Second/Foreign Language Learning as a Social Accomplishment: Elaborations on a

Reconceptualized SLA
Author(s): Alan Firth and Johannes Wagner
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 91, Focus Issue: Second Language Acquisition
Reconceptualized? The Impact of Firth and Wagner (1997) (2007), pp. 800-819
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4626133 .
Accessed: 02/07/2012 21:28

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
Second/ForeignLanguage Learning
as a Social Accomplishment:
Elaborationson a Reconceptualized
SLA
ALAN FIRTH JOHANNES WAGNER
SchoolofEducation,Communication
and Language UniversityofSouthern
Denmark,Kolding
Sciences Engstien1
Newcastle University DK-6000 Kolding
NewcastleUponTyne,NE1 7RU Denmark
UnitedKingdom Email:[email protected].
dk
Email: [email protected]

In thisarticle,we begin by delineatingthe backgroundto and motivationsbehind Firthand

Wagner (1997), whereinwe called fora reconceptualizationof second language acquisition
(SLA) research.We then outline and commentupon some of our critics'reactionsto the
article.Nextwe reviewand discusstheconceptual,theoretical,and methodologicalimpactthe
articlehas had on the SLA field.Thereafter,we reengage and develop some of the themes
raised but leftundeveloped in the 1997 article.These themesclusteraround the notionsof
and interrelationshipsbetweenlanguage use, language learning,and language acquisition.
Althoughwe devotespace to forwarding the positionthatthe dichotomyof language useand
acquisitioncannotdefensibly be maintained(and in thiswe takeup a contrarypositionto that
held in mainstreamSLA), our treatmentof the issuesis essentiallymethodological.We focus
on describinga varietyof aspects of learning-in-action,
captured in transcripts
of recordings
of naturallyoccurringforeign,second, or other language interactions.Through transcript
analyses,we explore the possibilitiesof describinglearning-in-actiondevoid of cognitivistic
notionsoflanguage and learning.In so doing,we advance movesto formulateand establisha
reconceptualizedSLA.

WITH THE BENEFIT OF 10 YEARS OF HIND- been a rallyingcryforan alternativeSLA; foroth-

sight,it is probablyfair to say that our article ers,it has presaged new lines of inquirywithina
(Firth& Wagner,1997) toucheda proverbialraw rapidlydevelopingand multivaried researchfield;
nervewithinas well as around the peripheryof formany,it articulatedmisgivings and dissatisfac-
the second language acquisition (SLA) commu- tion withdominantSLA concepts,theories,and
nity.Certainlythe article'sevidentimpacton the researchpractices.For othersstill,it was an un-
professionhas greatlyexceeded our expectations. warranted,misguided,perplexing,and naive cri-
This is in no small measure thanksto The Mod- tique of a well-defined
fieldof study.We begin by
ernLanguageJournal's(MLJ) editor,SallySieloff explaining backgroundto our 1997 article.
the
Magnan,who so insightfully showcasedthearticle
and itsthought-provoking responses,therebypro-
vidinga frameworkfor an extraordinarily fruit- BACKGROUND CONTEXT OF FIRTH AND
ful and livelydebate. For some, the article has WAGNER (1997)

TheModern
Language 91,FocusIssue,(2007)
Journal, Firth and Wagner (1997) was conceived on
0026-7902/07/800-819 $1.50/0 the basis of a lingeringsense of frustration
with
02007 TheModern
Language
Journal SLA as we saw it at that time-a sense that,in
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner 801

large measure, prevailing,dominant SLA the- and informedbypoststructuralist notionsof con-

oryand conceptswere myopicvis-A-vis language tingency, and
fluidity,hybridity, marginality (see,
learningas social practiceand language as a so- e.g., Lyotard,1979; Rampton,1995), we wereun-
cial phenomenon-and a strongsense that the easy about how to approach our data materials.
fieldhad to acknowledgemore openlyand more CA, with its emphasis on the sociallyachieved
consequentiallyits limitedvision,and, if possi- constructionof irredeemablymotile,participant-
ble, overcome its myopia.The frustrations with defined contextualrelevancies,its commitment
SLA emerged gradually,froma bottom-uppro- to the microanalytic explicationof naturallyoc-
cess while workingwith our data materials-- curring (rather than experimental)encounters,
audiorecordings of people at work in a vari- and an emic (participant-centered) to
sensitivity
ety of settings,engaging each other in a sec- "what'sgoing on," led us to see thatour partici-
ond/foreign/other language (L2). Our analyses pantswerenotdefensibly--that is,tous, emically--
revealed people who were artfully adept at over- identifiableas participants, or even nonna-
learners,
coming apparent linguistic hurdles, exquisitely tivespeakers-thestandardidentitycategoriesof
able to worktogetherinteractionally, despitehav- SLA. Atthe least,such categorieswereclearlynot
ing whatat firstblush appeared to be an imper- omnirelevant:These individualswere also, vary-
fectcommand of the languages theywere using ingly,sellers,buyers,friends,business acquain-
(Firth,1990, 1991, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d, tances, customers,and clients.Identity,we had
1996; Wagner1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1998; Wagner learned, was a motile,liminal,achieved feature
& Firth,1997). When we turned to apparently of the interaction(Antaki& Widdicombe,1998;
relevantareas of SLA fortheoreticalinsight,ap- Gumperz,1982; Rampton,1995). And-as we will
plicableconcepts,and methodologies,something show-we noted thatwho theyare locallyand dis-
was not right.Ratherthan depictionsof interac- cursively has an impacton howtheyuse and learn
tionalsuccessin an L2, wefoundan overwhelming language.2
emphasison and preoccupationwiththe individ- Certainlytheywere not learners in any for-
ual's linguisticand pragmaticfailure.Ratherthan mal (or traditionalSLA) sense of the term.Yet
talk,we found input.Ratherthan achievement, we theywere clearlymodifying,adapting,and cre-
found an abundance of problem-sources. Rather ativelydeployingwhatwere to them new forms
than collaboration,invention,and an extraordi- of language; that is, they were learning, and
narilycreativeuse of shared resources(which,to theywould occasionallydrawattention-oftenin
us,was learning-in-action),we foundreferencesto jest-to theirunderdevelopedforeignlanguage
errors, andfossiliza-
interference,
inputmodifications, abilitieswhen engagingeach other.We werehes-
tions.Tryas we mightat first, our observationsof itant about calling their interlanguageinterlan-
people usingEnglishas a linguafranca(i.e., a me- guage,forwhereand whatwas thetargetlanguage
diatinglanguage thatis nota mothertongue [L1] here,in thisseeminglylinguisticallylawlesslingua
foranyof theinteractants-seeFirth,1990, 1996, francalandscape? Here, it appeared, the spectre
see also Jenkins,2006a, 2006b; Seidlhofer,2001, of the native speaker,withhis or her idealized
2004) just would not fitthe theoryand concepts norms and baseline standards,had evaporated
of SLA. (on this concept, see Jenkins,2006a).3 SLA fit-
Yet such data materialswere,surely,of critical ted, but then again, it did not. Somethingwas
relevancefor the SLA program.Here, afterall, quite clearlynotright.The fieldwas,we argued,in
werenonnativespeakerswho wereclearlyacquir- need oftheoretical,methodological,and concep-
ing and using (new) formsof language on the tual refurbishment and expansion. In particular,
fly--often language formsthatwerelinguistically we (Firth& Wagner,1997) called fora reconcep-
and pragmaticallymarked. Moreover, despite tualizationwithinSLA in threeareas: "(a) a sig-
noncollocatingnoun phrases,verb-concordance, nificantlyenhanced awarenessof the contextual
prosodicand morphosyntactic errors,and a host and interactionaldimensions of language use,
of other linguisticanomalies, theywere buying (b) an increasedemic (i.e., participant-relevant)
and selling thousandsof tons of Danish cheese towardsfundamentalconcepts,and (c)
sensitivity
(as wellas fish,flowers,and steel) on a dailybasis, the broadeningof the traditionalSLA data base"
and maintainingcordial relationswith one an- (p. 286).
other.This was real cheese, and theyweretalking Fromour observationsofSLA,itwastheindivid-
(albeitin linguistically
markedways)real,and big, ual's disembodied cognition-more specifically,
money. hisor herautonomouslanguageprocessing-that
With a background in both SLA and eth- wasin theascendancy,to thedetrimentofwhatwe
nomethodological conversationanalysis (CA),' mightcall socialcognition,thatis,whatpeople do,
802 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

think,demonstrate,achieve,manipulate,modify, problemI have withFirthand Wagner'spolemic

acquire, and learn, together,in concertedsocial remainsmyskepticismas to whethergreaterin-
interaction(e.g.,Volosinov,1930/1973;Vygotsky, sightsinto SL usewillnecessarily have much to say
1978; Wertsch,1991). This is not to say,then, about SL acquisition"(p. 322).
that learning was or is uninterestingor some- Kasper (1997) adopted a similarstance. "'A'
how incidentalto our methodologicalpursuits. standsforacquisition,"she remindedus, adding,
What we did not attemptto show in Firthand tellingly, that "[a] noncognitivist discipline that
Wagner (1997)-but will attemptto do in this has learningas itscentralresearchobjectis a con-
article-is that learning can be explicated and tradictionin terms"(p. 310; note, however,that
trackedas it happens and, moreover,thatthe de- we did not, in Firthand Wagner,1997, call for
scriptionofhowit happens can be liberatedfrom a noncognitivist SLA). In close agreementwith
a cognitivistic
positionpredicatedon telementa- Long (1997), Kasperheld that"themostnagging
tionalnotionsofcommunication4 and individual- problemwiththeFirthand Wagnerpaper [is that
istic,monolinguistic,and formalisticperceptions it] has in factverylittleto sayabout L2 acquisition"
of language.5These perceptions,we argued, in- (p. 310). She wenton to statethat"I am comfort-
fuseSLA research,in its theorizingon language, able with an essentiallycognitivistdefinitionof
learning,and discourse,in itsterminologiesand SLA" (p. 310), thoughin her self-styled heretical
fundamentalconcepts (such as an ascendant na- finalnote she submittedthat
tivespeakerand interlanguage),and in itsmethod-
toolsof CA werein-
if theexcellentmicroanalytic
ologicalpractices,including practicesofthose
the
who focalizeinteractionin SLA studies. corporated approachto
intoa languagesocialization
The immediate reactionsto the 1997 article SLA,we mightbe able to reconstructlinksbetween
L2 discourseand theacquisition
ofdifferentaspects
were, for the most part, polarized, with rather ofcommunicative thathavebeenlargely
competence
sterncriticismon one side and firmsupporton obscurethusfar.(p. 311)8
the other.6Because the criticismsgo to the heart
ofthedebate,a debate that,as recentpublications Poulisse (1997) also offereda defense of the
attest,has in no manner been concluded (see, psycholinguisticapproach in response to our
e.g., the recent exchanges between Gass, 2004; arguments,maintaining that "the task of all
Hall, 2004; Larsen-Freeman,2004; and Wagner, researchers[is] to not onlydescribe,but also ex-
2004), and because thesecriticisms revealthekey plain and predictphenomena" (p. 325) and "it
counterarguments to ours, while demonstrating would definitelynot do to just look at particu-
how entrenchedpositioningswithinSLA can be- lar and local phenomena and find specificex-
come,letus briefly considerthecriticisms ofFirth planationsforeach of them" (p. 325). However,
and Wagner(1997). Poulisse conceded that"Firthand Wagnerhave a
pointwhentheyplea for'an enhanced awareness
CRITICISMS OF FIRTH AND WAGNER (1997) of thecontextualand interactionaldimensionsof
languageuse' and a morepositiveviewoftheNN's
In contradistinctionto our argument,Long [non-nativespeaker's]attemptsto interactin the
(1993) had actuallyarguedforSLA theoryculling, L2" (p. 327).
ratherthan an expansion or broadeningof SLA. Gass (1998), who found our perspective"per-
In his responseto our 1997 article,Long (1997) plexing" (p. 88), maintainedthatwe had got it
venturedthatthe fundamentalproblemwithour all verywrongand thatour criticisms were naive
position, which among other thingsemphasized and misplaced because, among other things,in
the need to focus on L2 acquisitionthroughL2 calling for greater attentionto communication,
use,7 was that SLA is "the studyof L2 acquisi- we had not understoodthatthe "proper"object
tion, [and] not...'most centrallythe language of attentionin SLA is language; thusher correc-
use of second or foreign language speakers'" tion: "theemphasisin inputand interactionstud-
(p. 318). Long went on to state that"mostSLA ies [in SLA] is on the languageused and not on
researchersviewthe object of inquiryas in large the act of communication"(p. 84). "The goal of
part an internal,mental process" (p. 319). How- mywork,"she wrote,"(and otherswithinthe in-
ever,he conceded that"Firthand Wagnerare per- put/interaction framework...)has neverbeen to
and probablyright,in arguingthat
fectlyjustified, understandlanguage use per se... but ratherto
participant-sensitive, understandwhattypesofinteractionmightbring
a broader,context-sensitive,
generallysociolinguisticorientationmightprove about what typesof changes in linguisticknowl-
beneficial for SLA research" (p. 322). Never- edge" (p. 84). Gass made the erroneous obser-
theless,he ended his response with "the major vation that "Firthand Wagner portraycognitive
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner 803

approaches and communication/discourseem- pointed out in our 1997 article,the arguments

phases as mutuallyincompatible"(p. 84). In ad- it containeddid not emergefroman intellectual
dition,she claimed that,because we called foran void. Althoughthe articlehas since been char-
enlargementofthestandardSLA database (which acterizedas seminal by a numberof scholars,it
we see as being dominatedby classroomand ex- would be a mistaketo see it as some kind of so-
perimentalsettings)to include settingssuch as cioculturalor sociointeractionalbig bang within
theworkplace,9and because we called forgreater or withoutSLA. Our theoreticalpositionvis-a-vis
attentionto L2 use froman emicallyinformed whatwe had termedand perceivedas mainstream
viewpoint,the approach we espoused "is not ac- SLA emergedfromour own observationsof and
tuallypart of SLA, but part of the broader field engagementin an ineluctablesocioculturalturn
of L2 studies(of whichSLA is a subset)" (p. 84). in the studyof language that had sweptacross
She continued,"manyindividualsin a workplace linguisticsin generaland discoursestudiesin par-
setting... are not learnersin the sense thatis of ticular,as well as across anthropology,social psy-
interestto researchersin SLA" (p. 84). chology,education, and sociology the 1970s
in
We shall return to some of these criticisms and 1980s,beginning,we argued,withGumperz
presently(see also Firth& Wagner,1998). What and Hymes's (1972), Halliday's (1973), Hymes's
is importantto point out at thisjuncture are (1974), and others'influentialcalls fora socially
the rhetoricalmethodsand argumentsdeployed constitutedlinguistics.The Firthand Wagnerar-
both to dismissour viewpointand to impose a ticlealso developedand wasinfluencedbya num-
grandnarrative(Lyotard,1979) or dominantthe- ber of extant,socioculturally focusedcritiquesof
ory of SLA, a theorythat is meant to trump SLA by scholarssuch as Block (1996), Kramsch
ours preciselybecause it is framedand formu- (1993), Lantolf(1996), Rampton(1987), and van
lated as dominant-for example, in ex cathedra Lier (1994).
proclamationsabout how SLA is properlydone, Of course,SLA researchofthe 1980sand 1990s
and throughreferencesto what most SLA re- was itselfinfluencedby thissocioculturalturn-
searchersdo (see Long, 1997; Gass, 1998). The as witnessedbythe steadyincreasein studiesthat
criticismsalso demonstraterather vividlyhow acknowledged,thematized,and exploredcontext
readilyhegemonic forcescan come to the fore and interaction.However,we arguedin Firthand
whenmetatheoretical contributions, suchas Firth Wagner (1997) that in the main, SLA work-
and Wagner's(1997), attemptto critiqueprevail- including contextual and interaction-oriented
ing, established,and thus mainstream,intellec- studies-was tenaciouslyresistantto the fullim-
tual practices.Admittedly, this is a mainstream plicationsof thissocioculturalturn(see also sim-
that we, in and throughour critique,both aid ilar criticismsmade by Breen, 1985; Lantolf &
in itsconstructionas mainstreamand contribute Appel, 1994; Larsen-Freeman,1983; Rampton,
to itsstatusas mainstream.Long (1997), Kasper 1987). That is, despite a significantincrease in
(1997), Poulisse (1997), and Gass (1998) drew calls formore sociallyorientedapproaches to L2
inwards,and fromtheirself-constructed SLA pan- learning and acquisition throughoutthe 1980s
theon theylaid down the law by definingSLA's and earlyto mid-1990s,SLA continuedto be dom-
proper intellectualterritory(e.g., learners,lan- inated byan essentiallyChomskianmind-setthat
guage, cognition), delineatingits key concerns placed enormousstresson individualcognition-
(e.g., acquisition,not use, language,not commu- to such an extentthat,to some, alternativecon-
nication),and bypointingto itsborders(e.g., by ceptions of SLA were perplexingand just plain
stipulatingwhatis inside and outsideSLA). In so wrong.However,on the basis of subsequentpub-
doing, theydefinedthe parametersof legitimate licationsthatreengagedand developed our criti-
criticismand debate whileessentiallyaccusingus cismsof SLA1' (e.g., Atkinson,2002; Block,2003;
of intellectualtrespass(see Firth& Wagner,1998; Hall, 2004;Jenkins,2006a, 2006b; Markee,2000;
Thorne, 2000). Pavlenko,2002; Rampton,1997b;Seeley& Carter,
For some SLA researchers, includingsomewith 2004; Thorne, 2000), it seems reasonable to con-
tangentialSLA interests,the Firthand Wagner clude that our article articulateda widelyheld
(1997) articleseemsto havebeen viewedas a kind sense ofdissatisfaction and unease thatwas build-
ofwatershedforSLA in generaland forSLA stud- ingat thetimebothwithinand aroundtheperiph-
ies of interactionin particular.This reaction to eryof SLA, an unease thatprovidedimpetusfor
it occurred,at least in part,as the resultof the our owncall fora reconceptualizationofSLA the-
prominencethe articlewas givenin the MLJ at ories,concepts,and methods.1'In 1997,we main-
the time-as the centerpiece of a focused and tained the positionthatSLA is partof the nexus
extended discussionby prominentscholarscon- ofapproachesto thewider,interdisciplinary study
tributingto an esteemedjournal. However,as we of language-which centrallyincludes language
804 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

learning-and has the potentialto make signif- It depends where you look. In manywaysit ap-
icant contributionsto a wide range of research pears thatthingsare more or less as theywerein
issues conventionallyseen to reside outside its 1997-the mainstreamis in fullflow(forrecent
boundaries-a potentialthatis, arguably,yet to criticalexpositions,see Block,2003; Cook, 1999;
be realized. Jenkins,2006a, 2006b; Kramsch,2006; Seeley &
Whatwe called forwas an epistemologicaland Carter,2004) and the nativespeakercontinuesto
methodologicalbroadening of SLA. This broad- predominateas the baseline or targetthatlearn-
ening does not entail
jettisoning the mainstream ers should seek to emulate;learningis conceived
SLA position,as some havemistakenly interpreted as a cognitiveprocess thatis in essence context-
our arguments (e.g., Gass, 1998; Long, 1998; neutral;competenceis definedlargelyin termsof
Poulisse,1997).12 Althoughwe do notsubscribeto theindividual'sgrammatical competence;eticpre-
SLA's fundamentaltenets(e.g., an assumptionof vailsoveremic;and learnersin classroomsremains
thenaturalascendancyofthenativespeaker),and the standarddata set.All thewhile,theselearners
we seriouslyquestion (a) thevalidityofsuch stan- are viewedas essentiallyengaged in a continuous,
dard SLA dichotomiesas acquisitionversus use, autonomous,cognitive,morphosyntactic struggle
and languageversuscommunication; (b) problema- to traverse,in linear fashion,along the plane of
tize the apparentlyclear-cutseparationof thecog- theirinterlanguagein pursuitof the target(i.e.,
nitiveand thesocial;and (c) rejectSLA's essentially nativespeaker)competence(see e.g.,Han, 2003).
staticviewof context in Firthand Wag-
and identity, Nevertheless,our (and others') urgingsclearly
ner (1997), we neverthelesseschewed dogmatic did not go unheeded. Much SLA research that
positioningand pressedinsteadforthe need for has been produced overthelastdecade bearswit-
greatertheoretical,conceptual,and methodolog- ness to a markedincreasein thenumberofsocio-
ical balance withinSLA. For let us acknowledge culturaland contextual-interactional themesand
thatSLA researchhas,overthefourdecades or so conceptsimpactingupon SLA's researchagenda,
of itsexistenceas a discipline,uncovereda wide revealingan apparent growingawarenessof the
of
range criticallyimportantfindingsrelating to need to takeseriouslytherequirementfora more
how languagesare acquired or learned. balanced approach to SLA research. It appears
In Firthand Wagner(1997), we emphasizedthe that SLA has, over the last decade in particu-
need fora theoretical,methodological,and epis- lar, undergone a bifurcationbetween a cogni-
temologicalbroadeningof SLA, whichincluded tiveSLA (which is being termedmainstreamin
enlarging the standardSLA database to one that a number of recent publications)-represented
reflectsmore accuratelythe sociolinguisticreal- perhaps most clearlyin workundertakenby,for
ityof a vastnumberof L2 users/learnersaround example,Doughtyand Long (2003), who see SLA
the world.We soughtan SLA thatwas more in- as "a branch of cognitivescience" (p. 4)-and a
teractionally sensitive,thatalso made roomforan sociocultural/sociointeractional SLA. An increas-
emic stance towardsfundamentalconcepts,and ing number of researchers are thus displayinga
that took seriouslythe theoreticaland method- willingnessto adopt emic perspectivesand ex-
ological consequences of a social view of learn- plore and attemptto develop cognitive-social ap-
ing and language. We did so in the belief that proaches to language learning.
"theexistenceofdistinctand multipletheoretical New sets of metaphors are being deployed,
traditionsmayhelp to explicatethe processesof such thatallusionsto dynamism,interaction,in-
SLA, and subsequently, to develop more accurate tricacy,and the liminalare nowadayscompeting
heuristics whichmodel theseprocessesand condi- withtheestablishedSLA metaphorsofmachinery
tions"(Thorne,2000, p. 221). Withoutspecifying and computation (e.g., input, output, process-
in anydetailedwaywhatthe reconceptualization ing). Kramsch(2002), forexample,proposed the
would entail in methodologicalterms (this was developmentofan ecological approach to SLA and
not, afterall, the purpose of our articlein 1997), language learning, one that centrallyacknowl-
we stressed"the need to worktowardsthe evolu- edges the nonlinear,interactional,and contextual
tionof a holistic,bio-socialSLA" (p. 296). characteristicsof language use and acquisition.
Borrowingfromthe latestthinkingin the natu-
ral sciences,Larsen-Freeman(1997, 2007) used
RECONCEPTUALIZATIONS: NEW
DIRECTIONS IN SLA the termschaosand complexity in her attemptto
capturemore accuratelythefactthatL2 learning
How, then, do we assess the field of SLA, is "dynamic,complex, nonlinear,unpredictable,
10 years later? Has the reconceptualizationwe, sensitiveto initialconditions,sometimeschaotic,
and others,called for come about? The most open, self-organizing, feedback sensitive,adap-
accurate answerto this question is likelyto be: tive"(Larsen-Freeman,1997,p. 35). Block (2007)
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner 805

used thetermmultimodal to capturethemultiplic- room interactionand Vygotskyan ideas of learn-

ity of resources (historical,cultural,spatial,tem- ing are, inter alios, Hall (2002), Hall and Ver-
poral, linguistic,etc.) broughtto bear upon the plaetse (2000), and Ohta (2001).
processes of language learningand as a frame- Another distinct research direction is also
work for more socially oriented SLA analyses. emergingwhere the emphasis is on the social,
Compared withmainstreamcognitiveSLA, such contextual,and interactional.In this case, the
workcentrallylocates and thematizesthe contin- workdeploysCA methodology.Scholarshipthat
gent,the contextual,the ad hoc-ness, the interre- drawstogetherCA and SLA is takingboth SLA
latedness of linguisticand situationalelements, and CA into new, and largelyuncharted, ter-
and theunsystematicity inherentin processesun- ritory,and providing"the impetusfor a whole
derlyingL2 learning-factorsthat have been at newgenerationofempirically groundedresearch
worstoverlookedand at best downgradedin im- into how cognitiveSLA mightbe respecifiedin
portancein more traditionalSLA research. socioculturalterms"14(Markee & Kasper,2004,
Researchof thischaotic,social,ecological kind p. 491).15This workcan usefullybe dividedinto
is being recognized as representingnew direc- twogroups.The firstgroup focuseson the class-
tions in the SLA field (see Cook, 2002; Kram- room settingand otherformallearningenviron-
sch 2002; Larsen-Freeman,2003; Ortega, 2005). mentsand is centrallyconcernedwiththe theme
Markee and Kasper (2004) thus talked of a re- ofL2 learning--thoughfroman interactional per-
cent "split between mainstream,cognitiveSLA spective(see He, 2004; Hellermann,2006; Kasper,
and emergent,socioculturalapproaches to SLA" 2004; Koshik,2005; Lazaraton,2002, 2004; Mar-
(p. 491). This latter type,Markee and Kasper kee, 2000; Markee & Kasper,2004; Mondada &
claimed,"pointsthe wayto futuredevelopments Pekarek-Doehler, 2004; Mori,2004a, 2004b; Seed-
in what may prove to be one of the most radi- house, 2004). A somewhatdifferent emphasiscan
cal respecifications of SLA researchers'theoreti- be found in the CA-basedSLA workundertaken
cal prioritiesand methodologicalpracticesin the by Brouwer(2003, 2004) and Brouwerand Wag-
historyof the field"(p. 492). ner (2004), who explored aspectsof L2 learning
Three topicsappear to playa keyrole in thede- occurringoutsideformaleducationalsettings.
velopmentof workin thissociocultural,socioin- A second group to have emergedover the last
teractionalarea: (a) whetherthe researchincor- decade also deploys CA methodologyand the-
porates educational (i.e., classroom) settingsor ory.In thiscase, the focusis not so much on L2
other (e.g., workplace)settings;(b) whetherthe learning,but more on tryingto understandand
focusis on language learningor interaction;and explicate the characterof L2 and lingua franca
(c) whetherthe researchis theorydrivenor data- interactions,or L2 use. Thisworkhas been under-
driven.Lantolf,withseveral collaborators(e.g., takenin settingsoutsidetheclassroom-forexam-
Lantolf,2000; Lantolf& Appel, 1994; Lantolf& ple, in governmentoffices,libraries,and various
Thorne, 2006; Pavlenko& Lantolf,2000), has en- workplacesettings(e.g.,Firth,1996;and contribu-
gaged in SLA theory-building in the Vygotskyan tionsto Gardner& Wagner,2004; Kurhila,2006;
tradition,producingwhathas become knownas Rasmussen & Wagner, 2002; Schegloff,2000;
the socioculturalapproach to SLA.13At the core Svennevig,2003, 2004; Wong, 2000a, 2000b).
of Vygotskyan learningtheory,new developmen- As Wagner & Gardner (2004) explained in the
tal stagesare firstaccomplishedwiththe help of introductorychapter to their SecondLanguage
othersin the social sphereand can thenbecome Conversations collection,this researchis an on-
intrapsychological accomplishments(see Hall's, goinginvestigation of
1997,usefulsynopsis).The pathwayto learningis
thus throughsocial practice.The social practice whether a micro-analysis
ofsecondlanguageconversa-
in which learninghas been studied thusfarhas tionscanenhanceourunderstanding ofwhatitmeans
to talkin anotherlanguage,bybroadening thefo-
been in L2 classrooms.In socioculturaltheory:
cus beyondthesounds,structures and meaningsof
languagetoencompass actionsequences,timingand
Communication, includingthe instructionalcon-
versationof the classroom...and the learning- (p. 14)
interactivity.
development that emergesfromit, arise in the
ofpeoplewithidentities In most of these studies--withWong (2000a,
coming-together (whichen-
tailmorethansimplywhether
oneisa nativespeaker), 2000b) as a notable exception-explicating the
histories
andlinguistic
resources
constructed inthose normality ofL2 conversations, in thefaceofsome-
histories.
(Dunn& Lantolf,1998,p. 427) timesabnormal (froma native-speaker perspec-
tive,at least) linguisticbehavior,has underpinned
Witha greateremphasison data-drivenresearch the research,revealing,forexample,thatdue to
but stillworkingmainlyfromthe basis of class- participants'linguisticand interactionalalacrity
806 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

and resourcefulness,interactionalsuccesscan be defineditselfas a disciplinethatproducesknowl-

achieved (see also Carroll, 2000; Egbert,2002; edge about this special phenomenon called ac-
contributionstoRichards& Seedhouse,2004; and quisition;(b) it cementeditsidentityas a distinct
Seedhouse, 2005). disciplineand secureda footholdin theworldof
scientificresearch;and (c) it all but cut offpos-
SOCIALAPPROACHESTO L2 sible links to learning theoriesresidingoutside
LANGUAGE LEARNING itsown (self-constructed) boundaries
disciplinary
(Rampton, 1997a).
Challengingthe distinctionbetweenlanguage This terminologicaltransformation seems to
acquisitionand language use was not a core issue have been criticalforSLA. However,ifL2 learn-
in Firthand Wagner(1997), althoughwe did ad-
ing is understooddifferently-specifically as prin-
dressit,albeitbriefly,in Firthand Wagner(1998).
cipally the same typeof process as other types
Althoughour criticspointed out in unison that of human learning-then SLA is open to extant
SLA is about acquisitionand not use, we ques- and potentiallyinsightfullearning theoriesand
tion the utilityand theoreticalas well as method- approaches,and thusplaced underimmensepres-
ological validityof the dichotomy,and see it as sureto reconceptualize,expand,enlarge,or recal-
being yetanothersymptomof the cognitivist, re- ibrateitsepistemology-pressurewe see exerted
ductionistmind-setthat prevailsin mainstream by,forexample,Atkinson(2002), Block (2003),
SLA. To us, acquisitioncannotand willnot occur Firth and Wagner (1997), Hall (1997, 2004),
withoutuse. Language acquisition,we would ar- Jenkins(2006a), (2006b), Lantolf (2000), Liddi-
gue, is builton language use. Moreover,in order coat (1997), Markeeand Kasper (2004), Rampton
to understandhow language acquisitionoccurs, (1997a, 1997b), and Thorne (2000).
develops,and is operationalized,we are surelyob- Admittingdifferentconceptions of learning
ligatedto observeand explicatelanguage in use. allows,of course, for nonpsychologicaltheories
Atbest,makingand maintaininga distinctionbe- to become relevantfor understandingand ex-
tweenacquisitionand use is highlyproblematic; plicatingL2 learning.16 By way of exemplifica-
at worst,both conceptsare so tightly interwoven tion, we can identifythree potentiallyrelevant
as to be rendered effectively inseparable.As we avenues of such research. One is sociocultural
noted in Firthand Wagner(1998): theory(e.g., Hall, Vitanova,& Marchenova,2004;
If,as weargue,languagecompetence is a fundamen- Lantolf, 2000), whichwe have outlinedabove. A
tally anddynamic
situational,
transitional, then
entity, second is constructivism, whichis wellestablished
anylanguage userswillalwaysbe "learners" [or "ac- outside SLA. A third is a social-interactionalap-
quirers"]insomerespects. Neworpartly known regis- proach to learning,whichis onlyjust beginning
ters,styles,
language-related lexicalitems,
tasks, termi- to takeroot.Wewillnowelaboratebriefly on these
nologies,and structures
routinelyconfront language lattertwo.
users,callingforthecontingentadaptation andtrans-
formation of existingknowledge and competence, Constructivism
andtheacquisition ofnewknowledge. (p. 91)
Constructivism(which includes social con-
What this acquisition-use dispute reveals is ar- structivism, radical constructivism, and cognitive
guably the most significantand consequential is a of
constructivism) theory knowledgeacqui-
disagreementbetweenFirthand Wagner (1997) sition that sees learners constructingtheir own
and proponentsof a mainstreamSLA, namely,
knowledge and meanings on the basis of per-
the conceptionof learning.In thisregard,some sonal experiences.Constructivist ideas are readily
of the implicationsof our 1997 articlewere sur- tracedin the workof Dewey (1916, 1980, 1938)
prisingforus as well,forwe failed to realize at and Kant (1781/1946). Drawingon von Glasers-
the timejust how fundamentally our viewschal- feld's work (e.g., von Glasersfeld,1984, 1995),
lenged SLA's conceptionoflearning.Indeed, the Doolittle (1999) summarizedconstructivism as
Chomskianheritagein SLA maybe mostconspic- containing:
uous withregard to SLA's concept of learning,
foras long as language learningis envisionedas threeessentialepistemological tenetsof construc-
a specifictypeof learningrelatingsolelyto the tivismto whicha fourth has been addedin lightof
individual'shead-the human languagefaculty---- recentwritings:
traditionalSLA is conceptuallysafe.In fact,in the
early1970s,when the umbrellatermlearningwas 1. Knowledgeis not passively accumulated, but
replaced by the technicalterm acquisition,SLA rather, is theresultof activecognizing bytheindi-
accomplishedthreethingsratherelegantly:(a) it vidual;
Alan Firthand Johannes
Wagner 807

2. Cognitionis an adaptiveprocessthatfunctionsforms";rather they engage in complex, multi-

tomakean individual's behaviormoreviablegivena modal, finelytuned co-participation, integrating
environment;
particular bodyposture,gaze,verbaland prosodicactivities,
3. Cognitionorganizesand makessenseofone's rhythm, and pace in theirchoreographyofaction
experience,andisnota processtorender an accurate
ofreality;and (Egbert,Niebecker,& Rezzara, 2004). Research
representation
4. Knowing has roots in both biologi- adopting this approach may have the potential
to reconceptualizenotions of learning,withim-
and social,cultural,
cal/neurologicalconstruction,
and language based interactions(Dewey,1916, portant consequences for SLA (c.f. Mondada,
1980).(p. 1) 2006).
SLA's adoption of such theories and ap-
proaches would,we submit,have major implica-
Social-InteractionalApproachtoLearning
tions forSLA as a fieldof inquiry,as well as for
This approach is in the very earliest stages L2 pedagogy,and onlyhintsat possible develop-
of development. It is an approach that focal- mentsthatmighthave occurredin SLA, modern
izes learning-in-and-through-social-interaction, language teaching,and learning,if behaviorism
though devoid of cognitivistunderpinnings.In and,later,information-processing psychology had
its currentmanifestations, it combines insights notbeen allowedto become establishedas having
fromthree areas: (a) the approach to learning primaryimportancein SLA.
promulgatedby Lave and Wenger (1991) and
Wenger(1998), who stressa social viewof learn- LANGUAGE LEARNING AS A SOCIAL
ing, and see learningas occurringin multiplex ACCOMPLISHMENT
communitiesof practice;(b) ethnomethodology,
which emphasizes the centralityof dynamically How, then,mightthe analysisand explication
and contingentlydeployed commonsense rea- of L2 learning be approached from a social-
soning practicesin everydaysettings(Garfinkel, interactionalperspective,one thatplaces contin-
1967; Heritage,1984); and (c) CA,whichstresses gency,contextuality, dialogue,and liminality at its
thenecessityto attendto and uncoverthe socially core?We shall attemptto answerthisquestionby
achieved, microstructuring of human activity offeringcursoryanalysesoflanguage learning-in-
(Goodwin & Heritage,1990; Hutchby& Wooffitt, action.Our focushere is not learnersin a formal
1998; ten Have, 1999). sense of the word-that is, persons engaged in
The social-interactional approach can be char- purposiveactivities in orderto develop
principally
acterized as follows:Learning is an inseparable skills,knowledge, and competences.Nor willwe
of
part ongoing and
activities thereforesituated deal with classroom interaction (recent studies
in social practiceand social interaction.In this of classroominteractionincludeHall, 2006; Hall,
sense,learningbuildson joint actionsand as part 2007; Kasper,2004; Mondada & Pekarek-Doehler,
of a joint action it is publiclydisplayedand ac- 2004; Mori,2004a, 2004b; and Seedhouse, 2004).
complished. Building on the work of Lave and Ratherwe are concerned to uncoverlearningas
Wenger (1991), Brouwer and Wagner (2004), in a ubiquitous social activity,as an interactional
theiranalysesofL2 conversations, proposed such phenomenon that transcends contextswhilebe-
an approach to learning-one thatshiftsthe fo- ing contextdependent; as an instance of social
cus fromtheindividual'scognitionand grammar, cognition in thewild (see Hutchins,1995), specif-
to social praxis in concrete social settings:"In- icallyin relationto encounterswherean L2 is in
stead of studyingthe acquisitionof a grammat- use. For althoughlearningmayor maynot be a
ical system,we propose to studythe textureof drawn-outprocess, it is certainlya process that
communitiesand the waysin which newcomers takesplace in the micromomentsof social inter-
get access to them"(p. 45). Wagnerand Pekarek- action in communitiesof practice.It is therefore
Doehler (2006) demonstratedhow participants criticallyimportantthatwe attemptto uncover
proceed throughtheiractivitiesby a process of and understandwhatgoes on, interactionally, in
whattheycall bricolage-that is,complexsegments such micromoments.
of social activitieswhere interactantscollaborate Whatwewantto explicate,albeitextremely cur-
to make sense of theirconjointactions through sorily,are aspects of social learningas theyare
the situated,contingentdeploymentof commu- evidentin L2 talk-basedactivities,in each case oc-
nicativeresources.As has been shownin the con- curringoutside the classroom.Throughout,we
tributionsto Gardner and Wagner (2004), L2 emphasize not the failingsor deficiencies,not
speakersare not interactionaldopes. They show the errorsor interlanguageof the interactants;
perseveranceand ingenuityin interactingwith rather,we approach the data witha viewto expli-
others. They produce not so much "language catingand uncoveringwhatL2 usersactuallydo,
808 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

in everyday, naturalsettings.And as we shall see, catinguptake,as displayingthathe (A) has been

theydeploy,make available,share,adapt,manip- understood.Upon hearingH's uptake at line 4,
ulate,and contingently and creativelyapplycom- and now actingon the presumptionof a shared
municativeresourcesin an ongoing attemptto commonground,A, in line 6, asksH "whatdo you
constructmeaningfuland consequentialsocial in- thinkwe should do withall thisblowing?"(un-
teraction.The data excerptswe presentand com- derliningindicatesstressin enunciation).At this
menton here representa smallwindowon what juncture, H is evidentlycompelled to display--
mightbe possibleifmorein-depth,extensivestud- to make public-his unfamiliarity withthe word
ies of the same kindare undertaken. blowing;thus H's "I'm not uh (0.7) blowinguh
whatuh, what is thisu: :h too big or what?"A's
An EvidentialArgument responseis to explainthemeaningofblowing;he
does thisbyreformulating: "no the cheese is bad,
Consider firstExcerpt 1, where Hansen (H), Mr.Hansen" (line 10). Withno receiptforthcom-
the Danish dairy-producesalesman,is talkingon ing (note the 0.4 second pause in line 11), A tries
thetelephonewithAkkad(A), an Egyptianwhole- again, in line 12: "itis like fermenting in the cus-
saler (see the Appendix for transcriptconven- toms' cool rooms." H now displayshis updated
tions): knowledgeby producinghis own reformulation
(withrisingintonation)of blowing,in his "ah it's
EXCERPT 1 gone off?"(line 13). A, in the nextturn,confirms
Blowingin the Customs the appropriatenessof the definitionof blowing
(Firth,1996,p. 244) by reusingH's formulation,hence "yesit's gone
off' (line 14).
1. A: .. so I told him not to u: :h send the::
What this excerpt reveals is that the interac-
cheese after the- (.) the blowing (.)
tants,conjointly,do interactionalwork to over-
in the tcustoms
come potential or real communicativehurdles
2. (0.4) in order to establishintersubjectivity and mean-
3. A: we don't want the order after the
cheese is u: :h (.) blowing. ing. In so doing, the interactants provideforthe
availabilityand utility ofinteractionaland linguis-
4. H: see, yes. tic resourcesthatallow forlearningto occur. H
5. A: so I don't knowwhatwe can uh do with
has,in thisexcerpt,quite clearlydisplayedthathe
the ordernow. (.) Whatdo you
has learned the (forhim) new lexical item blow-
6. thinkwe should uh do withthisis all
ing. What is importantis that the excerpt also
tblo:wingMisterHansen shows how learningis engaged contingently, as
7. (0.5) thelearneditemin questionbecomes interaction-
8. H: I'm not uh (0.7) blowinguh whatuh,
whatis thisu: :h too big or what? ally relevantas the talk unfolds.Learning here,
then,is an artifactofinteractionalexigencyand a
9. (0.2)
10. A: no the cheese is tbad MisterHansen productof collaboration.
Let us now examine how H operationalizeshis
11. (0.4)
it is like (.) fermentingin the customs' learning(ofwhatblowingcheesemeans) in a sepa-
12. A: rateencounter,thatis,howhis learningis carried
cool rooms
overin timeand space. Twoworkingdayslater,H,
13. H: ah it'sgone offt
in Denmark,callsA's wholesalecompanyin Cairo.
14. A: yesit'sgone off?4 The call is answeredbyA's colleague, B. The call
15. H: we: :11you knowyou don't have to uh
do uh anything because it's not beginsas follows:
((continues))
EXCERPT 2
Bad Cheese
When this excerpt was initiallyanalyzed (in (Firth,1991)
Firth,1996, p. 244), the focus of attentionwas ((ring))
the letitpass procedureand itsinteractionalcon-
sequences."7But we can also use the excerptto 1. B: allo
witnessan instanceof learning-in-interaction. To 2. H: yes hello Michael Hansen melko
see this,note, first,H's "I see, yes" (line 4). This dairies Denmark Tcalling (.) can I
turnfollowsA's revelationin lines 1-3 that the please speak to misterAkkad
"cheese is blowingin thecustoms"(line 1). In line 3.
(.)
4. B: thello misterMichael
6,A displaysthathe has heard H's Isee,yesas indi-
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner 809

5. H: is it Barat? then,is,potentiallyat least,a relevantidentitycat-

6. B: ye: (h)s, how are you (.) si::r egory for some of these interactants.In a related
7. H: wellI'm OK, butyouha:d tu-havesome we
way, may venture that the reason H deploys
uh problemswiththe:cheese the itemblowingwithA, but uses insteadcognate
8. B: uuuuuuhhhhh ((one-second sound formulations withB, is because H is "recipientde-
stretch)) signing"(Sacks, Schegloff,& Jefferson, 1974, p.
9. H: the bad cheese (.) in the tcustoms 727) his displaysof knowledgeso as to achieve
10. (0.5) communicative(and likelyinterpersonal)success
11. B: ftoneminute (0.4) misterAkkad will and todisplayinteractionalaffinity.To paraphrase
talk (.) w[ith (-) you Baker,Emmison,and Firth(2005), we can saythat
12. H: [ok ftyes H is calibratinghis language behaviorforhis in-
13. (1.5) terlocutors'competence.We cannotknowwhyH
14. A: YES (.) misterHanseni did not use the termblowingwithB. Perhaps,if
15. H: hello: misterAkkad (.).hh we hafsome A had not been available or had not been able
informations for you about the to engage H, H maysubsequentlyhave deployed
cheese (.) the item blowing.However,his apparent contin-
16. withthe f1blowing gent and selectivedeploymentof the itemoffers
17. A: tyesmisterHansen an intriguingangle fromwhichto viewlanguage
learning.
Our argumentso farremindsus of theinterac-
Note thatin thisexcerptit is H who uses the tionhypothesis(Long, 1996), accordingto which
item blowing(line 16)-which seems to suggest
learningis fueled by the problemsthatlearners
thatnot onlyhas H now learned thislexical item encounter.However there are severalproblems
in a waythatextendsbeyond the concretelocal withthisexplanationforlearning:
contextwhere he firstbecame acquainted with
it,but also, critically,
thathe has learned how to
deploy it appropriatelyin context,whichin this 1. The approach describes a transparent
case entailsknowingwhom to use the itemwith. problem-basedwayof learning,but we findonly
Consider,first,how H characterizesthe matter fewinstancesof such problem-basedlearningin
whiletalkingto B. First,H uses "problemswiththe our data.
cheese" (line 7), next,he reformulates thematter 2. It prototypically
describeslexical learning.
as "the bad cheese in the customs"(line 9), this Where does the restof the language (and com-
reformulation likelybeinga resultofan apparent municativebehaviormore generally)reside?
lack of uptake by B (line 8). When A entersthe 3. Uptakes are rare. Participantsin interac-
interaction(at line 14), H firstuses the formu- tions obviouslypick up items and use them in
lation "the cheese" (line 15), and then,without recipient-designed ways,butsuch actionsare only
yet securinguptake fromhis interlocutor(note part of the whole language learning story.Al-
the micropauseat the end ofline 15), formulates though it mightpartlyhave to do withthe lack
the matteras "withthe blowing"(line 16). This of comprehensivecorpora,problem-basedlearn-
formulationsucceeds,as we see fromA's "yesMr. ing of this kind seems not to be at the core of
Hansen" (line 17). language learning.
What are the language learningimplications 4. The interactivehypothesisconstructssome
of such behavior?They are, firstand foremost, kind of evidentialargument:a plain causal chain
thatiflearningentailsbeing contingently adapt- betweenuse of elementsand learning.When we
able as theunfoldingcontextrequires,thenhere, look at the developmentaldata we have access to,
surely,is learning-in-action.Second, here maybe plaincausal explanationsdo notcovermanyofthe
evidence of a communityof practice (Lave & complexitieswe see unfoldingin our data. We see
Wenger,1991) being constructedbeforeour very learnersdevelopingtheirskillsin usingresources
eyes-namely, betweenH and A. The nature of in more advanced waysformore advanced inter-
thisparticularcommunityof practiceappears to actions,but we rarelysee a "smokinggun,"as in
be consequentialforhow learningis operational- Excerpts1 and 2.
ized, forhow learningis displayed,and forhow
communicativeknowledgeis refinedand tested There are few,ifany,studiesshowinglearningin
bothwithinand acrossinteractions. action (Huth,2006; Nguyen,2003). The mainob-
It is arguablethatH, in Excerpt2, orientstoA as stacle forthistypeof researchhas been the lack
a co-user,or as a co-memberofthismicrocommu- of longitudinalcorpora available forL2 interac-
nityof practice,of the termblowing.Co-usership, tions.
810 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

DoingLearning core of thisstandardsituation-the Danish sen-

tence would workas the reason forthe call, but
Anotherway of describinglearningdoes not the opening and closingactivitiesin a phone call
focus on the evidence but on the process. Our are not thematizedbyJosephand Rasmus.
positionin thisregardis inspiredbysociocultural The sequence is initiatedand closed bythe L2
theory, Hall's 2006work.Considerthe
particularly speaker,which makes it differentfromclassical
nextexcerptin whichRasmus,a Danish student,
teachingactivitiesdescribed,in non-CAresearch,
coaches Joseph, an American guest student,to as variationsofan Initiative-Response-Evaluation
se-
learn how to order pizza in Danish. In his own 1979). The Li Rasmus
quence (Mehan, speaker
words:Josephis developinghis survivalskills. not as a teacher
appears thereforeinteractionally
butas a languageexpertwho is transferring know-
how to a nonexpert.
EXCERPT 3 The participantsthemselvescall the activity
Danish Pizza learning.Joseph's (the learner's) main activity is
(Wagner,unpublished raw data) the repeat of the targetutterance. We observed
thatthe translationfollowsthe repeatof the Dan-
1. Jo: so how d-how do I fsaysayit one time ishexpressionthatshowsbothparticipants orient-
[for]me. ingprimarily to theformoftheexpression.Joseph
2. Ra: [.pt] learns the Danish expressionbeforethe transla-
3. (0.2) tion has made crystalclear what he has learned
4. Ra: je:g vilgernebestilleen pizza. (see below).
I would like ordera pizza What we observe in Excerpt 3 holds for the
5. (0.3) wholeinteraction.Joseph providesa prompt,Ras-
6. Jo: jeg vil gernebestilleen pizza. mus deliversa Danish expressionthatJoseph re-
7. (0.2) peats.However,notall sequences runas smoothly
8. Ra: ojepo. as theone shownin Excerpt3. In latertalk,which
9. (0.5) we cannot showhere due to constraintsof space,
10. Ra: that'sI'd like to orderpizza. we observeRasmusslowingdown his speech, iso-
11. Jo: .ptokay,
latingtroublesomeelementsin the utteranceby
prosodicmeans,and evenusingthewrittenmode
In line 1, Joseph opens a new sequence with to displaya model. The resourcesfor learning
"so" and givestwo consecutivepromptsfornext used in thisinteractionare notverydifferent from
action: "how do I say" and "say it one time for thoseof traditionalclassroomteaching,whichin-
me." RasmusprovidestheappropriateDanish ex- clude (a) utterancemodel and repetition,(b)
pression (line 4), whichJoseph repeats (line 6). formbeforecontent/translation, (c) prosodicfor-
Rasmus acknowledgesthe repeat in line 8 with mation (speed, rhythm),and (d) writtenmod-
"yep" and providesan English translation(line els. In Excerpt 3, the participantsshow us that
10). In line 11,Josephcloses the sequence. theyrecognize and characterizetheiractivityas
The sequence runs offat a slow pace without learning.They constructconversationalroutines
glitches,delays,overlaps,or repairs.Both partic- and patternsof interactionthat are typicalof
ipants demonstrate,throughtheiractions, that language classrooms(Kasper,2004; Mondada &
theyunderstandwho will produce the next ele- Pekarek-Doehler, 2004).
ment and which element has been projected.It AlthoughRasmus and Joseph drawheavilyon
seemsto be clearforbothparticipants whatkinds a classroomformat,otherstudiesshow how par-
of actionstheyare engaged in and how the sub- ticipantsin interactionsorient in more subtle
activitiesare distributed.To elaborate-the Dan- waysto language learningas one goal in the on-
ish expressionis decontextualized.The I does
going activity.Lilja (2006) described instances
not referto the currentspeaker (Rasmus) but in interactionsbetween a Finnish host family
is a genericI foranyspeakerin a pizza-ordering and guest studentswhere the native speakers
situation.In thisway,Rasmus providesa model in repair sequences do not just repeat trouble
as a standardsolutionfor a well-definedactivity sources but stripthem of morphologicalinflec-
in a well-definedenvironment(orderinga pizza tion and present them in an unmarked form.
by phone). BothJoseph and Rasmus show their Theod6rsd6ttir(2007) showedhow learnersmay
knowledgeof the scriptforthisactivity and treat insiston producingfullturnsalthoughtheirco-
itas a standardsituationwherepreformulated ex- participantshave indicated theirunderstanding
pressionscan be deployed.Theyreferonlyto the of the ongoing turn before its end. Brouwer
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner 811

and Rasmussen-Hougaard(2007) describedhow cess of the companywhereJG works.This is the

participantsin L2 interactionscarve out oppor- second call betweenBR andJG.
tunitiesfordoinglearningin the ongoingflowof
interaction. EXCERPT 4
Compared to the case of Hansen and Akkad, Lot ofWork1
instancesof doing learningdo not affordan ev-
(Wagner,unpublishedrawdata)
idential argumentfor learning.Instancesof do-
ing learningshow thatlearninga language and 1. BR: okayhave you a lot ofworkto do.
learningto learnare mutuallyconstitutive,
as Hall 2. JG: yes,
(2006) formulateditforthe language classroom: 3. JG: [we ha' a lot a do.
4. BR: [xx
Whatourstudents takeawayfromourclassrooms in 5. BR: a lot of orders.
terms oftheirtargetlanguageknowledge andunder- 6. JG: and we e::hm: workalso in the week-
standingsofwhatitmeanstolearnanotherlanguage ends
isintimately
tiedtothekindsofinteractionalpractices 7. BR: ah [(xx theweekend)]
thatweas teacherscreateinourtalkwithstudents....
8. JG: [forthe next ] e:h fh threefour
Throughtheirinteractions withus,learners become
atfiguringouttheactionsthatarebeing monthth(.) [I think,
experienced
implemented inourutterancesincluding howtheut- 9. BR: [yes
terancesare constructedand eventuallylearnto use 10. (0.8)
themto takeactionsoftheirown.Ourinteractional 11. JG: [so ]
are,then,touseVygotsky's
practices term,themedi- 12. BR: [that's]that'sgood to
ationalmeansbywhichweandourstudents together 13. (0.3) ,hear.
constitute,
represent,andremember whatitmeansto 14. JG: yes,
knowanddo languagelearning. (p. 27) 15. BR: fokay.
16. JG: and yourcompanyhas also. (.) lot to
Learning is about the object and the waysof
do,
learning.Joseph and Rasmus illustratethatthey 17.
knowhow to setup a learningsituation.Theyen- (0.3)
18. BR: oh yes.
act the classical activitiesof language teaching.
19. BR: thingsare goingverywell.=
However,the otherstudiesmentionedhere trace
20. JG: yesi
waysof learningnot onlyon the genre level but
also as practicesin ongoinginteractionwherepar-
BR's questionin line 1, "haveyou a lot ofworkto
ticipantsshow each other that theyare, among do" is in line 16 mirroredbyJG's answer"we ha
other thingsin the real world,engaged in more
a lot to do" (line 3) as well as in his formulation
than intersubjectivity. They are not content to in line 16 "and your companyhas also a lot to
make themselvesunderstoodbut clearlydemon-
do." Regulartelephone engagementwithknown
stratea desire to do so in waysthat are viewed
as appropriateand normalin theirL2. Otherset- othersfrequentlygivesrise to the productionof
How areyousequences (compare Excerpts2, 6).
tings,withotherkindsofinteractionaland institu- As in Excerpt2, we notice thatthese howareyou
tionalgoals and relationships, willdoubtlesspro-
duce differentkinds of talk-and learning-based sequences are not takenpersonallybut relatein-
stead to the companiesin whichthe protagonists
activities.
work.Considernow Excerpt5.
Doing learningillustrates howparticipantsfore-
groundlearning in an interactionally
consequen-
tial way.This typeof learningis differentfrom EXCERPT 5
Lot ofWork2
thatof Hansen and Akkadwherelearninga new
itemwas entirelyembedded in thebusinessinter-
1. JG: have you: lot ofworkto do.
action. But doing learningdoes not provideevi-
2. TT: yesethey'renot too badd
dence thatlearningis actuallyhappeningin these 3.
activities. JG: [yes]
4. TT: [we-] e-e- picked up another ordere
Out ofChaosComesOrder =eight hundredthousand
pound [s
Considernow Excerpt4, again froma business 5. JG: [4ouw:4
interaction.Jorgen Gade (JG) in Denmark has 6. (0.6)
been called bya Swissbusinessacquaintance(BR). 7. JG: excellentehhe hhe hhe hhe hhe hhe
At the end of the call, BR enquiresabout the suc- he
812 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

8. TT: eightmillion hhe hh is, language developmentin the calls appears to

9. JG: 44*o:ijoijoi.*crtowner, be nonlinear,and thegrowingcomplexitiesin the
10. TT: (sxtxx) hh hh hhh participants'actionsare not traceableto simpler
11. TT: so thatse:h thatsgood precedingforms.
12. G: ?yeah'? This observationis in linewithEskildsen'sstudy
13. TT: we stillned some mrore thoughbut (Eskildsen,in press;Eskildsen& Cadierno,2007),
[itloo]ks looks ifitsu:h = whichdrewon data froma MexicanlearnerofEn-
14. JG: [mmh.] glishovera period of4 years(2001-2005). Eskild-
15. JG: yes sen (in press)looked at thedevelopmentofmodal
16. TT: = gettingbetter. verbsover timeand the conclusionshe was able
to drawon the basis of the data materialsdo not
show a developmentfroma core structureinto
In Excerpt5, JG is on the phone witha British more complex structures, but rathera patchwork
colleague withwhomhe has had regularcontact of different uses thatappear and disappear over
overmanyyears.JG'squestionin line 1 "haveyou: time. In termsof linguisticstructure,this study
lot of work to do" sounds like an echo of BR's does not showmuch structurebuilding.
questionfromExcerpt4. However,in thiscase, 2 We can tentatively conclude thatwe have been
yearshave passed betweenthe call in Excerpt4 able to pointto threeaspectsoflanguagelearning
and Excerpt5. It would be a bold move to con- as a social accomplishment.These threeaspects,
strue (line 1) as evidence thatlearninghad oc- and possiblyothers,demonstratein a varietyof
curred in the call 2 years earlier.Nevertheless,
wayshowparticipants engage in meaningfulactiv-
the resemblanceof both formulationsover the ities by using an L2. In situatedsocial practices,
span of those 2 yearsis striking. JG has not be- use and learningare inseparablepartsof the in-
come more linguistically sophisticatedin his in- teraction.They appear to be affordedby topics
quiry into his interlocutor's
workcommitments. and tasks,and theyseem to be relatedto specific
He simplyredeploysthe utteranceformulathat
people, withparticularizedidentities,withwhom
he had deployed 2 years previously.We notice newwaysof behavingoccur as the unfoldingtalk
comparable developmentstandstillin other re- demands.
currentcall segmentsor activities,for example,
Studyinglearningas a social accomplishment
in call openings, closings, the introductionof shiftsour understandingof learning from the
new topics,how-are-you's and salutations.In these constructof a linguisticsystemor a compe-
cases, it appears thatcomparatively littlelinguis- tence that servesall the speaker's purposes. In-
tic developmentoccurs over time.If thereis any stead, the developmentof social relations,the
developmentalchange at all, we find it in gen- mutual constituencyof linguisticresourcesand
eral interactionalfluency,such that these activ- tasks,and the specificbiographyof the language
ities are produced withfewerdelays,smoother learners come to the foreground.This strand
turntransitions, and a generalincreasedorderli- of researchhas gained momentumover the last
ness;in addition,thecontentofthecallsbecomes 10 years,and quite clearly,much more research
more personalizedover time as the interactants into the specificsof social interactionsin L2 en-
become betteracquainted (cf.Brouwer& Wagner, vironmentsis clearlynecessaryin the years to
2004). come.
These observationsbeg the question:In which
environments mightwe noticelanguage learning
as a social accomplishment? Ifitis not observable CONCLUSIONS
in routinizedactivitiesand talk episodes, where
can it be located? What are the environments Whatthisentiredebate has broughthome most
wherelinguisticstructuresexpand and linguistic vividlyis that SLA as a field of inquiryis today
creativity and developmentcan be observed? a fertilearena of multifarious approaches, theo-
They appear to occur in what we mightcall ries, methods,concepts,and, not least, debate.
the bodyof the calls, thatis, in phases following WhetherSLA has a mainstreamor a dominant
openings and preceding closing routines.Here approach is a moot point.Cognitivistic SLA-the
the talk is more free flowing,less planned and mainstreamthatwe focusedour critiqueupon in
less routinized.New expressionsand new struc- Firthand Wagner (1997)-is certainlywell estab-
turesare affordedbynewtopicsand activities. The lishedand continuesto occupya prominentplace
contingenciesof the locallyunfoldingsituation in SLA-relatedjournals, textbooks,doctoral and
seem to motivatethe use of new resources;that graduateprograms,and publicationsgenerally.In
Alan Firthand JohannesWagner 813

mostofitsguises,cognitivistic SLA is strikingly

dif-
ferentfromthe SLA of socioculturaltheory,the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ecological approach to SLA, and the CA-for-SLA
movementthatwe have adumbratedin thisarti- Wearegrateful tothefollowing whogener-
colleagues
cle. Thus, althoughsome researchersare explor- ouslyandinsightfullycommentedon previous
versions
ing the possibilitiesof developinga holistic,en- ofthisarticle:DennisDay,RodGardner,
Jennifer
Jenk-
compassingSLA-one thatseeksto drawtogether BarbaraLafford,
ins,ChrisJenks,BarbaraSeidlhofer,
the social and the cognitive-other researchers Sally SieloffMagnan, and three anonymousreferees,
usefulanddetailedcomments.
eachofwhomprovided
position themselvesapart from the social, cul-
In most cases, we have incorporatedsuggestionsfor
tural,situational,chaotic,sociolinguistic,ecolog-
ical, interactionaldrives,and motivesunderpin- improvementsinto the finalversion.Remainingweak-
nessesand oversights
remainour responsibility.
ningtheworkof a growingnumberof SLA schol-
ars.These differences raisetheinevitablequestion
ofwhereSLA is headed, and whetherthe fieldit-
selfis able to withstandthe currentbifurcations, NOTES

competingmethods,critiques,and internalten-
sions,and remaingenerallycohesive-in theway 1 Conversationanalysis (widelyknown as CA) is a
thatthe fieldof sociolinguistics,forexample,has methodologydevised by Sacks, Schegloff,and Jeffer-
remainedmore or less cohesive,despite the dis- son in the 1960s (see Sacks,1992). Buildingon its
ethnomethodological(Garfinkel,1967; Heritage,1984)
cipline being populated withan almostdizzying
foundations,CA endeavorsto explicatethemicrodetails
arrayof sometimesincommensurablemethods, of talk-in-interaction and to uncover the communica-
concepts,and theories-or whetherSLA willfrac- tiveand social competencesthatstructureand render
tureintocognitiveSLA,holisticSLA,sociocultural The materialsof CA are
meaningfultalk-in-interaction.
SLA, conversation-analytic SLA,postmodernSLA, video-and audiorecordingsof naturallyoccurringset-
and so on. tingswheretalkis a primefacetofbehavior.Fordescrip-
It is arguable,of course,thatsuch a fracturing tionsof CA's workingmethodsand theoreticalfounda-
eitherhas alreadytakenplace or is currently un- tions,see ten Have (1999) and Hutchbyand Wooffitt
derway.Ifthisisindeed whatis happening,orwhat (1998).
has occurred,a major issue then becomes one 2Althoughsuch observationson our data informed
of how the field or the disciplinedefinesitself. our call fora reconceptualizedSLA in Firthand Wagner
(1997), theydid not featureempiricallyin thatpublica-
SLA is a relativenewcomerto scientificinquiry, tion.
and there are inherentrisksin allowingsuch a 3We do not have the space to elaborate the point
new field of researchto shift,morph,and frac- here,but in essence the argumentis that,in the case of
ture,particularly fromtheviewpointofthosewho, English,whichis undoubtedlythe global lingua franca
througha lengthyprofessionaldevotion to the in an arrayof domains (e.g., the Internet,diplomacy,
fieldor paradigm,conceive of themselvesas the science,pop music,tourism),equatingtargetlanguage
intellectualguardiansof (in thiscase) SLA, and competence withnativespeaker competence is inher-
see it as theirrightand obligationto determine, entlyproblematic,in thatsuch a practiceignorestheso-
ex cathedra,whatis and is not proper SLA. The ciolinguisticrealityoftheglobalstatusand linguafranca
uses and functionsof English.The implicationsforSLA
debates,thearguments,theprogress,or thedecay
are potentiallyfar-reaching,notleastin termsofour un-
is surelyan inevitablecomponentof SLA's evolu-
tion. We are, then,witnessto a naturalprogres- derstandingof interlanguage.This point is well made
byJenkins(2006a, 2006b).
sion, an intellectualevolution,if one will,where 4 The telementationalviewof communicationis the
successfulparadigmsevolve(and sometimesfrac- view promulgatedby,among others,Saussure (1922),
ture) throughboth supportand critique.If this adopted by Chomsky(1957) and, later,by mainstream
process is based on sound, creativescholarship, SLA practitioners. It underpinsSLA workin communi-
one thatleads to advances in knowledgeof the cationstrategies(see Firth& Wagner,1997). According
manyand variedwaysin whichL2s are learned, to Harris(1981), the telementationalviewis a fallacy;it
is a thesisabout the functionof language,namely,that
acquired, and used (in mutuallyreinforcing and
"linguisticknowledgeis essentiallya matterof knowing
enlighteningways),then surelySLA willbecome
whichwordsstandforwhichideas. Forwords,according
a more theoretically and methodologically robust
to thisview,are symbolsdevisedbyman fortransferring
and encompassingenterprise.Despite objections
thoughtsfromone mindto another.Speech is a formof
fromsome quarters,the boundaries of SLA are telementation"(p. 9).
ineluctablybeing redrawn,and fromthispartic- 5 This monolinguisticnotion,we argued (Firth& Wag-
ular viewpoint,the futureof SLA looks distinctly ner,1997), underpinsthe prevailingSLA viewthatsees
promising. languageusersas non-native speakerswho are (or ought
814 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

to be) aimingfora targetconsistingof the baseline lin- 13Space limitations

preclude a detailed description
guisticnormsof the nativespeaker (see, e.g., Konishi& of the socioculturalapproach; see, however,Lantolf
Tarone,2004). (2000); Lantolfand Appel (1994); Lantolfand Thorne
6 Those who supportedour arguments(in theirre- (2006); and Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000). Lantolf
sponse articles) were Hall (1997), Rampton (1997a), (2000) describeditsessenceas follows:"The mostfunda-
and Liddicoat (1997). mentalconceptofsocioculturaltheoryis thatthehuman
7 To be clearon howwestoodin relationto acquisition mindis mediated. In oppositionto the orthodoxviewof
and use,in Firthand Wagner(1997) we pressedtheneed mind,Vygotsky argued thatjust as humans do not act
foran SLA thatcan explain"howlanguageis used as itis directlyon the physicalworldbut rely,instead,on tools
beingacquiredthrough interaction, and used resourcefully, and labor activity, whichallowsus to change the world,
contingently, and contextually"(p. 296). and withit, the circumstancesunder whichwe live in
8 Kasper's (1997) viewswere prescient,but note that the world,we also use symbolictools [e.g., language],
in Firth and Wagner (1997) we refrainedfrom rec- or signs,to mediateand regulateour relationshipswith
ommendingthatCA become part of SLA, or thatCA- othersand withourselvesand thuschange thenatureof
methodologiesbe incorporatedintoSLA. theserelationships.... The taskofpsychology, in Vygot-
9 Classroomsare, of course,workplaces,thoughfor sky'sview,is to understandhow human social and men-
the sake of expositionwe shall maintainthe rudimen- tal activity is organized throughculturallyconstructed
tarydistinctionto differentiate classroomsfromother affairs"(p. 1).
social settingsin which some kind of occupational or 14We question the appropriatenessof Markee and
professionalactivity is takingplace. Kasper's (2004) characterizationof this CA-centered
10Thorne (2000) is representative of the viewsheld SLA workas sociocultural. The socioculturalapproach
broadlyby criticsof SLA who, like Firthand Wagner has alreadyestablisheditselfwithinSLA and is associ-
(1997), pressed the need for a reconceptualizedSLA ated withthe workof Lantolf(e.g., Lantolf,2000) and
along social (to this can be added historical) lines. others.Accordingto Hall (1997) and Lantolf (2000),
Thornewrote:"thedominantcore ofcurrenttheoriesof socioculturalSLA researchis principallyunderpinned
SLA are forthemostpartdefininga worldofa-historical, by Vygotskiantheories of mind and learning (e. g.
decontextualized,and disembodiedbrains.It is mybe- Vygotsky, 1978). CA,however,has itsrootsquitefirmly in
lief that such a theorydoes not fitthe evidence" (p. Garfinkeliansociologicaltheory(Garfinkel,1967; Her-
220). itage,1984).
11Atkinson(2002) pointed out thattwo prominent 15DeployingCA's microanalytic methodologyforthe
SLA researchers, Ellis (1997) and Crookes(1997), "seem analysisofL2 talk-in-interaction poses a numberofchal-
to have realized the reductionisminherentin [SLA lenges (which are too numerous and complex for us
research]" (note 11). Ellis (1997) wrote"SLA in gen- to reveal and discuss in this article; see Brouwer &
eral has paid littleattentionto the social context of Wagner,2004). It certainlyentails much more than
L2 acquisition, particularlywhere context is viewed familiarizingoneselfwith CA's terminologiesand ap-
non-deterministically (i.e., as somethinglearnerscon- plyingthem to L2 data materials.Arguablythe great-
structfor themselves).SLA has been essentiallya psy- est challenge for SLA researchersentails coming to
cholinguisticenterprise,dominated by the computa- termswithCA's ethnomethodologicalresearchagenda
tionalmetaphorofacquisition"(p. 87). Crookes (1997) (Firth,1995c; Garfinkel,1967; Heritage,1984), which
offeredsimilarsentiments:"thoughcognitivepsychol- is radicallydifferent frommainstreamSLA's cognitivist
ogywas to be preferred[in SLA] to its dominantpre- agenda (see Larsen-Freeman, 2004). The incorporation
decessor [behaviorism]because it was (purportedlyat of L2 data materialsinto a CA frameworkalso poses
least) about people (ratherthanrats),itwas a long time challenges for CA. To mention one of several exam-
beforeI began to understandthatit,like its predeces- ples: CA has untilrelatively recentlybeen restrictedto
sor, could be seen as a socioculturalconstruct...that the analysisof monolingual,firstlanguage (Li), inter-
reflectedat least to some extent the presuppositions actions,where,overwhelmingly, the analysthas relied
of the societiesin whichit developed. That was whyit upon his or her co-membershipin the interactants'
wasfundamentally an individualist psychology thattreats speech communityas a resourcein the explicationof
people as isolates"(p. 98). the talk-data.When faced withthe analysisof L2 talk,
12Long (1998), forexample,wrote:"Instead of dis- the analystcannot unproblematically assume linguistic
missingall pastworkas 'narrow'and 'flawed',and simply or culturalco-membership;the applicabilityof an im-
assertingthatSLA researchersshould thereforechange portantanalyticresourceis therebybroughtinto ques-
theirdata base to takenewelementsintoaccount,[crit- tion. For furtherinformationon this topic, see Firth
ics] shouldofferat leastsome evidencethat,e.g.,a richer (1996).
understandingof alternatesocial identitiesof people 16 Let us be clear,however, thattheopeningup ofSLA
currently treatedas 'learners',or a broaderviewof so- to noncognitivist theoriesand approachesto (language)
cial context,makes a difference,and a differencenot learningis notgoingto be a trouble-free process;see, for
just to the way this to thattinystretchof discourseis example, Kasper's (1997) viewthat"[a] noncognitivist
interpretable, but to our understandingof acquisition" disciplinethathas learningas itscentralresearchobject
(p. 92). is a contradictionin terms"(p. 310).
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner 815
17We referthe reader to Firth(1996) fora detailed Dewey,J. (1980). The need forsocial psychology. In J.
explication,but in brief,H's I see (line 5) is quite clearly A. Boydston(Ed.), JohnDewey:The middleworks,
a letitpass procedure.Such proceduresare utilizedin 1899-1924 (Vol. 10, pp. 53-63). Carbondale, IL:
interactionwhen the recipientof a turnlets the un- SouthernIllinoisUniversity. (Originalworkpub-
knownor unclearaction,wordor utterancepass on the lished 1916)
(commonsense) assumptionthatit will eitherbecome Doolittle, P. E. (1999). Constructivism and online
clear or redundantas talkprogresses. education. Retrieved 12 January, 2007 from
Virginia Tech Web site: http://edpsychserver.
ed.vt.edu/workshops/tohel999/tohe2.html
Doughty,C.J.,& Long, M. (Eds.). (2003). Thehandbook
REFERENCES
ofsecondlanguageacquisition.Oxford:Blackwell.
Dunn, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky's
Antaki,C., & Widdicombe,S. (Eds.). (1998). Identities zone of proximal development and Krashen's
in talk.London: Sage. i+l: Incommensurable constructs,incommen-
Atkinson,D. (2002). Towarda sociocognitiveapproach surable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-
to second language acquisition.ModernLanguage 442.
Journal,86, 525-545. Egbert, M. (2002). Der Reparatur-Mechanismus in
Baker,C., Emmison,M., & Firth,A. (2005). Calibrating deutschen und interkulturellen Gespriichen[The re-
forcompetencein callsfortechnicalassistance.In pairmechanismin Germanand intercultural con-
C. Baker,M. Emmison,& A. Firth(Eds.), Calling versation].UnpublishedHabilitationsschrift. Old-
forhelp:Languageand socialinteraction in telephone enburg,Germany:University of Oldenburg.
helplines(pp. 39-62). Amsterdam:Benjamins. Egbert,M., Niebecker,L., & Rezzara,S. (2004). Inside
Block,D. (1996). Not so fast:Some thoughtson theory firstand second language speakers'troublein un-
culling,relativism,acceptedfindingsand theheart derstanding.In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.),
and soul of SLA. AppliedLinguistics, 17, 63-83. Secondlanguageconversations (pp. 178-200). Lon-
Block, D. (2003). The social turnin SLA. Washington, don: Continuum.
DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy:An ed-
Block, D. (2007, March). ThinkingaboutSLL research: ucational perspective.Studiesin SecondLanguage
Conservatism, fighting, toolkits
and thinking outside Acquisition, 19, 69-92.
thebox. Paper presented at the School of Edu- Eskildsen,S. W. (in press). Constructinganother lan-
cation, Communicationand Language Sciences, guage: (Beyond) frequencyeffectsin second lan-
NewcastleUniversity, NewcastleUpon Tyne,UK. guage acquisition?To appear in AppliedLinguis-
Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language tics.
learning--Aneglectedsituation?Studiesin Second Eskildsen,S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2007). Are recurring
LanguageAcquisition, 7, 136-158. multi-wordexpressions really syntacticfreezes?
Brouwer,C. E. (2003). Wordsearchesin NNS-NS inter- Second language acquisition from the perspec-
action:Opportunitiesforlanguagelearning?Mod- tiveof usage-basedlinguistics.In M. Nenonen &
ernLanguageJournal,87, 534-45. S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and idioms1: Papers
Brouwer,C. E. (2004). On doing pronunciation.In R. fromtheFirstNardicConference on SyntacticFreezes,
Gardner&J. Wagner(Eds.), Secondlanguagecon- Joensuu,May 19-20, 2007. Studiesin Languages,
versations(pp. 93-113). London: Continuum. University of Joensuu,Vol 41. Joensuu:Joensuu
Brouwer,C. E., & Rasmussen-Hougaard, G. (2007). Con- University Press.
versation forsecondlanguagelearning.Manuscript Firth,A. (1990). 'Lingua franca'negotiations:Towards
submittedforpublication. an interactionalapproach. World Englishes,9, 69-
Brouwer,C. E., & Wagner,J. (2004). Developmental 80.
issuesin second language conversation. Journalof Firth,A. (1991). Discourseat work:Negotiating bytelex,
AppliedLinguistics, 1, 29-47. fax, and phone.Aalborg,Denmark: Unpublished
Carroll,D. (2000). Precisiontimingin novice-to-novice doctoraldissertation, AalborgUniversity.
L2 conversations.Issuesin AppliedLinguistics,11, Firth,A. (1995a). Negotiatingin the 'VirtualMarket-
67-110. place': Making sense of telenegotiating.In K.
Chomsky,N. (1957). Syntacticstructures. The Hague, Ehlich&J. Wagner(Eds.), Thediscourse ofbusiness
Netherlands:Mouton. negotiation. (pp. 127-149). Berlin,Germany:Mou-
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the nativespeaker in ton de Gruyter.
language teaching.TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185-209. Firth,A. (1995b). Talkingfora change: Negotiatingby
Cook,V. (Ed.). (2002). Portraits oftheL2 user.Clevedon, telephonein commoditytrading.In A. Firth(Ed.),
UK: MultilingualMatters. The discourse ofnegotiation:Studiesoflanguagesin
Crookes,G. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy:A so- theworkplace(pp. 183-222). Oxford: Pergamon
cioeducationalperspective.Studiesin SecondLan- Press.
guageAcquisition, 19, 93-116. Firth,A. (1995c). Accountsin negotiationdiscourse:A
Dewey,J. (1938). Experience and education.New York: single-caseanalysis.Journal ofPragmatics, 23, 199-
Macmillan. 226.
816 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

Firth,A. (1995d). Multiplemode,singleactivity: Telene- Hellermann,J. (2006). Classroominteractivepractices

gotiatingas a social accomplishment.In P. ten fordevelopingL2 literacy:A microethnographic
Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situatedorder:Talkand studyof twobeginningadult learnersof English.
otherembodied activities
(pp. 151-72). Washington, AppliedLinguistics, 27, 377-404.
DC: University ofAmericaPress. Heritage,J.(1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology.Cam-
Firth,A. (1996). The discursiveaccomplishmentof bridge:PolityPress.
normality:On conversationanalysisand 'lingua Hutchby,I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis.
franca' English.Journalof Pragmatics,26, 237- Cambridge:PolityPress.
259. Hutchins,E. (1995). Cognitionin thewild.Cambridge,
Firth,A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse,communi- MA: MIT Press.
cation,and (some) fundamentalconceptsin SLA Huth, T. (2006). Negotiatingstructureand culture:L2
research.ModernLanguageJournal,81, 285-300. learners'realizationoftargetlanguagepragmatics
Firth,A., & Wagner,J. (1998). SLA property:No tres- in complimentingbehavior.JournalofPragmatics,
passing!ModernLanguageJournal,82, 91-94. 38, 2025-2050.
Gardner,R.,& Wagner,J.(Eds.). (2004). Secondlanguage Hymes, D. (1974). Foundationsin sociolinguistics: An
conversations.London: Continuum. ethnographic approach.University Park: University
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studiesin ethnomethodology.Engle- of PennsylvaniaPress.
wood Cliffs, NJ:PrenticeHall. Jenkins, J. (2006a). Pointsofviewand blind spots:ELF
Gass,S. M. (1998). Apples and oranges:Or,whyapples and SLA. International JournalofAppliedLinguis-
are notorangesand don't need to be. ModernLan- tics,16, 137-162.
guageJournal,82, 83-90. Jenkins,J. (2006b). Currentperspectiveson teaching
Gass, S. M. (2004). Conversationanalysisand input- world Englishesand English as a lingua franca.
interaction.ModernLanguageJournal,88, 597- TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157-181.
602. Kant,E. (1946). Critiqueofpurereason(J.M. D. Meikle-
Goodwin,C., & Heritage,J.(1990). Conversationanaly- john, Trans.). New York:Dutton. (Original work
sis.AnnualReviewofAnthropology, 19, 283-207. published 1781)
Gumperz,J.J. (1982). Discoursestrategies. Cambridge: Kasper,G. (1997). A standsforacquisition:A response
CambridgeUniversity Press. toFirthand Wagner.ModernLanguageJournal,81,
Gumperz,J.J., & Hymes,D. (Eds.). (1972). Directions 307-312.
in sociolinguistics.
New York:Holt, Rinehart,and Kasper,G. (2004). Participantorientationsin German
Winston. conversation-for-learning. ModernLanguageJour-
Hall,J. K. (1997). A considerationof SLA as a theoryof nal, 88, 551-567.
practice.A responseto Firthand Wagner.Modern Konishi,K., & Tarone,E. (2004). Englishconstructions
LanguageJournal,81, 301-306. used in compensatorystrategies:Baseline data for
Hall,J. K. (2002). Teachingand researching languageand communicativeEFL instruction. In D. Boxer & A.
culture.London: Pearson Education. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speakingtoinform second
Hall,J.K. (2004). Language learningas an interactional languagelearning(pp. 174-198). Clevedon, UK:
achievement.ModernLanguageJournal,88, 607- MultilingualMatters.
612. Koshik, I. (2005). Beyondrhetorical questions:Assertive
Hall,J.K. (2006,June).On themutually constitutivenature questions in everydayinteraction.
Amsterdam:John
oflanguageteaching and learning.Paper presented Benjamins.
at the SummerSchool 2006 in Odense, Denmark. Kramsch,C. (1993). Context and culturein languageteach-
Hall,J.K. (2007). Redressingtherolesofcorrectionand ing. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
repairin researchon second and foreignlanguage Kramsch,C. (Ed.). (2002). Languageacquisitionand lan-
learning.ModernLanguageJournal,91, 511-526 guagesocialization: London:
Ecologicalperspectives.
Hall,J.K., & Verplaetse,L. S. (Eds.). (2000). Secondand Continuum.
foreignlanguagelearningthrough classroom interac- Kramsch,C. (2006). The multilingualsubject.Interna-
tion.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. tionalJournalofAppliedLinguistics, 16, 99-110.
Hall, J. K., Vitanova, G., & Marchenova, L. (Eds.). Kurhila,S. (2006). Secondlanguageinteraction. Amster-
(2004). Dialogue withBakhtinon secondand for- dam:JohnBenjamins.
eignlanguagelearning:Newperspectives. Mahwah, Lantolf,J. P. (1996). SLA theorybuilding:Lettingall the
NJ:Erlbaum. flowersbloom! LanguageLearning,46, 713-749.
Halliday,M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in thefunctionsof Lantolf,J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Socioculturaltheory and sec-
language.London: EdwardArnold. ond languagelearning.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Han, Z. (2003). Fossilization in adultsecondlanguageac- Press.
quisition.Clevedon,UK: MultilingualMatters. Lantolf,J.P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygostkian ap-
Harris,R. (1981). The languagemyth.London: Duck- proachesto secondlanguageacquisition.Norwood,
worth. NJ:Ablex.
He, A. W. (2004). CA forSLA: ArgumentsfromtheChi- Lantolf,J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural the-
nese language classroom.ModernLanguageJour- oryand thegenesisofsecondlanguagedevelopment.
nal, 88, 568-582. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner 817

Larsen-Freeman,D. (1983). The importanceof input plishmentin the French second language class-
in second language acquisition.In R. Andersen room. ModernLanguageJournal,88, 501-518.
(Ed.), Pidginizationand creolization as language Mori,J.(2004a). Negotiatingsequentialboundariesand
acquisition(pp. 87-93). Rowley,MA: Newbury learning opportunities:A case froma Japanese
House. languageclassroom.ModernLanguageJournal,88,
Larsen-Freeman,D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science 536-550.
and second language acquisition.AppliedLinguis- Mori,J. (2004b). Pursuitof understanding:Rethinking
tics,18, 141-165. 'negotiationof meaning' in viewof projectedac-
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: tion.In R. Gardner&J.Wagner(Eds.), Secondlan-
Fromgrammarto grammaring.Boston: Heinle/ guageconversations (pp. 157-177). London: Con-
Thomson. tinuum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). CA forSLA? It all depends. Nguyen,H. (2003). The development of communication
ModernLanguageJournal,88, 603-607. skillsin thepracticeofpatientconsultations among
Larsen-Freeman,D. (2007). On the complementarity pharmacy students. Unpublisheddoctoraldisserta-
of chaos/complexity theoryand dynamicsystems tion,University ofWisconsin,Madison.
theoryin understandingthe second language ac- Ohta, A. (2001). Secondlanguageacquisitionprocesses in
quisitionprocess.Bilingualism:Languageand cog- theclassroom. Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
nition,10, 35-37. Ortega, L. (2005). Methodology,epistemology,and
Lave, J., & Wenger,E. (1991). Situatedlearning:Le- ethics in instructedSLA research:An introduc-
gitimate peripheralparticipation.Cambridge:Cam- tion.ModernLanguageJournal,89, 317-327.
bridgeUniversity Press. Pavlenko,A. (2002). Poststructuralist approachesto the
Lazaraton,A. (2002). A qualitativeapproachtothevalida- study of social factors in second language learn-
tionoforal languagetests.Cambridge:Cambridge ing and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), PortraitsoftheL2
University Press. user (pp. 257-302). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Lazaraton,A. (2004). Gestureand speech in thevocab- Matters.
ularyexplanationsof one ESL teacher:A micro- Pavlenko,A., & Lantolf,J. P. (2000). Second language
analyticinquiry.LanguageLearning,54, 79-117. learningas participationand the (re)construction
Liddicoat,A. (1997). Interaction,social structure, and of selves.InJ. P. Lantolf(Ed.), Sociocultural theory
second language use. ModernLanguageJournal, and secondlanguagelearning(pp. 155-177). Ox-
81, 313-317. ford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Lilja, N. (2006, November). Languagelearningopportu- Poulisse,N. (1997). Some wordsin defenseof the psy-
nitiesin everyday conversation.Paper presentedat cholinguisticapproach: A response to Firthand
the 2006 AFinLAconference, Jyviiskyla,Finland. Wagner.ModernLanguageJournal,81, 324-328.
Long, M. H. (1993). AssessmentstrategiesforSLA the- Rampton,B. (1987). Stylistic and notspeaking
variability
ories.AppliedLinguistics, 14, 225-249. normal English: Some post-labovianapproaches
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguisticenvi- and theirimplicationsfor the studyof interlan-
ronmentin second language acquisition.In W. guage. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Secondlanguageacquisition
C. Ritchie& T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbookofsec- in context (pp. 47-58). London: PrenticeHall.
ondlanguageacquisition(pp. 413-468). San Diego, Rampton,B. (1995). Crossing. London: Longman.
CA: AcademicPress. Rampton,B. (1997a). Second language researchin late
Long, M. H. (1997). Constructvalidityin SLA research. modernity: A responseto Firthand Wagner.Mod-
ModernLanguageJournal,81, 318-323. ernLanguageJournal,81, 329-333.
Long, M. H. (1998). SLA: Breakingthe siege. University Rampton,B. (1997b). A sociolinguisticperspectiveon
ofHawai'i Working Papersin ESL, 12, 79-129. L2 communicationstrategies.In E. Kellerman&
Lyotard,J. F. (1979). La condition postmoderne: Rapport G. Kasper (Eds.), Advancesin research on commu-
surlesavoir(The post-modern condition:A report nicationstrategies (pp. 279-303). Oxford:Oxford
on knowledge).Paris:Minuit. University Press.
Markee,N. (2000). Conversation analysis.Mahwah,NJ: Rasmussen,G., & Wagner,J. (2002). Language choice
Erlbaum. in internationaltelephoneconversations.In K. K.
Markee,N., & Kasper,G. (2004). Classroomtalks:An Luke & T.-S. Pavlidou (Eds.), Telephone calls (pp.
introduction.ModernLanguageJournal,88, 491- 111-131). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
500. Richards,K., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.). (2004). Applying
Mehan, H. (1979). Language lessons.Cambridge,MA: conversation analysis.London: Palgrave Macmil-
HarvardUniversity Press. lan.
Mondada, L. (2006, June). Contingent opportunities
for Sacks, H. (1992). Lectureson conversation (Vols.1 & 2).
learning:Sequentialorganizationof participation Oxford:Blackwell.
changes(somethoughts about CA's contributions to Sacks, H., Schegloff,E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A
thestudyoflearning).Paper presentedat the Sum- simplestsystematics forthe organizationof turn-
mer School 2006 in Odense, Denmark. takingforconversation.Language,50, 696--735.
Mondada, L., & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2004). Second lan- Saussure,F. de (1922). Coursde linguistique gindrale(A
guage acquisitionas situatedpractice:Taskaccom- course in generallinguistics).Paris:Payot.
818 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

Schegloff,E. A. (2000). When 'others' initiaterepair. structivism in education(pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ:
AppliedLinguistics, 21, 205-243. Erlbaum.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). Theinteractional architectureofthe Vygotsky,L. S. (1978). Mind and society:Thedevelopment
languageclassroom: A conversation analysisperspec- ofhigher mental Cambridge,MA: Harvard
processes.
tive.Oxford:Blackwell. University Press.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversationanalysisand lan- Wagner,J. (1995a). Negotiatingactivityin technical
guage learning.LanguageTeaching,38, 165-187. problem solving.In A. Firth (Ed.), The discourse
Seeley,A.,& Carter,B. (2004). Appliedlinguisticsas social ofnegotiation. Studiesof languagein theworkplace
science.London: Continuum. (pp. 223-246). Oxford:Pergamon.
Seidlhofer,B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The Wagner,J. (1995b). Whatmakesa discoursea negotia-
case fora descriptionofEnglishas a linguafranca. tion?In K. Ehlich&J.Wagner(Eds.), Thediscourse
InternationalJournal ofApplied Linguistics,11,133- ofbusinessnegotiation (pp. 9-36). Berlin,Germany:
158. Mouton de Gruyter.
Seidlhofer,B. (2004). Research perspectiveson teach- Wagner,J. (1996). Language acquisition throughfor-
ing Englishas a lingua franca.Annual Reviewof eign language interaction--Acriticalreviewof
AppliedLinguistics, 24, 209-239. studieson second language acquisition.Journalof
Svennevig,J. (2003). Echo answersin native/non-native Pragmatics, 23, 215-235.
interaction.Pragmatics, 13, 285-309. Wagner,J. (1998). On doing being a guinea pig-A
Svennevig,J. (2004). Other-repetition as displayofhear- responseto Seedhouse. JournalofPragmatics, 30,
ing, understandingand emotional stance. Dis- 103-113.
courseStudies,6, 489-516. Wagner,J. (2004). The classroomand beyond. Modern
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis.Thou- LanguageJournal,88, 612-616.
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wagner,J., & Firth,A. (1997). Communicationstrate-
Theod6rsd6ttir, G. (2007,April).Insisting onyourturn-- gies at work. In E. Kellerman & G. Kasper
Secondlanguagelearner's struggleforturncompletion. (Eds.), Advancesin research oncommunication strate-
Paper presentedat the 17th InternationalCon- gies (pp. 323-344). Oxford: Oxford University
ferenceon Pragmaticsand Language Learning, Press.
Honolulu, HI. Wagner,J., & Gardner,R. (2004). Introduction.In R.
Thorne,S. L. (2000). Second language acquisitionthe- Gardner&J. Wagner (Eds.), Secondlanguagecon-
oryand some truth(s)about relativity. In J. Lan- versations (pp. 1-17). London: Continuum.
tolf(Ed.), Sociocultural theoryand secondlanguage Wagner,J.,& Pekarek-Doehler,S. (2006, May). Progres-
learning(pp. 219-243). Oxford:Oxford Univer- sive bricolageof turnconstructional unitsin second
sityPress. languagetalk.Paper presentedat theInternational
van Lier, L. (1994). Forksand hope: Pursuingunder- Conference on ConversationAnalysis,ICCA06,
standingin different ways.AppliedLinguistics, 15, Helsinki,Finland.
328-346. Wenger,E. (1998). Communities ofpractice.Cambridge:
Volosinov,V. N. (1973). Marxismand thephilosophy of CambridgeUniversity Press.
language.NewYork:SeminalPress.(Translatedby Wertsch,J. V. (1991). Voicesofthemind.Hemel Hemp-
LadislavMatejkaand I. R. Titunik.Originalwork stead,UK: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
in Russianpublishedin 1930). Wong,J. (2000a). Delayed nextturnrepairinitiationin
von Glasersfeld,E. (1984). An introductionto radical native/non-native speaker English conversation.
constructivism.In P.Watzlawick(Ed.), Theinvented AppliedLinguistics, 21, 244-267.
reality
(pp. 17-40). NewYork:Norton. Wong,J. (2000b). Repetitionin conversation:A look
von Glasersfeld,E. (1995). A constructivist approach at 'firstand second sayings'.Researchon Language
to teaching.In L. P. Steffe& J. Gale (Eds.), Con- and SocialInteraction, 33, 407-424.
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner 819

APPENDIX
Transcript Conventions

[] Leftand rightbracketsindicatebeginningand end of overlap.

(0.0) Numbersin parenthesesindicatesilencebytenthsofseconds.
(.) Micropause.
Colons indicateprolongationof the immediatelypriorsound. The longer the colon row,the longer the
prolongation.
Arrowsindicateshiftsintoespeciallyhigh or low pitch.
f1" Punctuationmarkersare used to indicateintonation:
.,?8
,level intonation
; slightlyfallingintonation
fallingintonation to low
&
slightlyrisingintonation
? risingintonationto high
WORD Upper case indicatesespeciallyloud sounds relativeto the surroundingtalk.
a sound, word,phrase,and so on, indicateespeciallysoftsounds relativeto the
oword? Degree signsbracketing
surrounding talk.
-hhh A raiseddot-prefixed rowof h's indicatesan inbreath.Withoutthe dot,the h's indicatean outbreath.
word Underliningindicatesstressedsyllables
xxx unintelligiblespeech
- latchingbetweenturnsor partsof turns
*
creakyvoice