Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2014), 34, 171–212.
© Cambridge University Press, 2014, 0267-1905/14 $16.00
doi: 10.1017/S0267190514000014
Conversation Analysis in Applied Linguistics
Gabriele Kasper and Johannes Wagner
For the last decade, conversation analysis (CA) has increasingly contributed to
several established fields in applied linguistics. In this article, we will discuss
its methodological contributions. The article distinguishes between basic and
applied CA. Basic CA is a sociological endeavor concerned with understanding
fundamental issues of talk in action and of intersubjectivity in human conduct.
The field has expanded its scope from the analysis of talk—often phone calls—
towards an integration of language with other semiotic resources for embodied
action, including space and objects. Much of this expansion has been driven by
applied work.
After laying out CA’s standard practices of data treatment and analysis, this
article takes up the role of comparison as a fundamental analytical strategy
and reviews recent developments into cross-linguistic and cross-cultural directions.
The remaining article focuses on applied CA, the application of basic CA’s
principles, methods, and findings to the study of social domains and practices
that are interactionally constituted. We consider three strands—foundational,
social problem oriented, and institutional applied CA—before turning to recent
developments in CA research on learning and development. In conclusion, we
address some emerging themes in the relationship of CA and applied linguistics,
including the role of multilingualism, standard social science methods as
research objects, CA’s potential for direct social intervention, and increasing
efforts to complement CA with quantitative analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Conversation analysis (CA) has become a powerful methodology for studying
social interaction and its sequential organization in the social sciences and
beyond, including sociology, anthropology, linguistics, communication, information,
and computer sciences, as well as in applied linguistics. Over five
decades of interactional research, the discoveries of the classical studies have
been confirmed time and again. Their robustness is unusual in the social sciences
and bears witness to the quality of CA’s rigorous methodology. The
perseverance of its foundational studies has enabled the field to develop a
171
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
172 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
cumulative body of results that serves as an analytical resource to describe the
lived social order. Over the years, its scope has broadened considerably with
respect to
r Language. CA is now a well-established method of analysis for a large
number of languages, including interlanguages. Many studies of second
language use and acquisition have emerged in the last decade (Gardner
& Wagner, 2004; Hall, Hellermann, & Pekarek-Doehler, 2011; Nguyen &
Kasper, 2009; Pallotti & Wagner, 2011). Likewise, studies of child interactions
(Gardner & Forrester, 2010; Kidwell, 2013) and of speakers with
speech impairments (Antaki & Wilkinson, 2013) are becoming more frequent.
Methodologically, this expansion of CA’s object of study raises issues
of comparison and comparability (Sidnell, 2010), which we will discuss
in section 3.
r Modality. Contemporary CA makes increasingly use of video recordings
to expand the analysis of talk to embodied actions, participants’ mobility,
spatial arrangements, and the role of the material environment
(Goodwin, 1981; Heath, Hindmarsh, & Luff, 2010; Streeck, Goodwin, &
LeBaron, 2011). Methodologically, the study of multimodality in interaction
raises issues of transcription and coding, which will be explored in
section 4.
r Social structure and psychological matters. While CA’s object remains the
organization of interaction as a social order sui generis, a growing body
of research investigates dimensions of social context that standard sociology
regards as interaction-external and matters of knowledge, cognition,
and emotion that standard psychology considers as internal to individual
minds. With respect to methodology, CA rejects causal or correlational
models that treat social context and psychological matters as independent
variables and interaction as the dependent variable. Instead, research interest
focuses on the interactional methods through which participants make
social context relevant (Heritage & Clayman, 2010) and manage cognition
(te Molder & Potter, 2005), epistemics (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b; Stivers,
Mondada, & Steensig, 2011), and emotion (Per¨akyl¨a & Sorjonen, 2012)
as their local and situated concerns. These topics will be discussed in
section 5.
BASICS OF CA
In this section we will introduce CA’s methodological program. As in any proper
CA contribution, we will base our argument on a recording of an interaction.
Extract 1 is a transcription of a call to a movie theatre in which the caller
inquires about the evening’s program. The call was taped in the early 1970s and
transcribed by Gail Jefferson. We have inserted a translation into normal orthography
below the Jeffersonian transcription lines. For transcript conventions,
see Appendix 1.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 173
Extract 1. American Elephant, transcription by Gail Jefferson
1 DES: Crescent theeyater may I help you? =
Crescent Theatre. May I help you?
2 CL: = Yes what i:s playing tuhni:ght?
Yes. What is playing tonight?
3 (0.4)
4 DES: Uh:: wur: showing uh The Afric´n Elephint? a:n’
5 American °mwuluh°diniss:.
We are showing The African Elephant and
American Wilderness.
6 (0.3)
7 CL: An’ ih- merican what?
An American what?
8 (0.9)
9 DES: American Elephint h (.) The AA:frican E lephent ,
American Elephant. The African Elephant
10 ehh heh heh ࢫhhh
11 (0.2)
12 DES: Oh boy,
13 CL: e h hih hnh
14 DES: And The A(h) m(h)er(.)ic(h)’n Wildernis s.
and the American wilderness
15 CL: ·huhh:::
16 CL: Thank you very much.
17 DES: Mhh hhm y(h)er ↓we:l cuh
You are welcome
18 CL: ·h °uhh°
The Sequentiality of Actions
CA’s central interest is to describe and explain how participants achieve the
organization of social action step by step in real time. Most seminal studies
in first-generation CA (Lerner, 2004) built on telephone conversations, which
allowed a sharp focus on the practices used for turn-taking and turn design.
r The call taker starts her turn in line 1 by self-identifying as a business,
not as a person. DES does not wait for a caller identification (which is
done in private calls), but proceeds immediately to offer her service. A
contingent response by the caller is a response to this offer and not, for
example, to self-identify in response to DES’s self-identification. Of course,
the next speaker is not bound to produce a contingent utterance. But if a
next speaker produces a noncontingent utterance, this is regularly done in
a recognizable and accountable way (e.g., saying “Hi mom” and redressing
the call as private).
By designing the two first turn-constructional units in the way she does,
DES sets the agenda for the talk (business), sets the type of relation that is
expected (not personal), and creates the contingency for the next action.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
174 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
r The second turn in line 2 latches on to line 1. This is marked in the transcription
by equal signs at the end of line 1 and the beginning of line 2. Latching
means that the next turn is not produced after one beat of silence (which
is what speakers usually do) but starts precisely after DES has stopped
talking. To be able to do this, the caller must project what DES is going to
say and when her talk will end. Otherwise, we would either hear a delay or
an overlap.
Note that the caller first acknowledges the question format in which the
service has been offered (“yes”). Then the caller states her business, asking
for the evening’s movie program. At this point, the turn is given back to
DES, and the delivery of information will be the next expected action.
The sequential structure of talk has a strong impact on sense-making. But
how does a participant know what sense has been made? CA solves this
issue by taking the viewpoint of the participants. How a previous turn has
been understood becomes available in the next turn. Participants show
their understanding of previous turns and actions in the way the next
action is packaged. CA refers to this as “next turn proof procedure,” a core
resource for the participants and equally for the analyst.
r In turn 3 (lines 4 and 5) DES delivers the requested information after a
short delay and a lengthened speech perturbation uh::, which can be heard
as the speaker having started on the response action but being presently
unable to proceed with it. The turn proper is formatted in two parts, such
that the first part is produced with rising intonation (indicated in the transcription
by the question mark) and the second part with falling intonation
(indicated by a full stop at the end of line 5). This format is a variety of what
Jefferson (1990) identified as a “list,” the common format for enumerations.
Frequently, lists have three parts, of which the first two are produced with
rising intonation and the last with falling intonation, which marks the end
of the list. If DES had produced the second list part with rising intonation,
a third part would have been expected.
A list is a prosodic practice for enumerations. CA is interested in a robust
description of practices that participants use in regular ways in any interaction
and that are expected to be recognized as what they are by other
speakers. Interactions proceed by speakers deploying practices that are
tailored (recipient-designed) for specific other participants, allowing them
to make sense of the ongoing action and project the ongoing turn’s further
course. In line 5, the caller could take the falling intonation of the list as
indication that this is what is “playing tonight” and that DES had delivered
the information that the caller had asked for. In this case, however, the
speech delivery by DES has consequences for what comes next.
Repairing Trouble in the Talk
Although the design of a turn and the sequential environment in which it appears
narrow down possible meanings, understanding (intersubjectivity) can still fail.
Participants have systematic procedures at their command to repair intersubjectivity.
In line 7, the caller formulates precisely where her understanding has
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 175
2 CL QuesƟon
4+5 DES Answer
7 CL Other-IniƟaƟon of Repair
9 DES Repaired answer Self-iniƟated repair
10 CL Laughter iniƟaƟon
12 DES Self-comment
13 CL Laughter
14 DES Repaired answer with laughter parƟcles
15 CL Laughter response
16 CL Next acƟon
Fig. 1. Development of the repair sequence
faltered An’ ih- merican what? She repeats DES’s previous utterance (line
5) up to the word she did not understand. With this turn format, the caller puts
it to DES to repair.
Line 9 shows the repair proper, followed by the current speaker’s self-repair.
Both repair initiations in lines 7 and 9 are slightly delayed, which CA has shown
to be common. The preference for self-repair is indicated by a delay between a
trouble source and a repair initiation to give the current speaker a possibility to
repair him- or herself.
Sequentially, DES’s answer in lines 4 and 5 is challenged by CL’s repair initiative.
The repair proper is then self-repaired in line 9, followed by laughter.
DES reestablishes the main business of the talk by finishing the repaired version
of the answer in line 14, after which the caller can do a next action or end the
business. Structurally, the sequence looks like the diagram in Figure 1.
Repair activities establish side sequences through which a new version of the
preceding action is established.
Figure 1 also shows the architecture of laughter that Jefferson described in
several publications (Jefferson, 1979, 1984, 1985; Jefferson, Sacks, & Schegloff,
1987). Jefferson has shown that certain forms of laughter are built as laughing
with each other, while laughter in relation to troubles telling is not responded
to by the other participants.
The caller starts laughing exactly at the point where DES has repaired the
trouble source.
9 DES: American Elephint h (.) The AA:frican E lephent ,
10 CL: ehh heh heh ࢫhhh
Note that DES’s first repair uses the format that CL produced in her repair initiation
(An’ ih- merican what? — American Elephint). DES’s following
self-repair ties back to the format of her answer in line 4 by starting the unit
with the definite article. She thereby reestablishes what she is going to say as
a repaired version of what she had said in lines 4 and 5. Caller’s laughter is
responded to in line 14 by DES producing laughter particles in her answer.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
176 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
Analytic Practices in CA Research
In the preceding section we have illustrated the main topics in basic CA (Sidnell,
2013)—turn-taking, turn design, sequence organization, repair, and preference
structure. Preference structure is a technical term that refers to the
next actions, for example, responses to a previous utterance. Preferred utterances
align with the project established by the immediately preceding turn
(such as accepting a request, offer, or invitation) and are (in the case of actions
with polar question format) type conforming (Raymond, 2003). They are
normally produced without delay, whereas dispreferred second actions are
delayed and mitigated (Heinemann, Landgrebe, & Matthews, 2012; Schegloff,
2007).
CA’s program is to understand order in talk as brought about by the participants
as a situated accomplishment. Participants use generic methods for
organizing turn production and turn allocation and to secure intersubjectivity
through repair procedures. The research procedure follows several well-defined
methodological steps:
r CA collects naturally occurring data, that is, data in which participants do
whatever consequential business they do. The price for studying the living
social order in situ is low standardization and comparability on the level
of the interaction. However, CA is very concerned about standards and
comparability on the level of social practices (see section 3).
r Collected data are transcribed according to notation rules, which have
become increasingly detailed in order to support an expanding range of
analytic projects (see section 4).
r Data analysis typically starts in data sessions (Antaki, Biazzi, Nissen, &
Wagner, 2008; Bushnell, 2012) where data segments are discussed in great
detail after viewing and listening to them repeatedly. Typically, data segments
are broken down into actions, and close attention is given to how
actions are packaged and turns designed. Data sessions serve to search
for new phenomena (Schegloff, 1996) or for instances in which well-known
phenomena are used in a specific (e.g., institutional) environment. This is
often referred to as unmotivated looking.
r Following a data session, the researcher will build up a collection of comparable
instances and develop a precise description of the phenomenon. In
order to achieve analytic generalization (ten Have, 2007, pp. 149–151), collections
need to draw on a variety of data. The size of the collections varies
depending on the frequency of particular actions or practices in available
corpora. In recent years, CA has achieved more solid data support, especially
in specific fields such as health care. This allows researchers to use
statistical methods in the descriptions of more frequent interactional phenomena.
Deviant cases that run against what has been described generate
special interest for the understanding of the phenomenon and may lead to
radical changes of the description.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 177
CA TRANSCRIPTIONS: FEATURES OF TURN DELIVERY
In many social sciences, transcription of data is common. Most often, researchers
are interested in what is said in the interview or in the focus
group interaction. CA transcriptions are principally different since they are
equally concerned with how something is said (Hepburn & Bolden, 2013; Jenks,
2011).
CA transcribers annotate interactional details of turn delivery and turn reception
in the transcription, which is the basis for working systematically with
these interactional details. As we will show in this section, transcriptions have
evolved from capturing details of speech delivery to relating speech delivery
to embodied features and features in the environment. From describing “talk
in interaction” (Psathas, 1994), CA has moved to analyze interaction in its ecological
situatedness. Transcripts should be seen as consistent field notes of
interactional features.
Features of speech delivery have been mentioned several times in the previous
discussion. A comparison of Jefferson’s transcription in Extract 1 and the
added orthographic version shows a range of features of speech delivery that
are not represented in standard orthography, for instance, lengthening, latching,
pitch, loudness, intonation contours, cutoffs, sublexical elements such as uh or
uhm, and laughter tokens.
In her last article, Jefferson described her work procedure in detail. She took
her point of departure in a transcription of a therapy session produced by Harvey
Sacks. Here is a segment of Sacks’s transcript and Jefferson’s commentary.
Sacks GTS Transcript Fall, 1965
((The members of the group are talking about each other to a newcomer))
1 Henry He used to walk out on us, he thought he was above us.
2 Mel Yea. But now I’m now I’m below you.
3 Henry Yeah. I corrected I corrected that quality. I gave him
4 → an inferiority complex. ha.
5 Mel And I got him to shave.
6 Joe → hehh.
7 Henry Yeah. I’m not grubby or nothin
8 Bob → No. hehh
9 Joe → hah. Hey this is the academic counselling center. It’s
10 called the family, family circle.
11 Henry It’s not really an academic counselling center; it’s
12 → sort of a drive in nut house. ha ha.
Now, one of Sacks’ themes was a notion of “interactional machinery”;
of assembling complex activities out of “standardized parts” (Sacks,
1995, vol. I, lecture 5:159). And he offered an image, that of a “culture
as a warehouse” (Sacks, 1995, vol. I, lecture 21:425) where, then, to
assemble this or that interactional machine, one would go through the
warehouse picking up the various parts one needed.
As it happens, laughter was not something Sacks spoke of as one of
those assembled machines. So, e.g., the reference to the ‘machinery’
occurs in a discussion of such ‘tying rules’ as ‘lister terms’ (“first of all,”
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
178 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
“secondly,” etc.). The ‘warehouse’ reference occurs in a consideration
of the systematic ways in which ‘discussion’ can lead to ‘argument.’ And
he certainly never spoke about how or why he transcribed laughter as
he did; it was just something he did. But when I saw his transcripts, there
it was: The laughter machine! Especially in that “ha”+ “ha”+ period (line
12 above).
What an image! Moving through the warehouse, picking up a “heh”
here, a “ha” there. That transcript did it for me! Thereafter, in my own
transcripts, I sought to capture the various ‘parts’ out of which some
actually-occurring spate of laughter had been assembled. (Jefferson,
2010, p. 1477)
Jefferson has shown in her own work how detailed transcripts allow the
understanding of specific interactional practices: Detailed transcription makes
available how the architecture of laughter is built by the co-participants in producing,
monitoring, and coordinating the production of laughter tokens element
by element.
The main role of detailed transcription is to make features noticeable.
The level of granularity at which noticing is done matters not only for
the social actors being studied, but for us as investigators as well; so
too at what level the observed or noticed world is being described. . . .
Knowing how granularity works matters then not just substantively, but
methodologically. (Schegloff, 2000, p. 719)
For CA research, transcriptions are obviously not what is studied. Transcriptions
are coding and noting devices to access information about the recordings.
The critical stance to the “objectivity” of transcriptions taken by Ochs (1979)
and Bucholtz (2000, 2007, 2009) is shared by CA practitioners who would argue
that the availability of the recording at least partly balances the choices made
in the setup of the transcription. A number of tools have been developed to
allow the researcher to listen to and view the recordings at any time. Modern
electronic transcription (MacWhinney & Wagner, 2010) editors, such as CLAN,
ELAN, EXMARaLDA, and Transana, link segments of the transcription to the corresponding
segments of the audio and/or videofile. By clicking on the transcript,
the data file will be played.
The main development in recent years has to do with how mobility and
embodiment are related to the transcript. The complexity of fully embodied
interactions is so great that not everything can be added to the transcription
without compromising the transcript’s value as research tool, but no standard
solution has been reached at this point.
Goodwin and Goodwin (2012) have illustrated seating and movement as part
of the transcription for many years. In the example below, interaction in a car
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 179
Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C., “Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes”;
in: Semiotica, vol. 191, 2012, pp. 257–286.
is transcribed with references to the seating order in the car, video frames, and
transcriber comments.
More detailed is Nevile (2012), who uses the transcript of the talk as the
backbone for showing visual frames and comments. In the following example
we see comments to the transcription, relations between the picture and the
transcriptions, and stylized movements represented by arrows in the picture
(p. 187).
Laurier’s (2013, p. 219) solution follows conventions known from graphic
novels and comics. The protagonists’ talk is in a bubble, and the transcriber
comments are in the corners of the pictures. Not all the details of speech delivery,
for example, pauses, gaps and, overlaps—as known from the Jefferson
tradition—can be shown in this format.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
180 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
Nevile, M., “Interaction as distraction in driving: A body of evidence”; in: Semiotica, vol.
191, 2012, pp. 169–196.
Laurier, E., “Before, in and after: Cars making their way through roundabouts”; in P.
Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Interaction and mobility. Berlin, Germany:
DeGruyter, 2013, pp. 210–242.
COMPARISON IN CA
As suggested in the previous section, comparison is a fundamental analytical
strategy in CA, as it is in other sciences. Comparing and contrasting objects allow
us to establish patterns, regularities, or rules and to find out which patterns are
stable and which are more sensitive to local particulars. Through comparing
individual instances, the structure of the object becomes increasingly sharper,
so that it is possible to determine which cases are members of a more distinctly
defined collection and which are not, and to identify subcategories of
the phenomenon. Deviant cases—instances that cannot be subsumed under the
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 181
proposed regularity—are compared to the good exemplars of the provisional
pattern to probe whether the tentative account can be confirmed or needs to
be expanded or revised. The analytical strategy bears similarities to theoretical
sampling, analytic induction, and the constant comparative method in grounded
theory (for a recent update, see Charmaz, 2014; for application to CA, see ten
Have, 2007).
Comparison in CA is distinctive in that objects are considered in their sequential
contexts, that is, in their position in a turn, sequence, or larger activity.
An example from basic CA will serve as illustration. The response particle oh,
either as free-standing or followed by other turn components, works as a generic
practice to mark the speaker’s change of epistemic state (Heritage, 1984). When
preceding responses to questions, oh casts the question as inapposite (Heritage,
1998), while in responses to assessments, oh indexes the speaker’s independent
epistemic access to the matter that is being evaluated (Heritage, 2002). The practice
of oh as an epistemic stance marker gains further analytical contour when
compared with response tokens that are used in the same sequential position but
do different interactional work, such as Yeah and Mm, which register acknowledgment
of the prior turn (Gardner, 2001), or Right, which marks an epistemic
dependency between two chunks of information (Gardner, 2007). Comparison of
the phonetic shapes of oh in the interactional contexts described above shows
that the practices of oh as a cognitive and epistemic state marker (Heritage, 2005)
are associated with distinct segmental and prosodic configurations. In contrast,
when signaling that the received information is unexpected, oh receipts occur
in different local contexts and have a different prosodic format. Local (1996)
observed that when working as a marker of surprise, oh is formatted with high,
wide-range, rising-falling pitch and prefaces an explicit formulation of how the
received information was unexpected. Wilkinson and Kitzinger (2006) showed
how displays of surprise with oh and other tokens are set up through prior talk.
Comparative analysis of linguistic forms in their positions in sequences and
turn structure, and of their phonetic shapes in these environments, reveals the
kind of interactional work that such resources do to accomplish actions and
stances—in other words, how they work as social practices.
Several current lines of research exemplify CA’s trademark spin on comparative
analysis. In the study of action formation in first-pair parts, comparison
of morphosyntactic request formats in personal telephone calls and calls
to physicians shows that the distribution of the forms Can/Could you and I
wonder if displays speakers’ orientation to entitlements and contingencies for
granting the request (Curl & Drew, 2008). Research on social epistemics (e.g.,
Stivers et al., 2011) has drawn attention to the epistemic stances embodied
in alternative formats of polar questions and their implications for sequence
development. Questions (aside from display or known answer questions) construct
the recipient as knowing and the questioner as not knowing regarding
the matter addressed in the question. But questions with different syntactic
formats construct the epistemic gap as wider or narrower and project different
types of uptake. The unknowing stance indexed with interrogative syntax (do
you smoke?) projects an elaborated response and possible sequence expansion,
whereas formats displaying greater commitment to an expected answer, such
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
182 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
as declarative syntax + question tag (You smoke, don’t you?/You don’t smoke,
do you?) and declarative syntax (You smoke) tend to generate confirmation and
sequence closure (Heritage, 2012a; Heritage & Raymond, 2012). Studies examining
how emotion and affect are constructed in interaction (Per¨akyl¨a & Sorjonen,
2012) have contributed new insights on the role of prosody as a marker of
affective stance. Maynard and Freese (2012) compared the prosodic formats
with which good and bad news is delivered and responded to in several corpora
of telephone conversations. They found characteristic (but not determinative)
feature clusters that embody a stance of happiness in the delivery and receipt of
good news and a stance of sorrow in bad news sequences. Comparative analysis
of action formats reveals how morphosyntax and prosody work to construct
social, epistemic, and affective stance in talk and participate in advancing the
interaction.
Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Comparison
Conversation analysts have been reluctant to take up a cross-cultural and crosslinguistic
approach because CA does not share the premise of standard social
science that interaction varies fundamentally according to sociostructural and
cultural context, a key difference between cross-cultural pragmatics and comparative
CA (Schegloff, 2002, 2009; Sidnell, 2009). However, when Zimmerman
(1999), in a programmatic proposal for CA in the new millennium, called for
“horizontal comparison,” he specifically advocated the development of crosslinguistic
and cross-cultural directions in CA. These lines of comparison bring
to light how participants solve generic interactional problems with different
linguistic and cultural resources. They offer evidence of interactional practices
that are universal and variable across languages and cultures, and critically
contribute to building a theory of interaction that is both robust and rich in
detail.
In his commentary on a recent collection of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural
CA studies, Schegloff (2009, p. 378) recommended the following analytical steps
for comparative CA:
1. State explicitly your understanding of what the target phenomenon or
practice is.
2. Ask whether the same features that constitute the phenomenon or practice
can plausibly be expected to hold in the new environment(s) in which
you will be examining it/them; if not, say what should be taken as recognition
criteria in the new environment.
3. Describe the ways in which the new environment(s) are like, or different
from, the environment(s) in which the target of inquiry has previously
been examined, and assess whether there is a robust basis for compara-
bility.
4. Specify what makes the phenomenon or practice to be examined of interest,
and what is to be gained by pursuing it/them in these different
environments.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 183
Most, but not all, of the published comparative studies implement these
criteria.
In the earliest cross-cultural study, Moerman (1977) found “detailed, systemic,
and massive parallels” (p. 875) in the organization of repair in Thai–Lue
interaction and the repair organization that had been established on the basis of
American and British English data (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977). Several
books compare the openings and closings of telephone calls across languages
and settings (Hopper, 1992; Luke & Pavlidou, 2002; Th¨une & Leonardi, 2003).
The methodological challenge of such work is to maintain CA’s emic perspective,
that is, to ground analytical claims in the participants’ visible orientations.
To take telephone openings as an example, the problem for the participants is
how to get from a state of no contact to talk about the purpose of the call. The
earliest CA work established the generic solution to this generic interactional
problem—a progression through summons-answer, identifications, greetings,
and how-are-you sequences (Schegloff, 1968, 1979, 1986). As we saw in Excerpt 1,
participants calibrate the generic, context-free opening organization in contextsensitive
ways that orient to the purpose of the call (and possibly other matters).
From a cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective, the analytical task is to
show how the participants achieve to open the call (a) while hearably orienting
to the local contingencies—the task for any CA—and (b) how they do so with
linguistically and culturally distinctive resources—the specific task for comparative
analysis. For instance, in the standard opening for personal phone calls in
the United States, answers to the summons (line 2) and call taker identification
(lines 3 and 4) are done in separate turns:
Extract 2 (Schegloff, 2002, p. 267)
1 ((telephone rings))
2 Charlie: Hello
3 Judy: Hello, Charlie?
4 Charlie: Yeah?
5 Judy: Did- I ewake you up?
In other cultural settings, as in the Dutch segment below, the called party
answers the phone by saying his or her name. The two actions of answering the
summons and call taker identification are wrapped into one (here a one-word)
practice.
Extract 3 (adapted from ten Have, 2002, p. 236)
1 ((telephone rings))
2 R: Schrama ((call taker last name))
3 C: dag met Paul
day with Paul
‘Hi, Paul speaking’
4 R: ja Paul
yes Paul
‘Yes Paul’
5 C: ((reason for calling)
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
184 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
In both the English and Dutch openings, the caller shows in line 3 that he or
she recognizes the call taker, but how the caller does so is based on different
kinds of evidence. In the English data, the evidence available to Judy is Charlie’s
voice in his initial “hello,” while in the Dutch data, the evidence is Mr. Schrama’s
self-identification with his last name.
Recent cross-linguistic and cross-cultural CA extends to studies with anthropological,
interactional linguistic, and sociological orientations, such as work
on person reference across a range of cultural settings (Enfield & Stivers, 2007).
Two methodological directions can be seen in this growing body of literature.
The first, more prevalent approach is to select for comparison a practice or
action and investigate how the phenomenon is implemented in two or more
different languages. Researchers conduct separate collection-based analyses of
the object, with CA’s mandatory attention to the sequential environment(s) in
which the object occurs; its formal features, such as lexical forms, syntactic
properties, prosodic contours, and temporal features of turn composition; and
the interactional consequences that the action or practice has for the participants.
The outcomes of the emic analyses are then brought together in an etic
analysis that enables researchers to demonstrate—and document in detail in
the research report—how participants accomplish the action or practice with
the resources of the different languages, and what cross-linguistic or crosscultural
variation may be in evidence. Earlier comparative analysis in this vein
includes studies of causal markers (Ford & Mori, 1994) and same-turn self-repair
(Fox, Hayashi, & Jasperson, 1996) in English and Japanese, and contrastive connectives
in the organization of dispreference in Korean, Japanese, and English
(Park, 1998). Current work targets phenomena in more narrowly circumscribed
sequential contexts. Examples are minimal acknowledgment tokens in Korean
and Japanese that are produced in response to a preceding minimal acknowledgment
token (Hayashi & Yoon, 2009); repair initiations that target underspecified
nonpersonal reference and are implemented with Was denn. Was. in German and
What. in English (Egbert, Golato, & Robinson, 2009); and sentence-final particles
in polar questions as displays of epistemic stance in Dutch, Lao, and Tzeltal
Mayan (Enfield, Brown, & de Ruiter, 2012). In the most comprehensive comparative
CA study to date, Dingemanse, Torreira, and Enfield (2013) examined
open-class other-initiations of repair (huh? What?) in 12 languages. They found
that an interjection such as huh in English is used in all languages and has
a very similar phonetic shape: a monosyllable with an open back vowel and
(mostly) rising intonation. Question words similar to what are another prevalent
practice, but their grammatical constraints and phonetic shapes differ
substantially across languages, as does repair initiation with nonvocal bodily
conduct.
The other, still emerging research direction seeks – through quantitative,
possibly large-scale investigations – to establish to what extent an interactional
practice is universal or linguistically and culturally variable. The quantitative
analysis is built on the outcomes of prior standard CA that analyses the practice
in corpora of each of the participating languages. In some sense, the two main
steps resemble a sequential mixed-method design (e.g., Teddlie & Tashakkori,
2006). In a cross-cultural study examining how gaze direction is coordinated with
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 185
vocal conduct in question-answer sequences, Rossano, Brown, and Levinson
(2009) compared video-recorded dyadic interactions among acquainted participants
in Italian, Y´eli Dnye, and Tzeltal. Data were coded for participant role as
speaker or recipient, main action done by the question, question type, presence
or absence of a vocal and/or nonvocal response, and detailed features of gaze.
Descriptive statistics and logistic regression revealed that question speaker gaze
is far more consistent across the three cultural groups than question recipient
gaze. The study offers evidence against the prevailing view that gaze is a crossculturally
valid indicator of recipiency. At the same time, Tzeltal participants,
who do not use gaze as a consistent recipiency marker, draw on repetition
response instead. The study thus confirms that recipient response systems
are universally available interactional organizations that are implemented with
culturally variable resources.
Fox et al. (2009) compared the site where same-turn self-repair is initiated
in seven typologically diverse languages: Bikol, English, Finnish, Indonesian,
Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, and Sochiapam Chiantec. For each language, instances
of “simple” same-turn self-repair, that is, recyclings (“the biggest debate
i- in our department”, Fox et al., 2009, p. 66) and replacements (“I wish I’d had
m- a camera earlier today”, Fox et al., 2009, p. 66) without any further repair
operation, were identified in existing corpora of natural spoken interaction.
While simple recycling is much more prevalent than simple replacement across
languages, their initiation sites were found to vary widely across languages.
Using frequencies and chi-square statistics, the authors attribute the observed
variation to differences in word length and syllable structure, which pose different
structural opportunities for speakers’ self-initiation of repair (see also
commentary by Schegloff, 2009).
Stivers et al. (2009) examined whether the norm for turn transitions with
minimal gap and minimal overlap (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) applies
to turn-taking in informal conversation in 10 languages: Danish, Dutch, English,
Italian, Japanese, Korean, Lao, Tzeltal, Y´eli-Dnye, and ࣔAkhoe Hai//om. Multivariate
analysis of response latencies in answers to polar questions showed
that speakers in these languages generally avoid overlap and minimize silence
between turns, with a unimodal response peak of 200 ms. The same
factors account for turn delay (answering vs. not answering, confirming vs.
disconfirming, visible vs. vocal-only responses, questioner gaze vs. no gaze)
across languages. Cultural elaborations appear to be related to differences
in overall conversational rhythm but not to typological differences in language
structure. The findings strongly support the notion that the temporal
characteristics of turn-taking are independent of language and cultural
arrangements.
In sum, the body of comparative CA research with a major quantitative component
is still small, and this is not surprising. The input for the statistical analysis
requires robust CA findings from all included languages. Much work remains to
be done to carry out such studies. At the same time, cross-linguistic and crosscultural
evidence is urgently needed in order to enhance our understanding of
how social members around the world accomplish their interactional projects
with their linguistic and cultural resources.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
186 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
APPLIED CA
In an applied linguistics context, the term applied CA raises the question whether
applied means the same as in applied linguistics. Applied linguistics is interdisciplinary:
It draws on a range of other sciences and the humanities for theoretical
and methodological resources and calibrates these resources to investigate
its defining object, “language-related real-life problems” (Brumfit, 1995; Bygate,
2005). CA, whether basic or applied, is not interdisciplinary but transdisciplinary.
In applied CA, we do not see the diversity of epistemological perspectives and
research methodologies that is characteristic of applied linguistics as a discipline.
CA offers researchers across the social sciences and beyond a coherent,
integrated theory and methodology of interaction, and a large body of research
findings, that these researchers can take to investigate their discipline-specific
topics and problems. Applied CA brings the principles, methods, and achievements
of basic CA to bear on these concerns. For some applied research purposes,
CA is combined with other methodologies.
Some types of applied CA have been practiced for several decades, and others
are more recent arrivals. In the introductory chapter to his edited volume
Applied Conversation Analysis, Antaki (2011) proposed six types:
1. Foundational: respecifying an intellectual field of study
2. Social problem oriented: a perspective on macro-societal issues
3. Communicational: a complementary or alternative analysis of “disordered”
talk
4. Diagnostic: correlating sequential features of talk with clinical disorders
5. Institutional: an illumination of routine institutional work
6. Interventionist: solving preexisting problems collaboratively
These strands are “applied” in two senses of the word (ten Have, 2001, 2007).
The first five strands apply CA to explicate social phenomena with CA’s conceptual
and methodological apparatus (discussed below). They enable researchers
to understand through CA’s lens some aspect of social life that is conventionally
studied in another discipline. The sixth strand applies CA’s methods and findings
to social intervention with the intent of improving current (mostly, professional)
practices. The three most established strands—foundational, social problem
oriented, and institutional applied CA—are discussed below.
Foundational Applied CA
Foundational applied CA brings CA’s epistemology and its analytical principles
and practices to bear on theories and concepts developed in other research
traditions. CA “respecifies” these topics through detailed empirical studies of
practical actions (Garfinkel, 1991). (In section 6 we will describe how CA’s perspective
on language learning and development offers a noncognitivist approach
to second language acquisition.)
The only institutionalized respecification program is discursive psychology
(DP), a field that reconceptualizes psychology from several discourse-analytical
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 187
perspectives. DP’s most prolific branch applies CA to study standard cognitive
and social-psychological topics such as memory, attribution, intention, emotions,
attitudes, and social relations as actions and stances that people construct
through their talk, whether or not they expressly talk about such matters (e.g.,
Edwards, 1997; Potter & Edwards, 2013). This epistemological outlook has direct
methodological consequences. Since psychological states and processes are
not assumed to be hidden in people’s minds, they need not, and indeed cannot,
be made inferentially available through experiments or through elicited selfreport
in think-aloud protocols, survey questionnaires, or interviews. Rather,
they are directly observable in the “rich surface of language and social interaction”
(Edwards, 2006) in people’s ordinary activities. Extract 1 shows how the
participants together produce the “rich surface” of their talk as they pursue
a transactional activity, and how a misspeaking transforms the matter-of-fact
transaction into an occasion for shared laughter as a display of “positive affect.”
Analytic attention to the “fine granularity” of talk (Schegloff, 2000), not elicited
from individual speakers under laboratory conditions but produced in naturally
occurring interaction, reveals how exhibits of cognitive states and processes
are interactionally generated and serve as interactional resources (te Molder &
Potter, 2005).
An ongoing research program on social epistemics investigates how participants
handle knowledge distributions among themselves through sequence
organization and action formation (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b). This line of research
brings into view the nexus of knowledge, social organization, and morality
(Stivers et al., 2011). Based on substantial interactional evidence, Heritage
(2012a) proposed that the omnipresent knowledge asymmetries among participants
work as an “epistemic engine” that propels sequences forward. At the
same time, by managing epistemic status and stance, access, rights, and obligations
in their activities, participants produce identities and social relations
and reflexively invoke moral accountability (Heritage & Raymond, 2005; Raymond
& Heritage, 2006; Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2003). A parallel respecification
project centers on emotion and affect in interaction. It advances insights into
how lexical and grammatical resources, prosody, posture, facial expression,
and body alignments contribute to producing emotional valence and intensity.
Studies collected by Per¨akyl¨a and Sorjonen (2012) demonstrate that affective
displays are thoroughly interactional, that is, they are bound up with action and
activities, locally occasioned, and consequential for the subsequent talk.
Social-Problem-Oriented Applied CA
In social problem–oriented CA, the analytical focus turns to the interactional
practices through which the participants treat social categories as relevant
and asks how the participants produce power relations, inequality, and ideologies
through their interactional practices. Earlier research showed how participants
in different kinds of institutional talk constructed power imbalances
through their actions and practices in courtrooms (Drew, 1992) and phone-in
radio shows (Hutchby, 1996). Recent studies on race in interaction investigated
how participants reproduce and resist racial categorization in everyday talk
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
188 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
(Whitehead & Lerner, 2009), manage reference to race in antiracist training
sessions (Whitehead, 2009), and construct and report racial insults in neighbor
disputes and police interrogations (Stokoe & Edwards, 2007). A study of a related
theme analyzed how friends in casual multiparty talk in Japanese invoke the category
of foreigner and the ideology of nihonjinron (“theory of Japaneseness”)
to account for whether people are expected to know their blood types (Suzuki,
2009).
A prominent area of social problem oriented CA is feminist CA, the application
of CA to feminist scholarship on gender, sexuality, and discourse. Early
CA studies under the sex difference approach to language and gender found
correlations between gender and interactional practices, in particular asymmetrical
distributions of interruptions, overlaps, and topic shifts in mixed-gender
conversations (West & Garcia, 1988; Zimmerman & West, 1975). This work is
seen as problematic by contemporary feminist theory and CA, as both are
critical of associating discursive practices with essentialist gender concepts.
Poststructuralist and performative theories view gender and sexuality as social
constructions and situated performances, yet neither group of theories comes
with an associated methodology for analyzing in detail how gender and sexuality
are discursively accomplished in everyday life. For a growing number of social
scientists, CA offers a method of inquiry that enables them to pursue a feminist
agenda in an accountable, rigorously empirical fashion (Ford, 2008; Kitzinger,
2000, 2005, 2008; McIlvenny, 2002; Speer, 2005; Speer & Stokoe, 2011). Yet how exactly
feminist CA practitioners may reconcile their sociopolitical interests with
CA’s requirement to bracket researchers’ preoccupations and ground analytical
claims in the observable details of participants’ talk is a matter of ongoing debate.
Speer (2005) recommended that feminist CA observe CA’s requirement to
ground analytical claims in participants’ visible orientations. Against the charge
by poststructuralist discourse analysts that CA is unsuitable to explicate how
ideology and power relations enter into talk (e.g., Billig, 1999; Wetherell, 1998),
Speer adopted standard CA to examine how British young men (in interviews)
construct different versions of masculinity from moment to moment as a matter
of identity management. In an analysis of heterosexist talk (as a form of
prejudicial talk more broadly), Speer showed how the participants use a range
of interactional practices in order to defend their heterosexist comments from
disaffiliative uptake, such as disclaimers (“I don’t want to be a gay basher but”),
retracting from an extreme case formulation, often attributed to third parties
(“and there’s sort of the erm (.6) presumption that they’re all gonna be butch
and (0.4) stuff, but they’re not, a lot of them”), or showing concession (Speer,
2005, chap. 6). By using these methods, the participants reflexively construct
themselves as rational persons who orient to their own prejudicial talk as problematic.
But the mundane heterosexism of everyday talk often goes unnoticed by
participants. Stokoe and Smithson (2001 turned to membership categorization
analysis (e.g., Sacks, 1972; Hester & Eglin, 1997; Hester & Hester, 2012; Stokoe,
2012a, 2012b) to illuminate how participants construct heteronormative gender
categories as part of their taken-for-granted cultural knowledge. Kitzinger (2005)
demonstrated how heteronormative assumptions become visible in alternative
practices of person reference as a matter of recipient design. Kitzinger found
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 189
that in medical after-hour calls, the physician, after agreeing to make a home
visit, asked the caller for the patient’s address by saying “Where do you live?”
when the caller formulated the patient as “my husband” or “my wife.” When the
caller referred to the patient as “my friend,” the physician said, “Where does
she (or he) live?” The doctor’s person reference in the question thus presumed
that the patient and caller cohabited when they had been formulated as part of
a family, and it did not presume coresidence when family relations had not been
indicated.
Ford (2008) took feminist CA into a different direction. Her study on women’s
turn-taking in professional multiparty meetings is motivated by the observation
that women’s career advancement in traditional male settings is strongly skewed
in their disfavor, and by the popular narratives that blame women’s “communicative
style” for their lack of success. The study makes no assumption that the
women speak as women, and it does not examine the discursive construction
of gender identity. Rather, it documents how the women in the meetings use
multiple methods for gaining turns, manage multiturn units and disaffiliative
actions, and coordinate vocal and nonvocal actions in their bids to speak. As
Ford emphasized, the women’s artful interactional practices are generic rather
than gender specific. By gaining turns and shaping the course of the meeting
through their actions, the women exert power in the local management of the
setting. Ford’s study contributes to feminist CA and offers a resource for feminist
activism against workplace discrimination and the myth of women as different
or deficient communicators. It also adds new knowledge of how multiparty meetings
are organized, a topic of institutional CA.
Feminist CA contributes back to basic CA as well. Kitzinger (2008) reported
that she first noticed a particular turn shape that had not been reported in the
CA literature in a seminar participant’s coming-out action. In this turn format,
parenthetical information is inserted between the “if” and “then” components
of a compound turn-constructional unit.
Extract 4 (Kitzinger, 2008, p. 191)
Lin: . . . if you’ve thought of yourself as heterosexual (1.0)
and you (.) >suddenly find yourself attracted to a woman
→ ˚it happened to me,< (0.2) a few years ago˚
it’s very (0.8) disturbing, [in a] way it’s =
CK: [mm ]
The coming out (at the arrow) received no response from other participants.
In Kitzinger’s analysis, since the turn only reaches possible completion after
the then-component, the embedded coming out is protected from getting a
response. Based on the initial observation, Kitzinger assembled a collection of
300 instances of if-then structures from several UK and U.S. corpora. The data
confirmed her analysis: in 90% of the cases, the next speaker took a turn just
before or after the end of the then-component; that is, participants oriented to
the trajectory of the compound structure. Kitzinger’s observations in the context
of feminist CA resulted in new findings on the relation between grammar and
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
190 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
interaction. It illustrates that the traffic between applied CA and basic CA goes
in both directions.
Finally, Kitzinger (2008) also suggested how feminist CA practitioners can use
feminist theory and concepts in their research while observing CA’s requirement
to ground analytical claims in the participants’ visible realities. The approach
involves three stages:
1. Pre-analytic observations guided by feminist and LGBT concepts such
as coming out or heteronormativity. The outcome of this process is a
collection of candidate sequences that show evidence for the concept in
the participants’ conduct.
2. Standard CA of the material in the collection. The outcome is a detailed
account of the interactional practice or practices, for instance, when, how,
and with what interactional consequences a speaker reveals that she is
attracted to other women, or how participants show their normative assumptions
about intimate relations and residential arrangements through
their referential practices, as quoted above.
3. Post-analytic connections of the CA findings to feminist theory and political
agendas.
When the research process is organized in this way, exogenous theory and sociopolitical
objectives do not enter the data analysis, but they guide the building
of a relevant data corpus, and they allow researchers to connect the outcomes
of analysis with broader sociological and political themes. There is also a direct
gain for feminist theory construction and social activism because the CA findings
allow researchers to show that their concepts are alive in members’ ordinary
social practices and so are demonstrably real for them.
The three-stage approach is transportable to other social domains. Talmy
(2009) advocated engaging CA in critical research on second language education.
In a study examining how the category of ESL student is produced in
routine classroom interactions between students and the teacher, Talmy argued
for “motivated looking” from a cultural studies perspective. Membership
categorization analysis and sequential analysis bring to light how students and
teacher construct and transform institutionally valued and rejected identities
through recurrent interactional practices. The analysis is connected to language
socialization theory and theories of cultural production through educational institutions,
and supports and strengthens these theories by grounding them in
the participants’ visible discursive practices. As Talmy commented,
M/CA can expand the critical agenda itself as these approaches provide
the analytic frame and methodological means to investigate how racism,
sexism, classism, homophobia, heterosexism, and ageism are variously
instantiated, resisted, accommodated, reproduced, and/or transformed
in the unfolding details of everyday life, that is, how power is interactionally
achieved rather than an a priori given or foregone conclusion.
(Talmy, 2009, p. 206)
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 191
Institutional CA
Institutional CA examines how institutions are produced, maintained, and transformed
through participants’ routine interactional work. This large body of research
focuses on talk between professionals and lay clients and among professionals.
More recently, studies have also turned to ask how novices develop
professional interactional competencies. CA work on institutional interaction
goes back to the late 1970s and 1980s. It includes seminal studies on classrooms
(McHoul, 1978), courtrooms (Atkinson & Drew, 1979), and medical consultations
(Heath, 1981). This early research and its offshoots laid some of the methodological
groundwork to what became later known as the institutional talk program.
Based on his studies of courtroom interaction, Atkinson (1982) showed how the
dimensions of formality and informality are generated by the participants through
distinct interactional practices. Atkinson’s (1984) analysis of political speeches
brought to light how politicians methodically generate audience applause at
specific moments in their speeches through finely coordinated vocal actions
and shifts in gaze direction. Heath’s work on doctor–patient interaction (1986)
was the first to demonstrate how bodily action participates in the sequential and
categorial organization of the medical consultation. But it was the publication in
the early 1990s of two seminal edited volumes, Talk and Social Structure (Boden
& Zimmerman, 1991) and Talk at Work (Drew & Heritage, 1992), that launched
institutional CA as a distinct direction of inquiry. Since then, research under the
institutional talk program has investigated how participants do the institutional
work of the broadcast media; of legal, medical, and educational institutions; of
various call centers and service providers; and of a range of workplaces (Heritage
& Clayman, 2010). Increasingly, institutional CA includes studies of multilingual
workplaces (e.g., V¨oge, 2011), but this body of research is small and in urgent
need of expansion.
The institutionality of talk becomes apparent when talk that pursues some
institutional business is compared to ordinary conversation. In conversation,
turn-taking is locally managed and party administered (Sacks et al., 1974); that
is, the participants assume and assign speaker and recipient identities contingently
as their talk unfolds. Whatever asymmetrical participation frameworks
may emerge in concrete instances, the turn-taking system provides for equal
access to speaking opportunities (Schegloff, 1999). Actions are constrained by
the interaction-internal context rather than external social structural factors.
Conversationalists can address a wide, and in principle unpredictable, range
of topics. Topic selection may be constrained by cultural, religious, political,
and other considerations that participants orient to in choosing appropriate
topics for their talk, but such constraints are not native to the generic activity
of conversation. Finally, ordinary conversation requires competence in nonspecialized
spoken language(s) as its primary linguistic repertoire. Although conversationalists
do use registers associated with specialized topics and participant
identities on occasion, such specialized talk is incidental to conversation as
such.
Against the backdrop of ordinary conversation, institutional talk can be characterized
as a distinct mode of interaction. Across a wide range of settings and
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
192 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
activities, institutional talk shares three key properties (Drew & Heritage, 1992;
Heritage & Clayman, 2010):
1. Goal-orientation: Participants’ situated identities are relevant to the institutional
purpose (doctor and patient, teacher and student, etc.).
2. Special constraints on allowable contributions: Speech exchange systems
are highly variable across institutional activities. In formal meetings, the
moderator allocates turns; in nonformal meetings at the workplace, access
to turns may be organized in the same way as in ordinary conversation.
In any form of interview, the interviewer asks the questions and the interviewee
gives the answers; departures from the pre-allocated distribution
of actions change the activity and require special dispensation (such
as in employment interviews, where interviewers may ask the applicant
towards the end of the interview, “Do you have any questions for us?”).
Regardless of the speech exchange system, topics must be relevant to the
meeting’s agenda or the type and purpose of the interview.
3. Institution-specific inferential frameworks and procedures: The same interactional
conduct may generate different inferences. In news interviews,
medical consultations, or legal contexts, professionals tend not to display
an affective or epistemic stance towards their clients’ contributions. In ordinary
conversation, such withholdings would be seen as lack of attention,
interest, or empathy, whereas in the institutional contexts, they are taken
as proper displays of epistemic caution and professional neutralism.
CA of institutional talk observes the principles and procedures for analyzing
ordinary conversation, but with the additional aim of demonstrating how participants
orient to the specifically institutional properties of the interaction. In
order to establish how the work of the institutional event under study gets done,
analysts inspect the following places for whether and how the participants organize
their conduct in institution-specific ways (Drew & Heritage, 1992; Heritage
& Clayman, 2010).
r Turn-taking organization: Is the distribution of turns participant-managed
or pre-allocated? Is turn allocation tied to institutional identities? Is access
to turns available to all participants or asymmetrically structured? The
pre-allocation of turns to participants with particular institutional identities
is a defining organizational feature of formal institutional talk. It has
been documented extensively in studies of courtrooms (Atkinson & Drew,
1979; Drew, 1992), teacher-fronted classrooms (Mehan, 1979; Seedhouse,
2004), and interviews conducted for a large range of institutional purposes,
including news interviews (Clayman & Heritage, 2002), medical interviews
(Heritage & Maynard, 2006), oral proficiency interviews (Ross & Kasper,
2013; Young & He, 1998), and standardized survey interviews (HoutkoopSteenstra,
2000; Maynard & Schaeffer, 2012). In nonformal institutional
talk, turn-taking is managed by the participants regardless of their institutional
identities, for example, in unmoderated team meetings (Bilmes,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 193
2008; V¨oge, 2011) and conversations-for-learning (Hauser, 2008; Kasper &
Kim, in press).
r Overall structural organization: Does the activity progress serially through
particular ordered phases? For instance, primary care visits are organized
into opening (problem presentation), data gathering (diagnosis), and treatment
(closing) (Heritage & Maynard, 2006). Pharmacy patient consultations
advance through opening (greeting), orientation (advice giving), and preclosing
(closing) (Nguyen, 2008). The overall organization of the activity
(prescribed in training manuals for medical and pharmacy students) is
designed to get successive tasks done in an efficient and timely manner.
CA research shows that the stages of the activities are an achieved order
that the participants accomplish through their practical reasoning and
coordinated actions.
r Sequence organization: Are there activity-specific sequences, such as the
initiation–response–follow-up sequence in teacher-fronted classroom interaction
(McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1979)?
r Turn design: What actions are done in the turns, how are they implemented
through linguistic and other resources, and what institutional relevancies
do these turn shapes index? Robinson (2006) showed that even ostensibly
minor differences in physicians’ solicitations of patients’ medical problems
display the physician’s orientation to different reasons for the visit. Questions
designed for soliciting new problems typically have the form “What
can I do for you today?” Questions initiating a follow-up consultation are
predominantly formulated with “How are you feeling?”, which requests that
the patient evaluates the status of the follow-up complaint. For initial questions
in chronic routine visits, the common format is “(so) what’s new,”
which allows the patient to report on the status of the routine concern but
also bring up a new complaint if relevant.
r Lexical choices: How do participants make selections from institutionspecific
registers? Institution-specific registers are associated with professional
identities and with epistemic access and authority. In interaction
between professionals and members of the lay public, access to the institutional
register is typically and often normatively limited to the professional.
The epistemic status differential between professionals and lay
participants is in no small measure reflected in and constituted through
asymmetric access to the institutional register. Mishler’s (1984) early
study of medical interaction pointed out that in the problem presentation
phase, physicians have to reformulate the patients’ complaints from the
“voice of the life world” to the “voice of medicine.” One of the difficult
tasks for novice health care professionals is to learn how to recipientdesign
their turns to accommodate their patients’ understanding competencies.
Nguyen (2012b) showed in a study of pharmacy consultations
how pharmacy interns over time learned to use their pharmacological
register sparingly and constantly monitored what the patient they were
currently serving showed to understand or not to understand. Antaki et al.
(2008) and Bushnell (2012) examined how the participants in CA data sessions
used CA register—in Bushnell’s study, CA terminology in Japanese,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
194 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
Japanese-English, and English—to do the work of the activity and manage
their institutional identities and community membership.
The places for probing institutionality enable analysts to identify in an empirically
rigorous manner how institutions are “talked into being” (Heritage,
1984b, p. 290). When participants share a visual space, semiotic affordances
in any kind of interaction expand dramatically to include vocal and nonvocal
resources. In institutional activities, generic nonvocal devices such as gaze, gesture,
body movement, and facial expression are also configured for doing specific
institutional work. Objects, documents, and spatial arrangements add further
complexities to the “contextures” (Goodwin, 2011) of institutional embodied
interaction.
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
As a second direction for comparative CA, Zimmerman (1999) recommended
vertical comparison, “studies of the acquisition of conversational structures”
that aim to discover “the process and stages by which interactive talk emerges”
(p. 198). The project is based on the premise that “acquiring a language is
an irremediably social enterprise” that takes place in the presence of people
and objects as co-participants and shapes the novice’s emerging interactional
competencies. There is no learning mechanism separate from or in addition
to the sense-making procedures and interactional competencies through which
social members, including very young children, manage their participation in
social life. Language, culture, and interaction are learnable because they are on
constant public exhibition in the “objective production and objective display of
commonsense knowledge of everyday activities as observable and reportable
phenomena” (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970, p. 342) and the “inferential visibility of
moral conduct” (Edwards, 1997). Specifically, participants display their understanding
to each other through the sequential emergence of turns. Wootton
(1997) therefore highlighted the crucial role of “sequential knowledge” in the
development of action formats. Because participants unavoidably make their
activities mutually intelligible moment by moment, interaction comes with a
built-in learning mechanism that is visible to participants and analysts alike
(Kasper, 2009).
Just as interactional competence can only be investigated through the close
analysis of interaction that we described in sections 2 and 3, how children
and other novices become interactionally competent in a language, culture, or
social domain has to be documented in the details of participants’ talk and
other conduct. In the first decade since CA’s appearance in second language
acquisition (SLA) in the mid-1990s (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Markee, 1994, 1995;
Wagner, 1996), the dominating concerns were to show that second language
(L2) speakers are normal speakers rather than deficient communicators (Firth,
1996; Wagner & Gardner, 2004) and to locate category incumbencies as “L1 [first
language] speaker,” “L2 speaker,” and “L2 learner” in participants’ visible orientations
(Brouwer, 2003; Hosoda, 2006; Kasper, 2004). With a critical impetus
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 195
vis-`a-vis interactional modification under the interactionist hypothesis (Long,
1996), studies predominantly focused on repair and correction in talk among
L1 and L2 speakers in everyday activities (Brouwer, 2004; Brouwer, Rasmussen,
& Wagner, 2004; Egbert, Niebecker, & Rezzara, 2004; Kurhila, 2001) and instructional
settings (Hauser, 2005; Koshik, 2005; Markee, 2000; Mori, 2004; Seedhouse,
2004). In the main, recent studies aim to describe how participants accomplish
learning as a social activity and how interactional competencies develop over
time. These topics are investigated in L2 speakers’ interactions in three broad
categories of setting: ordinary conversation and institutional encounters outside
of language instruction (Biazzi, 2011; Ishida, 2009; 2011); instructional settings,
including language classrooms and tutorials (Hellermann, 2008, Ikeda & Ko, 2011;
Mortensen, 2011; Seo, 2011); and hybrid forms such as conversations arranged
for language learning (Hauser, 2008; Kasper & Kim, in press). In keeping with
CA’s stance on the analytical treatment of social context, settings and their
potential as sites for learning and development are topics rather than resources
for analysis.
Learning as a Social Activity
Studies under this rubric examine moments where the participants make learning
the focal concern of their interaction (Koschmann, 2013; Lindwall & Ekstr¨om,
2012; Zemel & Koschmann, 2014) and where the learning activity is publicly displayed
(Nishizaka, 2006, 2011). L2 speakers’ interactions in everyday encounters
allow us to observe how the participants contingently generate learning opportunities
while pursuing the activity at hand. Such observations require that (a)
close attention be given to the detailed composition of the talk and other conduct
and (b) analytical claims be grounded in the participants’ visible orientations.
The L2 speaker of Icelandic in Extract 5 is studying abroad in Iceland. She has
just made a successful request for a loaf of bread at a bakery.
Extract 5 Sliced bread (Theod´orsd´ottir, 2011b, p. 102)
09 Anna: U[h
10 Clerk: snei a a ?
shall I to slice it
Do you want me to slice it
11 (0.4)
12 Anna: snei a:: means to cu[t]
13 Clerk: [c]ut (.) cut=
14 Anna: ei a.
Y[es] slice
15 Clerk:
[(yes)]
16 (14.1)((sound of bread slicer))
In line 10, the clerk makes a routine offer to slice the bread. Rather than
accepting or rejecting the offer as projected, Anna’s next turn comes with a
delay and does not respond to the offer. Instead she repeats the critical action
verb, followed by a switch to English, in which she provides her understanding
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
196 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
of the Icelandic word in English sneiða:: means to cut. With the standard
definition format “X means Y,” Anna shows that she has some knowledge of the
Icelandic syntax and word meaning, but that her knowledge is uncertain and
in need of confirmation. By using a declarative polar question format, she constructs
a shallower epistemic gradient (Heritage, 2012a) between herself and the
clerk than she would have with a question such as “what does sneiða:: mean?”,
which would show that she did not know the word. The clerk treats Anna’s turn
as a knowledge check and responds by repeating “cut” twice, as the first instance
is produced in partial overlap with Anna’s saying of “cut” as the turn-final
element. Anna, but not the clerk, produces “cut” in the citation form that shows
its grammatical category as a verb, “to cut.” By using the standard classroom
practice of referring to English verbs with the infinitive marker to, Anna orients
to language learning rather than only to clarifying an uncertain understanding.
Following the clerk’s confirmation, Anna’s next turn reorients to the service
transaction. After a turn-initial hesitation marker that provides Anna a moment
to decide whether or not to accept the offer, she responds affirmatively with an
acceptance token j´a, which gets an immediate confirmation from the clerk (line
15). Although the participants have collaboratively reoriented to moving the
service transaction forward, Anna continues her turn by repeating sneiða. With
the repetition, Anna may be taking another opportunity for practicing the lexical
item, but the repeat also reaffirms her acceptance of the offer (cf. Kim, 2012).
The main activity is structured as an offer–response adjacency pair. When
Anna has trouble responding to the clerk’s offer, she initiates a knowledge check
sequence that is inserted into the base adjacency pair and is itself organized as
an adjacency pair.
The completion of the insertion sequence solves Anna’s understanding
problem
09 A: U[h
10 C: [á] ég að sneiða það?
shall I to slice it
Do you want me to slice it
11 (0.4)
12 A: sneiða:: means to cu[t]
13 C: [c]ut (.) cut=
14 A: Uh: j[á] uh sneiða.
Y[es] slice
15 C: [(já)]
[(yes)]
16 (14.1)((sound of bread slicer))
and enables her to provide a relevant response to the offer. With the response to
the offer, the participants transition back to the main activity and close the base
adjacency pair. The orientation to learning is organized as an insertion sequence
(Schegloff, 2007) that puts the progress of the service transaction on hold. The
excerpt shows that the orientation to learning is made possible through the need
for participants to understand one another’s actions in order to move forward
with the ongoing activity. In this case, the insertion sequence is initiated by the
L2 speaker with a check on her uncertain knowledge of a key lexical item in the
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 197
main language of interaction and completed by the L1 speaker by confirming
Anna’s hypothesis. The sequence is driven by the L2 speaker’s local needs for
understanding the co-participant’s prior turn and her wider interest in learning
the second language.
Theod´orsd´ottir (2011b) shows how L1 speakers of Icelandic use the same
method to get ahead with their purchases of bakery goods, but their insertion sequences
are inquiries into various topical matters rather than language-related.
The analysis of the insertion sequence in interaction between an L2-speaking
customer and an L1-speaking salesperson illustrates the general point that L2
speakers engage generic, content-free, and context-independent interactional
organizations to handle local matters at hand and accomplish learning. Beyond
the earlier focus on repair and word searches, recent work shows how
L2 speakers and their co-participants orient to learning through practices for
establishing initial reference (Kim, 2012) or insisting on turn completion after
mutual understanding has been reached (Theod´orsd´ottir, 2011a). An increasing
body of research investigates how participants use nonvocal action not only
to achieve intersubjectivity (Markee & Seo, 2009; Mori & Hasegawa, 2009; Seo
& Koshik, 2010 but also L2 learning, for instance, in responses to embodied
completions (Mori & Hayashi, 2006) and by coordinating bodily conduct and
material objects (Eskildsen & Wagner, 2013; Seo, 2011).
Development of Interactional Competence over Time
CA research on the development of L2 speakers’ interactional competence over
time began a decade ago and is growing fast. Contrary to the wider domain
of SLA, most developmental CA studies are based on longitudinal data. The few
cross-sectional studies compare how lower-intermediate and advanced students
of L2 French produce disagreement sequences in group work (Pekarek-Doehler
& Pochon-Berger, 2011), how L2 speakers of Korean at different proficiency
levels use the discourse markers -nuntey and -kuntey in ordinary conversations
with Korean L1 speakers (Kim, 2009), and how patients who are speakers of L2
Italian at different stages of grammatical development coconstruct turns with
the physician and participate in the openings of medical consultations (Biazzi,
2011). In different ways, Kim’s and Biazzi’s studies connect the CA of their
data with linguistic theories of language development. Based on the patterned
uses of the discourse markers in different turn positions, Kim described a developmental
trajectory that corresponds to the diachronic grammaticalization
process shown for these discourse markers. Kim theorized the developmental
process as an instance of acquisitional grammaticalization. While Kim made
post-analytic connections between CA and exogenous theory, Biazzi applied the
concept of learner variety (Perdue, 2000) in conjunction with CA to the analysis
of the L2 speakers’ talk. A key difference in data type between cross-sectional CA
research and standard cross-sectional designs in SLA is that the data in CA are
natural data, whereas cross-sectional designs in other SLA traditions are mostly
though not necessarily based on various forms of elicited data. Cross-sectional
CA studies therefore do not face the problems of external validity that research
based on elicited data confront.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
198 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
In contrast, longitudinal CA research aligns itself with SLA’s well-established
tradition of longitudinal case studies of L2 development in natural settings.
Such milestones in the history of SLA as Schumann’s study of Alberto (Schumann,
1978) Schmidt’s studies of Wes (Schmidt, 1983), and Schmidt’s own
acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) not only generated
theory (acculturation model, Schumann, 1978; noticing, Schmidt & Frota,
1986) but also tested theory (acculturation model, Schmidt, 1983). Because
longitudinal CA of L2 interactional competencies is bound by CA’s theoretical
premises and analytical requirements, generalizing claims have to be made with
caution.
Longitudinal CA research addresses two categories of learning objects. Studies
of interactional practices examine how L2 speakers and novices to a professional
setting change how they accomplish the practice over time. Topics investigated
include openings in business phone calls (Brouwer & Wagner, 2004),
initiations and responses to topic proffers in writing tutorials (Nguyen, 2011,
2012a), alignment as recipient of a telling in ordinary conversation (Ishida, 2011),
openings, storytellings, and disengagements in classroom peer work (Hellermann,
2008), preclosings and closings in the dialogic lectures of an international
teaching assistant in training (Rhine & Hall, 2011), and action sequencing,
topic management, and recipient design of formulations in patient pharmacy
consultations (Nguyen, 2012a). Studies of linguistic resources trace changes in
the use of lexical and grammatical forms. Hauser (2013a) described how an
L2 speaker marks direct represented speech with an expanding repertoire of
resources including prosody, L1 and L2 quotatives, and person reference. Other
authors focused on the use of single lexical items (Ishida, 2009; Markee, 2008),
multiword units (Eskildsen, 2011; 2014), and syntactic devices such as negation
(Eskildsen, 2012; Hauser, 2013b) and motion constructions (Li, Eskildsen, &
Cadierno, 2014). In Eskildsen’s studies, CA joins forces with usage-based linguistics
(UBL; Tomasello, 2003). For CA and UBL, language use and development are
inseparable, anchored in and emerging from interaction. In UBL, constructions
of varying complexity sediment into an experientially driven language resource
that successively incorporates new form–function connections. UBL has a good
fit with CA’s praxeological stance on interaction, learning, and development
and offers useful conceptual and descriptive tools for the analysis of emerging
linguistic resources in the development of interactional competence.
Longitudinal developmental CA relies on vertical comparison as an essential
analytical strategy. It therefore confronts many of the methodological challenges
that we discussed in section 4—and then some. Most fundamentally, developmental
CA has to come to terms with the nature of interactional competence
as a competence that cannot be reduced to an individual participants’ competence.
Analysis cannot abstract from the co-participants’ conduct. Carroll (2004)
showed that novice L2 speakers’ turn beginnings were only delayed when disfluencies
in the previous speaker’s turn made it difficult for the next speaker
to anticipate the completion of that turn. But since developmental CA conducts
analyses of each case in the collection prior to the comparison, it will become
apparent how the co-participant shapes the L2 speaker’s doing of a practice or
use of a recourse. In addition, the co-participant’s responses to the L2 speaker’s
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 199
turns furnish an important analytical resource because delays and repair initiations
can offer emic evidence for the L2 speaker’s nonnormative behavior.
Another challenge is that in some settings, interactional competence development
cannot be separated from the development of the participants’ social
relations (Brouwer & Wagner, 2004; Ishida, 2011). It is well documented that
unacquainted participants establish a shared knowledge base about each other
in early encounters (Mori, 2003; Svennevig, 1999). Together with other practices,
that knowledge base provides a resource for affirming and constructing
affiliation (Lindstr¨om & Sorjonen, 2013) in later interactions. Consequently,
at the same moment in their learning biography, an L2 speaker’s interaction
with different co-participants may look quite different. While such diversity
would compromise theories for which competence is context-independent, L2
speakers’ orientations to their social relations with co-participants, displayed
in interactional practices and selections of resources, is built into interactional
competence under the fundamental interactional principle of recipient design.
As a displayed sensitivity to the “particular other(s)” with whom a speaker
is interacting, recipient design provides “a major basis for that variability of
actual conversation glossed by the notion “context-sensitive” (Sacks et al., 1974,
p. 727). In better known SLA terms, recipient design accounts for systematic
variability (Ellis, 1994) in talk and is a topic rather than an obstacle for analysis.
Longitudinal L2 CA illuminates the reflexive relationship between L2 speakers’
development of social relations and interactional competence over time.
Recipient design is also in evidence when the participants do not have a
personal relationship. Nguyen (2011) examined how a novice pharmacy intern
redesigned his talk with patients over time so that it included less medical
register and fewer technical explanations unless the patient requested more
technical language. The intern’s changes in recipient design show increasing
sensitivity to the patients’ displayed understanding at specific moments in the
consultation. While recipient design, according to Sacks et al., relates to “particular
other(s),” Nguyen’s study shows that the “recipient” may encompass
“members of the same category” (p. 200) rather than specific individuals. Although
the patient consultations are inescapably coconstructed as all talk, the
professional is charged with meeting the institutional goals and delivering the
consultation effectively and in a timely manner. Novice professionals interacting
with the lay public therefore face the moral obligation to improve their
interactional practices. In addition, Nguyen’s finding that improved interaction
with patients often required that the intern replaced his medical register and
long explanations by everyday expressions and simpler descriptions calls into
question the standard SLA assumption that linguistic complexity is an adequate
measure of competence development.
LOOKING AHEAD
The recent Handbook of Conversation Analysis by Sidnell and Stivers (2013)
documents the widespread use of CA research across topics and disciplines.
As a field devoted to the investigation of language-related real-life problems,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
200 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
applied linguistics includes among its domains language and social interaction;
professional and workplace interaction; and the learning, teaching, and assessment
of language and other matters. As the study of social interaction, CA is
therefore not only relevant to applied linguistics—it is applied linguistics (Ford,
2008). Although, for sure, it is one of many ways of doing applied linguistics.
At the same time, applied linguistics contributes its own disciplinary concerns
and knowledge domains to CA. Most importantly, applied linguistics offers a corrective
to classic CA’s entrenched monolingualism, a limitation that CA shares
with most social sciences outside of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics,
and applied linguistics. Since Auer’s (1984) Bilingual Conversation, CA studies of
the practices of multilingual interaction have substantially increased. This literature
predominantly examines code-switching and similar forms of language alternation
in a range of settings (Auer, 1998; Gafaranga, 2007; Gafaranga & Torras,
2002; Greer, 2010; 2013b; Higgins, 2009; Li Wei, 2002, 2005; Nevile & Wagner, 2011;
Sebba & Wootton, 1998), including L2 and heritage language classrooms (Cheng,
2013; He, 2013; Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2005; Li Wei, 2011; Li Wei & Wu, 2009;
¨Ust¨unel & Seedhouse, 2005). Recent CA research has highlighted other forms
of hybridity and linguistic heterogeneity as participants’ methods. Firth (2009)
reanalyzed lingua franca talk as locally instantiated interactional practices. He
(2013) elaborated upon the notion of multicompetence by illuminating heritage
language speakers’ “multiperformances” as they simultaneously drew on various
resources from their multilingual repertoires. Greer (2013a) uncovered how
multilingual participants with limited productive ability in their co-participants’
language practice “dual-receptive language alternation” to achieve understanding.
CA as the study of talk in interaction has successfully transitioned to the
study of interaction with multimodal resources. Applied linguistics offers the
empirical research and conceptual tools that can move multilingual CA into
CA’s mainstream.
Methodological innovation in CA will partly be fueled by the research concerns
of (social) scientists who engage CA for their discipline-specific purposes.
New technologies will be another likely engine of methodological development,
both as objects and tools for CA investigation. Efforts to expand applied CA’s
traditional critical perspective on standard social science concepts to standard
social science methods are underway (Drew, Raymond, & Weinberg, 2006).
Most advanced is CA research on standardized survey interviews (HoutkoopSteenstra,
2000; Maynard & Schaeffer, 2012), but CA has also began to expose
the organization of qualitative research interviews (Talmy & Richards, 2011) and
focus groups (Wilkinson, 2011).
The application of CA to standard social science research methods illustrates
another important advancement, the movement of CA beyond critique and respecification
to intervention. Antaki’s collection (2011) offers examples of using
CA to improve institutional practices in diverse settings, including telephone
help lines, medical consultations, psychoanalysis, programs for people suffering
from aphasia, and user-centered designs. On CA’s potential for intervention in
institutional contexts, Heritage and Clayman (2010) commented that “showing
participants recorded data and pointing out the relevance of particular interactional
practices . . . could be revelatory for participants and introduced new
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 201
potentials for institutional reflexivity and organizational change” (p. 281). In
second language education, CA is used in classroom teaching (F´elix-Brasdefer,
2006; Huth & Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006) and for test validation, rater training,
and scale development in oral language tests (Lazaraton, 2002; Ross & Kasper,
2013).
Finally, as discussed in section 3.1, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies
have begun to connect CA with quantitative analyses. In research on interaction
in organizations, large data sets make it possible to combine the fine-grained
analysis of social action with statistical procedures, as in studies of health
communication (Heritage & Robinson, 2006; Stivers, 2007) and journalism (Clayman,
Elliott, Heritage, & McDonals, 2007). Such sequential mixed-method designs
widen the scope of questions that can be asked when classic CA joins forces
with statistical methods.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank ARAL editor Charlene Polio and two anonymous reviewers
for their helpful comments on an earlier version.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antaki, C. (Ed.). (2011). Applied conversation analysis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
This book documents recent developments in the application of CA to
intervention in health and social services and other institutional activities.
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1–29.
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of
knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 30–52.
Heritage’s two companion articles brought social epistemics to the forefront
in the study of language and social interaction.
Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language
acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63, 629–664.
This article is a good example of CA’s critical tradition to challenge
established concepts. It reexamines task planning as embodied, socially shared
activity.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.
American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161–216.
This is a key article demonstrating CA’s methodology and contribution to a
theory of action.
Sidnell, J. (Ed.). (2009). Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
202 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
This book presents comparative studies demonstrating language-specific
solutions to generic interactional problems.
REFERENCES
Antaki, C., Biazzi, M., Nissen, A., & Wagner, J. (2008). Accounting for moral judgments in
academic talk: The case of a conversation analysis data session. Text & Talk, 28, 1–30.
Antaki, C. (2011). Six kinds of applied conversation analysis. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied
conversation analysis (pp. 1–14). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Antaki, C., & Wilkinson, R. (2013). Conversation analysis and the study of atypical populations.
In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.
533–550). Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Atkinson, J. M. (1982). Understanding formality: the categorization and production of
“formal” interaction. The British Journal of Sociology, 33(1), 86–117.
Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Public speaking and audience responses: some techniques for
inviting applause. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action
(pp. 370–410). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in
judicial settings. London, UK: Macmillan.
Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Auer, P. (Ed.). (1998). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction, and identity.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Biazzi, M. (2011). Italian learner varieties and syntax-in-interaction. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner
(Eds.), L2 learning as a social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 267–
325). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation
analysis. Discourse & Society, 10, 543—582.
Bilmes, J. (2008). Generally speaking: Formulating an argument in the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission. Text & Talk, 28, 193–217.
Boden, D., & Zimmerman, D. H. (Eds.). (1991). Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology
and conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language
learning? The Modern Language Journal, 87, 534–545.
Brouwer, C. E. (2004). Doing pronunciation: A specific type of repair sequence. In R. Gardner
& J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 93–113). London, UK: Con-
tinuum.
Brouwer, C. E., Rasmussen, G., & Wagner, J. (2004). Embedded corrections in second
language talk. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 75–
92). London, UK: Continuum.
Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation.
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 29–47.
Brumfit, C. (1995). Teacher professionalism and research. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 27–41). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1439–1465.
Bucholtz, M. (2007). Variation in transcription. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 784–808.
Bucholtz, M. (2009). Captured on tape: Professional hearing and competing entextualizations
in the criminal justice system. Text & Talk, 29, 503–523.
Bushnell, C. (2012). Talking the talk: The interactional construction of community and
identity at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan. Human Studies, 35, 583–605.
Bygate, M. (2005). Applied linguistics: A pragmatic discipline, a generic discipline? Applied
Linguistics, 26, 568–581.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 203
Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Disfluencies or interactional
achievements? In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations
(pp. 201–220). London, UK: Continuum.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheng, T.-P. (2013). Codeswitching and participant orientations in a Chinese as a foreign
language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 869–886.
Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and
adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication,
52, 749–777.
Clayman, S., Elliott, M. N., Heritage, J., & McDonals, L. (2007). When does the watchdog
bark? Conditions of aggressive questioning in presidential news conferences. American
Sociological Review, 72, 23–41.
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of
requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 129–153.
Dingemanse, M., Torreira, F., & Enfield, N. J. (2013). Is “huh?” a universal word? Conversational
infrastructure and the convergent evolution of linguistic items. PLoS ONE 8(11):
e78273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078273.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial
for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 470–520). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Drew, P., Raymond, G., & Weinberg, D. (Eds.). (2006). Talk and interaction in social research
methods. London, UK: Sage.
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London, UK: Sage.
Edwards, D. (2006). Discourse, cognition and social practices: The rich surface of language
and social interaction. Discourse Studies, 8, 41–49.
Egbert, M., Golato, A., & Robinson, J. (2009). Repairing reference. In J. Sidnell (Ed.),
Comparative studies in conversation analysis (pp. 104–132). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Egbert, M., Niebecker, L., & Rezzara, S. (2004). Inside first and second language speakers’
trouble in understanding. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations
(pp. 178–200). London, UK: Continuum.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., & de Ruiter, J. (2012). Epistemic dimensions of polar questions:
Sentence-final particles in comparative perspective. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions:
Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 193–221). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Enfield, N. J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2007). Person reference in interaction. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2011). The L2 inventory in action: Usage-based linguistics and conversation
analysis in second language acquisition. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.),
Learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 327–364). Honolulu,
HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). Negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62, 335–
372.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2014). What’s new? A usage-based classroom study of linguistic routines
and creativity in L2 learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 52, 1–30.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2013). Recurring and shared gestures in the L2 classroom:
Resources for teaching and learning. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–23.
F´elix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using
conversation-analytic tools to teach pragmatics in the FL classroom. In
K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. F´elix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
204 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
Learning (Vol. 11, pp. 165–196). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English
and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259.
Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 147–170.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.
Ford, C. E. (2008). Women speaking up: Getting and using turns in workplace meetings. New
York, NY: Palgrave.
Ford, C. E., & Mori, J. (1994). Causal markers in Japanese and English conversations: A
cross-linguistic study of interactional grammar. Pragmatics, 4(1), 31–61.
Fox, B., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic
study of the syntactic organization of repair. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson
(Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 185–237). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press
Fox, B., Wouk, F., Hayashi, M., Fincke, S., Tao, L., Sorjonen, M-J., Laakso, M., Fincke, S., &
Flores Hernandez, W. (2009). A cross-linguistic investigation of the site of initiation in
same-turn self-repair. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives
(pp. 60–103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gafaranga, J. (2007). Talk in two languages. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gafaranga, J., & Torras, M. C. (2002). Interactional otherness: Towards a redefinition of
codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6, 1–22.
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Benjamins.
Gardner, R. (2007). The right connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk.
Language in Society, 36, 319–341.
Gardner, R., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2004). Second language conversations. London, UK:
Continuum.
Gardner, H., & Forrester, M. (Eds.). (2010). Analyzing interactions in childhood. Chichester,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable
phenomena of order. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences
(pp. 10–19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney
& E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 338–366). New York, NY: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization. Interaction between speakers and hearers.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Goodwin, C. (2011). Contextures of action. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.),
Embodied interaction: language and body in the material world (pp. 182–193). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing
landscapes. Semiotica, 191, 257–286.
Greer, T. (2010). Switching languages, juggling identities: A sequence of multilingual,
multi-party talk. In G. Kasper, H. t. Nguyen, D. Yoshimi, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Pragmatics
& language learning (Vol. 12, pp. 43–65). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at
Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Greer, T. (2013a). Establishing a pattern of dual-receptive language alternation. Australian
Journal of Communication, 40, 47–62.
Greer, T. (2013b). Word search sequences in bilingual interaction: Codeswitching and
embodied orientation toward shifting participant constellations. Journal of Pragmatics,
57, 100–117.
Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence
and development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hauser, E. (2005). Coding “corrective recasts”: The maintenance of meaning and more
fundamental problems. Applied Linguistics, 26, 293–316.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 205
Hauser, E. (2008). Nonformal institutional interaction in a conversation club: Conversation
partners’ questions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 275–295.
Hauser, E. (2013a). Expanding resources for marking direct reported speech. In T. Greer,
D. Tatsuki, & C. Roever (Eds.), Pragmatics & language learning (Vol. 13, pp. 29–53).
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Hauser, E. (2013b). Stability and change in one adult’s second language English negation.
Language Learning, 63, 1–36.
Hayashi, M., & Yoon, K.-E. (2009). Negotiating boundaries in talk. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation
analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 248–276). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
He, A. W. (2013). The wor(l)d is a collage: Multi-performance by Chinese heritage language
speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 304–317.
Heath, C. (1981). The opening sequence in doctor-patient interaction. In P. Atkinson &
C. Heath (Eds.), Medical work: Realities and routines (pp. 71–90). Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Heath, C. (1986). Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
Heinemann, T., Landgrebe, J., & Matthews, B. (2012). Collaborating to restrict: A conversation
analytic perspective on collaboration in design. CoDesign, 8, 200– 214.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription.
In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76).
Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Heritage, J. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.
In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299–345).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1984b), Garfinkel and ethnomethodology, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334.
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement.
In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and
sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2005). Cognition in discourse. In H. te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation
and cognition (pp. 184–202). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1–29.
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 30–52.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, J., & Maynard, D. (Eds.). (2006). Communication in medical care: Interaction
between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority
and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence,
agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions:
Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 179–192). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns 1:
Physicians’ opening questions. Health Communication, 19, 89–102.
Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (Eds.). (1997). Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization
analysis. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Hester, S., & Hester, S. (2012). Categorial occasionality and transformation: Analyzing
culture in action. Human Studies, 35, 563–581.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
206 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
Higgins, C. (2009). “Are you Hindu?” Resisting membership categorization through language
alternation. In H. t. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual
perspectives (pp. 111–136). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language
Resource Center.
Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone conversations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hosoda, Y. (2006). Repair and relevance of differential language expertise in second
language conversations. Applied Linguistics, 27, 25–50.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk: Arguments, asymmetries and power on talk radio.
New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Huth, T., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysis
be directly applied to teaching pragmatics? Language Teaching Research, 10,
53–79.
Ikeda, K., & Ko, S. (2011). Choral practice patterns in the language classrooms. In G. Pallotti
& J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives
(pp. 163–184). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource
Center.
Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in
L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. t. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction:
Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–387). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Ishida, M. (2011). Engaging in another person’s telling as a recipient in L2 Japanese:
Development of interactional competence during one-year study abroad. In G. Pallotti
& J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as a social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives
(pp. 45–56). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Cen-
ter.
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination.
In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology
(pp. 79–96). New York, NY: Irvington.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J. M. Atkinson
& J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 346–369). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T. van
Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 25–34). London, UK: Academic
Press.
Jefferson, G. (1990). List-construction as a task and resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction
competence (pp. 63–92). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology
and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Jefferson, G. (2010). Sometimes a frog in your throat is just a frog in your throat: Gutturals
as (sometimes) laughter-implicative. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1476–1484.
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of
intimacy. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (152–205).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Jenks, C. J. (2011). Transcribing talk and interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern
Language Journal, 88, 551–567.
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside
the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 11–36.
Kasper, G., & Kim, Y. (in press). Conversation-for-learning: Institutional talk beyond the
classroom. In N. Markee (Ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kidwell, M. (2013). Interaction among children. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The
handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 511–532). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 207
Kim, Y. (2009). The Korean discourse markers -nuntey and kuntey in native-nonnative
conversation. In H. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives
(pp. 317–350). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resources Center.
Kim, Y. (2012). Practices for initial recognitional reference and learning opportunities in
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 709–729.
Kitzinger, C. (2000). Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism and Psychology, 10,
163–193.
Kitzinger, C. (2005). “Speaking as a heterosexual”: (How) does sexuality matter for talkin-interaction?
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 221–265.
Kitzinger, C. (2008). Developing feminist conversation analysis: A response to Wowk.
Human Studies, 31, 179–208.
Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Ben-
jamins.
Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speakers. Journal of
Pragmatics, 33, 1083–1110.
Koschmann, T. (2013). Conversation analysis and learning in interaction. In K. Mortensen
& J. Wagner (Eds.), Conversation analysis. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of
applied linguistics (pp. 1038–1043). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Laurier, E. (2013). Before, in and after: Cars making their way through roundabouts. In
P. Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Interaction and mobility (pp. 210–242).
Berlin, Germany: DeGruyter.
Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, G. H. (Ed.). (2004). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Li, Wei (200x).“What do you want me to say?” On the conversation analysis approach to
bilingual interaction. Language in Society, 31, 159–180.
Li, Wei (Ed.). (2005). Conversational code-switching [Special issue]. Journal of Pragmatics,
37.
Li, Wei (2011). Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Code- and modeswitching
by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. The Modern Language
Journal, 95, 370–384.
Li Wei, & Wu, C. (2009). Polite Chinese revisited: Creativity and the use of codeswitching
in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 12, 193–211.
Li, P., Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2014). Tracing an L2 learner’s motion constructions
over time—A usage-based classroom investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 98,
612–628.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey–O’Cain, J. (2005). Learner codeswitching in the content-based
foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 234–247.
Lindstr¨om, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2013). Affiliation in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers
(Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 350–369). Chichester, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Lindwall, O., & Ekstr¨om, A. (2012). Instruction-in-interaction: The teaching and learning
of a manual skill. Human Studies, 35, 27–49.
Local, J. (1996). Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday
talk. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 177–230).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–
468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Luke, K. K., & Pavlidou, T. (Eds.). (2002). Telephone calls. Unity and diversity in conversational
structure across languages and cultures. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
MacWhinney, B., & Wagner, J. (2010). Transcribing, searching and data sharing: The CLAN
software and the TalkBank data repository. Gespr¨achsforschung—Online-Zeitschrift zur
verbalen Interaktion, 11, 154–173. Retrieved from www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
208 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
Markee, N. (1994). Towards an ethnomethodological respecification of second language
acquisition studies. In E. Tarone, M. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in
second language acquisition (pp. 89–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Markee, N. (1995). Teachers’ answers to students’ questions: Problematizing the issue of
meaning making. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 63–92.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA.
Applied Linguistics, 29, 404–427.
Markee, N., & Seo, M.-S. (2009). Learning talk analysis. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 37–64.
Maynard, D. W., & Schaeffer, N. C. (2012). Conversation analysis and interaction in standardized
survey interviews. In K. Mortensen & J. Wagner (Eds.), Conversation analysis.
In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: WileyBlackwell.
doi: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1309
Maynard, D. W., & Freese, J. (2012). Good news, bad news, and affect: Practical and temporal
“emotion work” in everyday life. In A. Per¨akyl¨a & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion
in interaction (pp. 92–112). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language
in Society, 7, 183–213.
McIlvenny, P. (Ed.). (2002). Talking gender and sexuality. Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Moerman, M. (1977). The preference for self-correction in a Thai conversational corpus.
Language, 53, 872–882.
Mishler, E. (1984). The discourse of medicine: Dialectics of medical interviews. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Mori, J. (2003). The construction of interculturality: A study of initial encounters between
Japanese and American students. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36, 143–
184.
Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A
case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 536–
550.
Mori, J., & Hasegawa, A. (2009). Doing being a foreign language learner in a classroom: Embodiment
of cognitive states as social events. International Review of Applied Linguistics
in Language Teaching, 47, 65–94.
Mori, J., & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of interculturality through embodied
completion: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 195–219.
Mortensen, K. (2011). Doing word explanation in interaction. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner
(Eds.), L2 learning as a social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 135–162).
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Nevile, M. (2012). Interaction as distraction in driving: A body of evidence. Semiotica, 191,
169–196.
Nevile, M., & Wagner, J. (2011). Language choice and participation: Two practices for
switching languages in institutional interaction. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2
learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 211–235.) Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Nguyen, H. t. (2008). Sequential organization as local and longitudinal achievement. Text
and Talk, 28(4), 501–528.
Nguyen, H. T. (2011). Achieving recipient design longitudinally: Evidence from a pharmacy
intern in patient consultations. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek-Doehler
(Eds.), Interactional competence and development (pp. 173–205). Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Nguyen, H. t. (2012a). Developing interactional competence: A conversation-analytic study
of patient consultations in pharmacy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 209
Nguyen, H. t. (2012b). Social interaction and competence development: Learning the
sequential organization of a communicative practice. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction,
1, 127–142.
Nguyen, H. t., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2009). Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives.
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Nishizaka, A. (2006). What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 119–154.
Nishizaka, A. (2011). The embodied organization of a real-time fetus: The visible and
the invisible in prenatal ultrasound examinations. Social Studies of Science, 41, 309–
336.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental
pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Pallotti, G., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2011). L2 learning as a social practice: Conversationanalytic
perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource
Center.
Park, Y. Y. (1998). A discourse analysis of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and
Japanese conversation: With special reference to the context of dispreferred responses.
In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 277–300).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Pekarek-Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing “methods” for interaction:
A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann,
& S. Pekarek-Doehler (Eds.), Interactional competence and development (pp. 173–
205). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (2000). The structure of learner varieties [Special issue]. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 22(3).
Per¨akyl¨a, A., & Sorjonen, M. L. (Eds.). (2012). Emotion in interaction. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis and psychology. In J. Sidnell &
T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 701–725). Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Psathas, G. (1994). Conversation analysis. The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Raymond, G. (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no type interrogatives and
the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.
Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren.
Language in Society, 35, 677–705.
Rhine, E. F., & Hall, J. K. (2011). Becoming the teacher: Changing participation frameworks
in international teaching assistant discourse. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. PekarekDoehler
(Eds.), Interactional competence and development (pp. 244–271). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, J. D. (2006). Soliciting patients’ presenting concerns. In J. Heritage & D. Maynard
(Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians
and patients (pp. 22–47). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, S. J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics. Basingstoke,
Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (2009). Gaze, questioning and culture. In J. Sidnell
(Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 187–249). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes
(Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 329–345). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization
of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist,
70, 1075–1095.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
210 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings.
In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 23–78). New
York, NY: Irvington.
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.
American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161–216.
Schegloff, E. A. (1999). “Schegloff’s texts” as “Billig’s data”: A critical reply. Discourse &
Society, 10, 558–572.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–720.
Schegloff, E. A. (2002). Reflections on research on telephone conversation: Issues of
cross-cultural scope and scholarly exchange, interactional import, and consequences.
In K. K. Luke & T.-S. Pavlidou (Eds.), Telephone calls (pp. 249–281). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation
analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2009). One perspective on conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives.
In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 357–406).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the
organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence.
In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition
(pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second
language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to
learn (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In
R. C. Gringas (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Arlington,
VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Sebba, M., & Wootton, A. J. (1998). We, they, and identity. Sequential versus identity
related explanation of code-switching. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation:
Language, interaction and identity (pp. 262–289). London, UK: Routledge.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation
analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Seo, M.-S. (2011). Talk, body, and material objects as coordinated interactional resources
in repair activities in one-on-one ESL tutoring. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2
learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 107–134). Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Seo, M.-S., & Koshik, I. (2010). A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender
repair in ESL conversational tutoring. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2219–2239.
Sidnell, J. (Ed.). (2009). Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.),
The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Speer, S. A. (2005). Gender talk. London, UK: Routledge.
Speer, S. A., & Stokoe, E. (Eds.). (2011). Conversation and gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Stivers, T. (2007). Prescribing under pressure: Physician-parent conversations and antibiotics.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, . . .
Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 106(26), 10587–10592.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS 211
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.). (2011). The morality of knowledge in conversation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stokoe, E. (2012a). Categorial systematics. Discourse Studies, 14, 345–354.
Stokoe, E. (2012b). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods
for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14, 277–303.
Stokoe, E., & Edwards, D. (2007). “Black this, black that”: Racial insults and reported
speech in neighbour complaints and police interrogations. Discourse & Society, 18,
337–372.
Stokoe, E., & Smithson, J. (2001). Making gender relevant: Conversation analysis and
gender categories in interaction. Discourse & Society, 12, 217–244.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction: language and
body in the material world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Suzuki, A. (2009). When gaijin matters: Theory-building in Japanese multiparty interaction.
In H. t. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives
(pp. 89–109). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource
Center.
Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting acquainted in conversation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Benjamins.
Talmy, S. (2009). Resisting ESL: Categories and sequence in a critically “motivated” analysis
of classroom interaction. In H. t. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction:
Multilingual perspectives (pp. 181–213). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Talmy, S., & Richards, K. (Eds.). (2011). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics:
Discursive perspectives [Special issue]. Applied Linguistics 32.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring
mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13, 12–28.
te Molder, H., & Potter, J. (Eds.). (2005). Conversation and cognition. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
ten Have, P. (2001). Applied conversation analysis. In A. McHoul & M. Rapley (Eds.), How
to analyse talk in institutional settings (pp. 3–11). London, UK: Continuum.
ten Have, P. (2002). Comparing telephone openings: Theoretical and methodological
reflections. In K. K. Luke & T.-S. Pavlidou (Eds.), Telephone calls (pp. 233–248). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Benjamins.
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Sage.
Theod´orsd´ottir, G. (2011a). Language learning activities in everyday situations: Insisting
on TCU completion in second language talk. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2
learning as a social practice: conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 185–208). Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Theod´orsd´ottir, G. (2011b). Second language interaction for business and learning. In
J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek-Doehler (Eds.), Interactional competence and
development (pp. 93–118). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Th¨une, E.-M., & Leonardi, S. (Eds.). (2003). Telefonare i diverse lingue [Speaking on the
telephone in different languages]. Milan, Italy: Francoangeli.
¨Ust¨unel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Codeswitching
and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 302–
325.
V¨oge, M. (2011). Employing multilingualism for doing identity work and generating laughter
in business meetings: a case study. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as
a social practice: conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 237–264). Honolulu: University
of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisition through interaction—A critical review of
research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 215–235.
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
212 GABRIELE KASPER AND JOHANNES WAGNER
Wagner, J., & Gardner, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second
language conversations (pp. 1–17). London, UK: Continuum.
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis
and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9, 387–412.
West, C., & Garcia, A. (1988). Conversational shift work: A study of topical transitions
between women and men. Social Problems, 35, 551–575.
Whitehead, K. A. (2009). Categorizing the categorizer: The management of racial common
sense in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 325–342.
Whitehead, K. A., & Lerner, G. (2009). When are persons “white”? On some practical
asymmetries of racial reference in talk-in-interaction. Discourse & Society, 20, 613–641.
Wilkinson, S. (2011). Analysing focus group data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research
(3rd ed., pp. 168–184). London, UK: Sage.
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2003). Constructing identities: A feminist conversation
analytic approach to positioning in action. In R. Harr´e & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), The self
and others in traditional psychology and in positioning theory (pp. 157–180). Westpoint,
CT: Praeger.
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction
tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 150–182.
Wootton, A. J. (1997). Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Young, R., & He, A. W. (1998). Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment
of oral proficiency. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2014). “Put your fingers in there”: Learnability and instructed
experience. Discourse Studies, 16, 163–183.
Zimmerman, D. H. (1999). Horizontal and vertical comparative research in language and
social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 195–203.
Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation.
In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105–
129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
APPENDIX 1
TRANSCRIPT CONVENTIONS
DES: Speaker ID
(.), (0.4) Pause
Overlap markers top
Overlap markers bottom
? Rising intonation
, Continuing intonation
. Falling intonation
: Lengthening
= = Latched turns
AAfrican Loud voice
word Stressed syllable
☺word☺ Spoken with smile voice
h Breathing
ºwordº Spoken in softer voice than environment
·h, ࢫhhhh Inbreath
(h) Laughter token in word
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masarykova Univerzita Faculty of Art, on 13 Feb 2019 at 08:06:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,