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

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

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
Second/ForeignLanguage Learning
as a Social Accomplishment:
Elaborationson a Reconceptualized
SLA
ALAN FIRTH JOHANNES WAGNER
SchoolofEducation,Communication
and Language UniversityofSouthern
Denmark,Kolding
Sciences Engstien1
Newcastle University DK-6000 Kolding
NewcastleUponTyne,NE1 7RU Denmark
UnitedKingdom Email:jwa@sitkom.sdu.
dk
Email: alan.firth@ncl.ac.uk

In thisarticle,we begin by delineatingthe backgroundto and motivationsbehind Firthand

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

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

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

TheModern
Language 91,FocusIssue,(2007)
Journal, Firth and Wagner (1997) was conceived on
0026-7902/07/800-819 $1.50/0 the basis of a lingeringsense of frustration
with
02007 TheModern
Language
Journal SLA as we saw it at that time-a sense that,in
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner
large measure, prevailing,dominant SLA the-
oryand conceptswere myopicvis-A-vis language
learningas social practiceand language as a so-
cial phenomenon-and a strongsense that the
fieldhad to acknowledgemore openlyand more
consequentiallyits limitedvision,and, if possi-
ble, overcome its myopia.The frustrations with
SLA emerged gradually,froma bottom-uppro-
cess while workingwith our data materials--
audiorecordings of people at work in a vari-
ety of settings,engaging each other in a sec-
ond/foreign/other language (L2). Our analyses
revealed people who were artfully adept at over-
coming apparent linguistic hurdles, exquisitely
able to worktogetherinteractionally, despitehav-
ing whatat firstblush appeared to be an imper-
fectcommand of the languages theywere using
(Firth,1990, 1991, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d,
1996; Wagner1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1998; Wagner
& Firth,1997). When we turned to apparently
relevantareas of SLA fortheoreticalinsight,ap-
plicableconcepts,and methodologies,something
was not right.Ratherthan depictionsof interac-
tionalsuccessin an L2, wefoundan overwhelming
emphasison and preoccupationwiththe individ-
ual's linguisticand pragmaticfailure.Ratherthan
talk,we found input.Ratherthan achievement, we
found an abundance of problem-sources. Rather
than collaboration,invention,and an extraordi-
narilycreativeuse of shared resources(which,to
us,was learning-in-action),we foundreferencesto
errors, andfossiliza-
interference,
inputmodifications,
tions.Tryas we mightat first, our observationsof
people usingEnglishas a linguafranca(i.e., a me-
diatinglanguage thatis nota mothertongue [L1]
foranyof theinteractants-seeFirth,1990, 1996,
see also Jenkins,2006a, 2006b; Seidlhofer,2001,
2004) just would not fitthe theoryand concepts
of SLA.
Yet such data materialswere,surely,of critical
relevancefor the SLA program.Here, afterall,
werenonnativespeakerswho wereclearlyacquir-
ing and using (new) formsof language on the
fly--often language formsthatwerelinguistically
and pragmaticallymarked. Moreover, despite
noncollocatingnoun phrases,verb-concordance,
prosodicand morphosyntactic errors,and a host
of other linguisticanomalies, theywere buying
and selling thousandsof tons of Danish cheese
(as wellas fish,flowers,and steel) on a dailybasis,
and maintainingcordial relationswith one an-
other.This was real cheese, and theyweretalking
(albeitin linguistically
markedways)real,and big,
money.
With a background in both SLA and eth-
nomethodological conversationanalysis (CA),'
801
and informedbypoststructuralist notionsof con-
tingency, and
fluidity,hybridity, marginality (see,
e.g., Lyotard,1979; Rampton,1995), we wereun-
easy about how to approach our data materials.
CA, with its emphasis on the sociallyachieved
constructionof irredeemablymotile,participant-
defined contextualrelevancies,its commitment
to the microanalytic explicationof naturallyoc-
curring (rather than experimental)encounters,
and an emic (participant-centered) to
sensitivity
"what'sgoing on," led us to see thatour partici-
pantswerenotdefensibly--that is,tous, emically--
identifiableas participants, or even nonna-
learners,
tivespeakers-thestandardidentitycategoriesof
SLA. Atthe least,such categorieswereclearlynot
omnirelevant:These individualswere also, vary-
ingly,sellers,buyers,friends,business acquain-
tances, customers,and clients.Identity,we had
learned, was a motile,liminal,achieved feature
of the interaction(Antaki& Widdicombe,1998;
Gumperz,1982; Rampton,1995). And-as we will
show-we noted thatwho theyare locallyand dis-
cursively has an impacton howtheyuse and learn
language.2
Certainlytheywere not learners in any for-
mal (or traditionalSLA) sense of the term.Yet
theywere clearlymodifying,adapting,and cre-
ativelydeployingwhatwere to them new forms
of language; that is, they were learning, and
theywould occasionallydrawattention-oftenin
jest-to theirunderdevelopedforeignlanguage
abilitieswhen engagingeach other.We werehes-
itant about calling their interlanguageinterlan-
guage,forwhereand whatwas thetargetlanguage
here,in thisseeminglylinguisticallylawlesslingua
francalandscape? Here, it appeared, the spectre
of the native speaker,withhis or her idealized
norms and baseline standards,had evaporated
(on this concept, see Jenkins,2006a).3 SLA fit-
ted, but then again, it did not. Somethingwas
quite clearlynotright.The fieldwas,we argued,in
need oftheoretical,methodological,and concep-
tual refurbishment and expansion. In particular,
we (Firth& Wagner,1997) called fora reconcep-
tualizationwithinSLA in threeareas: "(a) a sig-
nificantlyenhanced awarenessof the contextual
and interactionaldimensions of language use,
(b) an increasedemic (i.e., participant-relevant)
towardsfundamentalconcepts,and (c)
sensitivity
the broadeningof the traditionalSLA data base"
(p. 286).
Fromour observationsofSLA,itwastheindivid-
ual's disembodied cognition-more specifically,
hisor herautonomouslanguageprocessing-that
wasin theascendancy,to thedetrimentofwhatwe
mightcall socialcognition,thatis,whatpeople do,
802
think,demonstrate,achieve,manipulate,modify,
acquire, and learn, together,in concertedsocial
interaction(e.g.,Volosinov,1930/1973;Vygotsky,
1978; Wertsch,1991). This is not to say,then,
that learning was or is uninterestingor some-
how incidentalto our methodologicalpursuits.
What we did not attemptto show in Firthand
Wagner (1997)-but will attemptto do in this
article-is that learning can be explicated and
trackedas it happens and, moreover,thatthe de-
scriptionofhowit happens can be liberatedfrom
a cognitivistic
positionpredicatedon telementa-
tionalnotionsofcommunication4 and individual-
istic,monolinguistic,and formalisticperceptions
of language.5These perceptions,we argued, in-
fuseSLA research,in its theorizingon language,
learning,and discourse,in itsterminologiesand
fundamentalconcepts (such as an ascendant na-
tivespeakerand interlanguage),and in itsmethod-
ologicalpractices,including practicesofthose
the
who focalizeinteractionin SLA studies.
The immediate reactionsto the 1997 article
were, for the most part, polarized, with rather
sterncriticismon one side and firmsupporton
the other.6Because the criticismsgo to the heart
ofthedebate,a debate that,as recentpublications
attest,has in no manner been concluded (see,
e.g., the recent exchanges between Gass, 2004;
Hall, 2004; Larsen-Freeman,2004; and Wagner,
2004), and because thesecriticisms revealthekey
counterarguments to ours, while demonstrating
how entrenchedpositioningswithinSLA can be-
come,letus briefly considerthecriticisms ofFirth planationsforeach of them" (p. 325). However,
and Wagner(1997).
CRITICISMS OF FIRTH AND WAGNER (1997)
In contradistinctionto our argument,Long
(1993) had actuallyarguedforSLA theoryculling,
ratherthan an expansion or broadeningof SLA.
In his responseto our 1997 article,Long (1997)
venturedthatthe fundamentalproblemwithour
position, which among other thingsemphasized
the need to focus on L2 acquisitionthroughL2
use,7 was that SLA is "the studyof L2 acquisi-
tion, [and] not...'most centrallythe language
use of second or foreign language speakers'"
(p. 318). Long went on to state that"mostSLA
researchersviewthe object of inquiryas in large
part an internal,mental process" (p. 319). How-
ever,he conceded that"Firthand Wagnerare per-
and probablyright,in arguingthat
fectlyjustified,
participant-sensitive, understandwhattypesofinteractionmightbring
a broader,context-sensitive,
generallysociolinguisticorientationmightprove
beneficial for SLA research" (p. 322). Never- edge" (p. 84). Gass made the erroneous obser-
theless,he ended his response with "the major
TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)
problemI have withFirthand Wagner'spolemic
remainsmyskepticismas to whethergreaterin-
sightsinto SL usewillnecessarily have much to say
about SL acquisition"(p. 322).
Kasper (1997) adopted a similarstance. "'A'
standsforacquisition,"she remindedus, adding,
tellingly, that "[a] noncognitivist discipline that
has learningas itscentralresearchobjectis a con-
tradictionin terms"(p. 310; note, however,that
we did not, in Firthand Wagner,1997, call for
a noncognitivist SLA). In close agreementwith
Long (1997), Kasperheld that"themostnagging
problemwiththeFirthand Wagnerpaper [is that
it] has in factverylittleto sayabout L2 acquisition"
(p. 310). She wenton to statethat"I am comfort-
able with an essentiallycognitivistdefinitionof
SLA" (p. 310), thoughin her self-styled heretical
finalnote she submittedthat
toolsof CA werein-
if theexcellentmicroanalytic
corporated approachto
intoa languagesocialization
SLA,we mightbe able to reconstructlinksbetween
L2 discourseand theacquisition
ofdifferentaspects
ofcommunicative thathavebeenlargely
competence
obscurethusfar.(p. 311)8
Poulisse (1997) also offereda defense of the
psycholinguisticapproach in response to our
arguments,maintaining that "the task of all
researchers[is] to not onlydescribe,but also ex-
plain and predictphenomena" (p. 325) and "it
would definitelynot do to just look at particu-
lar and local phenomena and find specificex-
Poulisse conceded that"Firthand Wagnerhave a
pointwhentheyplea for'an enhanced awareness
of thecontextualand interactionaldimensionsof
languageuse' and a morepositiveviewoftheNN's
[non-nativespeaker's]attemptsto interactin the
L2" (p. 327).
Gass (1998), who found our perspective"per-
plexing" (p. 88), maintainedthatwe had got it
all verywrongand thatour criticisms were naive
and misplaced because, among other things,in
calling for greater attentionto communication,
we had not understoodthatthe "proper"object
of attentionin SLA is language; thusher correc-
tion: "theemphasisin inputand interactionstud-
ies [in SLA] is on the languageused and not on
the act of communication"(p. 84). "The goal of
mywork,"she wrote,"(and otherswithinthe in-
put/interaction framework...)has neverbeen to
understandlanguage use per se... but ratherto
about what typesof changes in linguisticknowl-
vation that "Firthand Wagner portraycognitive
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner
approaches and communication/discourseem-
phases as mutuallyincompatible"(p. 84). In ad-
dition,she claimed that,because we called foran
enlargementofthestandardSLA database (which
we see as being dominatedby classroomand ex-
perimentalsettings)to include settingssuch as
theworkplace,9and because we called forgreater
attentionto L2 use froman emicallyinformed
viewpoint,the approach we espoused "is not ac-
tuallypart of SLA, but part of the broader field
of L2 studies(of whichSLA is a subset)" (p. 84).
She continued,"manyindividualsin a workplace
setting... are not learnersin the sense thatis of
interestto researchersin SLA" (p. 84).
We shall return to some of these criticisms
presently(see also Firth& Wagner,1998). What
is importantto point out at thisjuncture are
the rhetoricalmethodsand argumentsdeployed
both to dismissour viewpointand to impose a
grandnarrative(Lyotard,1979) or dominantthe-
ory of SLA, a theorythat is meant to trump
ours preciselybecause it is framedand formu-
lated as dominant-for example, in ex cathedra
proclamationsabout how SLA is properlydone,
and throughreferencesto what most SLA re-
searchersdo (see Long, 1997; Gass, 1998). The
criticismsalso demonstraterather vividlyhow
readilyhegemonic forcescan come to the fore
whenmetatheoretical contributions, suchas Firth
and Wagner's(1997), attemptto critiqueprevail-
ing, established,and thus mainstream,intellec-
tual practices.Admittedly, this is a mainstream
that we, in and throughour critique,both aid
in itsconstructionas mainstreamand contribute
to itsstatusas mainstream.Long (1997), Kasper
(1997), Poulisse (1997), and Gass (1998) drew
inwards,and fromtheirself-constructed SLA pan-
theon theylaid down the law by definingSLA's
proper intellectualterritory(e.g., learners,lan-
guage, cognition), delineatingits key concerns
(e.g., acquisition,not use, language,not commu-
nication),and bypointingto itsborders(e.g., by
stipulatingwhatis inside and outsideSLA). In so
doing, theydefinedthe parametersof legitimate
criticismand debate whileessentiallyaccusingus
of intellectualtrespass(see Firth& Wagner,1998;
Thorne, 2000).
For some SLA researchers, includingsomewith
tangentialSLA interests,the Firthand Wagner
(1997) articleseemsto havebeen viewedas a kind
ofwatershedforSLA in generaland forSLA stud-
ies of interactionin particular.This reaction to
it occurred,at least in part,as the resultof the
prominencethe articlewas givenin the MLJ at
the time-as the centerpiece of a focused and
extended discussionby prominentscholarscon-
tributingto an esteemedjournal. However,as we
803
pointed out in our 1997 article,the arguments
it containeddid not emergefroman intellectual
void. Althoughthe articlehas since been char-
acterizedas seminal by a numberof scholars,it
would be a mistaketo see it as some kind of so-
cioculturalor sociointeractionalbig bang within
or withoutSLA. Our theoreticalpositionvis-a-vis
whatwe had termedand perceivedas mainstream
SLA emergedfromour own observationsof and
engagementin an ineluctablesocioculturalturn
in the studyof language that had sweptacross
linguisticsin generaland discoursestudiesin par-
ticular,as well as across anthropology,social psy-
chology,education, and sociology the 1970s
in
and 1980s,beginning,we argued,withGumperz
and Hymes's (1972), Halliday's (1973), Hymes's
(1974), and others'influentialcalls fora socially
constitutedlinguistics.The Firthand Wagnerar-
ticlealso developedand wasinfluencedbya num-
ber of extant,socioculturally focusedcritiquesof
SLA by scholarssuch as Block (1996), Kramsch
(1993), Lantolf(1996), Rampton(1987), and van
Lier (1994).
Of course,SLA researchofthe 1980sand 1990s
was itselfinfluencedby thissocioculturalturn-
as witnessedbythe steadyincreasein studiesthat
acknowledged,thematized,and exploredcontext
and interaction.However,we arguedin Firthand
Wagner (1997) that in the main, SLA work-
including contextual and interaction-oriented
studies-was tenaciouslyresistantto the fullim-
plicationsof thissocioculturalturn(see also sim-
ilar criticismsmade by Breen, 1985; Lantolf &
Appel, 1994; Larsen-Freeman,1983; Rampton,
1987). That is, despite a significantincrease in
calls formore sociallyorientedapproaches to L2
learning and acquisition throughoutthe 1980s
and earlyto mid-1990s,SLA continuedto be dom-
inated byan essentiallyChomskianmind-setthat
placed enormousstresson individualcognition-
to such an extentthat,to some, alternativecon-
ceptions of SLA were perplexingand just plain
wrong.However,on the basis of subsequentpub-
licationsthatreengagedand developed our criti-
cismsof SLA1' (e.g., Atkinson,2002; Block,2003;
Hall, 2004;Jenkins,2006a, 2006b; Markee,2000;
Pavlenko,2002; Rampton,1997b;Seeley& Carter,
2004; Thorne, 2000), it seems reasonable to con-
clude that our article articulateda widelyheld
sense ofdissatisfaction and unease thatwas build-
ingat thetimebothwithinand aroundtheperiph-
eryof SLA, an unease thatprovidedimpetusfor
our owncall fora reconceptualizationofSLA the-
ories,concepts,and methods.1'In 1997,we main-
tained the positionthatSLA is partof the nexus
ofapproachesto thewider,interdisciplinary study
of language-which centrallyincludes language
804 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

learning-and has the potentialto make signif- It depends where you look. In manywaysit ap-
icant contributionsto a wide range of research pears thatthingsare more or less as theywerein
issues conventionallyseen to reside outside its 1997-the mainstreamis in fullflow(forrecent
boundaries-a potentialthatis, arguably,yet to criticalexpositions,see Block,2003; Cook, 1999;
be realized. Jenkins,2006a, 2006b; Kramsch,2006; Seeley &
Whatwe called forwas an epistemologicaland Carter,2004) and the nativespeakercontinuesto
methodologicalbroadening of SLA. This broad- predominateas the baseline or targetthatlearn-
ening does not entail
jettisoning the mainstream ers should seek to emulate;learningis conceived
SLA position,as some havemistakenly interpreted as a cognitiveprocess thatis in essence context-
our arguments (e.g., Gass, 1998; Long, 1998; neutral;competenceis definedlargelyin termsof
Poulisse,1997).12 Althoughwe do notsubscribeto theindividual'sgrammatical competence;eticpre-
SLA's fundamentaltenets(e.g., an assumptionof vailsoveremic;and learnersin classroomsremains
thenaturalascendancyofthenativespeaker),and the standarddata set.All thewhile,theselearners
we seriouslyquestion (a) thevalidityofsuch stan- are viewedas essentiallyengaged in a continuous,
dard SLA dichotomiesas acquisitionversus use, autonomous,cognitive,morphosyntactic struggle
and languageversuscommunication; (b) problema- to traverse,in linear fashion,along the plane of
tize the apparentlyclear-cutseparationof thecog- theirinterlanguagein pursuitof the target(i.e.,
nitiveand thesocial;and (c) rejectSLA's essentially nativespeaker)competence(see e.g.,Han, 2003).
staticviewof context in Firthand Wag-
and identity, Nevertheless,our (and others') urgingsclearly
ner (1997), we neverthelesseschewed dogmatic did not go unheeded. Much SLA research that
positioningand pressedinsteadforthe need for has been produced overthelastdecade bearswit-
greatertheoretical,conceptual,and methodolog- ness to a markedincreasein thenumberofsocio-
ical balance withinSLA. For let us acknowledge culturaland contextual-interactional themesand
thatSLA researchhas,overthefourdecades or so conceptsimpactingupon SLA's researchagenda,
of itsexistenceas a discipline,uncovereda wide revealingan apparent growingawarenessof the
of
range criticallyimportantfindingsrelating to need to takeseriouslytherequirementfora more
how languagesare acquired or learned. balanced approach to SLA research. It appears
In Firthand Wagner(1997), we emphasizedthe that SLA has, over the last decade in particu-
need fora theoretical,methodological,and epis- lar, undergone a bifurcationbetween a cogni-
temologicalbroadeningof SLA, whichincluded tiveSLA (which is being termedmainstreamin
enlarging the standardSLA database to one that a number of recent publications)-represented
reflectsmore accuratelythe sociolinguisticreal- perhaps most clearlyin workundertakenby,for
ityof a vastnumberof L2 users/learnersaround example,Doughtyand Long (2003), who see SLA
the world.We soughtan SLA thatwas more in- as "a branch of cognitivescience" (p. 4)-and a
teractionally sensitive,thatalso made roomforan sociocultural/sociointeractional SLA. An increas-
emic stance towardsfundamentalconcepts,and ing number of researchers are thus displayinga
that took seriouslythe theoreticaland method- willingnessto adopt emic perspectivesand ex-
ological consequences of a social view of learn- plore and attemptto develop cognitive-social ap-
ing and language. We did so in the belief that proaches to language learning.
"theexistenceofdistinctand multipletheoretical New sets of metaphors are being deployed,
traditionsmayhelp to explicatethe processesof such thatallusionsto dynamism,interaction,in-
SLA, and subsequently, to develop more accurate tricacy,and the liminalare nowadayscompeting
heuristics whichmodel theseprocessesand condi- withtheestablishedSLA metaphorsofmachinery
tions"(Thorne,2000, p. 221). Withoutspecifying and computation (e.g., input, output, process-
in anydetailedwaywhatthe reconceptualization ing). Kramsch(2002), forexample,proposed the
would entail in methodologicalterms (this was developmentofan ecological approach to SLA and
not, afterall, the purpose of our articlein 1997), language learning, one that centrallyacknowl-
we stressed"the need to worktowardsthe evolu- edges the nonlinear,interactional,and contextual
tionof a holistic,bio-socialSLA" (p. 296). characteristicsof language use and acquisition.
Borrowingfromthe latestthinkingin the natu-
ral sciences,Larsen-Freeman(1997, 2007) used
RECONCEPTUALIZATIONS: NEW
DIRECTIONS IN SLA the termschaosand complexity in her attemptto
capturemore accuratelythefactthatL2 learning
How, then, do we assess the field of SLA, is "dynamic,complex, nonlinear,unpredictable,
10 years later? Has the reconceptualizationwe, sensitiveto initialconditions,sometimeschaotic,
and others,called for come about? The most open, self-organizing, feedback sensitive,adap-
accurate answerto this question is likelyto be: tive"(Larsen-Freeman,1997,p. 35). Block (2007)
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner
used thetermmultimodal to capturethemultiplic-
ity of resources (historical,cultural,spatial,tem-
poral, linguistic,etc.) broughtto bear upon the
processes of language learningand as a frame-
work for more socially oriented SLA analyses.
Compared withmainstreamcognitiveSLA, such
workcentrallylocates and thematizesthe contin-
gent,the contextual,the ad hoc-ness, the interre-
latedness of linguisticand situationalelements,
and theunsystematicity inherentin processesun-
derlyingL2 learning-factorsthat have been at
worstoverlookedand at best downgradedin im-
portancein more traditionalSLA research.
Researchof thischaotic,social,ecological kind
is being recognized as representingnew direc-
tions in the SLA field (see Cook, 2002; Kram-
sch 2002; Larsen-Freeman,2003; Ortega, 2005).
Markee and Kasper (2004) thus talked of a re-
cent "split between mainstream,cognitiveSLA
and emergent,socioculturalapproaches to SLA"
(p. 491). This latter type,Markee and Kasper
claimed,"pointsthe wayto futuredevelopments
in what may prove to be one of the most radi-
cal respecifications of SLA researchers'theoreti-
cal prioritiesand methodologicalpracticesin the
historyof the field"(p. 492).
Three topicsappear to playa keyrole in thede-
velopmentof workin thissociocultural,socioin-
teractionalarea: (a) whetherthe researchincor-
porates educational (i.e., classroom) settingsor
other (e.g., workplace)settings;(b) whetherthe
focusis on language learningor interaction;and
(c) whetherthe researchis theorydrivenor data-
driven.Lantolf,withseveral collaborators(e.g.,
Lantolf,2000; Lantolf& Appel, 1994; Lantolf&
Thorne, 2006; Pavlenko& Lantolf,2000), has en-
gaged in SLA theory-building in the Vygotskyan
tradition,producingwhathas become knownas
the socioculturalapproach to SLA.13At the core
of Vygotskyan learningtheory,new developmen-
tal stagesare firstaccomplishedwiththe help of
othersin the social sphereand can thenbecome
intrapsychological accomplishments(see Hall's,
1997,usefulsynopsis).The pathwayto learningis
thus throughsocial practice.The social practice
in which learninghas been studied thusfarhas
been in L2 classrooms.In socioculturaltheory:
Communication, includingthe instructionalcon-
versationof the classroom...and the learning-
development that emergesfromit, arise in the
ofpeoplewithidentities
coming-together (whichen-
tailmorethansimplywhether
oneisa nativespeaker),
histories
andlinguistic
resources
constructed inthose
histories.
(Dunn& Lantolf,1998,p. 427)
Witha greateremphasison data-drivenresearch
but stillworkingmainlyfromthe basis of class-
805
room interactionand Vygotskyan ideas of learn-
ing are, inter alios, Hall (2002), Hall and Ver-
plaetse (2000), and Ohta (2001).
Another distinct research direction is also
emergingwhere the emphasis is on the social,
contextual,and interactional.In this case, the
workdeploysCA methodology.Scholarshipthat
drawstogetherCA and SLA is takingboth SLA
and CA into new, and largelyuncharted, ter-
ritory,and providing"the impetusfor a whole
newgenerationofempirically groundedresearch
into how cognitiveSLA mightbe respecifiedin
socioculturalterms"14(Markee & Kasper,2004,
p. 491).15This workcan usefullybe dividedinto
twogroups.The firstgroup focuseson the class-
room settingand otherformallearningenviron-
mentsand is centrallyconcernedwiththe theme
ofL2 learning--thoughfroman interactional per-
spective(see He, 2004; Hellermann,2006; Kasper,
2004; Koshik,2005; Lazaraton,2002, 2004; Mar-
kee, 2000; Markee & Kasper,2004; Mondada &
Pekarek-Doehler, 2004; Mori,2004a, 2004b; Seed-
house, 2004). A somewhatdifferent emphasiscan
be found in the CA-basedSLA workundertaken
by Brouwer(2003, 2004) and Brouwerand Wag-
ner (2004), who explored aspectsof L2 learning
occurringoutsideformaleducationalsettings.
A second group to have emergedover the last
decade also deploys CA methodologyand the-
ory.In thiscase, the focusis not so much on L2
learning,but more on tryingto understandand
explicate the characterof L2 and lingua franca
interactions,or L2 use. Thisworkhas been under-
takenin settingsoutsidetheclassroom-forexam-
ple, in governmentoffices,libraries,and various
workplacesettings(e.g.,Firth,1996;and contribu-
tionsto Gardner& Wagner,2004; Kurhila,2006;
Rasmussen & Wagner, 2002; Schegloff,2000;
Svennevig,2003, 2004; Wong, 2000a, 2000b).
As Wagner & Gardner (2004) explained in the
introductorychapter to their SecondLanguage
Conversations collection,this researchis an on-
goinginvestigation of
whether a micro-analysis
ofsecondlanguageconversa-
tionscanenhanceourunderstanding ofwhatitmeans
to talkin anotherlanguage,bybroadening thefo-
cus beyondthesounds,structures and meaningsof
languagetoencompass actionsequences,timingand
(p. 14)
interactivity.
In most of these studies--withWong (2000a,
2000b) as a notable exception-explicating the
normality ofL2 conversations, in thefaceofsome-
timesabnormal (froma native-speaker perspec-
tive,at least) linguisticbehavior,has underpinned
the research,revealing,forexample,thatdue to
participants'linguisticand interactionalalacrity
806 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

and resourcefulness,interactionalsuccesscan be defineditselfas a disciplinethatproducesknowl-

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

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

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

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

theydeploy,make available,share,adapt,manip- understood.Upon hearingH's uptake at line 4,
ulate,and contingently and creativelyapplycom- and now actingon the presumptionof a shared
municativeresourcesin an ongoing attemptto commonground,A, in line 6, asksH "whatdo you
constructmeaningfuland consequentialsocial in- thinkwe should do withall thisblowing?"(un-
teraction.The data excerptswe presentand com- derliningindicatesstressin enunciation).At this
menton here representa smallwindowon what juncture, H is evidentlycompelled to display--
mightbe possibleifmorein-depth,extensivestud- to make public-his unfamiliarity withthe word
ies of the same kindare undertaken. blowing;thus H's "I'm not uh (0.7) blowinguh
whatuh, what is thisu: :h too big or what?"A's
An EvidentialArgument responseis to explainthemeaningofblowing;he
does thisbyreformulating: "no the cheese is bad,
Consider firstExcerpt 1, where Hansen (H), Mr.Hansen" (line 10). Withno receiptforthcom-
the Danish dairy-producesalesman,is talkingon ing (note the 0.4 second pause in line 11), A tries
thetelephonewithAkkad(A), an Egyptianwhole- again, in line 12: "itis like fermenting in the cus-
saler (see the Appendix for transcriptconven- toms' cool rooms." H now displayshis updated
tions): knowledgeby producinghis own reformulation
(withrisingintonation)of blowing,in his "ah it's
EXCERPT 1 gone off?"(line 13). A, in the nextturn,confirms
Blowingin the Customs the appropriatenessof the definitionof blowing
(Firth,1996,p. 244) by reusingH's formulation,hence "yesit's gone
off' (line 14).
1. A: .. so I told him not to u: :h send the::
What this excerpt reveals is that the interac-
cheese after the- (.) the blowing (.)
tants,conjointly,do interactionalwork to over-
in the tcustoms
come potential or real communicativehurdles
2. (0.4) in order to establishintersubjectivity and mean-
3. A: we don't want the order after the
cheese is u: :h (.) blowing. ing. In so doing, the interactants provideforthe
availabilityand utility ofinteractionaland linguis-
4. H: see, yes. tic resourcesthatallow forlearningto occur. H
5. A: so I don't knowwhatwe can uh do with
has,in thisexcerpt,quite clearlydisplayedthathe
the ordernow. (.) Whatdo you
has learned the (forhim) new lexical item blow-
6. thinkwe should uh do withthisis all
ing. What is importantis that the excerpt also
tblo:wingMisterHansen shows how learningis engaged contingently, as
7. (0.5) thelearneditemin questionbecomes interaction-
8. H: I'm not uh (0.7) blowinguh whatuh,
whatis thisu: :h too big or what? ally relevantas the talk unfolds.Learning here,
then,is an artifactofinteractionalexigencyand a
9. (0.2)
10. A: no the cheese is tbad MisterHansen productof collaboration.
Let us now examine how H operationalizeshis
11. (0.4)
it is like (.) fermentingin the customs' learning(ofwhatblowingcheesemeans) in a sepa-
12. A: rateencounter,thatis,howhis learningis carried
cool rooms
overin timeand space. Twoworkingdayslater,H,
13. H: ah it'sgone offt
in Denmark,callsA's wholesalecompanyin Cairo.
14. A: yesit'sgone off?4 The call is answeredbyA's colleague, B. The call
15. H: we: :11you knowyou don't have to uh
do uh anything because it's not beginsas follows:
((continues))
EXCERPT 2
Bad Cheese
When this excerpt was initiallyanalyzed (in (Firth,1991)
Firth,1996, p. 244), the focus of attentionwas ((ring))
the letitpass procedureand itsinteractionalcon-
sequences."7But we can also use the excerptto 1. B: allo
witnessan instanceof learning-in-interaction. To 2. H: yes hello Michael Hansen melko
see this,note, first,H's "I see, yes" (line 4). This dairies Denmark Tcalling (.) can I
turnfollowsA's revelationin lines 1-3 that the please speak to misterAkkad
"cheese is blowingin thecustoms"(line 1). In line 3.
(.)
4. B: thello misterMichael
6,A displaysthathe has heard H's Isee,yesas indi-
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner
5. H: is it Barat?
6. B: ye: (h)s, how are you (.) si::r
7. H: wellI'm OK, butyouha:d tu-havesome
uh problemswiththe:cheese
8. B: uuuuuuhhhhh ((one-second sound
stretch))
9. H: the bad cheese (.) in the tcustoms
10. (0.5)
11. B: ftoneminute (0.4) misterAkkad will
talk (.) w[ith (-) you
12. H: [ok ftyes
13. (1.5)
14. A: YES (.) misterHanseni
15. H: hello: misterAkkad (.).hh we hafsome
informations for you about the
cheese (.)
16. withthe f1blowing
17. A: tyesmisterHansen
Note thatin thisexcerptit is H who uses the
item blowing(line 16)-which seems to suggest
thatnot onlyhas H now learned thislexical item
in a waythatextendsbeyond the concretelocal
contextwhere he firstbecame acquainted with
it,but also, critically,
thathe has learned how to
deploy it appropriatelyin context,whichin this
case entailsknowingwhom to use the itemwith.
Consider,first,how H characterizesthe matter
whiletalkingto B. First,H uses "problemswiththe
cheese" (line 7), next,he reformulates thematter
as "the bad cheese in the customs"(line 9), this
reformulation likelybeinga resultofan apparent
lack of uptake by B (line 8). When A entersthe
interaction(at line 14), H firstuses the formu-
lation "the cheese" (line 15), and then,without
yet securinguptake fromhis interlocutor(note
the micropauseat the end ofline 15), formulates
the matteras "withthe blowing"(line 16). This
formulationsucceeds,as we see fromA's "yesMr.
Hansen" (line 17).
What are the language learningimplications
of such behavior?They are, firstand foremost,
thatiflearningentailsbeing contingently adapt-
able as theunfoldingcontextrequires,thenhere,
surely,is learning-in-action.Second, here maybe
evidence of a communityof practice (Lave &
Wenger,1991) being constructedbeforeour very
eyes-namely, betweenH and A. The nature of
thisparticularcommunityof practiceappears to
be consequentialforhow learningis operational-
ized, forhow learningis displayed,and forhow
communicativeknowledgeis refinedand tested
bothwithinand acrossinteractions.
It is arguablethatH, in Excerpt2, orientstoA as
a co-user,or as a co-memberofthismicrocommu-
nityof practice,of the termblowing.Co-usership,
809
then,is,potentiallyat least,a relevantidentitycat-
egory for some of these interactants.In a related
we
way, may venture that the reason H deploys
the itemblowingwithA, but uses insteadcognate
formulations withB, is because H is "recipientde-
signing"(Sacks, Schegloff,& Jefferson, 1974, p.
727) his displaysof knowledgeso as to achieve
communicative(and likelyinterpersonal)success
and todisplayinteractionalaffinity.To paraphrase
Baker,Emmison,and Firth(2005), we can saythat
H is calibratinghis language behaviorforhis in-
terlocutors'competence.We cannotknowwhyH
did not use the termblowingwithB. Perhaps,if
A had not been available or had not been able
to engage H, H maysubsequentlyhave deployed
the item blowing.However,his apparent contin-
gent and selectivedeploymentof the itemoffers
an intriguingangle fromwhichto viewlanguage
learning.
Our argumentso farremindsus of theinterac-
tionhypothesis(Long, 1996), accordingto which
learningis fueled by the problemsthatlearners
encounter.However there are severalproblems
withthisexplanationforlearning:
1. The approach describes a transparent
problem-basedwayof learning,but we findonly
fewinstancesof such problem-basedlearningin
our data.
2. It prototypically
describeslexical learning.
Where does the restof the language (and com-
municativebehaviormore generally)reside?
3. Uptakes are rare. Participantsin interac-
tions obviouslypick up items and use them in
recipient-designed ways,butsuch actionsare only
part of the whole language learning story.Al-
though it mightpartlyhave to do withthe lack
of comprehensivecorpora,problem-basedlearn-
ing of this kind seems not to be at the core of
language learning.
4. The interactivehypothesisconstructssome
kind of evidentialargument:a plain causal chain
betweenuse of elementsand learning.When we
look at the developmentaldata we have access to,
plaincausal explanationsdo notcovermanyofthe
complexitieswe see unfoldingin our data. We see
learnersdevelopingtheirskillsin usingresources
in more advanced waysformore advanced inter-
actions,but we rarelysee a "smokinggun,"as in
Excerpts1 and 2.
There are few,ifany,studiesshowinglearningin
action (Huth,2006; Nguyen,2003). The mainob-
stacle forthistypeof researchhas been the lack
of longitudinalcorpora available forL2 interac-
tions.
810 TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

DoingLearning core of thisstandardsituation-the Danish sen-

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

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

participantsin L2 interactionscarve out oppor- second call betweenBR andJG.
tunitiesfordoinglearningin the ongoingflowof
interaction. EXCERPT 4
Compared to the case of Hansen and Akkad, Lot ofWork1
instancesof doing learningdo not affordan ev-
(Wagner,unpublishedrawdata)
idential argumentfor learning.Instancesof do-
ing learningshow thatlearninga language and 1. BR: okayhave you a lot ofworkto do.
learningto learnare mutuallyconstitutive,
as Hall 2. JG: yes,
(2006) formulateditforthe language classroom: 3. JG: [we ha' a lot a do.
4. BR: [xx
Whatourstudents takeawayfromourclassrooms in 5. BR: a lot of orders.
terms oftheirtargetlanguageknowledge andunder- 6. JG: and we e::hm: workalso in the week-
standingsofwhatitmeanstolearnanotherlanguage ends
isintimately
tiedtothekindsofinteractionalpractices 7. BR: ah [(xx theweekend)]
thatweas teacherscreateinourtalkwithstudents....
8. JG: [forthe next ] e:h fh threefour
Throughtheirinteractions withus,learners become
atfiguringouttheactionsthatarebeing monthth(.) [I think,
experienced
implemented inourutterancesincluding howtheut- 9. BR: [yes
terancesare constructedand eventuallylearnto use 10. (0.8)
themto takeactionsoftheirown.Ourinteractional 11. JG: [so ]
are,then,touseVygotsky's
practices term,themedi- 12. BR: [that's]that'sgood to
ationalmeansbywhichweandourstudents together 13. (0.3) ,hear.
constitute,
represent,andremember whatitmeansto 14. JG: yes,
knowanddo languagelearning. (p. 27) 15. BR: fokay.
16. JG: and yourcompanyhas also. (.) lot to
Learning is about the object and the waysof
do,
learning.Joseph and Rasmus illustratethatthey 17.
knowhow to setup a learningsituation.Theyen- (0.3)
18. BR: oh yes.
act the classical activitiesof language teaching.
19. BR: thingsare goingverywell.=
However,the otherstudiesmentionedhere trace
20. JG: yesi
waysof learningnot onlyon the genre level but
also as practicesin ongoinginteractionwherepar-
BR's questionin line 1, "haveyou a lot ofworkto
ticipantsshow each other that theyare, among do" is in line 16 mirroredbyJG's answer"we ha
other thingsin the real world,engaged in more
a lot to do" (line 3) as well as in his formulation
than intersubjectivity. They are not content to in line 16 "and your companyhas also a lot to
make themselvesunderstoodbut clearlydemon-
do." Regulartelephone engagementwithknown
stratea desire to do so in waysthat are viewed
as appropriateand normalin theirL2. Otherset- othersfrequentlygivesrise to the productionof
How areyousequences (compare Excerpts2, 6).
tings,withotherkindsofinteractionaland institu- As in Excerpt2, we notice thatthese howareyou
tionalgoals and relationships, willdoubtlesspro-
duce differentkinds of talk-and learning-based sequences are not takenpersonallybut relatein-
stead to the companiesin whichthe protagonists
activities.
work.Considernow Excerpt5.
Doing learningillustrates howparticipantsfore-
groundlearning in an interactionally
consequen-
tial way.This typeof learningis differentfrom EXCERPT 5
Lot ofWork2
thatof Hansen and Akkadwherelearninga new
itemwas entirelyembedded in thebusinessinter-
1. JG: have you: lot ofworkto do.
action. But doing learningdoes not provideevi-
2. TT: yesethey'renot too badd
dence thatlearningis actuallyhappeningin these 3.
activities. JG: [yes]
4. TT: [we-] e-e- picked up another ordere
Out ofChaosComesOrder =eight hundredthousand
pound [s
Considernow Excerpt4, again froma business 5. JG: [4ouw:4
interaction.Jorgen Gade (JG) in Denmark has 6. (0.6)
been called bya Swissbusinessacquaintance(BR). 7. JG: excellentehhe hhe hhe hhe hhe hhe
At the end of the call, BR enquiresabout the suc- he
812
8. TT: eightmillion hhe hh
9. JG: 44*o:ijoijoi.*crtowner,
10. TT: (sxtxx) hh hh hhh
11. TT: so thatse:h thatsgood
12. G: ?yeah'?
13. TT: we stillned some mrore thoughbut
[itloo]ks looks ifitsu:h =
14. JG: [mmh.]
15. JG: yes
16. TT: = gettingbetter.
In Excerpt5, JG is on the phone witha British
colleague withwhomhe has had regularcontact
overmanyyears.JG'squestionin line 1 "haveyou:
lot of work to do" sounds like an echo of BR's
questionfromExcerpt4. However,in thiscase, 2
yearshave passed betweenthe call in Excerpt4
and Excerpt5. It would be a bold move to con-
strue (line 1) as evidence thatlearninghad oc-
curred in the call 2 years earlier.Nevertheless,
the resemblanceof both formulationsover the
span of those 2 yearsis striking. JG has not be-
come more linguistically sophisticatedin his in-
quiry into his interlocutor's
workcommitments.
He simplyredeploysthe utteranceformulathat
he had deployed 2 years previously.We notice
comparable developmentstandstillin other re-
currentcall segmentsor activities,for example,
in call openings, closings, the introductionof
new topics,how-are-you's and salutations.In these
cases, it appears thatcomparatively littlelinguis-
tic developmentoccurs over time.If thereis any
developmentalchange at all, we find it in gen-
eral interactionalfluency,such that these activ-
ities are produced withfewerdelays,smoother
turntransitions, and a generalincreasedorderli-
ness;in addition,thecontentofthecallsbecomes
more personalizedover time as the interactants
become betteracquainted (cf.Brouwer& Wagner,
2004).
These observationsbeg the question:In which
environments mightwe noticelanguage learning
as a social accomplishment? Ifitis not observable
in routinizedactivitiesand talk episodes, where
can it be located? What are the environments
wherelinguisticstructuresexpand and linguistic
creativity and developmentcan be observed?
They appear to occur in what we mightcall
the bodyof the calls, thatis, in phases following
openings and preceding closing routines.Here
the talk is more free flowing,less planned and
less routinized.New expressionsand new struc-
turesare affordedbynewtopicsand activities. The
contingenciesof the locallyunfoldingsituation
seem to motivatethe use of new resources;that
TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)
is, language developmentin the calls appears to
be nonlinear,and thegrowingcomplexitiesin the
participants'actionsare not traceableto simpler
precedingforms.
This observationis in linewithEskildsen'sstudy
(Eskildsen,in press;Eskildsen& Cadierno,2007),
whichdrewon data froma MexicanlearnerofEn-
glishovera period of4 years(2001-2005). Eskild-
sen (in press)looked at thedevelopmentofmodal
verbsover timeand the conclusionshe was able
to drawon the basis of the data materialsdo not
show a developmentfroma core structureinto
more complex structures, but rathera patchwork
of different uses thatappear and disappear over
time. In termsof linguisticstructure,this study
does not showmuch structurebuilding.
We can tentatively conclude thatwe have been
able to pointto threeaspectsoflanguagelearning
as a social accomplishment.These threeaspects,
and possiblyothers,demonstratein a varietyof
wayshowparticipants engage in meaningfulactiv-
ities by using an L2. In situatedsocial practices,
use and learningare inseparablepartsof the in-
teraction.They appear to be affordedby topics
and tasks,and theyseem to be relatedto specific
people, withparticularizedidentities,withwhom
newwaysof behavingoccur as the unfoldingtalk
demands.
Studyinglearningas a social accomplishment
shiftsour understandingof learning from the
constructof a linguisticsystemor a compe-
tence that servesall the speaker's purposes. In-
stead, the developmentof social relations,the
mutual constituencyof linguisticresourcesand
tasks,and the specificbiographyof the language
learners come to the foreground.This strand
of researchhas gained momentumover the last
10 years,and quite clearly,much more research
into the specificsof social interactionsin L2 en-
vironmentsis clearlynecessaryin the years to
come.
CONCLUSIONS
Whatthisentiredebate has broughthome most
vividlyis that SLA as a field of inquiryis today
a fertilearena of multifarious approaches, theo-
ries, methods,concepts,and, not least, debate.
WhetherSLA has a mainstreamor a dominant
approach is a moot point.Cognitivistic SLA-the
mainstreamthatwe focusedour critiqueupon in
Firthand Wagner (1997)-is certainlywell estab-
lishedand continuesto occupya prominentplace
in SLA-relatedjournals, textbooks,doctoral and
graduateprograms,and publicationsgenerally.In
Alan Firthand JohannesWagner
mostofitsguises,cognitivistic SLA is strikingly
dif-
ferentfromthe SLA of socioculturaltheory,the
ecological approach to SLA, and the CA-for-SLA
movementthatwe have adumbratedin thisarti-
cle. Thus, althoughsome researchersare explor-
ing the possibilitiesof developinga holistic,en-
compassingSLA-one thatseeksto drawtogether
the social and the cognitive-other researchers
position themselvesapart from the social, cul-
tural,situational,chaotic,sociolinguistic,ecolog-
ical, interactionaldrives,and motivesunderpin-
ningtheworkof a growingnumberof SLA schol-
ars.These differences raisetheinevitablequestion
ofwhereSLA is headed, and whetherthe fieldit-
selfis able to withstandthe currentbifurcations,
competingmethods,critiques,and internalten-
sions,and remaingenerallycohesive-in theway
thatthe fieldof sociolinguistics,forexample,has
remainedmore or less cohesive,despite the dis-
cipline being populated withan almostdizzying
arrayof sometimesincommensurablemethods,
concepts,and theories-or whetherSLA willfrac-
tureintocognitiveSLA,holisticSLA,sociocultural
SLA, conversation-analytic SLA,postmodernSLA,
and so on.
It is arguable,of course,thatsuch a fracturing
eitherhas alreadytakenplace or is currently un-
derway.Ifthisisindeed whatis happening,orwhat
has occurred,a major issue then becomes one
of how the field or the disciplinedefinesitself.
SLA is a relativenewcomerto scientificinquiry,
and there are inherentrisksin allowingsuch a
new field of researchto shift,morph,and frac-
ture,particularly fromtheviewpointofthosewho,
througha lengthyprofessionaldevotion to the
fieldor paradigm,conceive of themselvesas the
intellectualguardiansof (in thiscase) SLA, and
see it as theirrightand obligationto determine,
ex cathedra,whatis and is not proper SLA. The
debates,thearguments,theprogress,or thedecay
is surelyan inevitablecomponentof SLA's evolu-
tion. We are, then,witnessto a naturalprogres-
sion, an intellectualevolution,if one will,where
successfulparadigmsevolve(and sometimesfrac-
ture) throughboth supportand critique.If this
process is based on sound, creativescholarship,
one thatleads to advances in knowledgeof the
manyand variedwaysin whichL2s are learned,
acquired, and used (in mutuallyreinforcing and
enlighteningways),then surelySLA willbecome
a more theoretically and methodologically robust
and encompassingenterprise.Despite objections
fromsome quarters,the boundaries of SLA are
ineluctablybeing redrawn,and fromthispartic-
ular viewpoint,the futureof SLA looks distinctly
promising.
813
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Wearegrateful tothefollowing whogener-
colleagues
ouslyandinsightfullycommentedon previous
versions
ofthisarticle:DennisDay,RodGardner,
Jennifer
Jenk-
BarbaraLafford,
ins,ChrisJenks,BarbaraSeidlhofer,
Sally SieloffMagnan, and three anonymousreferees,
usefulanddetailedcomments.
eachofwhomprovided
In most cases, we have incorporatedsuggestionsfor
improvementsinto the finalversion.Remainingweak-
nessesand oversights
remainour responsibility.
NOTES
1 Conversationanalysis (widelyknown as CA) is a
methodologydevised by Sacks, Schegloff,and Jeffer-
son in the 1960s (see Sacks,1992). Buildingon its
ethnomethodological(Garfinkel,1967; Heritage,1984)
foundations,CA endeavorsto explicatethemicrodetails
of talk-in-interaction and to uncover the communica-
tiveand social competencesthatstructureand render
The materialsof CA are
meaningfultalk-in-interaction.
video-and audiorecordingsof naturallyoccurringset-
tingswheretalkis a primefacetofbehavior.Fordescrip-
tionsof CA's workingmethodsand theoreticalfounda-
tions,see ten Have (1999) and Hutchbyand Wooffitt
(1998).
2Althoughsuch observationson our data informed
our call fora reconceptualizedSLA in Firthand Wagner
(1997), theydid not featureempiricallyin thatpublica-
tion.
3We do not have the space to elaborate the point
here,but in essence the argumentis that,in the case of
English,whichis undoubtedlythe global lingua franca
in an arrayof domains (e.g., the Internet,diplomacy,
science,pop music,tourism),equatingtargetlanguage
competence withnativespeaker competence is inher-
entlyproblematic,in thatsuch a practiceignorestheso-
ciolinguisticrealityoftheglobalstatusand linguafranca
uses and functionsof English.The implicationsforSLA
are potentiallyfar-reaching,notleastin termsofour un-
derstandingof interlanguage.This point is well made
byJenkins(2006a, 2006b).
4 The telementationalviewof communicationis the
view promulgatedby,among others,Saussure (1922),
adopted by Chomsky(1957) and, later,by mainstream
SLA practitioners. It underpinsSLA workin communi-
cationstrategies(see Firth& Wagner,1997). According
to Harris(1981), the telementationalviewis a fallacy;it
is a thesisabout the functionof language,namely,that
"linguisticknowledgeis essentiallya matterof knowing
whichwordsstandforwhichideas. Forwords,according
to thisview,are symbolsdevisedbyman fortransferring
thoughtsfromone mindto another.Speech is a formof
telementation"(p. 9).
5 This monolinguisticnotion,we argued (Firth& Wag-
ner,1997), underpinsthe prevailingSLA viewthatsees
languageusersas non-native speakerswho are (or ought
814
to be) aimingfora targetconsistingof the baseline lin-
guisticnormsof the nativespeaker (see, e.g., Konishi&
Tarone,2004).
6 Those who supportedour arguments(in theirre-
sponse articles) were Hall (1997), Rampton (1997a),
and Liddicoat (1997).
7 To be clearon howwestoodin relationto acquisition
and use,in Firthand Wagner(1997) we pressedtheneed
foran SLA thatcan explain"howlanguageis used as itis
beingacquiredthrough interaction, and used resourcefully,
contingently, and contextually"(p. 296).
8 Kasper's (1997) viewswere prescient,but note that
in Firth and Wagner (1997) we refrainedfrom rec-
ommendingthatCA become part of SLA, or thatCA-
methodologiesbe incorporatedintoSLA.
9 Classroomsare, of course,workplaces,thoughfor
the sake of expositionwe shall maintainthe rudimen-
tarydistinctionto differentiate classroomsfromother
social settingsin which some kind of occupational or
professionalactivity is takingplace.
10Thorne (2000) is representative of the viewsheld
broadlyby criticsof SLA who, like Firthand Wagner
(1997), pressed the need for a reconceptualizedSLA
along social (to this can be added historical) lines.
Thornewrote:"thedominantcore ofcurrenttheoriesof
SLA are forthemostpartdefininga worldofa-historical,
decontextualized,and disembodiedbrains.It is mybe-
lief that such a theorydoes not fitthe evidence" (p.
220).
11Atkinson(2002) pointed out thattwo prominent
SLA researchers, Ellis (1997) and Crookes(1997), "seem
to have realized the reductionisminherentin [SLA
research]" (note 11). Ellis (1997) wrote"SLA in gen-
eral has paid littleattentionto the social context of
L2 acquisition, particularlywhere context is viewed
non-deterministically (i.e., as somethinglearnerscon-
structfor themselves).SLA has been essentiallya psy-
cholinguisticenterprise,dominated by the computa-
tionalmetaphorofacquisition"(p. 87). Crookes (1997)
offeredsimilarsentiments:"thoughcognitivepsychol-
ogywas to be preferred[in SLA] to its dominantpre-
decessor [behaviorism]because it was (purportedlyat
least) about people (ratherthanrats),itwas a long time
beforeI began to understandthatit,like its predeces-
sor, could be seen as a socioculturalconstruct...that
reflectedat least to some extent the presuppositions
of the societiesin whichit developed. That was whyit
wasfundamentally an individualist psychology thattreats
people as isolates"(p. 98).
12Long (1998), forexample,wrote:"Instead of dis-
missingall pastworkas 'narrow'and 'flawed',and simply
assertingthatSLA researchersshould thereforechange
theirdata base to takenewelementsintoaccount,[crit-
ics] shouldofferat leastsome evidencethat,e.g.,a richer
understandingof alternatesocial identitiesof people
currently treatedas 'learners',or a broaderviewof so-
cial context,makes a difference,and a differencenot
just to the way this to thattinystretchof discourseis
interpretable, but to our understandingof acquisition"
(p. 92).
TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)
13Space limitations
preclude a detailed description
of the socioculturalapproach; see, however,Lantolf
(2000); Lantolfand Appel (1994); Lantolfand Thorne
(2006); and Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000). Lantolf
(2000) describeditsessenceas follows:"The mostfunda-
mentalconceptofsocioculturaltheoryis thatthehuman
mindis mediated. In oppositionto the orthodoxviewof
mind,Vygotsky argued thatjust as humans do not act
directlyon the physicalworldbut rely,instead,on tools
and labor activity, whichallowsus to change the world,
and withit, the circumstancesunder whichwe live in
the world,we also use symbolictools [e.g., language],
or signs,to mediateand regulateour relationshipswith
othersand withourselvesand thuschange thenatureof
theserelationships.... The taskofpsychology, in Vygot-
sky'sview,is to understandhow human social and men-
tal activity is organized throughculturallyconstructed
affairs"(p. 1).
14We question the appropriatenessof Markee and
Kasper's (2004) characterizationof this CA-centered
SLA workas sociocultural. The socioculturalapproach
has alreadyestablisheditselfwithinSLA and is associ-
ated withthe workof Lantolf(e.g., Lantolf,2000) and
others.Accordingto Hall (1997) and Lantolf (2000),
socioculturalSLA researchis principallyunderpinned
by Vygotskiantheories of mind and learning (e. g.
Vygotsky, 1978). CA,however,has itsrootsquitefirmly in
Garfinkeliansociologicaltheory(Garfinkel,1967; Her-
itage,1984).
15DeployingCA's microanalytic methodologyforthe
analysisofL2 talk-in-interaction poses a numberofchal-
lenges (which are too numerous and complex for us
to reveal and discuss in this article; see Brouwer &
Wagner,2004). It certainlyentails much more than
familiarizingoneselfwith CA's terminologiesand ap-
plyingthem to L2 data materials.Arguablythe great-
est challenge for SLA researchersentails coming to
termswithCA's ethnomethodologicalresearchagenda
(Firth,1995c; Garfinkel,1967; Heritage,1984), which
is radicallydifferent frommainstreamSLA's cognitivist
agenda (see Larsen-Freeman, 2004). The incorporation
of L2 data materialsinto a CA frameworkalso poses
challenges for CA. To mention one of several exam-
ples: CA has untilrelatively recentlybeen restrictedto
the analysisof monolingual,firstlanguage (Li), inter-
actions,where,overwhelmingly, the analysthas relied
upon his or her co-membershipin the interactants'
speech communityas a resourcein the explicationof
the talk-data.When faced withthe analysisof L2 talk,
the analystcannot unproblematically assume linguistic
or culturalco-membership;the applicabilityof an im-
portantanalyticresourceis therebybroughtinto ques-
tion. For furtherinformationon this topic, see Firth
(1996).
16 Let us be clear,however, thattheopeningup ofSLA
to noncognitivist theoriesand approachesto (language)
learningis notgoingto be a trouble-free process;see, for
example, Kasper's (1997) viewthat"[a] noncognitivist
disciplinethathas learningas itscentralresearchobject
is a contradictionin terms"(p. 310).
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner
17We referthe reader to Firth(1996) fora detailed
explication,but in brief,H's I see (line 5) is quite clearly
a letitpass procedure.Such proceduresare utilizedin
interactionwhen the recipientof a turnlets the un-
knownor unclearaction,wordor utterancepass on the
(commonsense) assumptionthatit will eitherbecome
clear or redundantas talkprogresses.
REFERENCES
Antaki,C., & Widdicombe,S. (Eds.). (1998). Identities
in talk.London: Sage.
Atkinson,D. (2002). Towarda sociocognitiveapproach
to second language acquisition.ModernLanguage
Journal,86, 525-545.
Baker,C., Emmison,M., & Firth,A. (2005). Calibrating
forcompetencein callsfortechnicalassistance.In
C. Baker,M. Emmison,& A. Firth(Eds.), Calling
forhelp:Languageand socialinteraction in telephone
helplines(pp. 39-62). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Block,D. (1996). Not so fast:Some thoughtson theory
culling,relativism,acceptedfindingsand theheart
and soul of SLA. AppliedLinguistics, 17, 63-83.
Block, D. (2003). The social turnin SLA. Washington,
DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.
Block, D. (2007, March). ThinkingaboutSLL research:
Conservatism, fighting, toolkits
and thinking outside
thebox. Paper presented at the School of Edu-
cation, Communicationand Language Sciences,
NewcastleUniversity, NewcastleUpon Tyne,UK.
Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language
learning--Aneglectedsituation?Studiesin Second
LanguageAcquisition, 7, 136-158.
Brouwer,C. E. (2003). Wordsearchesin NNS-NS inter-
action:Opportunitiesforlanguagelearning?Mod-
ernLanguageJournal,87, 534-45.
Brouwer,C. E. (2004). On doing pronunciation.In R.
Gardner&J. Wagner(Eds.), Secondlanguagecon-
versations(pp. 93-113). London: Continuum.
Brouwer,C. E., & Rasmussen-Hougaard, G. (2007). Con-
versation forsecondlanguagelearning.Manuscript
submittedforpublication.
Brouwer,C. E., & Wagner,J. (2004). Developmental
issuesin second language conversation. Journalof
AppliedLinguistics, 1, 29-47.
Carroll,D. (2000). Precisiontimingin novice-to-novice
L2 conversations.Issuesin AppliedLinguistics,11,
67-110.
Chomsky,N. (1957). Syntacticstructures. The Hague,
Netherlands:Mouton.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the nativespeaker in
language teaching.TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185-209.
Cook,V. (Ed.). (2002). Portraits oftheL2 user.Clevedon,
UK: MultilingualMatters.
Crookes,G. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy:A so-
cioeducationalperspective.Studiesin SecondLan-
guageAcquisition, 19, 93-116.
Dewey,J. (1938). Experience and education.New York:
Macmillan.
815
Dewey,J. (1980). The need forsocial psychology. In J.
A. Boydston(Ed.), JohnDewey:The middleworks,
1899-1924 (Vol. 10, pp. 53-63). Carbondale, IL:
SouthernIllinoisUniversity. (Originalworkpub-
lished 1916)
Doolittle, P. E. (1999). Constructivism and online
education. Retrieved 12 January, 2007 from
Virginia Tech Web site: http://edpsychserver.
ed.vt.edu/workshops/tohel999/tohe2.html
Doughty,C.J.,& Long, M. (Eds.). (2003). Thehandbook
ofsecondlanguageacquisition.Oxford:Blackwell.
Dunn, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky's
zone of proximal development and Krashen's
i+l: Incommensurable constructs,incommen-
surable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-
442.
Egbert, M. (2002). Der Reparatur-Mechanismus in
deutschen und interkulturellen Gespriichen[The re-
pairmechanismin Germanand intercultural con-
versation].UnpublishedHabilitationsschrift. Old-
enburg,Germany:University of Oldenburg.
Egbert,M., Niebecker,L., & Rezzara,S. (2004). Inside
firstand second language speakers'troublein un-
derstanding.In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.),
Secondlanguageconversations (pp. 178-200). Lon-
don: Continuum.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy:An ed-
ucational perspective.Studiesin SecondLanguage
Acquisition, 19, 69-92.
Eskildsen,S. W. (in press). Constructinganother lan-
guage: (Beyond) frequencyeffectsin second lan-
guage acquisition?To appear in AppliedLinguis-
tics.
Eskildsen,S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2007). Are recurring
multi-wordexpressions really syntacticfreezes?
Second language acquisition from the perspec-
tiveof usage-basedlinguistics.In M. Nenonen &
S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and idioms1: Papers
fromtheFirstNardicConference on SyntacticFreezes,
Joensuu,May 19-20, 2007. Studiesin Languages,
University of Joensuu,Vol 41. Joensuu:Joensuu
University Press.
Firth,A. (1990). 'Lingua franca'negotiations:Towards
an interactionalapproach. World Englishes,9, 69-
80.
Firth,A. (1991). Discourseat work:Negotiating bytelex,
fax, and phone.Aalborg,Denmark: Unpublished
doctoraldissertation, AalborgUniversity.
Firth,A. (1995a). Negotiatingin the 'VirtualMarket-
place': Making sense of telenegotiating.In K.
Ehlich&J. Wagner(Eds.), Thediscourse ofbusiness
negotiation. (pp. 127-149). Berlin,Germany:Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Firth,A. (1995b). Talkingfora change: Negotiatingby
telephonein commoditytrading.In A. Firth(Ed.),
The discourse ofnegotiation:Studiesoflanguagesin
theworkplace(pp. 183-222). Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Firth,A. (1995c). Accountsin negotiationdiscourse:A
single-caseanalysis.Journal ofPragmatics, 23, 199-
226.
816
Firth,A. (1995d). Multiplemode,singleactivity: Telene-
gotiatingas a social accomplishment.In P. ten
Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situatedorder:Talkand
otherembodied activities
(pp. 151-72). Washington,
DC: University ofAmericaPress.
Firth,A. (1996). The discursiveaccomplishmentof
normality:On conversationanalysisand 'lingua
franca' English.Journalof Pragmatics,26, 237-
259.
Firth,A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse,communi-
cation,and (some) fundamentalconceptsin SLA
research.ModernLanguageJournal,81, 285-300.
Firth,A., & Wagner,J. (1998). SLA property:No tres-
passing!ModernLanguageJournal,82, 91-94.
Gardner,R.,& Wagner,J.(Eds.). (2004). Secondlanguage
conversations.London: Continuum.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studiesin ethnomethodology.Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ:PrenticeHall.
Gass,S. M. (1998). Apples and oranges:Or,whyapples
are notorangesand don't need to be. ModernLan-
guageJournal,82, 83-90.
Gass, S. M. (2004). Conversationanalysisand input-
interaction.ModernLanguageJournal,88, 597-
602.
Goodwin,C., & Heritage,J.(1990). Conversationanaly-
sis.AnnualReviewofAnthropology, 19, 283-207.
Gumperz,J.J. (1982). Discoursestrategies. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Gumperz,J.J., & Hymes,D. (Eds.). (1972). Directions
in sociolinguistics.
New York:Holt, Rinehart,and
Winston.
Hall,J. K. (1997). A considerationof SLA as a theoryof
practice.A responseto Firthand Wagner.Modern
LanguageJournal,81, 301-306.
Hall,J. K. (2002). Teachingand researching languageand
culture.London: Pearson Education.
Hall,J.K. (2004). Language learningas an interactional
achievement.ModernLanguageJournal,88, 607-
612.
Hall,J.K. (2006,June).On themutually constitutivenature
oflanguageteaching and learning.Paper presented
at the SummerSchool 2006 in Odense, Denmark.
Hall,J.K. (2007). Redressingtherolesofcorrectionand
repairin researchon second and foreignlanguage
learning.ModernLanguageJournal,91, 511-526
Hall,J.K., & Verplaetse,L. S. (Eds.). (2000). Secondand
foreignlanguagelearningthrough classroom interac-
tion.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Hall, J. K., Vitanova, G., & Marchenova, L. (Eds.).
(2004). Dialogue withBakhtinon secondand for-
eignlanguagelearning:Newperspectives. Mahwah,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Halliday,M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in thefunctionsof
language.London: EdwardArnold.
Han, Z. (2003). Fossilization in adultsecondlanguageac-
quisition.Clevedon,UK: MultilingualMatters.
Harris,R. (1981). The languagemyth.London: Duck-
worth.
He, A. W. (2004). CA forSLA: ArgumentsfromtheChi-
nese language classroom.ModernLanguageJour-
nal, 88, 568-582.
TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)
Hellermann,J. (2006). Classroominteractivepractices
fordevelopingL2 literacy:A microethnographic
studyof twobeginningadult learnersof English.
AppliedLinguistics, 27, 377-404.
Heritage,J.(1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology.Cam-
bridge:PolityPress.
Hutchby,I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis.
Cambridge:PolityPress.
Hutchins,E. (1995). Cognitionin thewild.Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Huth, T. (2006). Negotiatingstructureand culture:L2
learners'realizationoftargetlanguagepragmatics
in complimentingbehavior.JournalofPragmatics,
38, 2025-2050.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundationsin sociolinguistics: An
ethnographic approach.University Park: University
of PennsylvaniaPress.
Jenkins, J. (2006a). Pointsofviewand blind spots:ELF
and SLA. International JournalofAppliedLinguis-
tics,16, 137-162.
Jenkins,J. (2006b). Currentperspectiveson teaching
world Englishesand English as a lingua franca.
TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157-181.
Kant,E. (1946). Critiqueofpurereason(J.M. D. Meikle-
john, Trans.). New York:Dutton. (Original work
published 1781)
Kasper,G. (1997). A standsforacquisition:A response
toFirthand Wagner.ModernLanguageJournal,81,
307-312.
Kasper,G. (2004). Participantorientationsin German
conversation-for-learning. ModernLanguageJour-
nal, 88, 551-567.
Konishi,K., & Tarone,E. (2004). Englishconstructions
used in compensatorystrategies:Baseline data for
communicativeEFL instruction. In D. Boxer & A.
D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speakingtoinform second
languagelearning(pp. 174-198). Clevedon, UK:
MultilingualMatters.
Koshik, I. (2005). Beyondrhetorical questions:Assertive
questions in everydayinteraction.
Amsterdam:John
Benjamins.
Kramsch,C. (1993). Context and culturein languageteach-
ing. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Kramsch,C. (Ed.). (2002). Languageacquisitionand lan-
guagesocialization: London:
Ecologicalperspectives.
Continuum.
Kramsch,C. (2006). The multilingualsubject.Interna-
tionalJournalofAppliedLinguistics, 16, 99-110.
Kurhila,S. (2006). Secondlanguageinteraction. Amster-
dam:JohnBenjamins.
Lantolf,J. P. (1996). SLA theorybuilding:Lettingall the
flowersbloom! LanguageLearning,46, 713-749.
Lantolf,J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Socioculturaltheory and sec-
ond languagelearning.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Lantolf,J.P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygostkian ap-
proachesto secondlanguageacquisition.Norwood,
NJ:Ablex.
Lantolf,J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural the-
oryand thegenesisofsecondlanguagedevelopment.
Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner
Larsen-Freeman,D. (1983). The importanceof input
in second language acquisition.In R. Andersen
(Ed.), Pidginizationand creolization as language
acquisition(pp. 87-93). Rowley,MA: Newbury
House.
Larsen-Freeman,D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science
and second language acquisition.AppliedLinguis-
tics,18, 141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language:
Fromgrammarto grammaring.Boston: Heinle/
Thomson.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). CA forSLA? It all depends.
ModernLanguageJournal,88, 603-607.
Larsen-Freeman,D. (2007). On the complementarity
of chaos/complexity theoryand dynamicsystems
theoryin understandingthe second language ac-
quisitionprocess.Bilingualism:Languageand cog-
nition,10, 35-37.
Lave, J., & Wenger,E. (1991). Situatedlearning:Le-
gitimate peripheralparticipation.Cambridge:Cam-
bridgeUniversity Press.
Lazaraton,A. (2002). A qualitativeapproachtothevalida-
tionoforal languagetests.Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
Lazaraton,A. (2004). Gestureand speech in thevocab-
ularyexplanationsof one ESL teacher:A micro-
analyticinquiry.LanguageLearning,54, 79-117.
Liddicoat,A. (1997). Interaction,social structure, and
second language use. ModernLanguageJournal,
81, 313-317.
Lilja, N. (2006, November). Languagelearningopportu-
nitiesin everyday conversation.Paper presentedat
the 2006 AFinLAconference, Jyviiskyla,Finland.
Long, M. H. (1993). AssessmentstrategiesforSLA the-
ories.AppliedLinguistics, 14, 225-249.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguisticenvi-
ronmentin second language acquisition.In W.
C. Ritchie& T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbookofsec-
ondlanguageacquisition(pp. 413-468). San Diego,
CA: AcademicPress.
Long, M. H. (1997). Constructvalidityin SLA research.
ModernLanguageJournal,81, 318-323.
Long, M. H. (1998). SLA: Breakingthe siege. University
ofHawai'i Working Papersin ESL, 12, 79-129.
Lyotard,J. F. (1979). La condition postmoderne: Rapport
surlesavoir(The post-modern condition:A report
on knowledge).Paris:Minuit.
Markee,N. (2000). Conversation analysis.Mahwah,NJ:
Erlbaum.
Markee,N., & Kasper,G. (2004). Classroomtalks:An
introduction.ModernLanguageJournal,88, 491-
500.
Mehan, H. (1979). Language lessons.Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniversity Press.
Mondada, L. (2006, June). Contingent opportunities
for
learning:Sequentialorganizationof participation
changes(somethoughts about CA's contributions to
thestudyoflearning).Paper presentedat the Sum-
mer School 2006 in Odense, Denmark.
Mondada, L., & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2004). Second lan-
guage acquisitionas situatedpractice:Taskaccom-
817
plishmentin the French second language class-
room. ModernLanguageJournal,88, 501-518.
Mori,J.(2004a). Negotiatingsequentialboundariesand
learning opportunities:A case froma Japanese
languageclassroom.ModernLanguageJournal,88,
536-550.
Mori,J. (2004b). Pursuitof understanding:Rethinking
'negotiationof meaning' in viewof projectedac-
tion.In R. Gardner&J.Wagner(Eds.), Secondlan-
guageconversations (pp. 157-177). London: Con-
tinuum.
Nguyen,H. (2003). The development of communication
skillsin thepracticeofpatientconsultations among
pharmacy students. Unpublisheddoctoraldisserta-
tion,University ofWisconsin,Madison.
Ohta, A. (2001). Secondlanguageacquisitionprocesses in
theclassroom. Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Ortega, L. (2005). Methodology,epistemology,and
ethics in instructedSLA research:An introduc-
tion.ModernLanguageJournal,89, 317-327.
Pavlenko,A. (2002). Poststructuralist approachesto the
study of social factors in second language learn-
ing and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), PortraitsoftheL2
user (pp. 257-302). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Pavlenko,A., & Lantolf,J. P. (2000). Second language
learningas participationand the (re)construction
of selves.InJ. P. Lantolf(Ed.), Sociocultural theory
and secondlanguagelearning(pp. 155-177). Ox-
ford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Poulisse,N. (1997). Some wordsin defenseof the psy-
cholinguisticapproach: A response to Firthand
Wagner.ModernLanguageJournal,81, 324-328.
Rampton,B. (1987). Stylistic and notspeaking
variability
normal English: Some post-labovianapproaches
and theirimplicationsfor the studyof interlan-
guage. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Secondlanguageacquisition
in context (pp. 47-58). London: PrenticeHall.
Rampton,B. (1995). Crossing. London: Longman.
Rampton,B. (1997a). Second language researchin late
modernity: A responseto Firthand Wagner.Mod-
ernLanguageJournal,81, 329-333.
Rampton,B. (1997b). A sociolinguisticperspectiveon
L2 communicationstrategies.In E. Kellerman&
G. Kasper (Eds.), Advancesin research on commu-
nicationstrategies (pp. 279-303). Oxford:Oxford
University Press.
Rasmussen,G., & Wagner,J. (2002). Language choice
in internationaltelephoneconversations.In K. K.
Luke & T.-S. Pavlidou (Eds.), Telephone calls (pp.
111-131). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Richards,K., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.). (2004). Applying
conversation analysis.London: Palgrave Macmil-
lan.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectureson conversation (Vols.1 & 2).
Oxford:Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff,E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A
simplestsystematics forthe organizationof turn-
takingforconversation.Language,50, 696--735.
Saussure,F. de (1922). Coursde linguistique gindrale(A
course in generallinguistics).Paris:Payot.
818
Schegloff,E. A. (2000). When 'others' initiaterepair.
AppliedLinguistics, 21, 205-243.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). Theinteractional architectureofthe
languageclassroom: A conversation analysisperspec-
tive.Oxford:Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversationanalysisand lan-
guage learning.LanguageTeaching,38, 165-187.
Seeley,A.,& Carter,B. (2004). Appliedlinguisticsas social
science.London: Continuum.
Seidlhofer,B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The
case fora descriptionofEnglishas a linguafranca.
InternationalJournal ofApplied Linguistics,11,133-
158.
Seidlhofer,B. (2004). Research perspectiveson teach-
ing Englishas a lingua franca.Annual Reviewof
AppliedLinguistics, 24, 209-239.
Svennevig,J. (2003). Echo answersin native/non-native
interaction.Pragmatics, 13, 285-309.
Svennevig,J. (2004). Other-repetition as displayofhear-
ing, understandingand emotional stance. Dis-
courseStudies,6, 489-516.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis.Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Theod6rsd6ttir, G. (2007,April).Insisting onyourturn--
Secondlanguagelearner's struggleforturncompletion.
Paper presentedat the 17th InternationalCon-
ferenceon Pragmaticsand Language Learning,
Honolulu, HI.
Thorne,S. L. (2000). Second language acquisitionthe-
oryand some truth(s)about relativity. In J. Lan-
tolf(Ed.), Sociocultural theoryand secondlanguage
learning(pp. 219-243). Oxford:Oxford Univer-
sityPress.
van Lier, L. (1994). Forksand hope: Pursuingunder-
standingin different ways.AppliedLinguistics, 15,
328-346.
Volosinov,V. N. (1973). Marxismand thephilosophy of
language.NewYork:SeminalPress.(Translatedby
LadislavMatejkaand I. R. Titunik.Originalwork
in Russianpublishedin 1930).
von Glasersfeld,E. (1984). An introductionto radical
constructivism.In P.Watzlawick(Ed.), Theinvented
reality
(pp. 17-40). NewYork:Norton.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1995). A constructivist approach
to teaching.In L. P. Steffe& J. Gale (Eds.), Con-
TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)
structivism in education(pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Vygotsky,L. S. (1978). Mind and society:Thedevelopment
ofhigher mental Cambridge,MA: Harvard
processes.
University Press.
Wagner,J. (1995a). Negotiatingactivityin technical
problem solving.In A. Firth (Ed.), The discourse
ofnegotiation. Studiesof languagein theworkplace
(pp. 223-246). Oxford:Pergamon.
Wagner,J. (1995b). Whatmakesa discoursea negotia-
tion?In K. Ehlich&J.Wagner(Eds.), Thediscourse
ofbusinessnegotiation (pp. 9-36). Berlin,Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Wagner,J. (1996). Language acquisition throughfor-
eign language interaction--Acriticalreviewof
studieson second language acquisition.Journalof
Pragmatics, 23, 215-235.
Wagner,J. (1998). On doing being a guinea pig-A
responseto Seedhouse. JournalofPragmatics, 30,
103-113.
Wagner,J. (2004). The classroomand beyond. Modern
LanguageJournal,88, 612-616.
Wagner,J., & Firth,A. (1997). Communicationstrate-
gies at work. In E. Kellerman & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Advancesin research oncommunication strate-
gies (pp. 323-344). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wagner,J., & Gardner,R. (2004). Introduction.In R.
Gardner&J. Wagner (Eds.), Secondlanguagecon-
versations (pp. 1-17). London: Continuum.
Wagner,J.,& Pekarek-Doehler,S. (2006, May). Progres-
sive bricolageof turnconstructional unitsin second
languagetalk.Paper presentedat theInternational
Conference on ConversationAnalysis,ICCA06,
Helsinki,Finland.
Wenger,E. (1998). Communities ofpractice.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Wertsch,J. V. (1991). Voicesofthemind.Hemel Hemp-
stead,UK: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Wong,J. (2000a). Delayed nextturnrepairinitiationin
native/non-native speaker English conversation.
AppliedLinguistics, 21, 244-267.
Wong,J. (2000b). Repetitionin conversation:A look
at 'firstand second sayings'.Researchon Language
and SocialInteraction, 33, 407-424.
Alan FirthandJohannesWagner 819

APPENDIX
Transcript Conventions

[] Leftand rightbracketsindicatebeginningand end of overlap.

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