On Discourse, Communication, and (Some ...

On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research Author(s): Alan Firth and Johannes Wagner Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 91, Focus Issue: Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized? The Impact of Firth and Wagner (1997) (2007), pp. 757-772 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4626130 . Accessed: 13/08/2011 14:22 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

Republication from TheModernLanguage

Journal,81, 1997, 285-300.

On Discourse,Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Conceptsin SLA Research ALAN FIRTH and Language SchoolofEducation,Communication Sciences Newcastle University Newcastle UponTyne,NE1 7RU UnitedKingdom ac.uk Email: alan.firth@ncl. Current

JOHANNES WAGNER Denmark, Kolding University ofSouthern Engstien1 DK-6000 Kolding Denmark sdu.dk Email:jwa @sitkom.

This articlearguesfora reconceptualizationof Second Language Acquisition(SLA) research thatwouldenlargetheontologicaland empiricalparametersofthefield.We claimthatmethodologies,theories,and fociwithinSLA reflectan imbalancebetweencognitiveand mentalistic and social and contextualorientationsto language,theformerorientationbeing orientations, unquestionablyin the ascendancy.This has resultedin a skewedperspectiveon discourseand communication,whichconceivesof the foreignlanguage speakeras a deficientcommunicato reach the "target" torstrugglingto overcomean underdevelopedL2 competence,striving competence of an idealized nativespeaker (NS). We contend thatSLA researchrequiresa enhanced awarenessof the contextualand interactionaldimensionsof language significantly towardsfundamentalconcepts, use, an increased"emic" (i.e., participant-relevant) sensitivity and the broadeningof the traditionalSLA data base. Withsuch changes in place, the field and methodologicallyricher,more robust of SLA has the capacityto become a theoretically enterprise,betterable to explicatethe processesof second or foreignlanguage (S/FL) acquisition,and bettersituatedto engage withand contributeto researchcommonlyperceivedto resideoutsideitsboundaries. are multiply olinguisticdimensionsof language. As such, it is and nonnativespeakers Nativespeakers flawed,and obviatesinsightintothenatureoflanone in conversations with handicapped another. guage, mostcentrallythe language use of second Varonis& Gass (1985b, p. 340) or foreignlanguage (S/FL) speakers.As part of this examination,we discuss the statusof some THE THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES CRITICALLY fundamentalconcepts in SLA, principallynonand of communicaview discourse predominant nativespeaker(NNS), learner,and interlanguage. tion withinsecond language acquisition (SLA) research.' We argue thatthisviewis individualis- These conceptsprefigureas monolithicelements in SLA, theirstatusveneratedand seeminglyastic and mechanistic,and thatit failsto account sured withinthe field. We claim that, for the in a satisfactory way for interactionaland socimost part, theyare applied and understood in an oversimplified manner,leading,among other TheModern 91,FocusIssue,(2007) Language Journal, things,to an analyticmindsetthatelevatesan ide0026-7902/07/757-772 $1.50/0 alized "native"speaker above a stereotypicalized ?2007 TheModernLanguageJournal

758 "nonnative,"while viewingthe latteras a defectivecommunicator, limitedbyan underdeveloped communicativecompetence. Our criticalassessmentof some of SLA's core concepts is, in part, a reaction to recent discussions on theoreticalissues withinthe field. Long (1990), forexample,inaugurateda discusof theoriesin sion on the perceivedproliferation SLA, and argued the need for "theoryculling." Subsequent contributionsfromBeretta (1991), Crookes (1992), Beretta and Crookes (1993), Long (1993), Ellis (1994, p. 676ff.),and Gregg (1990, 1993) similarlyengage problems of theoryand paradigmformulation.Such discussions reflecta desire to keep apace withan expanding and increasinglydiversifiedfield, and to introduce "qualitycontrol"on the basis of "established"and "normal"scientificstandards. In a recentpaper,Block (1996) has challenged manyof the assumptionsupon which these discussionsare predicated,not least the assumption that there is a "normal science," as well as the assumptionthat the existenceof multipletheories in SLA is inherentlyproblematic(in thata multitudeof theoriesis said to preventSLA from becoming a "normalscience"), and the assumptionthatthereexistsan "amplebody"of"accepted findings"withinSLA research. Long (1993) claims that a theoretically "slimmeddown"SLA would allow forknowledge accumulationand thepreventionofa "wildflowering"of disparateand "rivaling"theories(p. 235). Such a process,it is felt,willbolsterthe theoretical foundationsof SLA. In Long's view,knowledge productionin "normal"science "becomes cumulative,details can be attended to, and applicationsof theorycan be harvested"(p. 230). And yet,as introductory SLA textssuch as LarsenFreemanand Long (1991), Lightbownand Spada there (1993), and Ellis (1990, 1994) demonstrate, is a strongtendencywithinSLA to accumulate large quantitiesof heterogeneousresearch.The problemis thatthe accumulationis done largely withoutcriticalassessmentof thepresuppositions underpinningthe research.As we argue below, althoughSLA researchis imbalancedin favourof theories and methodologies, cognitive-oriented thefactremainsthatthe branchof the discipline dealingwithdiscourseand communicationis,and in its multitheoretical alwayshas been, ofnecessity adopted approaches and conceptual apparatus. Hence, SLA wouldappear to requirenotso much a "theoryculling,"but rathera more criticaldiscussionof itsown presuppositions, methods,and fundamental(and implicitly accepted) concepts. This articleengages in such a discussion.

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007) By challenging prevailingviews, presuppositions,and concepts,and by examiningcritically theoretical assumptions and methodological practices,our ultimategoal is to arguefora reconceptualization of SLA as a more theoretically and methodologicallybalanced enterprisethat endeavoursto attendto, explicate,and explore, in more equal measuresand, where possible,in diintegratedways,both the social and cognitive mensionsof S/FL use and acquisition. We are aware of the growingnumber of SLA studies,mainlyof an ethnographicnature,that are sociallyand contextuallyoriented (e.g., Aston, 1993; Blyth, 1995; Kramsch, 1995; Hall, 1995). Althoughsuch studies are beginning to impact SLA in general, and have begun questioningand exploringthe fundamentalnotions of learner,nonnative,nativespeaker,and interlanguage, most tend to take the formallearning environment(i.e., the S/FL classroom) as their pointof departure.Thus, althoughS/FL interactionsoccurringin noninstructional settingsare evin the occurrences (e.g., workplace),they eryday have not,as yet,attractedthe attentionof SLA researchers(see, though,Rampton,1995a; Bremer, Roberts,Vasseur,Simonot,& Broeder,1996). Althoughmanyfindingsand theoriesin SLA have been importantand even groundbreaking, we submit that, on the whole, work that purports to examine nonnative/learnerdiscourse and communicationis impaired. This is a resultof an imbalance of theoreticalconcernsand methodologies.It is an imbalance that hinders progressionwithinthe field. The reconceptualization we call for,whichwould redressthisimbalance, requires three major changes in SLA: enhanced awarenessofthecon(a) a significantly textualand interactionaldimensionsoflanguage use, (b) an increased emic (i.e., participantrelevant) sensitivitytowards fundamentalconcepts,and (c) the broadeningof the traditional SLA data base. If we begin to accomplish such goals,we believe thatthe fieldof SLA has the caand methodologipacitytobecome a theoretically more robust richer, enterprise,betterable to cally of the explicate processes S/FL acquisition,and betterplaced to engagewithand contributeto research commonlyperceivedto reside outside its boundaries. In the sections that follow,we trace, first, the originsof the perceived imbalance in SLA researchpractices,arguingthatit has led to the speaprioritizingof the individual-as-"nonnative ker"/"learner"over the participant-as-language"user"in social interaction.In order to consider the theoreticaland methodologicalimplications

Alan FirthandJohannesWagner of this prioritization,we (re)analyse previously published data extracts,upon whichwe offeralternativeinsightsand conclusions. DISCOURSE AND COMMUNICATION ResearcherswithinSLA have a relativelylong historyof recordingand analysing"learner"discourse; that is, language "above the sentence," produced in spoken encounterswithothers.In SLA, such recordingsare commonlylabeled "performance data." The aim is to explicate the processes of S/FL acquisition, while (at least implicitly)acknowledging the social basis of language. In large measure,thispracticeof colencountersis rooted lectingdata frominteractive in the"communicative" turnwithinanthropology in themid-1960s, and linguistics representedmost notablyby Hymes's (1961; 1962; 1974, p. 90ff.) contextcritiqueofChomsky's(1957) formalistic, free,"grammaticalcompetence"programmefor linguistics.2By stressingthe centralityof communicativecompetenceratherthangrammatical in launchcompetence,Hymeswas instrumental a more social and contextual of view ing language, whichpermeated,in greateror lesserdegrees,a numberof disciplines,SLA included.3This view is predicatedon the convictionthatlanguage-as a social and cultural phenomenon-is acquired and learned through social interaction (see, e.g., Halliday,1978, p. 18; Gass & Varonis, 1985a, p. 150; Ellis, 1990, p. 99; Yano, Long, & Ross, 1994, pp. 192-193). As such, it can, and should, be profitablystudied in interactiveencounters.Long (1981), forexample,takesthepositionthat"... participationin conversationwith N[ative] S[peaker]s, made possible throughthe modificationof interaction,is the necessary and sufficientconditionfor SLA" (p. 275, emphasis added). Gass and Varonis (1985a) contend that "[a]ctive involvementis a necessaryaspect of acquisition,since itis throughinvolvementthatthe inputbecomes 'charged' and 'penetrates'deeply" (p. 150). Hymes's influentialcritique notwithstanding, Chomsky'simpact was too powerful to resist. His distinctionbetween competence (the ideal abstractknowledgeofgrammar speaker-listener's ofhisownlanguage) and performance(language as actual utterance) parallelled,reinforced,and extendedSaussure'sdichotomyof langueand parole,and maintainedthe priorityof the former over the latter (see Sampson, 1980, p. 50). But it was Chomsky'stheoryof a language instinct (Pinker,1994), an innate "mentalstructure"or

759 "language acquisition device" withinthe brain, enablinglanguage acquisitionto take place, that had a cataclysmiceffecton linguistics,an effect that reverberatedin research in child development,speech perception,neurology,genetics,psycholinguistics-andSLA. Chomsky'slegacy is clearlyevidentin groundbreakingSLA work, including Corder (1967) on learners' errors, Selinker(1971) on thenotionof"interlanguage," and Dulay,Burt,and Krashen's (1982) model of SL speech processing. The Chomskyanparadigm-its rootstraceable to Plato and Descartes's rationalistictheories of the mind (see Chomsky,1976, pp. 6-8)was to manifestand subsequentlyestablishitself withinSLA as a centralconcernwithlanguage as an aspect of individualcognition.Accordingto Chomsky(1968), linguistsshould "establishcertain general propertiesof human intelligence," the reason being that"[l]inguisticsis simplythe sub-fieldof psychologythat deals withthese aspects of the mind" (1968, p. 24). For Corder (1973), a leading figurein SLA fora generation, theconsequence wasthatSLA mustsubscribeto a viewoflanguage"as a phenomenonoftheindividual," whilebeing "principallyconcernedwithexplaininghow we acquire language..,.its relation to general human cognitivesystems,and.., .the psychologicalmechanismsunderlyingthe comprehension and productionof speech" (p. 24). Moreover,such an approachwould be "muchless [concerned] withthe problem ofwhatlanguage is for,thatis,itsfunctionas communication,since thisnecessarilyinvolvesmore than a single individual"(ibid.). For manywithinSLA, thestrength of thisconvictionhas not diminishedwithpassing years.In a recentpaper,Gregg (1993) contends: In SLA,forreasonsthatI (and others)havegiven .and whichI forone findtotally comelsewhere.., is theacquisition pelling,theoverallexplanandum ofL2 competence, intheChom(ornon-acquisition) skyansenseoftheterm.(p. 278) Greggcontinues: SLA theory is a theory oftheacquisition oflinguisticknowledge, and thusrequiresa property theory or functional But it is analysisof thatknowledge. also a theoryof theacquisition of linguistic knowledge... Our propertytheoryasks "How is L2 knowledge instantiatedin the mind/brain?"(p. 279)

According to these views,acquisition is an individual phenomenon, its locus being the individual's "mind" or "brain." Thus social, discursive approaches to the natureof mind,as well as competenceand knowledge(e.g., Bakhtin,1981;

760 Wertsch,1991; Sampson, 1993; Harre & Gillett, 1994), are beyondthe purviewof SLA. The consequences of the rapid development during the 1960s of these two strandsof language research-let us call them the "socialanthropological"and the "cognitive"-were of greatimportance,because whilein an embryonic state,SLA was subjected to a tension between, on the one hand, an acknowledgementof the social, contextualdimensionsof language, language acquisitionand learning,and on theother, the centralityof the individual'slanguage cognitionand mental processes.This tensionis, to some extent,stillprevalentwithinSLA. And yet, as Gregg'sobservations(above) intimate,thecenorientripetalforcesof the individual-cognitive tationremainirresistiblefor SLA. The fieldwas to become if not firmlyembedded within,then at least an importantadjunct of, psycholinguistics (Clark & Clark, 1977; Stern, 1983), which bythe mid-1960shad largelyadopted Chomsky's programmaticstatementson the cognitive,autonomic natureof the mindas itsresearchagenda. Benefitshave accrued from the tension between these two perspectives. For example, researchershave attempted to investigatethe influenceof a rangeof contextualfactorson language acquisition(e.g., theinfluenceoftask,conversationaltopic, prior acquaintance withone's interlocutor),and have at times sought to embellish theirresearchby invokingethnographic informationon data. The mostlastingbenefitis that SLA is an applied field of research,where learners'competence (in both a Hymesianand a Chomskyansense) has been studied throughinvestigationsof performancein verbalinteraction (see the overviewsin Ellis,1990; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Ellis,1994). Butthistensionis byno meansone ofequipoise or counterbalance.It is a tensionweightedagainst the social and the contextual,and heavilyin favour of the individual's cognition, particularly the development of grammaticalcompetence. This has led to an imbalance of adopted theoreticalinterests,priorities,foci,methodologies, perspectives,and so on, resultingin distorted descriptionsof and views on discourse, communication,and interpersonalmeaningthe quintessentialelements of language. Moreover,thishas occurredeven in SLA workthatis concerned withdiscourse and interaction(e.g., communicationstrategies[CS] and inputmodification [IM] research),as we discussbelow. Indeed, the impositionof an orthodoxsocial psychologicalhegemonyon SLA has had the ef-

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007) fectof reducingsocial identitiesto "subjects,"or at best to a binarydistinctionbetween natives It gives preeminence and nonnatives/learners. to the research practice of coding, quantifying data, and replicatingresults.It prioritizesexplanationsofphenomenain termsofunderlying cognitiveprocessesoverdescriptionsofphenomena. It assignspreferenceto (researchermanipulation of) experimentalsettingsratherthan naturalistic ones. It endorses the search for the universal and underlyingfeaturesoflanguage processes ratherthan the particularand the local. It views transcommunicationas a processofinformation fer from one individual'shead to another's. It concerns and prioritizesetic (analyst-relevant) ones. categoriesover emic (participant-relevant) At best it marginalises,and at worst ignores, the social and the contextual dimensions of language. We do notargue thatsuch theoreticalpredilections or methodological practices are in and of themselveserroneous or flawed,and that,as such, theyshould be eschewed.Rather,we point out theirstrikingpredominancewithinthe field, leading to a generalmethodologicalbiasand theoreticalimbalancein SLA studiesthatinvestigate acquisitionthroughinteractivediscourse. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES A case in pointis much of theworkconducted under the rubricof "communicationstrategies" (CS), as representedbyFaerchand Kasper (1983) Poulisse (1993), and Kasper& and, morerecently, Kellerman(1997).4 In a trenchantcritique,Rampthe ton (1997) arguesthatCS researchconstitutes quintessentialL2 moment.It bears manyof the hallmarksofan orthodoxpsycholinguistic/socialpsychologicalhegemonyas outlined above, but an additionalelement,peculiar perhaps to SLA, is also prominent.This is SLA's generalpreoccupation withthe learner,at the expense of other potentiallyrelevant social identities.For SLA, the learneridentityis the researcher'staken-forratherthan,or as wellas,a topicof grantedresource, (In investigation.5 mostcases, "learner"is implicitlytaken to be an adult receivingformaleducationin a S/FL.) The emicrelevanceofthelearner identityis not an issue in SLA. More important, the learner is viewedas a defectivecommunicator. So the focus and emphasis of research-a reflectionof the quintessentialSLA "mindset," we venture-is on the foreignlearner's linguisand communicative ticdeficiencies Indeed, problems. consciousplans for CS are definedas "potentially

Alan FirthandJohannesWagner solvingwhat to an individualpresentsitselfas a problemin reachinga particularcommunicative goal" (Ferch & Kasper,1983,p. 36). In some sensesthisviewisunderstandable:Feelingsofincompetenceand difficultywhen learning a FL are surelycommonplace,and oftenpsychologicallysalient.The problem as we see it, howand "problems" ever,is thatstudiesof"difficulties" predominate.Moreover,thestudyofproblemsin S/FL communicationis implicitlytaken to cast more light on SLA than does a focus on, say, communicative"successes."Yet althoughlargely neglected by SLA in general and CS studiesin particular,thefactis thatpeople oftendo succeed in communicatingin a FL even withquite limitedcommunicativeresources;successfulcommunication,however,is perhapsless psychologically salient,and thismay,in part,explainitsdisregard in SLA research.Nevertheless,we suggestthata studyofcommunicativesuccesses-in additionto studiesof perceivedfailuresand problems-may providenewand productiveinsightsintoSLA. We to thisissue below. return,briefly, Within CS research,we see social processes being interpretedfrom the perspectiveof cognition, which is prejudged to be hindered by the demands of a L2. For example, in Poulisse and Bongaert's(1990) CS work,the FL speaker's anomalous word formations(actuallyDutch L1 lexical items) are viewed as erroneousfeatures, explainedsolelyin termsoftheindividual'slackof lexical competence (throughthe concept of "automatictransfer").Explanationsare not sought in termsofinteractionalor sociolinguistic factors. Yet as Rampton (1997) suggests,the identified lexicalitemsmayequallywellhavediscourseorgacues" (in nizingfunctions-as "contextualization the sense of Gumperz,1982)-or "the speakers might..,.be code-switchingin order to explore a mixedAnglo-Dutchidentity"(p. 22). In either case, it is problematicto viewthe L1 lexical items as exclusivelyerroneousartefactsof cognition. The CS model ofcommunicationis characteristic of both psycholinguistic and transformational grammarapproaches to language in that it implicitlydrawsupon the "mechanistic"(Shannon & Weaver,1949) or "telementational"concept of message exchange. Here communicationis viewedas a processof transferring thoughtsfrom one person'smind to another's(see, e.g., Harris, 1981). Accordingto the transformational grammarianKatz (1966), forexample,"linguisticcommunicationconsistsin theproductionofsome external,publiclyobservableacousticphenomenon whose phonetic and syntacticstructureencodes a speaker's inner private thoughts or ideas"

761 (p. 98). In CS research,then,speakersare viewed as having a preverbalisedmessage or goal (the "informationsource" in Shannon and Weaver's model) equated with the speech act (Faerch& Kasper,1983,p. 24). This messageor goal, known a prioribytheputativespeaker,is convertedintoa "plan,"whichis the locus of the selectedcommunicationstrategy(op. cit.,p. 30). The strategy is thenexecutedthroughspeech. In thisway,meaning and social interactionare viewedas essentially separateand discreteentities. Faerchand Kasper (1983) presentthe followfemales-a ing extractinvolvingtwo 17-year-old Danish learner (L) and a nativespeaker (NS) of English-as an exampleofa CS. The CS occursat lines 4 and 6 (arrowed): 1

NS:

2 3 4 5 6

L: NS: L: -NS: L:-+

7 8

NS:

9 10 11 12

NS: L: NS:

((pause)) what do you read at home ((pause)) whatwhatdo you er read mmmm whater subjectsdo you read about er historie mhm and ((laugh)) I read 'historie'home and sometimesin myschool - and er not more mm-doyoulikeer history - in schooldo you like learninghistory ((pause)) do you have historylessonsin school er yes I mean whenyoulearnabout er I don't know

13 L: kings 14 NS: old kingsyes 15 L: oh yesI have that 16 NS: do you like it 17 L: no ((laugh)) ((extractcontinues))

Faerchand Kasper (1983) observethattheconversation: illustrates variousaspectsofinterlanguage (IL) communication: thelearnerhasdifficulty inexpressing in in DanEnglishwhatshecouldeasilyhaveexpressed ish(namely thatshelikesreading herattempt stories); to communicate leadstoa misunderstanding on the at partofthenativespeakerwhichthengetsclarified a latertime.(p. 21)6 The CS in this extractis the word "historie," producedbyL at lines4 and 6. Presumably, Faerch and Kasperwould referto thisas an achievement of "code switching"(p. 46), since "histostrategy rie,"reproducedbythe authorsinside quotation marks(at line 6, thoughnot at line 4, the reason

762 forthisbeing unclear), is likelyuttered(in standard Danish at least) as /his'da:?ja/,which the authorsrecognizeas a Danish word,the English equivalentherebeing"stories."Faerchand Kasper see theutteringof theword"historie"as marking forthe learnerand of causa pointof "difficulty" They do so, it would aping misunderstanding. on of what the basis transpiresseveralturns pear, later (not reproducedabove), wherethe learner declares thather interestsare "not withthisold thingsyouknowkingsor all that,"fromwhichthe nativespeakerresponds"oh youmean a story,just a storyabout people, not necessarilyin the past" (p. 20). To begin with,it is at least debatable whether L does in fact experience difficulty at lines 4 and 6. The filledpause-"er"-at line 4 is hardly (If this is the compellingevidence of difficulty. would authors' reason for identifying difficulty, and declare that the same yardstick theyapply in enunNS, in line 1, is experiencingdifficulty ciatingthe word "read" in her "whatdo you er read"? We doubt this.) Faerchand Kasper's assessmentseems to be based on an etic viewthat sees language encoded in a "marked"(e.g., L1) forthe speaker. formas an indicatorof difficulty mind-set This learner-as-defective-communicator has seeminglypreventedtheauthorsfromconsidL has that,in code switching, eringthe possibility and preempteda problem,not avoided difficulty solvedor experiencedone. A more emicallybased perspectivewould allow the authors to explicate the competencies throughwhich the participantsconjointly accomplish meaningful communication with the resources-howeverseeminglyimperfect-at theirdisposal.For example,althoughL's pronunciation of "historie"is marked,the interlocutor, NS, is able to make sense of the utterance-aspronounced (see Firth,1996). This is so because, in this instance,both L and NS relyupon the nonnativestatusas a resourceforsense-making: use a marked L in the way she can, knowingly, formin the knowledgethather interlocutorwill take account of her NNS statusin the interpretiveworkof makingsense of the markedform; and NS in the wayshe focuseson the substrate of message content,ratherthan on the marked formofL's speech. In thisextract,theidentitiesof NNS and NS are not concomitantwithlinguistic "handicaps" or communicativedeficiencies.On the contrary, theyare resourcesthathave aided communication. AlthoughL mayhave intended"story"and not "historie"-the -as NS clearlyinterprets "history" point is thatthe meaning or sense is thatwhich

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007) is conjointlynegotiated and implicitlyagreed upon in the talk.7Contraryto Lockean principles of communication,people cannot say what theymean in an absolute sense; meaning is ineluctablynegotiated.Moreover,in orderto make sense,people are obligedto do ceaselessinterpretivework.8 The negotiatedmeaningin theabove extractthe meaning conjointlyestablishedin an apparHow does entlyunproblematicway--is"history." thiscome about? How have we moved from"historie"(lines 4 and 6) to "history"(lines 8 and 10)? Faorchand Kasper propose thatthisis caused by a misunderstandingresultingfromL's reduced competence in English.We offeran alternative analysis.NS has used the word "history"in line 8 because L's answer "historie"in line 4 is assumed to be topicallyrelevantvis-i-visthe preceding question,namely"whater subjectsdo you read about" (line 3). The question,as a "first pair part" of an "adjacencypair" (Schegloff& Sacks, 1973), establishesa set of expectationsas to what will occur in the followingturn,one centralexpectationbeing thatthe next turnwill be occupied withtopicallyrelevantmaterialsvis-i-visthe precedingturn(Sperber& Wilson,1986,p. 162), anotherexpectationbeing thatitwill answerthe posed question;thatis,itwillhavean actionalrelationship.9NS has thusinferredthatL's "historie," thoughenunciatedin a markedway,is intendedas since "subject"(line 3) and the English"history," "history"(line 4) are (in thisspecificsequential configuration)topicallyinterrelated("history"is a school "subject"that can be read about). By reactingin thisway,by "searchingfor a normal form"(Cicourel, 1973), NS has made the abnormal, anomalous form"normal"(see Firth,1996, pp. 245-247). thatFzerchand Kasper The misunderstanding claim resultedfromthe use of the word "historie" is thus questionable. Note thatafterL's use of the word at line 4, NS does not intimatemisunderstanding(line 5). Rather,the "mhm"is interpretedby L as a token of understandingand as a signal to continue on topic. This is borne out by L's on-topic turn at line 6, which not onlyelaboratesthe topicwitha voluntarydisclosure on where she (L) reads "historie"("home and sometimesin my school," line 6), but also reuses the word "historie."Lacking a public displayof nonunderstandingfromNS, then,in line 6 L makesthecommon-sense,defaultassumption that she has been understood.NS's subsequent of theword"history"1o (lines 8 triple-deployment answers(lines 11, 13, and 10), and L's affirmative & 15) show thatforthese participants"historie"

Alan FirthandJohannesWagner is not a problem." If there is a misunderstanding on NS's part,L is eitherunawareof it,or she lets it pass at lines 9 and 11-sequential "slots" thatofferclear opportunitiesforL to carryout a "third-turn repair" (see Schegloff,1992) of NS's erroneousinterpretation.'2 IfL did see itas a mison NS's understanding part,at this momentin the conversationitwas deemed to be nonfatalor irrelevant. Meaning, from this perspective,is not an individual phenomenon consisting of private thoughtsexecuted and then transferredfrom brain to brain,but a social and negotiableproduct of interaction,transcendingindividualintentionsand behaviours(see Streek,1980, pp. 147149; Goodwin, 1979). This transcendence is possible because talk is organized on a turn-byturnbasis, therebyprovidingparticipantswitha resource-a "proceduralinfrastructure ofinteraction" (Schegloff,1992,p. 1338)-for accomplishand transforming ing,demonstrating, meaningin an ongoingfashion.Each speakingturn,then,is a locus forthedisplayofunderstandingoftheprior turn (see, e.g., Schegloff,1992, pp. 1300-1301). orientto thisfeature,and in so doing Participants are able to constructa transcendental"architectureofintersubjectivity" (Heritage,1984,p. 254). Byextension,we wouldwantto at leastquestion Faerchand Kasper's (1983) claim that"although problems in interactionare necessarily'shared' problemsand can be solvedbyjoint efforts, they originatein either of the interactants"(p. 50; emphasisadded). Because interactionand communicationare per definitionconjointlyand puband made meaningful, liclyproduced,structured, communicative"problems,"we suggest,are likely to be recognized as problemsin interaction.In thissense,itmaybe moreusefulto viewproblems in communicationas contingentsocial phenomena, as intersubjective entities,and not invariably as "things"possessedbyindividuals.

763 emphasisadded). Summarisingworkin thefield, Varonisand Gass (1985b) write: to non... nativespeakers(NSs) responddifferently natives(NNSs) thantheydo to natives. Specifically, therearemoreclarification exrequests, repetitions, and a greaterincidence pansionsand elaborations, oftransparency inconversation withnonnatives than withnatives. (p. 328) Researchthatinvestigates thewayparticipantsaccomplishmutualunderstandinghas been termed "input modificationstudies." As alluded to in Varonis and Gass (1985b), thisworkfocusesalmostexclusively on interactions NSs and involving NNSs, the modificationsbeing made by the NSs (resultingin "foreignertalk"). Modificationsinclude slowerspeech rate,shorterand simplersentences,more questionsand questiontags,greater pronunciationarticulation,and less use of contractions(Zuengler, 1992). Even when nonnativesinteracttogether,thatis, when nativesare not involved,the language and formsof interaction are compared (by the researcher) to NS interactions,the suppositionbeing thatNS interactions are the norm. Indeed, the general notion of modificationpresupposes that there is a standardor normal way of talkingand interacting; it is this standardor normal way that is modified. Nativeand NonnativeSpeakers Prior to discussinginput modificationstudies we wish to commentbrieflyon the stadirectly, tus of the concept of NS in input modification research,althoughour commentswillbe relevant to SLA in general.

(a) ConsonantwithChomskyanlinguistics,in input modificationresearch, and in SLA as a whole, the NS is a seeminglyomniscientfigure. In SLA, as Mey (1981, p. 73) sardonicallyputs it, the NS's statusas "theuncrownedKing of linguistics"is upheld.14 NS data are thusviewedas INPUT MODIFICATION STUDIES thewarrantedbaselinefromwhichNNS data can The mindset that views learners/nonnatives be compared, and the benchmarkfromwhich as inherentlydefectivecommunicatorsis not re- judgementsof appropriateness,markedness,and strictedto CS research,but encompassesa wide so forth,can be made. range of "interactional"studiesin SLA, included (b) As a logical extension,NNSs are unprobin which are influentialpapers by Varonis and lematicallyviewedas the NSs' subordinates,with Gass (1985a, 1985b) and Gassand Varonis(1985a, regard to communicativecompetence (the neg1985b).13These authors investigatedcommuni- ative connotationof the "non-"prefixis hardly cation between native speakers and nonnative coincidental). speakers,a major impetus of theirwork being (c) The SLA researcherapproaches NS and NNS interactionsin an overwhelmingly a priori Long's (1981) claim that "participationin conversationwithNSs [nativespeakers]... is the nec- fashion,viewingthemas inherentlyproblematic conditionfor SLA" (p. 275, encounters.Thus Varonisand Gass (1985b) say: essaryand sufficient

764

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

"evenwithearnestnonnativesand cooperativenasient,interactinggroups,throughoutthe world. are inevitable," In the case of English,the internationalstatusof tivespeakers,misunderstandings the language means thata vast number of NNS (p. 328) and "NSs and NNSs are multiplyhandroutinelyinteractwithotherNNS, in whichcases icapped in conversationswithone another" (p. 340). At the veryleast,NS-NNS interactionsare Englishis a linguafranca.'8In mostcases,such inundertaken teractionsare not,at least ostensibly, to be somehow anomalous unusual, prejudged for educational, instructional,or learning purRichardsand Sukwiwat(1983), or extraordinary. for example, claim that "[f]or the speaker of a poses, but are a quotidian partof life,the range of purposes,like the social settingsin whichthey foreignlanguage, any conversationalexchange with a native speaker of the targetlanguage is occur,varyingwidely.Given this state of affairs, newcomersto SLA maybe surprisedto discover encounter"(p. 113, ema formof cross-cultural thatthe studyof FL use (involvingboth NS-NNS phasisadded). (d) NS and NNS are blanketterms,implying and NNS-NNS) in naturallyoccurring,everyday a smallfrac(noneducational) settingsconstitutes homogeneitythroughouteach group,and cleartionof SLA research.'19 cut distinctionsbetween them. So a NS is asto be a person witha sumed unproblematically (g) EvenwhereNNS-NNS interactionsare the mothertongue,acquired frombirth.How bilinobject of study,a common practicewithinSLA is to compare observed featuresof interaction and "semi-lingualism," gualism,multilingualism, with"comparable"NS interactions(i.e., so-called (first)language loss relate to the concept of NS "baseline"data; see, e.g.,Trosborg,1994,pp. 177are in largemeasureignored,as is thequestionof ofcases,theNNSs beingstudwhetherone can become a NS in a S/FL (some 186). In themajority ied are unacquainted (college) studentsengaged of theseissuesare discussedin Davies, 1991). in a formallearningprogrammeand interacting (e) The identitycategorizationsNS and NNS in a quasi-experimental are applied exogenouslyand withoutregardfor setting. theiremic relevance.The fact that NS or NNS is only one identityfroma multitudeof social Interlanguage identities,manyof whichcan be relevantsimulIt appears that people who are demonstrably taneously,and all of which are motile (father, not husband, man, friend,local, guest, opponent, engaged in the formallearningof a L2, but use a L2 in theirevintimate who neverthelessvoluntarily teacher, teammate, acquaincolleague, tance, stranger,brother,son, expert,novice,naerydayaffairs(e.g., at work or play), are essentive speaker, uninitiated,joke teller, speaker, tiallyuninterestingfromthe perspectiveof SLA caller, overhearer ad infinitum) is, it seems research--judgingbythe paucityofwhatwe may term"everydayL2 use" studies.However,in the fair to conclude, a nonissue in SLA. For the SLA researcher,only one identityreallymatters, fewstudieswhereinterestin noneducationalsetand it mattersconstantlyand in equal measure tingsis shown(e.g.,Varonis& Gass,1985a), NNSs tend to be cast in the same light as "learners." throughoutthe durationof the encounterbeing studied.'5 Thus, users of a L2 are deemed to be in a phase in termsof language. That is, their asNS and the of transition, The of (f) ascendancy sumed subserviencyof NNS in SLA reflectsnot language skillsand competenciesare seen to be onlya mindsetof learner/nonnative-as-defective-underdeveloped.Once again, the NS is brought communicator,it also illustratesthe prevailing intothepictureas thedefinitive objectofcomparison. Moreover,thistransitional phase is regarded monolingualorientationof SLA (and, to some, and predictable-as a as more or less systematic themonolingualorientationoflinguisticsin genThe in its own Romaine, 1; see, 1989, 1995), eral; systemis seen to be right. "system" p. Blyth, e.g., on the move, the goal being "target"(NS) comwhere monolingualNSs are taken to be the nupetence. Implicithere is the (at least disputable) merically(and, by implication,politically)dominant and identifiablegroup with which the assumptionthattargetor NS competenceis conNNS is to interact(see Blyth,1995, p. 148; also stant,fullydeveloped,and complete. Therefore,apparentlyregularthoughanomaIndeed, for Pennycook,1994, pp. 136-137).16,17 to be the lous NS seen with are interactions some, morpholinguistic(phonological,syntactic, "preferred"conditionsfor SLA to occur (recall that logical, etc.) featuresof NNS speech are termed these are areas where movement "fossilizations;" conditions,in theyare "necessaryand sufficient" in the systemis seen to have been suspended, Long's [1981] view).This orientationfailsto take In a simiaccountofthemultilingual realityofcommunities thusinducinglinguisticpetrification.20 (see Edwards,1994) and the realityof more tran- lar fashion,"anomalous" speech acts have been

Alan FirthandJohannesWagner deemed to result in "pragmaticfailure" (e.g., Thomas, 1983). Completionis achievedand failures are avoided (the argumentgoes) once the NNS has reached NS competence. These views on a NNS/learner language system are representative inof the extraordinarily fluentialconceptofinterlanguage(IL) (Selinker, 1971), described by Larsen-Freemanand Long (1991) as "a continuum between the L1 and L2 along which all learners traverse"(p. 60). This concept, like the work undertakenunder the rubric of CS, is predicated on a range of metatheoreticalassumptionson whatit means to be a FL speaker,thenatureofa "native"language, the nature of cognition,and the desirabilityof achievingnativecompetence (thoughnot NS status).21 And once again,withinstudiesof IL, what maybe-and oftenare-social dimensionsoflanguage use tend to be viewedthroughthe optics of individualcognition.The tensionalimbalance

765

simplyat the mercyof theirL2 (in) competence. The incompetence-ifwewishto call itthat-may in some instancesalso be a resource.22Anomalous formsof talk maybe accounted for not by incompetencebut by the notion of recipientdesign,thatis, speakerspurposivelydesigningtheir talkin anomalous waysin response to theirspeforthiscoparticipant, at cific,local circumstances, thisparticularsequentialmoment(Sacks, [1970] 1992, p. 230ff.;Firth,1996). And not onlyutterances are recipientdesigned; interpretations of others' utterancesalso may be said to be recipient designed. Features of talk that are initially perceivedand categorizedas interferenceor fossilizationsmay be more appropriatelyviewedas adroit, local responses to practical and discursive exigenciesthathave arisen in the unfolding talk,resulting,on occasions,in purposive"codeswitching."23 There are interestingconnectionsbetweenIL and "inputmodification"research.One of these reemerges. This imbalance is particularlydiscerniblein is that,in order to effectmeaningfulinteraction, IL researchbecause, as Rampton (1987) points theNS appearsto adopt IL-likebehaviour-in the IL studies are at the intersection of out, placed way language is simplifiedand adjusted to the SLA and sociolinguistics, in the sense thatboth perceived (lower) level of the NNS. The followfields are concerned with language variability. ing extractwas reproduced in Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) to illustrateinput modificaRampton's (1987) concern is withSLA's myopia in IL research,which "runs the riskof remain- tion. Here the NS "is female,Caucasian American, in her late twenties,and a speaker of 'eding restrictively preoccupied withthe space betweenthe speakerand his grammar,ratherthan ucated WestCoast (Los Angeles) English."'The withthe relationshipbetween speakersand the NNS "is a male Japanese officeworkerin his worldaround them"(p. 49). The "worldaround" mid-twenties [...] He is a 'beginner.'This is their is a first (and, speakers presumably,hearers) myriad meeting,whichhas been arrangedbythe reof factors,for example social relations,identi- searcher": ties, task,physicalsetting,and both global and are you a studentinJapan? 1 NS: turn-by-speaking-turn agenda, each instantiated 2 NNS: no I am not (...) I am worker throughlanguage yet potentiallyinfluentialon 3 NS: you'rea workerwhatkindofworkdo thewaylanguageis used. Researchon speech gendo? you ofspeaking,and sociolinguistics res,ethnography 4 NNS: uh I'm a /oSs'/ (.) /oSs'/ in itsmanyguiseshas irrefutably establishedand 5 NS: official![official documented this reflexiverelationshipbetween 6 NNS: [Officialof (.) (pu-) public IL language use and social context.Nevertheless, 7 NS: ah you workforthe government studiesremainlocked into a patternof explain8 NNS: uhm (pref-?)(..) no? and anomalous usage by recourse ing variability 9 NS: (I don't understand)no. [pre? to notionsof underdevelopedgrammaticalcom10 NNS: [/prifek petence. prifker/ Yet as both Rampton (1987) and Firth(1996) 11 NSS: s-Japanhas uh (....) many/prifkers/ show,NNSs' markedor deviantformsare not of 12 NS: factory(.) [factory? ofIL, nor can theyon each necessityfossilizations 13 NNS: [no and everyoccasion be accounted forbyinterfer14 NS: what is it? can you tell me? what is ence or a reduced L2 competence. Such forms that? (extract continues; pp. 146and strategically, to maybe deployedresourcefully 147) accomplishsocial and interactionalends-for exto or to Larsen-Freemanand Long (1991) observe that ample, displayempathy, accomplishmutualunderstanding. IL studiesin largemeasuredo the participantstalk about "here-and-now"topnot appear to recognizethatFL speakersare not ics, use interactional modification, produce

766

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

tive"(by,e.g., controllingtopic). Whatwe might allow for,however,is the possibility-borneout, we believe,in thisextract-thatNS is not taking the initiative;NS is being giventhe initiativeby NNS, and is takingiton thisbasis.That is,bothNS and NNS are collaboratingin constructing meanand a of this collaboingfuldiscourse, mainstay rationis an effective"divisionof labour,"based on the resourcesthatthe twopartiesbringto and make relevantin the interaction. Thisis shownin thewayNSS, in line 4, produces a markedform,and repeatsitin rapidsuccession. affect boththecontent The repetitionofa markedutterance,we suspect, Conversational adjustments talkdiscourse. may be a methodic way in which speakers can andinteractional structure offoreigner seek assistancefromtheirinterlocutor isconcerned, conversation withNNSs Wherecontent implicitly research is clearlyrequisiteon thismatorientation and tendstohavemoreofa here-and-now (further This narrower of to treata morepredictable, ter). range topics appears to be the effecthere, as NS morebriefly, forexamplebydealingwithfewerinin line 5 offersa "candidate hearing" of NNS's a lowerratioof formation bitsand bymaintaining markedpronunciationin line 4. This is followed moves.The interto topic-continuing topic-initiating byNNS's acceptanceofthecandidatehearingand ofNS-NNSconversation is marked his actionalstructure incorporationofNS's pronunciation(official) moreuseofquestions...more byabrupttopic-shifts, into his own turn (line 6). The phenomenon is ofvariouskinds.(pp. 193-194) repetition repeatedat lines 10, 11,and 12. RatherthandomOur concernsare withthevalidityofsuch claims, inance, incompetence,and underdeveloped FL and withthe built-inassumptionthata baseline ability(i.e., IL), we are witnessto collaboration, theskillfuland artfulapfromfor- sharing,resourcefulness, formof interactionwould be different of to effectcollaboration a mechanism it talk as a result of NS. plication involving eigner solely in talk,and thus an efficientdivisionof labour We question the implicationthat,in initial enbetweenthe participants. countersbetween NSs and NNSs, interactionis The materialsconsideredin Zuengler (1993), as above-for exoverridingly patterned depicted and when interactthat natives nonnatives, Zuengler and Bent (1991), and Wagner (1996) ample, also themselves for the first restrict time, appear to challenge the "modification"reroutinely ing to "here-and-now topics,"and thatnativesinvari- searcher'sreliance on an assumptionof inequalities in competence to explain featuresof NSgatherer"-as ablyadopt therole of"information NNS interactions.Zuenglerand Bent referto the is the case in the extractabove. It appears that,as a resultof an urge to genimportanceof content knowledgefor the level of participationin conversations.Wagner'sdata eralize across interactionsbetweengroupsof NS hints at the importance of factorssuch as soand NNS, and as a resultof a focus on experimental settingsto the detrimentof naturalistic, cial and institutionalroles, and setting.In Wagner's study,the NNS is a customer,conversing real-lifeencounters,researchersneglectthe constraintsand effectsof settingand setting-related with a (NS) salesman in her (the NNS's) own home. In thiscase it is the "customer"and "salestaskson the structureof discourse. This raises man" identitiesthatappear to come to the fore, the possibilitythat participantsmay not behave withNNS doing the informationgatheringand at the behest of theirnativeor nonnativecomthe NS salesman doing the providing-this depetencies and identities,but as a result of the their unfamiliarity spite NNS's demonstrablylimitedsyntacticand (quasi-experimental)setting, taskthey witheach other,and thesetting-imposed phonologic competence in the L2. Here, then, the NNS/NS identitiesare overridden(theyaphave agreed to undertake. to be exchanged),whilealternaIt maybe illuminatingto considerwhycertain pear,ifanything, in thetalk-are made activitiesin the talkabove appear to be differen- tiveidentities-instantiated relevant. tiallyassigned,such that NS adopts the role of The type and incidence of modificationsin informationgatherer,while NNS orientsto and NS-NNS interactions,indeed all typesof interinstantiatesthe role of informationprovider.Inrelatedto theinteractants' put modificationresearcherswould most likely actions,are intricately local agenda, the social and institutionalidentiexplain thisas a resultof NS's superiorlanguage competence;thatis,NS is simply"takingtheinitia- ties that are made relevantand instantiatedin

repetitions,paraphrase,and check forconfirmation. We ask: If this is "modified"interaction, what would be the "baseline" conversation?We do not take issue withthe analysts'observations on whatthe participantsare seen to be doing-paraphrasing, repeating,and so forth;morepressing is that data of this kind are taken to be a representationof FL interactionper se and "foreigner talk" (i.e., NSs' actions) in general. Thus Yano, Long, and Ross (1994) offerthe following overview:

Alan FirthandJohannesWagner the actual encounterand, not least,the demands and contingenciesthat become relevantin the minutiaeof the talk itself.In short,it is at least debatable whetherthereis such a thingas "interlanguage per se," and it is problematicto hold that thereexistsa general,universalset of rules forhowNS and NNS-as NS and NNS-converse. Equally questionable is the notion of there being a comparablebaselineofNS-NS interactions. This simplificationis once again predicated on a tendentiousassumptionthat NSs representa homogeneous entity,responding on each and everyoccasion in a patterned and predictable fashion. TheNotionof"Faultless" Discourse This final section examines brieflyanother manifestation of the mindsetof the "learner"or "nonnative"as per definitiona deficientcommunicator,whilecastingcriticallighton the prevailing SLA viewof discourseprocesses.Gass and Varonis (1985a) presentthe followingtwoextracts involvingtwoNNSs: (extract1) 1 NNS1: 2 NNS2: 3 NNS1: 4 NNS2: (extract2) 1 NNS1: 2 NNS2: 3 NNSI:

Myfathernow is retire retire? yes oh yeah This is yourtwoterm? Pardon me? Two term,thisis thistermis t term yourtwoterm?(p. 151)

Gass and Varonis (1985a) view these extractsas exemplificationsof "exchanges in which there is some overtindicationthatunderstandingbetween participantshas not been complete."Accordingto the authors,lines 1 fromeach extract contain"unacceptedinput"thatact as "triggers." These serve to "stimulateor invoke incomplete understandingon the part of the hearer" (p. 151). However,in the case of extract1, it is at least debatable whetherthe interlocutor(NNS2) demonstratesany kind of "incomplete understanding,"or that the preceding turn is somehow "unaccepted."A more convincingcase can thatNNS2's surelybe made fortheinterpretation reuse of the word "retire"(line 2) is seen-by ratherthan NNSI--as a requestforconfirmation, as indicating"misunderstanding" or "unacceptance." NNS1 providesconfirmationin the subsequent turn (line 3). Furtheralong, NNS2 displays the acceptabilityof this interpretationin line 4 ("oh yeah"). Similar to the Faerch and

767 Kasper (1983) extractabove, Gass and Varonis appear to be basing theirjudgement of acceptof line 1 on an imabilityand understandability plicit assumptionthat marked usage (i.e., the markedwordorderof"myfathernowis retire")is problematic.This viewdistortsthe analyst'sinterpretationsof whatis going on in the talk,such that NNS2's repetitionof the word-here, "retire" (line 2)-is taken to indicate a problem in understanding. The same applies to extract2. Here NNS2's "pardon me" (line 2) is adjudged to be indicative of a problem in understandingon NNS2's part,or thatNNSI's turn1 is unacceptable.Other are not considered.For example, interpretations NNS2's "pardon me" is not consideredindicative ofNNS2's preoccupationwithotherthingsduring the utteringof NNS1's line 1, or indicativeof an acoustics-related problem.Reduced competence is seeminglythemetricupon which discourseis interpretedby the analysts-regardlessof interactants'interpretations, whichsuggestthatother factorsmaybe at play. Related to thisis Gass and Varonis's (1985a) discoursemodel,predicatedon an assumptionof theexistenceofa "normal"formofdiscoursethat is freeofmisunderstandings and suchunaccepted inputroutinesas above. Gass and Varonis(1985a) presentthefollowingextract: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I'm livingin Osaka Osaka? yeah yeah Osaka, Osaka Whatdo you mean? Osaka (Japaneseword) oh I'm not reallymean Osaka city.It's near city. NNS1: near city?(p. 152)

NNSI: NNS2: NNS1: NNS2: NNS1: NNS2: NNSI: NNS2:

Accordingto Gass and Varonis,the "trigger"is NNSI's turn at line 1. This "initiatesa 'pushdown' in the conversation,whichcontinuesuntil interlocutorshave resolvedthe difficulty and back to the main discourse" 'pop' up (p. 152). Whatwe questionhereis theimplicationthereis a maindiscoursedevoidof"triggers," "repairs,"and one where progressionis "misunderstandings," concomitantwithproblem-free interaction.This notionrepresentsan erroneousconceptionofdiscourse processes-produced byNS or NNS. Misand repairsequences liketheone understandings above are not aberrations.Rather,theyare integralpartsof the progressionof normal,conversationaldiscourse,regardlessofthesocial identities of the actorsinvolved.

768 CONCLUDING REMARKS

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007) bases,a researchagenda,and a setofmethodological approaches thatare aligned withthe "reconceptualization"here espoused. SLA is directlyconcerned with the nature of FL acquisitionand the developmentof languagebased knowledgeand competencies.It has firmly establishedinterestsin mattersof language education and pedagogy. More obliquely, it is concerned withmultilinguality, language socialization, linguisticvariability, "foreignness,"and "nativeness." As such, SLA is partof the nexus of approaches to the wider,interdisciplinary study of language, discourse,and social interaction.It thushas the potentialto make significant contributions to a wide range of researchissues conventionallyseen to reside outsideitsboundaries. Yet thatpotentialis not being realisedwhile the fieldin generalperpetuatesthetheoreticalimbalances and skewedperspectiveson discourseand communicationexemplifiedabove. Researchersworkingwitha reconceptualized SLA willbe betterable to understandand explicate how language is used as it is beingacquired and used resourcefully, conthroughinteraction, and contextually. tingently, Language is not only a cognitivephenomenon,the productof the individual'sbrain; it is also fundamentally a social in phenomenon,acquired and used interactively, a variety ofcontextsformyriadpracticalpurposes. The time has come for SIA to recognize fully the theoreticaland methodologicalimplications of thesefacts,a crucialimplicationbeing a need to redressthe imbalance of perspectivesand approaches withinthe field,and the need to work towardstheevolutionofa holistic,bio-socialSLA.

Bycritiquingwhatwe taketo be prevailingSLA viewson discourseand communication,thisarticle has soughtto argue fora reconceptualization of SLA thatwould significantly-though, we feel, justifiablyand necessarily-enlargethe ontological and empiricalparametersof the field.The reconceptualizationwe call foris based on a beliefthatmethodologies,theories,and fociwithin SLA reflectan imbalance betweencognitiveand mentalisticorientations,and social and contextual orientationsto language, the formerorientationbeing unquestionablyin the ascendancy. This has resultedin a skewedperspectiveon discourse and communication,one that is accompanied by an analyticmindsetthatconceivesof theFL speakeras a deficientcommunicatorstrugglingto overcomean underdevelopedL2 competence,strivingto reach the "target"competence of an idealized NS. For SLA, then,FL learning and interactionare inherently problematicundertakings.What SLA tends to overlook,howeverperhapsbecause itis less psychologically salient-is thatpeople do, often,succeed in communicating (in a FL) by using whatevercompetencies theyhave at theirdisposal. It is the explication of the successfuldeploymentof communicative resources-as indicatorsof the dynamicsof S/FL acquisition-that should,among otherthings,be added to SLA's researchagenda. In essence, we call for workwithinSLA that endeavours to adopt what we have referredto as a holistic approach to and outlook on language and languageacquisition,an approach that problematizesand explores the conventionalbinarydistinctionbetween"social"and "individual" (or cognitive)approaches to language use and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS language learning,that attends to the dynamics as well as the summationof language acquifinancial AlanFirthgratefully acknowledges support sition,that is more emicallyand interactionally attuned, and that is criticallysensitivetowards forthisresearchprovidedby the C. W. Obel Family on anddetailedcomments Fordiscussions Foundation. the theoreticalstatusof fundamentalconcepts Bilmes indebted to and Dennis this we are Jack paper "learner,""native,""nonnative,"and (particularly at theInternational presented Day.The paperwasfirst "interlanguage").Such a call for a reconceptuin Association (AILA) conference Applied Linguistics alized SLA lends support to like-mindedsentithanks Finland,in August1996. Particular Jyvtskyli, mentsexpressedrecentlyby Hall (1995), Rampat theconference, Gabriele toourofficial respondents ton (1987, 1995b, 1997), Pennycook (1994), NandaPoulisse, KellyHall,TonyLiddicoat, Kasper,Joan Kramsch (1995), Blyth(1995), Roberts (1996), as wellas to members oftheaudiand Ben Rampton, remarks andcriticisms, and Block (1996). This articleattemptedto point ence,fortheirstimulating many out some of theexistingtheoretical,methodolog- of which have been incorporatedinto the published versionofthepaper.The authorsalonetakeresponsiical, and conceptual problems-as we perceive Please forthearticle'sremaining shortcomings. them-within SLA, and to sketch,albeit briefly, bility this toDr. address all regarding paper correspondence the ramificationsof a reconceptualizedSLA. A AlanFirth. cruciallyimportantand challengingnext step is to develop,in muchgreaterdetail,thetheoretical

Alan Firthand Johannes Wagner

769

theoreticalsense, be said to fullyunderstandone another,since no two people share identicalinterpretational schemes. However,in practicepeople do make we conceive SLA 1At the risk of overgeneralizing, commonsense assumptionsthat theyunderstandone fieldof study;we to be a discreteand institutionalized another(see Pollner,1987). do not deny thatresearchwithinthe fieldis varied in termsof theoreticalapproaches and methodologies,as 8 On notionsof understandingin discourse,see Taylor's (1992) outstandingexposition. is the case in all collectiveendeavourswithindevelop9 This is the basic propositionof the notion of "ading fields.Nevertheless,our critique of SLA is based on theviewthatthe fieldhas core interests, theoretical jacency pair" relationshipsin discourse, also encapsulated in what Schegloff(1968) termed"conditional predilections,methodologies,and basic assumptions.It is this SLA "core" that has the focus of our attention relevance";see also Levinson(1983, p. 306). here. (1987) has referredto thisas "embedded 10Jefferson of covertlyrepairingothers' 2 Otherimportantand relatedinfluencesat thattime repair":This is the activity anomalous or marked L. Austin's theusage in one's own (1962) ("ordinarylanguage") perceivedly wereJohn ories of speakingas a formof action,and H. P. Grice's subsequenttalk.Thus L's "historie"is subsequentlyreLectures"(1960, subsequentlypublished paired in an embedded waybyNS as "history." "WilliamJames in partas Grice,1975). Both Austin'sand Grice'swork, 11Also, the veryfact that NS continued to use the word "history"in the threequestionsat lines 7 and 9, like Hymes's,extended the scope of linguisticsinto in spite of L's lack of responses to the firsttwo queslanguage use, that is, language beyond grammar(see tions,stronglysuggeststhat NS assumes that L knows Hanks, 1996,p. 92). the wordand, moreover,intendedto use it in itssense 3 The debate about the "individual"and the "social" of a school subject. If NS did see "history"as being a of of and aspects language predated Hymes Chomsky, course. See, forexample, Saussure's (1916/1959) conproblemforL, presumablyshe wouldnot haveused the wordrepeatedlyin her threequestions. tentionthat speech was individual,thatit "depended on the free will of the speaker" (p. 19), and Volosi12Firth(1996) analysedhow partiesto (foreignlanand differentially able to assess nov's (1930/1973) outrightrejectionof this,including guage) talkare skillfully the gravity of misinterpretations, his claim that"[t]he immediatesocial situationand the misspeakings,anomalous usage,and so forth,in theirendeavoursto construct determine-and determine broadersocial milieuwholly fromwithin,so to speak-the structureofan utterance" coherent,meaningfuldiscourse. 13Although these papers were published over a (p. 86, emphasisadded). Hymes'spredecessorswhoprodecade ago (as wasalso thecase withFaerchand Kasper, mulgateda more"contextual"viewoflanguageincluded Malinowski(1923) and Firth(1937), and more imme1983). we feel thattheirinfluenceon the fieldin general, and the contemporarycurrencyof the viewsexJakobson(1960) and Goodenough (1957). See diately, also Brown,Malmkjxr,and Williams(1996). pressedwithinthem,warranttheirinclusionand exam4 Our observationson CS researchare a condensed inationhere. 14A usefulcollectionof paperson the concept of naformofWagnerand Firth(1997). 5 On the distinctionbetween researcher'sresources tivespeaker in linguisticsis Coulmas (1981). See also Davies's (1991) study,TheNativeSpeakerin AppliedLinand topics,see Zimmermanand Pollner (1971). 6 The transcriptionformathas been altered from guistics. 15The extensionofthisis notthattheSLA researcher Faerchand Kasper'soriginal,thoughno detailhas been omitted.In passing,we maypointout the lack of detail must,on all occasions, refrainfromusing the categorizationNS or NNS. Categorizationssuch as these (and in the transcript(e.g., on featuressuch as pause length, a multitudeof others,e.g., speaker,hearer,male, fewordand/or syllablestress,intonation,and preciseonset of overlaps-features thatare reproducible,see, e.g., male, caller,doctor,patient) are necessaryshorthands Whatwe pointout,once again, forthe analyst-observer. Sacks, Schegloff,& Jefferson, 1974, pp. 731-733) hinis thepredominanceof thebinaryNS/NNS distinction, ders others' reanalysisof the transcript, inasmuch as as well as the possibility thatgreateremic sensitivity tosuch featuresmayhave importantconsequencesforthe wardsidentitycategorizationsmay,at specificanalytical waydiscourseis interpreted. moments,or in general,prove to be profitableforthe 7A caveat on the notion of "negotiation":The term SLA researcher. "conjointnegotiation"of meaning is not meant to im16That monolingualismis viewed as the norm,and plythatin order to talkopenlyand explicitlypartiesatmultior bilingualismthe exception (even aberration), to reach some kind of definitive on the tempt agreement is borne out in the premise of the one languageonly meaningof a wordor utterance(althoughsuch "negotiations"maytake place [e.g., betweenlawyersdrafting policyunderpinningthe so-called"NaturalMethod"of a contract],in everydaycircumstancestheyare rare). (foreign)language teaching;see Kachru (1990, p. 16). viewNNS in the implicitly 17 On thewhole,SLA researchers Normally,such negotiationsare done implicitly, with"learner"(see, e.g., Bardovias being synonymous way an interlocutorwill displayacceptance or underHarlig& Hartford,1995,p. 125). standingof the meaningfulnessof the other's turnor utterancebyproducingan appropriateresponse.There 18McCrum,Cran, and MacNeil (1986, p. 19) note that"Englishis used byat least 750 millionpeople, and are strongscepticalarguments-putforwardbySchutz barelyhalfofthosespeak itas a mothertongue."A 1988 (1932/1967), forexample-that agentscannot,in any NOTES

770 1988) ofover500 Danishbusisurvey(Hesselbeg-Moller, nesses operatinginternationally revealed thatEnglish was the chosen foreignlanguagein over80% ofall contacts.ContactswithAnglophonecountriesmade up no more than 20% of all businessinteractions.Englishis the officiallanguage of internationalair and sea travel; ithas been describedas thelinguafrancasinequa non in the European Union headquartersin Brussels(Dinyon & Greaves,1989); membersof the Free Trade Association conduct theirbusiness in English,even though no English-speaking countriesare represented(Bryson, 1990, p. 2). 19 "Naturally occurring"in the sense thatthe interactionstake place, or would have takenplace, regardless of the researcher'sinterest,involvement, or presence. 20The "anomalies" are invariablycharacterizedas such due to a comparisonwitha (oftenidealized) NS. 21"Metatheoretical"in the sense that such assumptionsare rarely,if ever,openlydiscussed,presentedor debated withinSLA; theyremain tacit.On metatheoretical assumptionsin sociolinguisticsin general, see Figueroa (1994). 22Davey (1993), for example, describes how L1 (Dutch) lexical items were creativelydeployed as "nonce"formsin interactionsinvolvingDutch and Danish business personnel, speaking English as a lingua franca. 23Rampton (1987) compared the approaches to linguisticvariabilityin sociolinguisticsand SLA, and noted how the two approaches perceived identical linguistic phenomena in differentways, such that "[c]odeswitchingin sociolinguisticswindsup as interferencein SLA" (p. 55).

REFERENCES Aston,G. (1993). Noteson theinterlanguageofcomity. In G. Kasper& S. Blum-Kulka(Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics(pp. 224-250). NewYork:OxfordUniPress. versity Austin,J.L. (1962). How todo thingswithwords.Oxford: ClarendonPress. Austin: Bakhtin,M. M. (1981). Thedialogicimagination. ofTexas Press. University K., & Hartford,B. S. (1995). The conBardovi-Harlig, structionof discourseby nonnativespeakers:Introduction.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, 17, 125-128. Beretta,A. (1991). Theoryconstructionin SLA: Complimentaryand opposition.Studiesin SecondLan13, 493-511. guageAcquisition, Beretta,A., & Crookes,C. (1993). Cognitiveand social ofdiscoveryin SLA. AppliedLinguisdeterminants tics,14, 250-275. Block,D. (1996). Not so fast:Some thoughtson theory culling,relativism, acceptedfindingsand theheart and soul of SLA. AppliedLinguistics, 17, 63-83. Blyth,C. (1995). Redefiningtheboundariesoflanguage use: The foreignlanguageclassroomas a multilin-

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007) In C. Kramsch(Ed.), Regual speech community. theboundariesoflanguagestudy(pp. 145defining 183). Boston:Heinle. Bremer,K., Roberts,C., Vasseur,M., Simonot,M., & DisBroeder, P. (1996). Achievingunderstanding: coursein intercultural encounters. London: Longman. Brown,P., Malmkjaer,K., & Williams,J. (Eds.). (1996). and competence in secondlanguageacPerformance Press. quisition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Bryson,B. (1990). Mothertongue:TheEnglishLanguage. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. The Hague, Chomsky,N. (1957). Syntacticstructures. Netherlands:Mouton. ofsyntax.CamChomsky,N. (1965). Aspectsofthetheory bridge,MA: MIT Press. N. (1968). Languageand mind.NewYork:HarChomsky, court,Brace,Jovanovich. on language.NewYork: Chomsky,N. (1976). Reflections Temple Smith. Harmondsworth, Cicourel,A. (1973). Cognitive sociology. England: Penguin. and language: Clark,H., & Clark,E. (1977). Psychology An introduction topsycholinguistics. NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,Jovanovich. oflearners'errors. Corder,S. P. (1967). The significance International ReviewofAppliedLinguistics, 5, 161169. HarCorder,S. P. (1973). Introducing appliedlinguistics. mondsworth, England:Penguin. Coulmas,F. (Ed.). (1981). A festschrift fornativespeaker. The Hague, Netherlands:Mouton. Crookes, G. (1992). Theory formatand SLA theory. Studiesin SecondLanguage Acquisition,14, 425449. analysisofa reconnaisDavey,W. (1993). An interaction sanceinterview in whichEnglishis usedas a 'lingua withparticular non-native speakers, franca' between collaboration to twovarieties ofcooperation: reference and collusion. Unpublishedmaster'sthesis,Universityof Birmingham,England. in appliedlinguistics. Davies,A. (1991). Thenativespeaker Press. Edinburgh,England: EdinburghUniversity Dinyon,M., & Greaves,W. (1989). Articlesin TheTimes, (1989, 23-24 October), p. 14. Dulay,H., Burt,M., & Krashen,S. (1982). Languagetwo. Press. NewYork:OxfordUniversity Edwards,J. (1994). Multilingualism.London: Routledge. secondlanguageacquisition. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Oxford,England:Blackwell. Ellis,R. (1994). Thestudyofsecondlanguageacquisition. Press. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Oxford, metatheory. Figueroa, E. (1994). Sociolinguistic England: Pergamon. Firth,A. (1996). The discursiveaccomplishmentof'normality:'On lingua franca English and Conversation Analysis.Journalof Pragmatics,26, 237259. Firth,J. R. (1937). The tonguesofmen.Oxford:Oxford Press. University

Alan FirthandJohannesWagner

771

Jakobson,R. (1960). Concludingstatement:Linguistics Ferch, C., & Kasper,G. (1983). Plans and strategiesin and poetics.In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Stylein language foreignlanguage communication.In C. Ferch & C. Kasper (Eds.), Strategiesin interlanguage com(pp. 350-373). Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. munication(pp. 20-60). London: Longman. G. (1987). On exposed and embeddedcorrecJefferson, tion in conversation.In G. Button& J. R. E. Lee Gass,S. M., & Varonis,E. M. (1985a). Taskvariationand nonnative/nonnative (Eds.), Talkand social organisation(pp. 86-100). negotiationof meaning.In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Inputin second Clevedon,England:MultilingualMatters. Kachru,B. (1990). WorldEnglishesand applied linguislanguageacquisition(pp. 149-161). Rowley,MA: tics.WorldEnglishes,9, 3-20. NewburyHouse. Gass, S. M., & Varonis,E. M. (1985b). Variationin naKasper, C., & Kellerman,E. (Eds.). (1997). Communitive speaker speech modificationto non-native cationstrategies: and sociolinguistic Psycholinguistic London: Longman. speakers. Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, perspectives. 7, 37-57. Katz,J.J. (1966). Thephilosophy oflanguage.NewYork: Goodenough, W. H. (1957). Cultural anthropology Harper & Row. and linguistics.Georgetown University Monograph Kramsch,C. (1995). Introduction:Makingthe invisible Series on Language and Linguistics,9, 167visible.In C. Kramsch(Ed.), Redefining thebound173. aries of language study(pp. ix-xxxiii). Boston: Heinle. Goodwin,C. (1979). The interactiveconstructionof a sentence in natural conversation.In G. Psathas Larsen-Freeman,D., & Long, M. (1991). An introductiontosecondlanguageacquisition research. London: (Ed.), Everyday language:Studiesin ethnomethodolNewYork:Irvington. 77-121). Longman. ogy(pp. Levinson,S. C. (1983). Pragmatics.Cambridge: CamGregg,K. (1990). The variablecompetencemodel for second language acquisition,and whyit isn't.ApPress. bridgeUniversity 11, 364-383. pliedLinguistics, Lightbown,P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languagesare learned.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. Gregg,K. (1993). Takingexplanationseriously;or, let a couple of flowersbloom. AppliedLinguistics, M. H. interaction and second lan14, (1981). Long, Input, 276-294. guage acquisition.In H. Winitz(Ed.), NativelanGrice,H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation.In P. Cole guageandforeign acquisition(sic). AnnalsoftheNew & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntaxand semantics:Vol.3. York 379, 259-278. Academy ofSciences, Speechacts(pp. 41-58). London: Academic. Long, M. H. (1990). The leasta second language acquisitiontheoryneeds to explain. TESOI, Quarterly, Gumperz,J.J. (1982). Discoursestrategies. Cambridge: Press. 24, 649-666. CambridgeUniversity Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with Long, M. H. (1993). AssessmentstrategiesforSLA thewords: A sociohistoricalperspectiveof face-toories.AppliedLinguistics, 14, 225-249. face interaction.Applied Linguistics,16, 206B. (1923). The problemofmeaninginprimMalinowski, itivelanguages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards 232. (Eds.), The meaningof meaning(pp. 296-336). Halliday,M. A. K. (1978). Languageas a socialsemiotic: The social interpretation and New York:Harcourt,Brace, & World. of language meaning. London: EdwardArnold. McCrum,R., Cran,W., & MacNeil,R. (1986). Thestory Hanks,W. F. (1996). Languageand communicative pracofEnglish.London: Faber. tices.Boulder,CO: Westview Press. Mey,J.(1981). 'Rightor wrong,mynativespeaker:'Esmind.Lontantles regestesdu noble souverainde l'empirie Harr&,R., & Gillett,G. (1994). Thediscursive don: Sage. linguisticavec un renvoyau mesmeroy.In F. Coulmas (Ed.), A festschrift Harris,R. (1981). The languagemyth.London: Duckfornativespeaker(pp. 69worth. 84). The Hague, Netherlands:Mouton. and ethnomethodology. OxHeritage,J. (1984). Garfinkel Pennycook,A. (1994). TheculturalpoliticsofEnglishas an international ford,England: Polity. language.London: Longman. London: Allen Pinker,S. (1994). Thelanguageinstinct. Hesselberg-Moller,N. (1988). Eksportog uddannelse. Lane. Copenhagen: Industriridet(The Danish Council of Trade and Industry). Pollner,M. (1987). Mundanereason.Cambridge:CamD. Functions of The evolutionPress. (1961). Hymes, speech: bridgeUniversity and Poulisse,N. (1993). A theoreticalaccountoflexicalcomaryapproach.In F. Cruber(Ed.), Anthropology education(pp. 55-83). Philadelphia:University of municationstrategies.In R. Schreuder& B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilinguallexicon(pp. 157-189). PennsylvaniaPress. Amsterdam: Hymes,D. (1962). The ethnographyof speaking.In T. JohnBenjamins. Gladwin& W. Sturteant(Eds.), Anthropology and Poulisse,N., & Bongaerts,T. (1990, April). A closerlook humanbehavior(pp. 15-53). Washington,DC: Anat thestrategy oftransfer. Paper presentedat the9th AILA Conference,Thessaloniki,Greece. thropologicalSocietyofWashington. An and not speakHymes, D. (1974). Foundationsin sociolinguistics: Rampton,B. (1987). Stylistic variability of ethnographic approach.Philadelphia:University ing 'normal' English: Some post-LabovianapPennsylvaniaPress. proaches and theirimplicationsfor the studyof

772 interlanguage.In R. Ellis (Ed.), Secondlanguageacquisitionin context (pp. 47-58). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ:PrenticeHall. London: Longman. Rampton,B. (1995a). Crossing. Rampton,B. (1995b). Politicsand change in research in applied linguistics.AppliedI,inguistics, 16, 233256. Rampton, B. (1997). A sociolinguisticperspective on L2 communicationstrategies.In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strateand gies:Psycholinguistic sociolinguistic perspectives. London: Longman. M. (1983). Language transfer Richards,J.,& Sukwiwat, and conversationalcompetence.AppliedLinguistics,4, 113-125. Roberts,C. (1996). Takingstock:Contextsand reflections. In K. Bremer,C. Roberts,M. Vasseur,M. Simonot,& P. Broeder, Achievingunderstanding: Discoursein intercultural encounters (pp. 207-238). London: Longman. Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism.Oxford, England: Blackwell. Sacks, H. (1970/1992). Lectureson conversation. (Gail Ed.). Oxford,England: Blackwell. Jefferson, G. (1974). A Sacks, H., Schegloff,E. A., & Jefferson, for the simplestsystematics organizationof turntakingforconversation.Language,50, 696-735. the other.Hemel Sampson, E. E. (1993). Celebrating Hempstead,England: HarvesterWheatsheaf. Sampson, G. (1980). Schoolsof linguistics:Competition and evolution. London: Hutchinson. Schegloff,E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational 70, 1075-1095. openings.American Anthropologist, Schegloff,E. A. (1992). Repairafternextturn:The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation.American 98, JournalofSociology, 1295-1345. Schegloff,E. A., & Sacks,H. (1973). Opening up clos7, 289-327. ings.Semiotics, Schutz,A. (1967). Thephenomenology ofthesocialworld. (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert,Trans.). Evanston,IL: NorthwesternUniversityPress. (Original work publishedin 1932) Review Selinker,L. (1971). Interlanguage.International 10, 209-231. ofAppliedLinguistics, Shannon, C., & Weaver,W. (1949). The mathematical of theory Champaign: University ofcommunication. IllinoisPress. Sperber,D., & Wilson,D. (1986). Relevance.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Stern,H. H. (1983). Fundamentalconceptsof language Press. teaching.Oxford:OxfordUniversity

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007) Streek,J. (1980). Speech actsin interaction:A critique of Searle. DiscourseProcesses, 3, 133-153. London: Taylor,T. J. (1992). Mutual misunderstanding. Routledge. Thomas,J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmaticfailure.Ap91-112. 4, pliedLinguistics, Trosborg,A. (1994). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, and apologies.Berlin:Mouton. complaints Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985a). Nonconversations:A model fornenative/Nonnative of 6, 71-90. gotiation meaning.AppliedLinguistics, Varonis,E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985b). Miscommunication in native/non-native conversation.Language in Society, 14, 327-343. Volosinov,V. N. (1973). Marxismand thephilosophy of language.(L. Matejka& I. R. Titunik,Trans.) New York: Seminar Press. (Original work published 1930) Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisition throughinteraction:A criticalreviewof research on conversationaladjustments.Journal ofPragmatics,23(8), 215-235. Wagner,J., & Firth,A. (1997). Communicationstrategies at work.In G. Kasper& E. Kellerman(Eds.), Communication and socistrategies: Psycholinguistic London: olinguistic Longman. perspectives. Wertsch,J. V. (1991). Voicesofthemind.Hemel Hempstead,England: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplifiedand elaboratedtextson foreignlanguage reading comprehension.Language Learning,44, 189-219. Zimmerman,D. H., & Pollner,M. (1971). The everyday worldas a phenomenon.In J. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life(pp. 80-103). London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. Zuengler, J. (1992). Accommodation in nativenonnativeinteractions:Going beyond the 'what' to the 'why'in second language research.In H. Ciles,N. Coupland, &J. Coupland (Eds.), Theconin appliedsocitextofaccommodation: Developments olinguistics (pp. 223-244). Cambridge:Cambridge Press. University Zuengler,J. (1993). ExplainingNNS interactionalbehavior:The effectof conversationaltopic. In C. pragKasper& S. Blum-Kulka(Eds.), Interlanguage matics(pp. 184-195). NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press. Zuengler,J., & Bent, B. (1991). Relative knowledge of content domain: An influence on nativenonnativeconversations.AppliedLinguistics,12, 394-415.