Language learning, cognition, and interactional ...

Language learning, cognition, and interactional practices: An introduction JUNKO MORI AND NUMA MARKEE

1. Approaches in CA-for-SLA This collection of papers has its origins in a plenary paper given by Gabriele Kasper and a related colloquium that was organized by the lead editor of this special issue of IRAL at the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (SLRF) conference. The contributions that we present here consist of selected papers from this conference and collectively explore three closely inter-related themes: Language Learning, Cognition, and Interactional Practices. In so doing, all the contributors to this special issue situate themselves within an emerging body of work that applies the ethnomethodological methods and techniques of conversation analysis (CA) to the study of second language interactions that may promote language learning in ordinary and institutional contexts. What is distinctive about this work, which has sometimes been labeled conversation analysis-for-second language acquisition (CA-for-SLA: Markee and Kasper 2004), is that it uses CA's analytic techniques to understand how the social organization of talk-in-interaction either shapes or contributes to language learning processes. CA-for-SLA work first broke through as a novel (if heretical) approach to understanding SLA processes with the publication in the Modern Language Journalof the seminal position paper by Firth and Wagner (1997) and a number of response pieces that were written from a broad range of epistemological perspectives. Briefly, Firth and Wagner argued that SLA studies in the late 1990s were too narrowly conceived, and that the field needed to be expanded so as to include "(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" (1997: 286). The paper obviously resonated in the wider profession, and a number of publications soon followed which either took up where Firth and Wagner left off, or else subjected these ideas to an on-going critique of the value of CA-for-SLA. IRAL 47 (2009), 1-9 DOI 10. 1515/iral.2009.001

0019042X/2009/047-001 @Walter de Gruyter

2

Junko Mori and Nuina Markee

For example, in the former category, a number of book length publications, journal special issues and individual papers or book chapters provided CA-forSLA with increasingly sophisticated epistemological and ontological foundations and an expanding data base of analyses of "language learning behaviors" (Markee 2008) in different languages (see, among others, Firth and Wagner 2007; Gardner and Wagner 2004; Hellerman 2007, 2008; Kasper 2004, 2006, 2008; Lafford 2007; Markee 2000, 2004; Mondada and Pekarek Doehler 2004; Mori 2002, 2004; Richards and Seedhouse 2005; Seedhouse 2004; Zuengler and Mori 2002). In the latter category, however, we find a number of authors who were skeptical to varying degrees about the ability of a behavioral discipline such as CA to have much to say about processes which they believed were primarily psycholinguistic and cognitive in nature (see, for example, Gass 1998, 2004, 2007; Kasper 1997; Larsen-Freeman 2004, 2007; Long 1997). In addition, there were other researchers who, though basically sympathetic to the views espoused by Firth and Wagner (1997), believed (or have come to accept) that CA needs to enter into an alliance with sociocognitive theories of SLA such as sociocultural theory, language socialization, and/or situated learning theory in order to address language learning issues (see, for example, Brouwer and Wagner 2004; Hall 1997,2004; He 2004; Hellerman 2007,2008; Mondada and Pekarek Doehler 2004; Young and Miller 2004). This brief overview demonstrates that, even though work in this tradition is still a comparatively recent development, it is by no means homogeneous in terms of how different writers situate themselves vis-a-vis the question of whether it is necessary for work that uses CA has to be supplemented by exogenous theories of SLA. After all, as Kasper (2004) points out, one of the most attractive features of CA is that it is an extraordinarily powerful tool for showing how what is conventionally known as interlanguage talk is achieved both in the moment and over extended periods of time (Hellerman 2008). Thus, it is clear that we need to distinguish between two emerging tendencies: on the one hand, there are CA-inspired approaches to SLA and, on the other, CAinformed approaches to SLA. CA-inspired approaches to SLA tend to favor a relatively purist or CA-native approach to the analysis of learning talk. That is, interactional practices are selected for analysis because they present interesting issues for both CA and SLA, and the argument proceeds as an on-going dialog between these disciplines. In contrast, CA-informed approaches to SLA tend to use CA as a technical tool that provides the methodological muscle for a priori theories of SLA. The five articles featured in this special issue exemplify this diversity in how the authors adopt CA and other theories. Whereas Kasper, Markee and Seo, and Mori and Hasegawa underscore the analytical power of CA in studying language learning behaviors and discuss potential problems in combining it with exogenous theories, Hellerman and Firth introduce the notion of commnu-

Language learning, cognition, and interactionalpractices

3

nities ofpractice proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991) to draw larger pictures within which the target phenomena examined in their studies are situated. Regardless of this difference, however, all of the contributors to this special issue explore in considerable empirical detail how language learning is rooted in and shaped by participation in talk-in-interaction. Thus, for these researchers, "participation" and "acquisition" metaphors of learning (cf. Sfard 1998), which have hitherto often been presented as epistemological opposites, are not treated as being necessarily mutually exclusive. We argue that this emphasis on the symbiotic relationship between these two metaphors constitutes a novel and productive line of inquiry for future sociocognitive SLA work.

2.

Cognition and learning talk

As we have just seen, the papers by Kasper, Markee and Seo, and Mori and Hasegawa are distinct from those by Hellerman and Firth in that they reject the need to invoke a priori exogenous theories to understand language learning behaviors. They also attempt to break new ground by articulating alternative approaches toward cognition, which SLA studies have traditionally treated as what resides within an individual's mind and brain. The reconceptualization of cognition as a social phenomenon that becomes manifest in, and serves as a vehicle for, talk-in-interaction has been proposed by researchers in ethnomethodology (EM), conversation analysis (CA), and discursive psychology (DP) (Edwards 1997; Edwards and Potter 1992; Garfinkel 1967; Heritage 1984; Maynard and Clayman 1991; Schegloff 2006; te Molder and Potter 2005). Informed by these social scientific research traditions, Kasper provides important foundations for this new initiative, arguing that the "procedural infrastructure of interaction" (Schegloff 1992: 1338) and the "architecture of intersubjectivity" (Heritage 1984: 254), which are the object of CA's investigation, are conditions for all sociocognitive activities, including language learning. Cognitive, affective, and other displays and claims, versions and descriptions, are built on, and situated in, these interactional organizations. The interactional participants' ability to project a forthcoming trajectory of action sequences, for instance, attests to their concerted attentional focus, or demonstrates socially shared cognition. From this perspective, Kasper reevaluates the standard treatment of repair in SLA research. A phenomenon such as self-initiated self-repair, which may be treated merely as the individual's cognitive processes in a traditional approach, does not happen in an interactional vacuum; instead it serves to restore and maintain intersubjectivity, while implicating the speaker's orientation to a particular activity and identity. CA, Kasper argues, enables us to grasp the sociocognitive work achieved by repair in a more profound manner.

4

Junko Mori and Numa Markee

Markee and Seo pursue a similar agenda by proposing a new research framework called "learning talk analysis" (LTA). Briefly, LTA involves a synthesis of methodological agendas drawn from the later Wittgenstein's philosophical insights into natural language, empirical work in EM, CA and DP, and a reconceptualization of Hatch's (1978) discourse hypothesis in SLA along ethnomethodological lines. Of the three papers in this grouping, the contribution by Markee and Seo stakes out the most radically agnostic position regarding: a) the role of exogenous theory in sociocognitive work; b) the nature of socially distributed cognition; and c) the extent to which we can infer specific cognitive states from language learning behavior. One possible outcome of this line of research is the development of what might be called a post-cognitive SLA tradition. On the other hand, while Markee and Seo certainly do not pull their punches in terms of their critique of cognitive SLA, they also seek to engage colleagues of all persuasions in a broad, ongoing dialog that centers on the interconnectedness of the social and cognitive dimensions of SLA. Like Markee and Seo, Mori and Hasegawa offer behavioral, process-oriented accounts of mind, cognition, affect, and language learning, based on a case study of a structure-focused, textbook-cued task assigned in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. The analysis of a variety of word search sequences that occurred in an interaction between two learners taking on the assigned task demonstrates how these learners organize their learning activities by utilizing different kinds of semiotic resources, including language, body (e.g., gaze, gesture, posture shift), as well as cognitive artifacts such as textbooks and notebooks co-present at the site of interaction. Through the manipulations of these resources, the learners embody and display their own cognitive states, and at the same time they assess each other's performed cognitive states and shared learning history vis-A-vis the procedural infrastructure of interaction, as discussed by Kasper. Such indigenous assessment of a coparticipant's state of mind, knowledge, and memory becomes a critical matter for the participants themselves, since the result of the assessment affects how they design their next contribution to carry on the learning through talk-ininteraction.

3.

Interactional practices, local learning, and longitudinal development

In contrast with the first three studies, Hellermann and Firth do not make the respecification of cognition their central focus; instead they adopt CA techniques to examine interactional practices that L2 speakers undertake and suggest that these speakers are" 'learniNG' in the active sense of the word" (Hellermann), or engaging in "local learning within the micro-moments of interaction" (Firth) as they co-construct turns of talk in sequence. This conceptualization of lan-

Language learning, cognition, and interactionalpractices

5

guage learning differs from that of Markee and Seo's and Mori and Hasegawa's, which rely on observable, behavioral manifestations of non-comprehension or other types of problems, changes of epistemic states, and so on, to identify language learning talk. To be precise, Hellermann examines how no responses are used by an adult English learner in a language learning classroom, where both task-focused interaction and more conversational talk can be observed. The close analysis of the sequence and action types and the design of turns that include no responses reveals that the focal learner performed this potentially interpersonally delicate social action indicating negative affiliation with the prior speaker, in a range of manners; by doing so, she demonstrates her orientation to the differing degrees of preference for mitigating the turns, which are associated with different types of actions performed. Hellermann proposes that the learner gains the understanding of how to deliver no responses in different situations while performing the very act, and that, through this process, the learner accomplishes the move from peripheral to more full participation in two overlapping communities of practice, i.e., the classroom and that of 'English language users'. Firth also examines interactional practices and argues for local learning accomplished through participation in interaction, but consistent with his earlier work, he advocates the necessity of shifting the focus of SLA study from L2 classrooms to other real-world contexts of L2 interactions. More specifically, he investigates how L2. speakers orient to learning in a setting where L2 instruction and learning are not the official business of the talk. By introducing excerpts of English as a linguafrancainteractions that take place in an international workplace setting, Firth argues that language learning is a ubiquitous social activity. That is, he argues that what participants learn in such a setting does not necessarily coincide with the conventional understanding of language learning, which tends to focus rather narrowly on conventional notions of language such as syntax, morphology, lexis and prosody. Rather,.what the participants in such a linguafrancainteractions need to learn is how to calibrate their own linguistic and interactional behaviors based on their assessment of their co-participants' competence, both of which may be deemed non-standard from a traditional perspective. In other words, they learn how to accomplish their business at hand while "doing not being a foreign language learner." These two latter studies refer to communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) and thereby suggest that some kind of change in learners' level of participation takes place over time, but neither one directly addresses the necessity of longitudinal research. Although Hellermann's data were collected over the course of five ten-week sessions, concerning the particular practice examined in this paper, developmental changes do not seem to have been traced (but see Hellermann 2008). Firth does not introduce longitudinal data although he underscores the importance of expanding the data base for SLA research.

6

Junko Mori and Nuina Markee

With regard to the possibility of conducting naturalistic longitudinal research inspired by CA, Kasper introduces Wootton's (1997) study of LI pragmatic development as a potential model for future sociocognitive SLA work. Wootton was able to trace how a child (his daughter) developed, between the ages of ten and thirty six months, ways of making requests to her parents in a range of different domestic situations. By conducting CA analyses of data collected over time, he explicates how this development was achieved as the joint emergence of interactional and social-cognitive competencies. In contrast to this L I study, however, tracing the longitudinal development of adult learners of a second language likely presents additional challenges. Social activities that these adult learners engage in, communities that they belong to, identities that they invoke in various situations, can all be far more complex than those of young children. Further, adult learners can utilize abundant linguistic and other semiotic resources that they have acquired through their LI socialization process to the tasks of doing L2 interaction and learning, as demonstrated in the studies featured in this issue. To summarize, on the one hand, the use of CA techniques potentially provides exciting new methodological insights into how longitudinal interactional data may be fruitfully analyzed. On the other, the use of such techniques to trace learners' language development over time underlines the necessity of developing a solid data base and a robust methodology that accounts for all the possible elements that contribute to the achievement of a given interactional practice at a given moment. We suggest that these complementary issues will continue to preoccupy sociocognitive researchers for the foreseeable future.

4.

Identities, communities, and contexts

Despite the heterogeneity in CA-inspired or CA-informed approaches and the difference in the treatment of cognition and learning, all the studies in this special issue are concerned with how the complex web of communities that learners belong to, or aim to become a member of, as well as a variety of identities that they invoke, claim, ascribe, or resist in interaction, influence their learning experience. Thus, contexts, for these researchers, are not merely categorical characterizations of settings within which interactions take place (i.e., classroom, tutoring session, international business, etc.), but rather what the participants themselves co-construct, or orient to, while engaging in interactions. Kasper, for instance, illustrates how identities such as differential language expertise, learner-teacher, or a grammar-conscious L2 learner are reflexively constructed through the ways in which the participants conduct themselves. Similarly, Hellermann demonstrates how the focal learner in his study uses no

Language learning,cognition, and interactionalpractices

7

responses differently in task focused talk and more conversational talk, both occurring in a language learning classroom. In so doing, the learner reflexively demonstrates her orientation to these different activities and consequently different types of relationships with her peers. Markee and Seo's study further demonstrates how a tutor and tutee in a writing conference manage transitions from conversational talk to pedagogical talk and vice versa. Here again, it is each participant's turn-by-turn contribution that potentially shifts contexts, or more specifically types of speech exchange system operating in interaction, and consequently types of responses expected in the subsequent turn. As documented by Markee and Seo, a subtle shift from conversational talk to pedagogical talk initiated by a participant may not be always recognized by his co-participant in a timely manner. The restoration of alignment, then, becomes a matter at hand for the participants, who together aim to establish intersubjectivity and, in so doing, pursue the business at hand, which is learning talk. What is as critical as the recognition of ever changing micro contexts is the appreciation of the fundamental procedural architecture of interaction, i.e., the essence of CA research, which operates regardless of types of activities and identities in play. Kasper, for instance, refers to this by juxtaposing the sequential structures of modified input and modified output, which indeed show parallel development involving next-turn repair initiation. Likewise, although the title of Mori and Hasegawa's study, "Doing being a foreign language learner," and that of Firth's, "Doing not being a foreign language learner," draw a sharp contrast between situated identities likely expected in different settings examined, these studies of interactions between L2 speakers underscore a common observation: that is, how these L2 speakers engage in ongoing assessments of each other's competence and shared resources in order to accomplish talk whether it is aimed at the completion of a language learning task or a business matter. As Firth concludes, "notions of 'learning', 'learnership', 'competence', 'proficiency', and 'performance', are intricately tied to contextual exigencies, and are always emergent within the micro-details of social interaction" (p. 150, this volume). And in order to approach the emic or participant-relevant understanding of these notions, a continuous exploration of L2 speakers' conduct in varying situations in and out of the classroom is necessary. We hope that this special issue has been able to add another dimension to this ongoing quest. University of Wisconsin-Madison University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

8

Junko Mori and Numa Markee

References Brouwer, Catherine and Johannes Wagner (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1: 29-47. Edwards, Derek (1997). Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage. Edwards, Derek and Jonathan Potter (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage. Firth, Alan and Johannes Wagner (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) ftndamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern L,anguage Journal 81: 285-300. Firth, Alan and Johannes Wagner (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal 91: 800-819. Gardner, Rod and Johannes Wagner (eds.) (2004). Second Language Conversations.London: Continuum. Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in Ethnoinethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Susan M. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or, why apples are not oranges and don't need to be. Gass,IThe Modern Language Journal 82: 83-90. Gass, Susan M. (2004). Conversation analysis and input-interaction. The Modern Language Journal 88: 597-602. Gass, Susan M., Junkyu Lee, and Robin Roots (2007). New ideas or a new articulation? The Moderi LanguageJournal 9 I: 788-799. Hall, Joan K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern LUnguage Journal 81 : 301-306. Hall. Joan K. (2004). Language learning as an interactional achievement. The Modern Language Journal 88: 607-612. Hatch, Evelyn M. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Second L,anguage Acquisition: A Book of Readings, Evelyn M. Hatch (ed.). 402-435. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. He, Agnes. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. Modern Language Journal 88: 568-582. Hellerman, John (2007). The development of' practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal 91: 83-96. Hellermann, John (2008). Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Heritage, John (1984). Gaijinkel and Ethnornethodology.Cambridge: Polity Press. Kasper, G. (1997). "A'Astands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal 81: 307-312. Kasper, Gabrielle (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal 88: 551-567. Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review 19: 83-99. Kasper, Gabriele (2008). Discourse and socially shared cognition. In Enicyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd ed., vol 6: Knowledge about Language, Jasone Cenoz and Nancy H. Hornberger (eds.), 59-77. Berlin: Springer. Lafford. Barbara (2007). Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firih and Wagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal 91: 735-756. Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2004). CA for SLA? It all depends ... The Modern Language Journal 84: 603-607. Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Joutrnal 91: 773-787. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long. M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern LanIguage Journal 81: 318-323.

Language learning, cognition,and interactionalpractices

9

Markee, Numa (2000). Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Markee, Numa (ed.). (2004). Special issue: Classroom talks. The Modern Language Journal 88

(4). Markee, Numa (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics 29: 404-427. Markee, Numa and Gabriele Kasper (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal 88: 491-500. Maynard, Douglas W. and Steven E. Clayman (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology 17: 385-418. Mondada, Lorenza and Simona Pekarek Doehler (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 88: 501 -518. Mori, Junko (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: 323-247. Mori, Junko (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern LanguageJournal 88 (4): 536-550. Richards, Keith and Paul Seedhouse (2005). Applying Conversation Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of inteeruSbjectivity in conversation. American Journalof Sociology 97 (5): 1295-1345. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Roots of Human Society, N. J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), 70-96. Oxford: Berg. Seedhouse, Paul (2004). The InteractionalArchitecture of the Language Classroom:A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Sfard, Anna (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher27: 4-13. te Molder, Hedwig and Jonathan Potter (ed.) (2005). Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Young, Richard F. and Elizabeth R Miller (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern LanguageJournal 88: 519-535. Zuengler, Jane and Junko Mori (2002). Special issue: Microanalyses of classroom discourse: A critical consideration of method. Applied Linguistics 23 (3).

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Language learning, cognition, and interactional practices: An introduction SOURCE: IRAL 47 no1 2009 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.degruyter.de/mouton/index.html