to them, had predominantly

850 presented cognitive and mentalistic orientations, and called for the reconceptualization of the fundamental notions that are central to the field, including language, discourse, communication, acquisition and use, and native (NS) and nonnative (NNS) speakers. They did so by taking the perspective of outsiders, clearly rooted in the CA tradition (although they did not explicitly mention the influence of CA in their MLJ piece, as they had in their articles in Journal of Pragmatics, Firth, 1996; Wagner, 1996). To put it more accurately, regardless of their own intents, they felt that they were treated as outsiders by their critics, the SLA insiders, as the title of their 1998 response article, “SLA Property: No Trespassing!” indicates. This reflection on the projected transformation of the field and the increased ambiguity of my membership was triggered by the invitation to the current volume that asked me to discuss “the impact of ideas raised by Firth and Wagner (1997) on the type of empirical SLA and foreign language pedagogical research that has been carried out over the last 10 years.” My immediate reaction to this assignment was to wonder what kinds of research should be considered as within the scope of SLA and foreign language pedagogical (FLP) research a decade after the publication of their article. My ultimate decision was to cast a wider net and review the development of research in and around SLA and FLP, which seems to have been influenced by the ontological, epistemological, and methodological considerations raised by Firth and Wagner. Namely, my discussion will include those studies that do not directly refer to language acquisition or learning per se and therefore that might not be viewed as falling within the boundaries of SLA or FLP research, if the field is defined narrowly. But I do so because I think the contributions made by Firth and Wagner encompass questioning of the basic assumptions concerning language, interaction, and culture held by SLA researchers in light of what can be informed by research conducted outside of SLA. In the following sections, I will first discuss how Firth and Wagner’s (1997) proposal for the reconceptualization of SLA, more specifically their recommendation for the increased attention to social and contextual dimensions, has been supported by those who seem to identify themselves as SLA researchers, who nevertheless may not share Firth and Wagner’s exact approach. Subsequently, I will consider how CA, the methodological framework on which Firth and Wagner have built their arguments, has been applied to data involving L2 speakers. Some of the studies reviewed in this sec-

The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007) tion may not qualify as SLA or FLP research, but in my opinion, they should be still considered, in a broad sense, relevant to the inquiry concerning language acquisition and learning. Last, I will explore what kinds of pedagogical reflections can be prompted by the type of research stimulated by Firth and Wagner, more specifically those informed by CA. SOCIAL AND CONTEXTUAL DIMENSIONS IN SLA: ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Firth and Wagner (1997) summarized the major components of the proposed reconceptualization of SLA as follows: “(a) a significantly enhanced awareness of the contextual and interactional dimensions of language use, (b) an increased emic (i.e., participant-relevant) sensitivity towards fundamental concepts, and (c) the broadening of the traditional SLA data base” (p. 286). To provide further details without repeating too much of the other contributors’ discussions, I would add that first and foremost, Firth and Wagner asserted that language should not be seen as a stable a priori system that is used only for the transfer of information from one person’s mind to another. Instead, they suggested that language should be viewed as a dynamic set of resources used for the accomplishment and interpretation of social actions, which can be constantly negotiated and renegotiated through interaction. This understanding of language consequently alters the characterization of L2 learners, who have often been portrayed as nonnative, deficient communicators with insufficient knowledge of the L2 systems. Unlike a cognitive framework in which some incidents are perceived as failures or problems representing the learners’ underdeveloped L2 competence, in Firth and Wagner’s (1997) proposed paradigm, the same incidents could be reanalyzed as a resourceful use of multilingual competence. Moreover, although researchers heavily influenced by psycholinguistic traditions may view learners as belonging to one monolithic category of NNSs, the participants involved in interaction may not always consider their nonnative-ness as relevant as their other social identities, which become salient in and through the interaction. These points sum up the different perceptions of the relationship between acquisition and use. Unlike their critics who drew a line between acquisition and use, Firth and Wagner emphasized that language acquisition cannot be discussed separately from language use. Moreover, in order to

Junko Mori obtain a better understanding of the relationship between acquisition and use, one must inevitably include data collected in naturalistic settings, that is, data collected not only in formal language learning environments but also in mundane everyday or professional contexts, and not only from beginning-level college students who have been the typical subjects of experiments, but also from a wide range of L2 speakers who have different kinds of linguistic, professional, and other backgrounds. Although some of the SLA researchers who wrote their replies to Firth and Wagner in the MLJ issues (Gass, 1998; Kasper, 1997; Long, 1997; Poulisse, 1997) did not fully embrace their proposed expansion of the ontological and epistemological parameters of the field, other researchers expressed their sympathy with Firth and Wagner’s concerns at one level or another (Hall, 1997; Kasper, 1997; Liddicoat, 1997; Rampton, 1997). Indeed, by the time Firth and Wagner’s article appeared in 1997, efforts to counterbalance the SLA’s lopsided emphasis on individuals’ cognitive mechanisms and to underscore the critical influence of learners’ social circumstances, identities, and agency upon their language acquisition and learning had been around for some time. These efforts came from different corners of the field, or more broadly from the field of applied linguistics, of which SLA can be perceived as a subfield (e.g., Block, 1996; Breen, 1985; Crookes, 1997; Kramsch, 1995; Lantolf, 1994, 1996; Pennycook, 1994). Publications after the 1997 article have also acknowledged a certain level of synthesis that exists among researchers who underscore social and contextual dimensions of language acquisition and use, including those building their work on Vygotskian sociocultural theory, language socialization, sociolinguistic approaches, critical theory, and others (e.g., Atkinson, 2002; Block, 2003; Kramsch, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Pennycook, 2001; Tarone, 2000; Watson-Gegeo, 2004; Zuengler & Miller, 2006). As a result, the last 10 years have seen a growing number of studies that explore different contexts, different activities, and different learners. Firth and Wagner might not be the sole source of inspiration for these studies, but many of the authors referred to the 1997 article when they situated their studies in the current development of the field and justified their contributions for further development. Some studies, for instance, refer to Firth and Wagner (1997) in asserting their stance to underscore the social and contextual dimensions involved in language acquisition and use, while

851 adopting varying methodologies other than CA, which was the central framework on which Firth and Wagner developed their proposals. Bongartz and Schneider’s (2003) study, which examined social interaction and linguistic inventory observed in two English-speaking boys’ 1-year immersion experience in Germany, is one such case. They stated that their study was designed in response to “the desirability of a balance between cognitive-linguistic and socio-anthropological approaches” (p. 13) advocated by Firth and Wagner. The socio-anthropological component of their research, however, analyzed data collected through multiple sources, including field notes and audiorecordings of the boys’ interactions, which were triangulated as recommended by ethnography. Dewey (2004) also referred to Firth and Wagner as he addressed the necessity of investigating broader contexts of L2 acquisition and use beyond a formal academic year classroom, which tended to have been the emphasis in the field. His comparative study of reading development by learners of Japanese in intensive domestic immersion versus study abroad contexts, however, incorporated a quantitative analysis of pretest and posttest results that indicated the differences between the two groups studying in two different learning environments.1 Belz (2002), by contrast, mentioned Firth and Wagner (1997) as she established the aim of her study, which was to question the validity of the label deficient communicators, which was frequently attached to L2 learners. Through the discourse analytic examination of multilingual written texts solicited from learners of German and through the learners’ explications of their own texts obtained through interviews, Belz demonstrated the learners’ playful and creative use of multilingual competence, which presented a different, more positive image of L2 learners than previous portrayals. Similarly, Belz and Reinhardt (2004) examined an advanced learner’s language use as it was observed in the context of bilingual electronic exchanges in a German-American telecollaborative partnership, and demonstrated how such a telecollaboration and computer-mediated communication facilitated language play, which was indicative of advanced proficiency, much more than “utilitarian-oriented, correctness-based foreign language classrooms, an arena in which the learner is construed quite often as a rather sad sort of figure, the ‘deficient communicator’ who is in need of native speaker input and aid” (p. 326). Their study also foregrounded the interpersonal domain of language use rather than either the ideational or the informational aspects

852 of language use, or both, which had tended to be the preoccupation of SLA researchers discussed by Firth and Wagner as well as by Cook (2000). Furthermore, Higgins (2003) incorporated Firth and Wagner’s (1997) discussion as she questioned the analysts’ top-down imposition of natives versus nonnatives as dichotomous categories. Through the analysis of dyadic exchanges elicited by having English speakers of diverse backgrounds engage in an acceptability judgment task, Higgins examined how the participants themselves indicated, through various linguistic cues, their sense of ownership of English. She then discussed how the participants’ displayed sense of ownership might or might not have corresponded to the likely judgments made by an analyst who relied on the information concerning the participants’ countries of origin, which presented distinct historical contexts vis-`a-vis the spread of English. This investigation responded to Firth and Wagner’s call for increased emic sensitivity in that it showed how the participants themselves demonstrated their own perspectives on the relevance of their nonnative status. Lantolf and Thorne (2006) also acknowledged the importance of the emic viewpoint in SLA research suggested by Firth and Wagner and linked it to Pavlenko and Lantolf’s (2000) analysis of first-person narratives, which, they argued, could provide a more revealing picture of the process of language learning than third-person observations. In summary, these studies responded to different components of Firth and Wagner’s (1997) proposal, including the importance of contexts in SLA, the reevaluation of the deficientcommunicator metaphor, or the incorporation of the emic perspective in SLA research. These works also combined their references to Firth and Wagner with points discussed by other researchers who also expressed their criticism of the asymmetrical emphasis on the internal cognitive mechanisms often seen in SLA studies. All these movements, on the surface, appear to share a common voice against research that pays limited attention to the social and contextual dimensions involved in SLA. However, the methods of data collection and analysis differ from those proposed by Firth and Wagner (1997). These differences may be crucial, suggesting that their understanding of key concepts, such as contexts or identities, may not be, at the deepest level, identical to that of Firth and Wagner, or at least their understanding of Firth and Wagner differs from the way that I, as an individual trained in CA, read their article. Approaches to the emic viewpoint used in CA also differ from those used in ethnog-

The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007) raphy and in various types of discourse analysis adopted by the studies discussed. In order to clarify these differences in perceptions and analytical procedures, or in other words, to consider how Firth and Wagner might have been read differently by those researchers trained in SLA than by those trained in CA, in the following section, I will review the recent development of CA-informed studies of L2 talk, which have been also prompted by Firth and Wagner’s seminal article. THE APPLICATION OF CA TO L2 DATA: METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS The studies reviewed in the previous section represent those that responded to Firth and Wagner’s (1997) proposal for the reconceptualization of SLA, but that did not necessarily incorporate the methodological framework underlying Firth and Wagner’s recommendation, namely, CA. On the one hand, it is probably true that CA is not the sole methodology by which the proposed objective can be attained. On the other hand, it is also clear that, along with their other publications in which they affirm CA as their framework of choice, Firth and Wagner’s MLJ piece has triggered strong interest in the potential of CA for analyzing L2 talk. In the last decade, a number of book-length publications (e.g., Lazaraton, 2002; Markee, 2000; Seedhouse, 2004), edited volumes (e.g., Gardner & Wagner, 2004; Richards & Seedhouse, 2005), and special issues of journals (e.g., Markee, 2004; Olsher & Wingrad, 2000) have introduced studies that apply CA to various kinds of L2 data and have discussed theoretical and methodological issues involved in the application of this sociological methodology to the investigation of L2 learning and teaching. In the meantime, in addition to the traditional venues for this type of research such as Journal of Pragmatics, Language in Society, Pragmatics, or Research on Language and Social Interaction, among others, journals such as Applied Linguistics, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching, Language Learning , and the MLJ have also begun to feature studies that use CA as a central tool for analysis. As evidenced by the increased number of publications and venues dedicated to the subject, interest in using CA to examine L2 talk has clearly intensified over the past 10 years. However, it is still uncertain to what extent these CAbased studies have been appreciated by SLA researchers who have not had much exposure to this framework. As pointed out by Gass (2004)

Junko Mori and Larsen-Freeman (2004), CA requires intensive training to learn the painstaking process of detailed examination (necessary to analyze momentby-moment development of talk-in-interaction), and SLA researchers may not find payoffs in going through such training unless the methodology is viewed as effective in addressing their central concerns: what has been learned, when it has been learned, and why it has been learned. That is, some researchers consider the CA-based studies of L2 talk published so far incomplete because they do not directly answer these questions about learning (e.g., Gass, 2004; Larsen-Freeman, 2004; Rampton, Roberts, Leung, & Harris, 2002). In addition, CA also seems to have sometimes been confused with other methods of microanalysis of recorded interactions—discourse analysis, ethnography of communication, interactional sociolinguistics, and so on—in its application to L2 data (see, e.g., Hornburger & Corson, 1997; Schiffrin, 1994; van Dijk, 1997, for the clarification of different approaches).2 This section, thus, aims to elucidate the distinct ways in which CA (a) conceptualizes notions such as contexts and identities and (b) approaches the emic viewpoints. Furthermore, it attempts to respond to the critics’ comments by considering the kinds of insights CA-based studies can offer to SLA research and how CA may be combined with other theoretical frameworks. Contexts, Identities, and Approaches to the Emic Viewpoint As discussed in the previous section, Firth and Wagner’s (1997) recommendation for increased attention to the social and contextual dimensions of language learning has been interpreted as a need to pay attention to environments in which language learning takes place (e.g., study abroad, intensive summer programs, total immersion settings, etc.). Although this is indeed an important point of consideration, contexts for CA include not only such data-external environmental contexts in which an interaction takes place, but also data-internal sequential contexts that influence the ways in which each contribution is designed by a participant and interpreted by his or her co-participants. Heritage (1984), for instance, described any participant’s communicative action as “context-shaped” and “context-renewing” at the same time (p. 242). Namely, the construction of each turn is influenced by how the current sequence of talk has been developed up to that point, and, simultaneously, the turn affects the course of future sequential development from

853 that point on. Given that within a single event of interaction various sequences of talk—or sequences of actions because CA views each verbal and nonverbal behavior with regard to the kind of social action it accomplishes—can occur, the use of linguistic and other resources needs to be analyzed with respect to the type of sequential context in which they occur and the types of effects they create in renewing the sequential context. Thus, although data-external environmental contexts may remain the same, it is the participants themselves who construct and manipulate data-internal sequential contexts through their conduct. Furthermore, CA’s investigation of the participants’ identities does not assume that various prescribed or adopted social identities (such as gender, nationality, or native versus nonnative status) are continuously relevant during interaction; rather, it investigates how participants exhibit the relevance of a particular identity at each moment of interaction through the ways in which they construct their own talk and respond to their coparticipant’s talk at a particular sequential context (cf. Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998). The close analysis of turn construction and sequential context helps analysts to explicate the type of identities the participants are orienting to at a given moment of interaction. Thus, CA approaches the emic viewpoint, not through examining the first person’s accounts available through interviews or narratives, but by examining the moment-by-moment development of talk and asking, “why this, in this way, right now?”—the questions that the interactional participants themselves must be considering when attending to their co-participants’ ongoing talk in order to design their next move accordingly. Namely, CA, through meticulous observation of the exact ways in which each turn is initiated, projected, constructed, completed, or terminated, at a particular juncture of sequential development, attempts to reconstruct how the participants themselves are analyzing their co-participants’ contributions in a moment-by-moment fashion and reflects their analysis in the ways in which they design their own contributions. To provide some concrete examples, the close examination of repair and word search practices observed in interactions involving L2 speakers presents one way to detect whether or not the participants make identities that correspond to their linguistic proficiency (native–nonnative or expert–novice) relevant to, and in, the ongoing interaction, and whether or not they treat that particular moment of interaction as pedagogic or

854 quasi-pedagogic talk that can occasion a learning opportunity. As discussed by Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977), CA studies multiple aspects of repair: who initiates it, at which particular moment during the development of a sequence it is initiated, who actually undertakes the repair, and when. Researchers of L2 talk also ask these questions while examining the data to see if and how the asymmetric positions of the participants are made salient in, and through, the interactions. Kurhila (2001, 2005), for instance, examined various types of nonpedagogic everyday or institutional interactions taking place between speakers of Finnish as a first language (L1) and speakers of Finnish as an L2. In this everyday interactional data, she found that the L1 speakers corrected the L2 speakers’ grammatical deviations only when the L2 speakers demonstrated tentativeness and that the L1 speakers’ corrections tended to take the form of embedded correction 3 (Jefferson, 1987). Namely, rather than initiating a side sequence (Jefferson, 1972) devoted to the business of correcting linguistic errors while keeping the main activity on hold, the L1 speakers tended to encompass corrections in moves that can be interpreted as doing something other than correcting. By doing so, the L1 speakers avoided the appearance of behaving like language teachers in the nonpedagogic contexts. Furthermore, in institutional interactions such as service encounters, where inquiries about various matters were the main purpose of interactions, the linguistic deviations occurring in the L2 clients’ questions or in their answers to the L1 service providers’ questions tended to be corrected in an attempt to accomplish the institutional purpose. Hosoda (2006), who examined casual conversations between L1 and L2 speakers of Japanese, similarly observed that the participants did not necessarily demonstrate their orientations toward linguistic correctness unless the L1 participants were invited by the L2 participants to provide some linguistic assistance as experts, or unless they encountered a problem in achieving mutual understanding. Whether or not the L1 participants were invited to offer their linguistic expertise also constituted a crucial factor for Brouwer’s (2003) study of word searches observed in casual conversations between Danes and Dutch speakers of Danish. She argued that the participants’ orientations to differential language expertise qualified some, but not all, cases of word searches as providing opportunities for language learning. Furthermore, Kasper’s (2004) study of Gespr¨achsrunde, or a dyadic conversation-forlearning between a beginning learner of German

The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007) as a foreign language and a NS of German, confirmed that even in interactions institutionally recognized as offering opportunities for learning, the same tendency was found. That is, the L1 speaker assumed her role as a language expert only when requested to do so by the L2 speaker in the form of repair initiation while most of the time during the conversation, the participants acted simply as movie watchers or female acquaintances, not visibly making their NS versus NNS statuses relevant. Wong (2005) also reiterated the tendency of L1 speakers to sidestep, or not attend to L2 speakers’ ungrammatical trouble sources in naturally occurring conversations. Unlike the other studies reviewed so far, however, she explicitly contrasted this tendency with what she observed in a classroom interaction between a teacher and L2 learners, that is, that both parties jointly oriented to the differential expertise and constructed the talk addressing the linguistic issue. The latter case indicated that the participants were orienting to their assumed roles that corresponded to the dataexternal environment of the classroom, an institutionally warranted pedagogic context. Similarly, Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain’s (2003) study of a content-based German as a foreign language class, documented how repair in this institutional setting differed from repair in mundane conversation, or more specifically how the participants, who were all competent speakers of both their L1 and L2, enacted and perceived their respective roles as teachers and students, in their ways of participating in the repair sequences. Although Wong (2005) and Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2003) introduced cases in which the participants were orienting to the institutional nature of the talk-in-interaction, the MLJ special issue edited by Markee (2004) demonstrated that participants in classroom interaction may not always orient to the institutional nature of talk, or to their assigned tasks, at a given moment of interaction; instead, they may create different types and layers of talk, as the title, Classroom talks, insinuated. Namely, inasmuch as interaction taking place outside the classroom can shift back and forth between sequences that exhibit features of mundane interaction and those that exhibit features of pseudopedagogic talk, from time to time interaction taking place within the classroom can also change its nature. Ko and Gardner (2003) and Markee (2005) demonstrated how pedagogic and nonpedagogic talk, or on-task and off-task talk, emerged and ceased in teacherfronted phrases and in small group phrases of classroom interaction, respectively.

Junko Mori In summary, CA studies of L2 talk attempt to reevaluate contexts and identities that potentially affect language learning through the close examination of talk-in-interaction itself. That is, rather than assuming the constant relevance of the dataexternal descriptions of contexts and participants’ identities and using them to explain what is going on in the data, CA examines how the participants’ actions observed in the data may or may not index the relevance of such descriptions at a given moment. The Re-examination of L2 Speakers’ Practices In addition to the analysis of sequential contexts and situated identities co-constructed by L1 and L2 speaking participants, CA studies conducted in the last decade have also contributed to a renewed understanding of L2 speakers’ practices. These studies have reexamined phenomena often considered as L2-specific or indicative of deficiency. Either they have considered whether or not these phenomena can be understood as something other than L2 speakers’ failure to produce native-like talk, or they have recaptured the exact ways in which they differ from what is observed in L1 talk. For instance, Carroll (2004) examined restarts at turn beginnings observed in talk produced by novice Japanese learners of English. Such false starts have been often considered indicative of L2 speakers’ difficulty in speech production, but similar phenomena have been observed in L1 talk, as well. Building on the work of Schegloff (1987), who explicated restarts used as a resource to manage overlaps occurring at turn beginnings, and of Goodwin (1981), who examined restarts used as a means to secure the co-participants’ recipiency indicated by their gaze, Carroll demonstrated that novice L2 speakers in his data also perfected such skilled interactional achievements as those documented in previous CA studies of L1 talk. Carroll (2005) also reexamined a phenomenon he called vowel-marking , or the addition of vowels to word-final consonants, which is often seen in English spoken by novice Japanese learners of English (e.g., good pronounced as goodo). This vowel-marking has been considered reflective of the phonological structure of their Japanese L1, that is, of the Japanese open syllable structure, and therefore it shows the inability of these speakers to produce English-like pronunciation, or their ways of avoiding “a perceived social stigma attached to speaking English ‘too well’” (p. 215). However, Carroll’s close analysis of talk among the L2 speakers revealed that the participants did not appear

855 to treat vowel-marking as a pronunciation problem; rather, they treated it as a situated resource for initiating word search, for projecting further talk at a possible ending of the current turn, or for competing through overlapping talk produced by the co-participants and reasserting speakership. Thus, these practices and others that seemingly indicate L2 speakers’ disfluency can be reanalyzed as being used to achieve some other intricate interactional functions if one eliminates the bias of learner-as-deficient-communicator. Wong (2000a), in contrast, strove to describe exactly how L2 speakers’ ways of performing a particular practice, that is, delayed other initiation (OI) of repair, differed from a comparable practice observed by Schegloff (2000) in his L1 data. Although both datasets included cases in which L1 and L2 speakers produced OI not immediately following the trouble source turns but after producing some type of initial response, the careful comparative analysis of cases collected from the two datasets revealed some differences. Namely, the L1 speakers in Schegloff’s collection tended to create an appearance of disjunction between their initial premature response and the following delayed OI by cutting off the former and immediately launching the latter, whereas the L2 speakers in Wong’s collection tended to produce their initial claims of understanding in full delivery with the final prosody followed by a short silence between the initial response and the delayed OI repair. As a result, the L2 speakers’ performance created an impression of speaking late, or later than they ought to have spoken. Similarly, Wong (2000b) examined L2 speakers’ use of the token yeah in turn-medial position within a same-turn repair segment in comparison with what has been observed in L1 talk. According to her, this particular use of yeah, which often corresponded to the successful resolution of trouble source, was observed more regularly in L2 talk than in L1 talk and even when the token occurred in this particular sequential environment in L1 talk, it seemed to signal failure or abandonment of a search rather than resolution. She then argued that such peculiarity of the turn-medial yeah in L2 talk made the L2 speakers’ nonnative-ness or learner status visible. These studies, which can be seen as studies of use rather than of acquisition, do not necessarily offer direct answers to the questions about language learning. Nevertheless, they provide enough evidence to prompt the reconsideration of some assumptions on which the mainstream SLA research has been based, including the notions of competence and fluency.

856 CA and Theory of Learning As mentioned, one of the major complaints against CA as a methodology for SLA research is that the methodology does not provide a clear direction as to how it can account for learning. In discussing this issue, it is important to distinguish two different ways of conceptualizing learning, that is, learning as it manifests as a socially situated activity versus learning as evidenced by changes taking place over time. On the one hand, for learning as a socially situated activity, the potential of CA’s analytically robust accounts of talk-ininteraction has been made evident in a number of studies published in the last decade (e.g., Kasper, 2004; Markee, 2000, 2004; Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004; Mori, 2002; Mori & Hayashi, 2006; and others reviewed in this section). On the other hand, for learning as change taking place over time, which requires longitudinal research, the application of CA has led to numerous conceptual and practical challenges. As He (2004) asserted, “CA is not a learning theory and thus is not designed to document language acquisition, which entails use of language information/skills for problem-solving and change in behavior over a considerable period of time” (p. 579). Brouwer and Wagner (2004) also pointed out that CA’s classical approach aims at explicating the organization of interaction, typically based on the assumption that speakers’ skills remain stable over time. In order to address this issue, some researchers have combined CA as a methodological framework for explicating details of interaction with other theoretical frameworks for giving an explanation for the process of learning. For instance, Young and Miller (2004) drew from the model of learning as a legitimate peripheral participation in situated practices proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991) in their longitudinal study of participation patterns exhibited by an L2 English learner who attended a series of writing conferences. Likewise, Brouwer and Wagner (2004) explored the possibility of incorporating the Lave and Wenger model of situated learning to account for the longitudinal development. However, such a merger of two distinct frameworks, established outside of SLA, for the purpose of studying language learning processes cannot proceed free of trouble. Wagner (2004), for instance, questioned Young and Miller’s (2004) application of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) model because their data involved tutoring sessions where only one teacher and one student were interacting with each other

The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007) and therefore both parties’ participation could be recognized as legitimate from the very beginning. Lave and Wenger’s model, on the other hand, described learning taking place outside the institutionally defined educational setting, among members of a given community, which included newcomers participating in social practices in a legitimate, but peripheral fashion. Brouwer and Wagner (2004) also acknowledged the necessity and challenge of redefining the concept of community when Lave and Wenger’s model was applied to L2 learning. The original Lave and Wenger model was developed based on their studies of well-defined professional communities, whereas L2 learners typically aspire to become members of various communities within a monolithic L2-speaking community at the same time. The question, then, is how to identify empirically communities of practices relevant to the learners, which, in fact, can differ from one learner to another. Brouwer and Wagner (2004) went on to suggest that language learning should be viewed as “the development of interactional skills, and interactional resources” (p. 32) or “increasing interactional complexity in language encounters” (p. 44), and presented a sample analysis that portrayed how a Japanese learner of Danish became capable of using a wide variety of repair-initiating techniques, and subsequently began engaging in longer sequences using those techniques. In order to complete this line of research, however, researchers must identify what constitutes a set of potentially available interactional resources for a particular action (including linguistic and nonlinguistic as well as L2-specific and non-L2-specific resources); furthermore, they must be able to differentiate those resources that are acquired through L1 socialization processes and are potentially used to facilitate L2 learning from those resources that need to be developed in L2 learning processes. Although CA can contribute to uncovering such resources, it is not a quick route to understanding a full set of interactional resources, let alone an individual learner’s process of gaining a wider variety of resources. Aside from the development of longitudinal research, however, the compatibility between CA and sociocultural theory (SCT), or other sociocultural perspectives, can be explored in other ways, especially by highlighting CA’s strength in providing vivid empirical accounts for the proposed theories (e.g., Hall, 1997, 2004; Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004). The two frameworks indeed have shown common interests in certain phenomena. For instance, Wong’s (2000b) study

Junko Mori of L2 speakers’ use of yeah in self-repair segments and other CA-based studies on solitary word search appear to be of interest to those researchers who are studying private speech under the framework of SCT. The use of gesture in coordination with talk has also attracted the interest of both CA researchers (e.g., Mori & Hayashi, 2006; Olsher, 2004) and SCT researchers (e.g., McCafferty, 2002; Negueruela, Lantolf, Jordan, & Gelabert, 2004). CA’s ability to explicate cognition as socially distributed phenomena (Markee, 2000; Schegloff, 1991) manifested through their engagement in talk-in-interaction could benefit SCT researchers who investigate the process of mediation and pursue activity theory (cf. Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). The exploration of possible intersections of the two frameworks, along with recognition of their different origins, may yield interesting opportunities for future collaborations. The Future of CA and SLA: Converging or Diverging? Among those who use CA to analyze interactions involving L2 speakers, a range of commitment can be observed concerning how directly they want to respond to SLA researchers’ burning questions. In this era of globalization, interactions involving L2 speakers are ubiquitous in both everyday and professional settings. For CA researchers who are not exposed to SLA or applied linguistics, such interactions may not even be seen as L2 data, and the participants’ NNS status may be treated as irrelevant in their research. For instance, the major portion of medical interactions analyzed by Robinson and Heritage (2005) and Stivers (2002), among others, was recorded in southern California where patients visiting clinics include many L2 speakers of English (and many doctors in the United States are L2 speakers as well). J. Heritage (personal communication, November 9, 2004) indicated that they analyzed all interactions recorded as long as they did not involve interpreters, or were conducted in languages other than English, which the researchers did not have sufficient knowledge to analyze. For them, these interactions were medical encounters between doctors and patients rather than between L1 and L2 speakers. Aside from such extreme cases, many researchers who analyze interactions involving L2 speakers as possible samples of L2 talk do not necessarily believe that the outcomes of their research need to provide any direct impact on SLA research; however, they still contribute to the ad-

857 vancement of our general knowledge about language, interaction, and culture. And there are yet others who try to find ways to bridge the two fields. All these different pathways are available for researchers who use CA for analyzing L2 talk, and in my (possibly too pessimistic) assessment, even this last group that is closest to SLA, may not have enjoyed the warmest of welcomes from the core of SLA researchers. If so, CA researchers may not find payoffs in shifting their interests and modifying their methods in order to explore issues concerning L2 acquisition and learning. This reluctance, in a sense, parallels the reluctance of some SLA researchers to accept CA as a method for SLA, as was described at the beginning of this section. Whether or not CA and SLA can achieve a happy marriage seems to depend on whether or not both parties can find something in common and appreciate their differences. APPLIED CA: IMPLICATIONS FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY The previous section considered how studies informed by CA have approached talk involving L2 speakers and how those studies may or may not directly relate to SLA researchers’ concerns. This section will address the kinds of implications for FLP that have been made by recent CAinformed studies. SLA research (especially studies conducted within the cognitive paradigm) has often been criticized for its inability to provide teachers with helpful implications for their daily professional practices. In fact, qualitativeempirical studies, or more specifically those conducted within the framework of CA, are not free of such a critique either. As discussed in the previous section, not all CA studies are concerned with immediate issues of application, but rather many of them aim at describing the fundamentals of social interaction and social orders that are displayed through interaction, which surely but remotely connect to daily practices in classroom teaching.4 There are some researchers, however, who attempt to draw practical pedagogical implications by applying knowledge gained from CA research. For instance, CA’s explication of recurrent patterns observed in the organization of sequences in naturally occurring talk has afforded some researchers the opportunity to reflect on the appropriateness of model dialogs presented in textbooks. Grant and Starks (2001) compared conversational closings illustrated in English as a second language/English as a foreign language (ESL/EFL) textbooks with those reported by

858 Schegloff and Sacks (1973), as well as those seen in soap operas. The results of their comparative study suggested that the soap opera materials examined, although far from ideal, still presented a better representation of what is observed in naturally occurring conversation than did many textbook examples. Wong (2002) also criticized telephone dialogs introduced in ESL textbooks for their appropriateness. Reporting the inadequacy of the textbook dialogs in their failure to include key elements of telephone conversations reported by CA studies, she suggested that materials writers and language teachers should pay more attention to the interrelationship among language, social action, and sequential context. Similarly, Mori (2005) examined the naturalness of model dialogs introduced as communicative exercises in beginning level Japanese language textbooks. Comparing the ways in which the question word dooshite (why) was introduced in those textbook dialogs and the ways in which it was used in naturally occurring L1 talk, she argued that the inclusion of the question word appeared to be motivated by the instruction of grammatical forms rather than by communicative practices. She further demonstrated that the dialogs presented as models for pair work between peers resembled the scaffolding presented in teacher-fronted classroom talk rather than the ways in which peers may talk outside the classroom. CA’s attention to the organization of sequences and to practices contributing to the construction of the sequences can be also applied to review audio- or videorecorded learner performances and to raise learners’ awareness of different mechanisms and techniques observed in talk-in-interaction. Packett (2005), for instance, presented a model of this type of instructional method by introducing the case of an English for specific purposes course designed for L2 learners who aspired to work in the field of journalism. Learners in this course were asked to record a face-to-face interview for potential radio broadcast as part of their assessed course work, and to transcribe the interview and produce a critical commentary on selected sequences. The learners’ reflections on their own performance, in comparison with televised journalistic interviews conducted by professionals, were aided by CA techniques that encouraged the learners to discover inductively how journalistic broadcast interviewing is constructed and what consequences can result from undertaking or not undertaking a particular action in the course of interaction. Packett stated that the aim of such a pedagogic procedure was “to develop future journalists as reflective practitioners” (p. 248).

The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007) In fact, similar processes can be applied to teachers’ reflections on classroom interaction, and the reflective process can be guided by recent CA-informed studies of classroom interaction. For instance, Markee (2000) and Seedhouse (2004) offered comprehensive descriptions of how interactions taking place in language classroom were co-constructed by teachers and students in different phases of classroom instruction. Mori (2002) illustrated how instructional designs affect the ways in which talk-in-interaction is realized in taskbased interactions, sometimes in ways that differ from what the instructor intended. One of the prevalent themes found in classroom research informed by CA is how teachers and students switch back and forth between the L1 and the L2, thereby indicating their understanding of different roles, activities, and policies that come into play in language classroom interaction (e.g., Liebscher ¨ unel ¨ & Dailey-O’Cain, 2004; Mori, 2004; Ust & Seedhouse, 2005). These studies provide some bases for reconsidering the possibility of introducing the effective use of the L1 in instruction rather than strictly enforcing the exclusive use of the L2. CA-informed studies of oral language tests (e.g., Egbert, 1998; He, 1998; Kim & Suh, 1998; Lazaraton, 2002) also offer some points for consideration as to how interviews for the purpose of assessment should be conducted and how learners’ performances elicited through such interviews should be evaluated. In addition to the studies mentioned in this section, which are more directly connected to FLP issues, an emerging number of studies that have investigated the interrelationship between interaction and grammar and that analyze data from a wide variety of languages (cf. Ochs, Schegloff, & Thompson, 1996) should eventually be incorporated into FLP materials as suggested by Schegloff, Koshik, Jacoby, and Olsher (2002). CONCLUDING REMARKS This article has reviewed how Firth and Wagner’s (1997) proposal for the reconceptualization of SLA has influenced the ways in which various empirical studies have been conducted in and around SLA and FLP in the last 10 years. As is always the case for this sort of reflection piece, I regret that the restriction of space prevented me from introducing many other studies that are worth mentioning in this discussion. However, I hope to have succeeded in illustrating how different camps within and outside of SLA have responded to the 1997 article and how some of them have begun to merge their efforts whereas others continue to hold antagonistic or skeptical

859

Junko Mori attitudes toward the “trespassers.” As mentioned at the beginning of the article, it is hard for me to pinpoint my own position in this complex, everchanging map of CA, SLA, and FLP, but this article should probably be read as something written by a person trained in CA, who also works as a language teacher and teacher trainer, but considers herself to have only a marginal existence in SLA. That is, on the one hand, through my daily practices as a classroom teacher, I have come to appreciate how CA perspectives on language and social action can be helpful tools for the critical review of teaching materials and classroom instruction. On the other hand, inasmuch as I want CA’s contributions to SLA research to prosper in the future, I also fear that if SLA researchers demand that CA produce quick outcomes that describe language learning, the forced outcomes may end up not retaining the true nature and essence of CA’s contributions. It seems to me that researchers trained in CA should continue to maintain the methodology’s integrity and its hallmark of meticulous observations of details that unveil the organization of interaction and multimodal resources used for the accomplishment of various actions. Such efforts can continue to provide reexaminations of seemingly established constructs, research designs, and instructional or assessment methods based on which acquisition and learning have been discussed, studied, and measured. Developments in the areas of interaction and grammar, the intersection of functional linguistics, linguistic anthropology, and conversation analysis, I think, will also continue to offer innovative perspectives on language that can be implemented into SLA research as well as into FLP practices. The establishment of a sound longitudinal research project may take time, but it can be done only through the accumulation of microanalyses of varying resources, actions, participation frameworks, and sequential and external contexts, which all contribute to the makings of learners’ lived experiences. Ten years may seem a long time, but this decade only marks the very beginning of our long quest in exploring the intersection of SLA, CA, and FLP. I hope the next decade will see an increased number of SLA researchers and FLP practitioners who appreciate what CA can offer rather than misunderstanding what it is about or continuing to criticize it for what it cannot, or is not meant to, offer. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the MLJ editorial board for providing me with this invaluable opportunity to reflect on the last

decade—it was a rewarding task both professionally and personally. My gratitude also goes to Cecilia E. Ford and George R. Johnson for their continuous support and words of encouragement and to Barbara Lafford, Sally Magnan, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions.

NOTES 1 Collentine and Freed (2004) also cited Firth and Wagner (1997) in their introduction to the special issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition in which Dewey’s (2004) article appeared, as they framed the main theme of the issue, that is, the context of learning as a variable in SLA. 2 This confusion may be partly related to some published studies in which CA is modified, or accompanied by some other methodologies or theories, when it is applied to L2 data, in particular to data collected in institutional settings. This point will be discussed further toward the end of this section. 3 For those trained in SLA, recasts might be a more familiar term for this sort of phenomenon. However, the origins of these notions are quite different, and cases subsumed under these categories do not seem completely identical. CA techniques can be useful for the systematic reanalysis of cases that have been labeled as recasts as discussed by Markee (2000), Mori and Hayashi (2006), and Seedhouse (2004), among others. 4 See ten Have’s (1999) discussion of pure CA versus applied CA for more discussion.

REFERENCES Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.). (1998). Identities in talk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal , 86 , 525–545. Belz, J. A. (2002). The myth of the deficient communicator. Language Teaching Research, 6 , 59–82. Belz, J. A., & Reinhardt, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated German language play. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 324–362. Bilmes, J. (1996). Problems and resources in analyzing Northern Thai conversation for English language readers. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 , 171– 188. Block, D. (1996). Not so fast: Some thoughts on theory culling, relativism, accepted findings and the heart and soul of SLA. Applied Linguistics, 17 , 63–83. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bongartz, C., & Schneider, M. L. (2003). Linguistic development in social contexts: A study of two brothers learning German. Modern Language Journal , 87 , 13–37.

860 Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language learning: A neglected situation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 , 135–158. Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS–NS interaction: Opportunities for language learning? Modern Language Journal , 83, 534–545. Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 29–47. Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Disfluencies or interactional achievements? In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 201–220). London: Continuum. Carroll, D. (2005). Vowel-marking as an interactional resource in Japanese novice ESL conversation. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 214–234). London: Palgrave– Macmillan. Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 , 153–171. Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crookes, G. (1997). SLA and second language pedagogy: A socioeducational perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 , 93–116. Dewey, D. P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in intensive domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 , 303–327. Egbert, M. M. (1998). Miscommunication in language proficiency interview of first-year German students: A comparison with natural conversation. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 149–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Firth, A. (1996). On the discursive accomplishment of “normality”: On lingua franca English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 , 237–259. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal , 81, 237–259. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1998). SLA property: No trespassing! Modern Language Journal , 82, 91–94. Gardner, R., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2004). Second language conversations. London: Continuum. Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or why apples are not oranges and don’t need to be. Modern Language Journal , 82, 83–90. Gass, S. (2004). Conversation analysis and inputinteraction. Modern Language Journal , 88, 597– 602. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. Grant, L., & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials: Closings from textbooks and television soap operas. International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching , 39 , 39– 50.

The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007) Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal , 81, 301–306. Hall, J. K. (2004). Language learning as an interactional achievement. Modern Language Journal , 88, 607– 612. He, A. W. (1998). Answering questions in LPIs: A case study. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 101–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. Modern Language Journal , 88, 568–582. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Higgins, C. (2003). “Ownership” of English in the outer circle: An alternative to the NS–NNS dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 37 , 615–644. Hornburger, N. H., & Corson, D. (Eds.). (1997). Encyclopedia of language and education: Research methods in language and education (Vol. 8). Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston: Kluwer. Hosoda, Y. (2006). Repair and relevance of differential language expertise in second language conversations. Applied Linguistics, 27 , 25–50. Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: Free Press. Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 86–100). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Jefferson, G. (1996). A case of transcriptional stereotyping. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 , 159–170. Kasper, G. (1997). “A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal , 81, 307–312. Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientation in conversation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal , 88, 551–567. Kim, K., & Suh, K. (1998). Confirmation sequences as interactional resources in Korean language proficiency interviews. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 299–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ko, S., & Gardner, R. (2003). How conversational can you get?: An investigation of the “most conversational” sequences in conversation classes. Paper presented at the 8th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Toronto, Canada. Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (1995). Redefining the boundaries of language study. Boston: Heinle. Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization. London: Continuum. Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1083–1110. Kurhila, S. (2005). Different orientations to grammatical corrections. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse

Junko Mori (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 143– 158). London: Palgrave-Macmillan. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning [Special issue]. Modern Language Journal , 78(4). Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: ‘Letting all the flowers bloom!’ Language Learning , 46 , 713–749. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Second language acquisition and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 165–181. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). CA for SLA? It all depends. Modern Language Journal , 88, 603–607. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liddicoat, A. (1997). Interaction, social structure, and second language use: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal , 81, 313–317. Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2003). Conversational repair as a role-defining mechanism in classroom interaction. Modern Language Journal , 87 , 375–390. Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2004). Learner codeswitching in the content-based foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 501–525. Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal , 81, 318–323. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Markee, N. (Ed.). (2004). Classroom talks [Special issue]. Modern Language Journal , 88(4). Markee, N. (2005). The organization of off-task talk in second language classrooms. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 197–213). London: Palgrave-Macmillan. McCafferty, S. G. (2002). Gestures and creating zones of proximal development for second language learning. Modern Language Journal , 86 , 192–203. Moerman, M. (1996). The field of analyzing foreign language conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 , 147–158. Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. Modern Language Journal , 88, 501–518. Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 23, 323–347. Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese classroom. Modern Language Journal , 88, 536– 550.

861 Mori, J. (2005). Why not why? The teaching of grammar, discourse, sociolinguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Japanese Language and Literature, 39 , 255–289. Mori, J., & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of interculturality through embodied completion: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics, 27 , 195–219. Negueruela, E., Lantolf, J. P., Jordan, S. R., & Gelabert, J. (2004). The ‘private function’ of gesture in second language speaking activity: A study of motion verbs and gesturing in English and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 115–149. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interaction and grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olsher, D. (2004). Talk and gesture: The embodied completion of sequential actions in spoken interaction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 221–245). London: Continuum. Olsher, D., & Wingrad, L. (Eds.). (2000). Nonnative discourse [Special issue]. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1). Packett, A. (2005). Teaching patterns of interaction in English for specific purposes. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 235–250). London: Palgrave-Macmillan. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Poulisse, N. (1997). Some words in defense of the psycholinguistic approach: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal , 81, 324–328. Rampton, B. (1997). Second language research in late modernity: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal , 81, 329–333. Rampton, B., Roberts, C., Leung, C., & Harris, R. (2002). Methodology in the analysis of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 23, 373–392. Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (Ed.). (2005). Applying conversation analysis. London: PalgraveMacmillan. Robinson, J. D., & Heritage, J. (2005). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: The completion relevance of current symptoms. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 481–493. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turntaking organization. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 70–85). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. R. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Socially shared

862 cognition (pp. 150–171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21, 205–243. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382. Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3–31. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Stivers, T. (2002). Participating in decisions about treatment: Overt parent pressure for antibiotic medication in pediatric encounters. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 1111–1130. Streeck, J. (1996). A little Ilokano grammar as it appears in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 , 189–213. Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 182–198. ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage. ¨ unel, ¨ Ust E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 302–325.

The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007) van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage. Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisition through interaction: A critical review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 , 215–235. Wagner, J. (2004). The classroom and beyond. Modern Language Journal , 88, 612–616. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. Modern Language Journal , 88, 331–350. Wong, J. (2000a). Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation. Applied Linguistics, 21, 244–267. Wong, J. (2000b). The token “yeah” in nonnative speaker English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 39–67. Wong, J. (2002). “Applying” conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching , 40, 37–60. Wong, J. (2005). Sidestepping grammar. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 159–173). London: Palgrave-Macmillan. Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal , 88, 519– 535. Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.