Markee & Kunitz (2013). Doing Planning and Task Performance in Second Language Acquisition: An Ethnomethodological Respecification

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Doing Planning and Task Performance

in Second Language Acquisition:

An Ethnomethodological Respecification

Numa Markee and Silvia KunitzUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

We use insights and methods from ethnomethodological conversation analysis anddiscursive psychology to develop an account of embodied word and grammar searchesas socially distributed planning practices. These practices, which were produced bythree intermediate learners of Italian as a Foreign Language (IFL), occurred massivelyin natural data that were gathered during a 3-week period from a third-semester IFLcourse at a university in the United States. We develop a behavioral analysis of thesedata that shows: (1) what participants do during planning talk and how they do such talkand (2) whether they actually do what they planned to do.

Keywords ethnomethodology; conversation analysis; planning; word searches;grammar searches; socially distributed cognition

Introduction

We aim in this article to develop an empirically based, emic, and specifically eth-nomethodological respecification (Garfinkel, 1967) of current cognitive workon planning and task performance in classical second language acquisition(SLA).1 That is, following Rod Ellis’s (2005a) call to develop a social accountof what participants do when they plan future tasks and to investigate whetherthey actually execute tasks in the way that they had planned as our point ofdeparture, we seek to unpack how participants deploy turn-taking, repair, andsequence organizing practices that are: (1) choreographed with body posture,gesture, and eye gaze and (2) supplemented by exogenous (talk-external) tools

We thank Charles Goodwin and Danjie Su for their suggestions on how to improve the transcripts

displayed in this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Numa Markee, University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Department of Linguistics, 4080 FLB 707 S. Mathews, Urbana, IL

61802. E-mail: [email protected]

Language Learning XX:X, XXXX 2013, pp. 1–36 1C© 2013 Language Learning Research Club, University of MichiganDOI: 10.1111/lang.12019

Markee and Kunitz Planning and Task Performance in SLA

and artifacts (computers, dictionaries, and notes, etc.) as resources to achieveplanning. We intend to show that participants use these multimodal systems,which are, in effect, local types of planning, to decide what to do in the fu-ture. In order to accomplish this respecification, we use ethnomethodologicalconversation analysis (CA) to analyze our data.

We proceed as follows. First, we review cognitive work on planning in orderto: (a) define key terms, (b) critique the main findings of this subfield of SLA,(c) define concepts that underpin the development of ethnomethodologicalperspectives on planning, and (d) respecify individual mind/cognition/learningas embodied interactional activity. Second, we describe the participants andthe data used in the study. Third, we discuss how word and grammar searches(which are loci of local and future-oriented planning) belong to the samefamily of practices. Fourth, we show how three intermediate learners of Italianas a foreign language (IFL) at a university in the United States use word andgrammar searches to do local and future-oriented planning work. Finally, wesummarize our findings and outline some implications for further SLA workon planning.

Planning in the Classical Cognitive SLA Perspective

A cognitive definition of planning is proposed by Ellis (2005b), who viewsplanning as:

[ . . . ] essentially a problem solving activity. It involves deciding whatlinguistic devices need to be selected in order to affect the audience in thedesired way [ . . . ] planning takes place at a number of different levels,resulting in discourse plans, sentence plans and constituent plans, all ofwhich have to be interwoven in the actual execution of a language act.(p. 3)

This is the classical SLA perspective on planning. It derives from Levelt’s (1989)cognitive model of first language (L1) speech production, which describes thepsycholinguistic processes that regulate the oral production of an utterance.These processes are incremental and are articulated in three phases: (1) theconceptualization of a preverbal message, (2) the formulation of a speech plan(i.e., internal speech), and (3) the articulation of the message through actualspeech. Each phase is regulated by different modules or specialized systems(a conceptualizer, a formulator, and an articulator) that receive and generateappropriate output.

Language Learning XX:X, XXXX 2013, pp. 1–36 2


De Bot (1992) adapted Levelt’s (1989) ideas in order to create a secondlanguage (L2) model of speech production that can explain phenomena suchas code-switching, cross-linguistic influence, relative speed of production, anddifferences in proficiency between the L1 and the L2. De Bot claims thatthe main difference between L1 and L2 speech production lies in whetherspeakers rely on automatic versus controlled processing during the formulationand articulation of a message. That is, a message in the L2, especially at lowproficiency levels, is formulated and articulated under controlled processing,whereas in L1 production these stages of production are automatic.

Planning in classical SLA is experimental and cognitivist and has focusedoverwhelmingly on the products of individual planning (Ellis, 2005b, 2009).The basic theoretical assumption is that different types of planning assist differ-ent production processes. Furthermore, this approach to planning seeks to de-termine whether planning improves the learners’ complexity, accuracy, and/orfluency during task performance (Ellis, 2005b, 2009).

Ellis (2005b) further distinguishes between two main types of planning:pre-task and within-task planning. Pre-task planning occurs before actual taskperformance. Learners may either rehearse a task before the performance orthey may engage in strategic planning, which involves them discussing thecontent and language they intend to use before actually performing the task.In contrast, within-task planning occurs online, during task performance. Itis further divided into pressured versus unpressured planning, depending onwhether learners have a limited or unlimited amount of time to perform thetask.

Ellis (2005b) suggests that rehearsal aids all three planning processes inLevelt’s (1989) model. Research on the effects of rehearsal confirms that re-peating the same task can improve learners’ performance, though mostly forfluency and complexity (Bygate, 1996, 2001; Gass, Mackey, Alvarez-Torres,& Fernandez-Garcıa, 1999). Furthermore, unpressured, within-task planningimpacts the formulation stage together with the monitoring process, therebyaiding the accuracy of rule-based forms (Ellis, 1987; Hulstijn & Hulstijn, 1984;Yuan & Ellis, 2003).

Similarly, pre-task strategic planning seems to assist conceptualization, thusincreasing complexity and fostering fluency for both foreign and second lan-guage learners (Foster, 1996; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Gilabert, 2007; Kawauchi,2005; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Sangarun, 2005; Skehan & Foster, 1997,2005; Tajima, 2003; Wendel, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003). Less consistent re-sults have been found for complexity and accuracy. This finding may have todo with a range of intervening variables: proficiency, learners’ attitudes toward

3 Language Learning XX:X, XXXX 2013, pp. 1–36


planning, levels of task complexity, and the presence or absence of guidinginstructions during planning time. In addition, a trade-off effect (Skehan, 1996;Ellis, 2009) may be involved due to learners’ limited processing capacity, sothat a gain in complexity negatively impacts accuracy and vice versa. More-over, although learners might be focusing on form during planning, they mayhave difficulty carrying over the form they have planned into task performance(Ellis, 2005b).

Some Limitations of Classical SLA Planning Studies

Classical SLA work on planning has many solid achievements to its credit.However, Ellis (2005a) has identified three major limitations that character-ize cognitive approaches to planning, noting that this experimental, product-oriented paradigm:

[ . . . ] tells us nothing about what learners actually do when they areplanning; it does not show us whether learners actually do what theyplanned to do; and more crucially perhaps, it fails to recognize thatplanning and task-performance constitute social as well as cognitiveactivities [. . .] Clearly, then, there is a case for broadening the paradigmto incorporate both a process element and to acknowledge the socialnature of tasks [. . .]. (pp. vii–viii)

Some process-oriented work has already been done in this literature us-ing retrospective interviews (Ortega, 1995, 1999, 2005; Sangarun, 2005;Wendel, 1997) or questionnaires supplemented by talk-aloud protocols(Kawauchi, 2005). Such studies are useful in terms of eliciting metacogni-tive responses that potentially provide insight into learners’ strategic planningprocesses (Ortega, 2005). However, they suffer from the usual methodolog-ical weaknesses of self-response data. First, they focus on “what learnerssay they do when they plan” (Ortega, 2005, p. 77, emphasis added), whichmay be different from what they actually do during planning work. And sec-ond, some cognitive steps may occur too quickly for participants to be ableto notice them during talk-aloud protocols. Finally, the findings from suchstudies may not be generalizable to performance in dialogic tasks (Sangarun,2005).

Little work has been done on group planning. Indeed, we have identifiedjust two articles on this topic (Donato, 1994; Truong & Storch, 2007). Thus,most discussion of this issue has been theoretical in nature. Foster and Skehan



(1999) observe that methodological constraints and problems of ecological va-lidity may negatively impact research on individual planning. They note thatin pedagogical contexts group planning may well be more frequent than in-dividual planning. Thus, from a classroom research perspective, it might bemore appropriate to investigate group planning processes. Moreover, studyinggroup planning processes would provide a better foundation for communica-tive approaches to language teaching, which are predicated on the theoreticalimportance of negotiated interaction (Gass 2003; Gass & Mackey, 2006; Long,1996; Swain, 1995) and collaborative dialogue (Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin,2001). Finally, Skehan and Foster (1999, 2005) recognize that planning con-ceived as a cognitive phenomenon is unobservable, a constraint that limits theirmethodological field of action considerably.

We note two further weaknesses that have not yet been recognized byclassical SLA researchers. Levelt (1989) begins Chapter 2 of his book asfollows:

The most primordial and universal setting for speech is conversational,free interaction between two or more interlocutors. Conversation isprimordial because the cradle of all language use is the conversationalturn-taking between child and parent [ . . . ] Unlike other uses of language,conversation is also universal; it is the canonical setting for speech in allhuman societies [ . . . ]. (p. 29)

Furthermore, in the section on interaction that follows the quotation above (pp.30–39), Levelt quotes knowledgeably and extensively from the CA literature onrecipient design and turn-taking. Unfortunately, both the acknowledgement thatconversation is primordial and universal, and the CA foundation for Levelt’s(1989) work disappear from De Bot’s (1992) adapted model of L2 speechproduction. In our view, this omission has distorted the trajectory of subsequentL2 work on speech production because it precludes any possibility of comparingthe relative trustworthiness of cognitive and social accounts of planning.

What do we mean here? In the psycholinguistic L1 literature on script the-ory (which is noticeably absent from the L2 literature on planning), underlyingcognitive scripts are said to bundle peoples’ expectations about what will hap-pen during stereotyped event sequences, the classic example being restaurantscripts (Schank & Abelson, 1977). However, what really happens when peo-ple actually talk about their expectations of what is supposed to happen at arestaurant? Edwards (1997) has shown that, while many of the components ofa restaurant script described by schema theory can occur in restaurant talk,



many do not. Thus, what actually happens during such interactional events isnot reliably predictable from a priori cognitive scripts.

A possible answer to this criticism might be that we just need better, moredetailed scripts. However, as Edwards (1997) notes, “[t]he trouble is, any suchexercise becomes a post hoc procedure consequent on analysing these sortsof conversations, while for specifying general purpose plan-based cognitivemodels it would be difficult to know when to stop adding details” (pp. 148–149). Edwards therefore concludes that not only do scripts overspecify script-relevant knowledge, they are also theoretically unable to deal with the factsof conversational script and breach formulations. We contend that the sameproblems are likely to affect SLA interpretations of Levelt’s (1989) work,because so little work has been done on the interactional dimensions of planningin SLA.

Task Planning: An Ethnomethodological Perspective

Following Garfinkel (1967), ethnomethodology is a radical form of sociologythat is concerned with understanding participants’ commonsense interpreta-tions of their everyday actions. CA is its best-known derivative (see Markee,2011, for detailed discussion). Thus, the ethnomethodological respecificationof planning work in classical SLA that we propose here entails developing abehavioral, empirically grounded, participant’s perspective on how planning isachieved in real time in and through embodied talk-in-interaction. The empiricalsection of this article provides a detailed example of what such a respecificationlooks and sounds like.

In line with Garfinkel’s critique of classical social science, Suchman (2007)defines planning as “an imaginative and discursive practice [. . .] through whichactors project what they might do and where they might go, as well as reflecton where they are in relation to where they imagined that they might be”(p. 13). This definition locates planning (in the sense of deciding what to doin the future) in the interactional details of talk-in-interaction, that is, in theturn-taking, repair, and sequence organizing practices of participants (Sacks,Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 1968; Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks,1977). Murphy (2004) expands on this definition by speaking of imagining as “asocial and embodied activity that is supported by material objects, mediated bygestures, initiated by conversation, and maintained through the external forceof all these things as they are simultaneously employed in imagining whileinteracting with other social beings” (p. 269; see also Murphy, 2011).



Are mind, cognition, and learning individual, cognitive constructs or so-cially distributed practices? We do not deny the existence of individual mind,cognition, and learning,2 but we are more interested in how these constructsare achieved as socially distributed practices. This position is consistent withcurrent work on cognition within the cognitive sciences, which holds that:

the boundaries of cognitive systems lie outside the envelope of individualorganism, encompassing features of the physical and social environment[ . . . ]. In this view, the mind leaks out into the world, and cognitiveactivity is distributed across individuals and situations. (Robbins &Aydede, 2009, p. 8)

A similar trend is observable in CA, in which mind, cognition, and learningare treated as activities that are achieved in and through embodied interaction(Goodwin, 2007, 2011, 2013; Hutchins, 1995; Hutchins & Nomura, 2011;Streek, Goodwin, & LeBaron, 2011). We also argue that participants deploymultimodal actions to achieve planning-related language learning behaviors(Markee, 2008) that may result in observable, co-constructed changes of state(Heritage, 1984, 2005) that are more or less long lasting (Markee, 2008). Inthis context, language learning behavior is the interactional equivalent of thepsycholinguistic construct of learning processes, while changes of state thatare more or less long-lasting refer to the longitudinal products of learningthat participants observably appropriate into their collective and individualrepertoires over time.

The Present Study

Participants and DataThe three participants in this study are John, Mary, and Lucy (all names arepseudonyms), who were taking a third-semester IFL class at a university in theUnited States. The data for this project consist of approximately three hours ofvideo recordings that correspond to four separate speech events (SEs), whichoccurred over a 3-week period. Our data are therefore longitudinal.3 TheseSEs were transcribed by the second author according to standard Jeffersoniantranscription conventions (see Markee, 2011, for a detailed summary of theseconventions) and reconciled following revisions by the first author. Six the-matically related fragments in these four speech events that involve planningwork were then identified by both authors and retranscribed by the first au-thor to include information about the participants’ embodied actions and the



cultural artifacts that they constructed or consulted during these fragments. Aswe will detail later, the present article focuses on the analysis of two fragments(Fragment 1 and 4), divided for ease of analysis into 7 and 18 Frame Grabs,respectively. Additionally, the Supporting Information online offers readersaccess to the full video-recorded data for Fragment 4 and its Frame Grabs.

The participants did what Ellis (2005b) would call strategic planning (inboth the local and future-oriented senses of this term) during SE1 and SE2 andwhat he would call rehearsal planning during SE3. All three SEs were done outof class. Students performed the final version of their restaurant skit during SE4in class. The planning talk during the three out-of-class sessions was carriedout almost entirely in English (the participants’ L1), except for a practice run-through of the presentation during SE3, which was carried out in Italian (theparticipants’ L2). The final performance in SE4 was done entirely in Italian.Thus, while the language of the planning process in our data is predominantlythe L1, the products of planning are in the L2 (see also Swain & Lapkin, 2000).

During SE1–SE3, the participants developed an exogenous artifact (anactor’s script; see Figure 1) for a restaurant skit (i.e., future-oriented planning)that they ultimately performed in SE4. In order to achieve this future goal,the students collaboratively deployed in real time the highly choreographed,multimodal resources that we identified previously for doing embodied actionto design the content and grammatical accuracy (i.e., local planning) of the firstline of their script (Bienvenuti al nostro ristorante, Welcome to our restaurant).

The same sentence in Figure 2 (which represents another exogenous artifact,specifically, Mary’s class notes from SE2) recapitulates in written form how

Figure 1 The first two lines of John’s script.

Figure 2 The outcome of the planning process: The opening line of the skit.



the participants change the gender of the word ristorante from the feminine tothe correct masculine form(s).

Our Perspective on Word and Grammar SearchesIn classical SLA, word searches have been treated as a subset of strategicplanning (Bygate & Samuda, 2005). The participants in this study achieved alltheir planning work as word searches (see Fragment 1 presented in 7 FrameGrabs) or as grammar searches (see Fragment 4 presented in 18 Frame Grabs),which, as we will see shortly, are closely related practices. Therefore, someelaboration of the conceptual-analytical perspective we adopt on word andgrammar searches for the main ethnomethodological analysis of the data wepresent later is in order.

In CA, word searches have been studied in competent L1 talk (Goodwin,1987; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986; Hayashi, 2003; Lerner, 1996), in the speechof L1 aphasics (see, e.g., Goodwin, 1995; Helasvuo, Laakso, & Sorjonnen,2004), and in L2 conversation (Carroll, 2004; Gullberg, 2011; Kurhila, 2006).We can hear (and see) when a word search is underway when “a speaker breaksoff a turn in progress, not modifying anything previously said, but pausesto search for the continuation of her or his turn” (Helasvuo et al., 2004, p.2). Word searches involve one or more participants observably doing cog-nitive work as interaction to find a word that is temporarily unavailable toher/them. They are achieved as first position (self-initiated) repairs (Schegloff,1979; Schegloff et al., 1977) and are thus marked by pauses, word final soundstretches, and vocalizations such as uhm or uh. They may be couched as WHquestions or (in our data) by yes/no questions. Word searches may either beself or other completed. Because word searches prototypically occur towardthe end of a turn constructional unit (TCU),4 this allows—indeed invites—interlocutors to participate in the search process if current speaker is unable tocome up with the word by herself (Lerner, 1996). Under these circumstances,collaborative completion sequences may ensue, which result in other comple-tion. Such sequences are designed so that, after an interlocutor produces themissing word, current speaker continues with her interrupted turn. Alterna-tively, the participant who initiates the word search may also hold the floorand complete the word search herself. In either case, these verbal behaviorsare often accompanied by the withdrawal of eye gaze by the person initiatingthe search, hand-waving gestures, and the use of thinking faces (Goodwin &Goodwin, 1986). The withdrawal of eye gaze is a particularly important practicein word searches, as this action displays that current speaker has not relinquishedthe floor. On the other hand, if current speaker establishes eye contact with



interlocutors, the latter may interpret this action as an invitation to participatein the search. These embodied actions are examples of doing socially distributedcognition, as previously described in our earlier theoretical discussion of theliterature.

Let us now identify the issues that are pertinent to analyzing the dataexhibited later in Fragment 4 and its 18 Frame Grabs. In this fragment, Lucyinitiates a series of grammar searches (Kurhila, 2006). Kurhila’s work providesa useful point of departure for analyzing our data. First, she suggests that apriori distinctions between the categorial status of the objects of these searches(i.e., whether they focus on words or grammar) are not relevant to how they areinteractionally achieved. What is important is how they are initiated. Thus, shedefines grammar searches as talk in which:

[ . . . ] the speaker begins a word, and then shifts focus on some part of itto be grammatical. That is, in grammatical (sic) searches, the speakergives a recognizable version of the [ . . . ] stem of the word, but thecompletion of the word appears problematic. The problems are displayede.g. through repetitions and self-corrections. (p. 124)

Second, Kurhila (2006) asserts that grammar searches do not need to beannounced. Thus, unlike word searches, they do not include explicit interroga-tives (which, in English, would include WH words or subject verb inversion).All that is needed to identify grammar searches are tokens of repair (in par-ticular, the repetition of word stems). Furthermore, while word stems remaininvariant, suffixes and immediately preceding syllables are either modified orleft invariant. She attributes this practice to the agglutinative syntax of Finnish,but similar, unrelated practices occur in our data. Third, she notes that grammarsearches are only initiated by nonnative speakers (NNSs) and are producedin the context of observable participant uncertainty about the correctness of agrammatical form.

Kurhila’s (2006) data are different from ours in a number of respects, whichaffects their applicability to our data. We agree with Kurhila that it is notthe a priori categorial status of what is being searched for that is importantfrom an interactional perspective, it is how these search sequences are initiated.We also agree with Kurhila’s definition of grammar searches, and that grammarsearches involve repair, especially repetition. Furthermore, we mostly agree thatword stems remain largely invariant, and we completely agree that grammar(specifically, morphologically related gender) troubles are located in word finalposition. This is because that is where gender marking in Italian occurs. So, this



Figure 3 Summary of the longitudinal trajectory of planning talk in SEs 1–4.

is actually a broader phenomenon than the one observed in Finnish, becauseItalian and, more generally, Romance languages are not agglutinative languages.Note also another important difference: Whereas in Finnish grammar searchesfocus on single words, in Italian they may potentially involve phrases, becausegender is marked not just on nouns, but also on adjectives and determiners (seeFigure 3). Finally, because our data focus on institutional NNS–NNS talk, wehave found that grammar searches may be announced as part of the interactional



work that NNS interlocutors do to negotiate their epistemic authority about thegrammatical accuracy of the talk that they produce.

Analysis

Let us now examine the participants’ embodied interactions to unpack howthey do planning in our data. Figure 3 summarizes how the written changesin the gender marking morphology of the preposition+definite article (al) andthe following adjective (nostro) shown in Figure 3 are interactionally achievedover the course of four fragments in SEs 1 and 2. More specifically, Figure 3demonstrates how each component of the opening line of the restaurant skitthat the participants finally perform in Fragments 5 and 6 in SEs 3 and 4,respectively, is interactionally constructed over time in Fragments 1 through4 in SEs 1 and 2. Figure 3 thus shows: (1) what the three participants doand how they do it; (2) that they actually do in SE4 what they planned to doin SEs 1, 2 and 3; (3a) what a social, process-oriented, longitudinal analysisof planning-related language learning behavior looks like; and (3b) how suchpractices result in more or less long lasting changes of state in grammaticalbehavior.

As already mentioned, for reasons of space we analyze in this article two outof the six fragments in the full data set. This is because Fragments 1, 2, and 3 allfocus exclusively on planning the first line of the skit and are all interactionallyorganized in the same way. Of these three fragments, we therefore only analyzeFragment 1 in detail, with its transcription given in Fragment 1 (below) andwith 7 Fragment Grabs (FGs) shown in it. We then analyze Fragment 4 to showhow the participants use repair to correct their initial assumption that the wordristorante is a feminine noun. We will present Fragment 4, whose transcriptionis broken down into three mini fragments (see Fragment 4.1 through 4.3), andwhich includes 18 FGs in black and white in the printed article; Fragment 4 isalso available for viewing with the corresponding video data in Appendix S1of the Supporting Information online. We do not analyze Fragments 5 and 6,because (as shown in Figure 3) we already know that the participants producethe first line of their skit as they had planned it in the previous fragments.

Fragment 1 illustrates how self-initiated, self-completed word searchesas instances of interactional planning are deployed in our data to do futureplanning. The interactional target of Mary’s word search in this fragment is“↑b/i/enve↑nu↓ti,” which emerges in line 4. This word does not exist inItalian (it seemingly involves a cross between Italian benvenuti and Spanish



bienvenidos), which explains why Mary does a word search at this moment inthe talk. She is uncertain how to say welcome in Italian. This fragment also moregenerally illustrates how Mary does future planning by doing a word search thatproposes the first line of an as yet unwritten actor’s script that will subsequentlybe used in the students’ final presentation. Note that the superscripted FrameGrabs or FGs provided show: (1) how frequently embodied word (or grammar)search practices occur in each fragment and (2) that (unless otherwise specifiedin the analysis) embodied practices cooccur with the word that immediatelyfollows in the talk).5

Fragment 1 Transcript: Word Search (6 seconds)

Mary: FG1.1>it would be fun< too ′cause weFG1.2could be like (0.7)FG1.3u:hm (0.4)FG1.4b/i/envenutiFG1.5like (u-)

John: FG1.6yeah. ((breathy))

Mary >we could (just)(do/be) like<FG1.7welcome to our restaurant

In FG 1.1, Mary is looking to the front and half right (from her perspective).She has just withdrawn her eye gaze from the previous speaker, John (who ishimself now looking down) and grooms herself with her left hand as she says“>it would be fun<” in line 1. Mary’s eye gaze/gesture combination marksthe beginning of her embodied imagining work on what the first line of their



future skit might be.6 In line 2, Mary continues her turn by saying “too ′causewe.”

In FG 1.2, Mary brings her left hand down from her head and waves it infront of her face, an action that attracts both John and Lucy’s gaze. Notice toothat, in line 3, she delivers the words “could be like” more slowly than thespeeded up “>it would be fun<” in line 1. Furthermore, the talk in line3 ends with an 0.7 second pause. These embodied behaviors, and the overallslowing down of the talk to a pause, are all consistent with Mary doing anincipient first position repair, a resource that speakers frequently use to do wordsearches.

This analysis is confirmed in FG 1.3, in which Mary does a thinking face bybringing her right hand up to cradle the right side of her face. Simultaneously,her left hand goes limp, and she maintains her averted eye gaze, thus keepingthe floor. As Mary performs these embodied actions, she also says “u:hm”(note the sound stretch) and pauses for 0.4 seconds in line 4. Again, these



behaviors are all prototypically associated with ongoing repair and with wordsearches.

In FG 1.4, Mary gazes toward John, simultaneously raises her left hand,and deploys her right hand vertically in front of her face as she says“↑b/i/enve↑nu↓ti” in line 5. Notice how the fingers of her right hand aredramatically spread out during this gesture and how this sense of drama is alsoprosodically conveyed through the stress on “↑b/i/enve,” the progressivelyhigher intonation on “↑b/i/en” and “↑nu,” and the equally sharp downwardintonation on “↓ti.” These embodied and intonational behaviors enact howan actor might say “↑b/i/enve↑nu↓ti” in her imagined restaurant skit, whoselines are actually only just beginning to emerge.

However, at this moment, John is looking down toward Mary’s laptop. InFG 1.5, Mary reacts to John’s lack of reciprocal eye gaze by bringing her righthand down to the height of her laptop (which is in John’s line of sight) in aninterrogating, palm side up position, and by pointing the fingers of her left handstraight out toward John. Simultaneously, she repairs her talk by saying “like



(u-)” in line 6 (cutoffs are prototypically associated with unfolding repairs).This talk and embodied behaviors are designed to secure John’s eye gaze.

Technically, Mary’s self-initiated/completed word search for“↑b/i/enve↑nu↓ti” ends in line 5, although John does not validate thistermination until line 7 in FG 1.6. However, Mary’s future-planning orientedagenda does not end in line 5.

Lucy has not participated in any of the talk so far in Fragment 1. In line 8(FG 1.6), Mary orients to this issue by saying “>we could (just) (do/be)

like<” as she starts to turn her eye gaze toward Lucy. As her eye gaze meetsLucy’s in FG 1.7, Mary says “ ↑wel↘come to our ↗res↘tau↓rant ”with a smiley voice in line 8, thus making Lucy’s participation in this talk arelevant next action (not shown here).

However, Mary is not just orienting to the social desirability of includinga hitherto silent partner here. By reciting this TCU (notice the modulatedintonation, which recalls how she first said “↑b/i/enve↑nu↓ti” in line 5), she isalso acting out the first complete version of the first line of the skit (albeit in thetransitional medium of English) that will eventually be performed in Italian in



SEs 4 and 5. The talk and associated embodied actions in Fragment 1: FrameGrabs 1–7 therefore set up further planning work in later fragments.

In what follows, we focus on Fragment 4. As already mentioned, for an-alytical convenience we have broken up this large fragment into three minifragments (Fragments 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) comprising 18 consecutively num-bered FGs. Readers will also be able to view the videodata corresponding toeach mini fragment and each FG within Fragment 4 in Appendix S1 of theSupporting Information online. These three mini fragments show: (1) how par-ticipants use talk and embodied behaviors to do grammar searches in our data,(2) cannibalize and recycle7 each others’ talk and embodied behaviors in suc-ceeding turns, and (3) almost never use technical linguistic metalanguage8 totalk about gender. Instead, they talk about gender by using words that inherentlycarry gender (la, il, nostra, nostro).

Fragment 4.1 Transcript: Grammar Search (7 seconds)

M: FG4.1 ob/i/envenuti:,o ((Mary is talking as she is

writing))

L: FG4.2(un)FG4.3no/e/stra: (0.3)FG4.5a:/r/|(a:/r/(la)FG4.6nos tra:: ristoran-

(0.4)

(uh:r)FG4.7(0.8)FG4.8is it nostra, = uh ↑nos[tro,]

J: [nos]tr-FG4.9u::h ristorante:, nostra.

L: ( o:h. (



In FG 4.1, Mary is leaning forward as she writes up the group’s restaurantscript with a pencil in her notes (note again the orientation to exogenous ar-tifacts). In line 1, she then quietly says the word “ob/i/envenuti:,o” withupward intonation. Thus, Mary is talking to herself as she is writing the first ver-sion of her notes (see Figure 1). Meanwhile, John and Lucy look on (see FG 4.1).

In FGs 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, Lucy starts a series of rapid eye gaze disengage-ments (see the graphic representations of these actions in each FG). Thesedisengagements are choreographed with the following vocalizations or words:In FG 4.2, “(un)” (line 3); in FG 4.3, “no/e/stra:” 9 (line 4); and in FG 4.4,“(ou:/r/’’|‘‘(a:/r/(la))” in line 6.



This last word “(ou:/r/’’|‘‘(a:/r/(la))” (which is preceded by thetrouble indicating pause in line 5) is itself repaired (i.e., it is characterized byvowel lengthening). In other words, these are the first embodied and interac-tional indications that an incipient grammar search is in progress. Note furtherthat these embodied and interactional behaviors are similar to the ones thatMary deployed in Fragment 1. Finally, these practices are prototypical exam-ples of how doing cognition as social activity is distributed between Mary andLucy (that is, in lines 6 and 7, Lucy completes the first line of the emergingscript started by Mary in line 1).

In FG 4.5, Lucy and John establish fleeting eye contact as Lucy says“nostra:: ristoran-” in line 7 (meanwhile, Mary continues to be pre-occupied with writing her notes). Again, Lucy’s words are noticeably repaired.



Lucy then pauses for 0.4 second in line 8 and produces the vocalization“(uh:r)” in line 9. In FG 4.6, which coincides with the 0.8 second pause in line10, Lucy does another rapid thinking face which, however, is more exaggeratedthan the previous ones: as she looks up and sideways to her left, Lucy also halfcloses her right eye and squints her eyes in concentration.

In FG 4.7, Lucy reestablishes eye contact with John and, in line 11, producesthe first version of her unfolding grammar search, “is it nostra, = uh

↑nos↑tro.” Notice how this turn is organized. First (unlike the grammarsearches that Kurhila [2006] found in her data), the turn is grammaticallyformatted as a yes/no question. Second, it is composed out of two TCUs, whoseprosody is heavily try marked. These convergent grammatical and prosodicformats simultaneously achieve two actions, which convey particular epistemicstances (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b; Heritage & Raymond, 2012; Karkkainen,2003). That is, to develop an argument put forward by Kurhila, Lucy is orientingto her status as a NNS of Italian who does not have indisputable epistemicauthority about the correct gender of ristorante. But she also defers to John(another NNS!), by inviting him to participate in her ongoing grammar search.



In FG 4.8, John takes up this invitation in line 12, when he overlaps the lastsyllable of Lucy’s “nos[tro],” in line 11 with the cannibalized and recycledword “[nos]tr-.” The cut off that characterizes the final vowel of this wordis likely a product of the overlap. But it also suggests that John is beginningto question whether “ristorante” is a feminine noun. We find supportingevidence for this interpretation in FG 4.8: Notice how John withdraws hiseye gaze from Lucy, quickly looks up to his left, and does a thinking face.As he performs these embodied actions, he first produces the sound stretchedvocalization “u::h,” then says the word “ristorante:,” also with a soundstretch and upward intonation, and finally produces the cannibalized and re-cycled feminine form of the possessive adjective “nostra.” with a decisivedownward intonation in line 13. These multiple hesitations, combined with thenoun + adjective word order (which, though ungrammatical, allows him toproduce the gender bearing word “nostra.” as the last element in the turn),are designed by John to show his interlocutors that he is: (1) doing thinking, (2)not relinquishing the floor, and (3) delaying making any grammatical judgmentuntil the last possible moment.

John is successful in achieving all three of these goals, in that Lucy waitsuntil he has finished his turn before she produces the change of state token“ (o:h (.” in line 14. By so doing, she seemingly accepts John’s pronouncement.However, the reduced volume and the accompanying sound stretch suggest thatshe is not convinced by John’s conclusion. Confirming evidence for this analysisis observable in Fragment 4.2.


Lucy: FG4.9 (il- ( =Mary: = PAsta hut. hh hu = ((Mary is talking as she is

writing))

Lucy: =FG4.10is [it (.) <↑la]: ↑risto↑rante?> (.)

John: [pasta hut. ]

Lucy: i thought it wasFG4.11il.FG4.12(2.1)

Mary: (la [ristoran- ( ]

John: [ (i don’t ↑know. (]Mary: i think it’s (.) il ( (ri[storante ()]Lucy: [is it ]

FG4.13i ristoranti?



FG4.14(1.2)

John: FG4.15 (il ristorante? ((0.4)

M: la ristorante?

More specifically, in line 23, Lucy says “ (il- ( = .” By using the masculineform of the definite article, Lucy indicates that she has not given up on her ideathat “ristorante” is masculine. Parenthetically, in FG 4.9, Mary continues towrite up her notes while John and Lucy continue to gaze at each other intently.

In FG 4.10, Lucy and John continue looking at each other as Lucylaunches another grammar search as the ongoing main course of action inlines 27, 29, and 30. Again, the first part of this turn (“is it (.) <↑la]:↑risto↑rante?>”) is formatted as a trial marked yes/no question which,after a one beat pause, she immediately repairs with the epistemically strongerreformulation “(.) i thought it was il.” in line 30.



Although Lucy’s talk is mitigated, it nonetheless challenges John’s previousassertion that “ristorante” is a feminine noun. John reacts immediately tothis challenge. Indeed, he does not even wait until Lucy has finished her turn.As Lucy says “il.” in line 30, John: (1) does a first version of a thinking faceby raising his eyebrows and (2) simultaneously withdraws his eye gaze to lookat Mary’s notes (see FG 4.11). These actions treat Mary’s notes as a possiblesource of prior, contradictory, epistemic authority.

In FG 4.12 (which is choreographed with a long 2.1 second silence in line31, during which Mary looks up to gaze at John), he then does another versionof his thinking face. That is, he keeps his eyebrows raised, but now also turnsdown the corners of his mouth as he looks at Lucy.



In line 32, Mary first sounds out “ (la [ristoran- (” quietly, and thensays “i think it’s (.) il ( (ri[storan]te ()” in line 34, stressing theword “il.” This turn represents a possible defection by Mary from the previousconsensus that “ristorante” is a feminine noun. Meanwhile, in line 33,John partially overlaps Mary’s turn in line 32 by quietly saying “[ (i don’t

↑know. (].”In line 35 (FG 4.13), Lucy partly overlaps the last part of Mary’s turn by pro-

ducing another yes/no question formatted turn “[is it][i ristoranti?]”with marked stress on the word “i.” The second overlap (in line 36) co-occurswith FG 4.14, which shows that Lucy and John continue to gaze at each otherintently.

This question asks what the correct gender agreement form for the definitearticle would be if the noun were pluralized. Lucy’s question prompts Mary tolook up again from her notes and to gaze intently at Lucy in FG 4.14.

These embodied actions are choreographed with another long silence of1.2 seconds in line 37. In FG 4.15, Mary now looks at John. However, Johnis looking down, and therefore does not reciprocate her gaze; he too quietly



tries sounding out the cannibalized and recycled words “ (il ristorante? (”in line 38. Following a 0.4 second pause in line 39, Mary then sounds out “laristorante?” in line 40. In short, the participants’ inconclusive soundingout behaviors, coupled with Mary’s constantly switching eye gaze betweenJohn and Lucy (see FGs 4.12, 4.14, and 4.15), demonstrate that no participanthas been able to assert his/her epistemic authority on this matter and that theproblem remains unresolved.

In Fragment 4.3, in line 41 and the 14 lines of omitted talk, John acknowl-edges that he and his interlocutors have exhausted their own grammaticalresources and proposes that they resolve the issue by looking this word up inWordReference, an online dictionary. This is an exogenous tool whose epis-temic authority is acceptable to the participants.


John: we can look that ↑up. ((15 lines of talk omitted. Mary is looking up

. ‘‘ristorante’’ on WordReference, an

online English-Italian dictionary.))

John: FG4.16 (that’s the ↑o:ne ((3.6)

Mary: (restaurant. ((1.2)

John: FG4.17it’s MAsculine. you’re right.

(1.0)FG4.18s:o:

((more talk follows))



Let us now see what this talk looks like.FG 4.16 shows that all three participants are intensely focused on Mary’s

laptop screen. Note that they maintain their body positions for the following 9.0seconds (through line 60) as Mary works on the website. In line 56, John quietlysays “ (that’s the o:ne! (” as the WordReference site becomes availableonscreen. Following a silence of 3.6 seconds in line 57, during which Mary isclicking on hyperlinks, Mary quietly says “ (restaurant. (” in line 58, whichis followed by another 1.2 second silence in line 59 as she continues her search.Finally, as the WordReference entry for restaurant appears on Mary’s laptop,John says “it’s MAsculine. you’re right.,” thereby admitting for thefirst time in line 60 and FG 4.17 that Lucy was right.



Notice that John’s switch to a technical formulation of gender at this pointin the talk is one of only two times in the data that the participants use anylinguistic metalanguage to talk about what they are doing. Furthermore, it isprompted by John’s (and indeed Mary and Lucy’s) recognition that the notationm in the dictionary entry is the technical equivalent of using nontechnicaldescriptions such as nostro and il to talk about Italian gender.10

In FG 4.18, starts to lean back at the beginning of the 1.0 second silence inline 61, and then says “s:o:” in line 62 at the apex of this embodied action.

This embodied action and talk by the group’s secretary begin the finalsummary of what the participants have learned from the dictionary, thustreating the matter of the gender of ristorante as having been satisfactorily



resolved. More specifically, although Mary and John start at different points inthe sentence that they are collaboratively producing in lines 65–67, and despiteLucy’s hesitations in line 68 (“alli: (.) nostro:: o:r (.) yeah (.)

u::h = ,” the remaining talk in lines 69–76 runs off successfully. Finally,notice that the collaboratively completed sentence in lines 66–76) (which con-stitutes socially distributed cognitive activity) is again achieved in and throughtalk-in-interaction.

Discussion and Conclusion11

Our topic, namely, how the process of small group–based planning work fo-cusing on grammatical accuracy in IFL is achieved in the moment and overtime, is of independent interest to both cognitive SLA and CA. We have shown(contra the traditional understanding of planning in cognitive SLA) that plan-ning is an observable process, at least in social terms. Furthermore, we haveshown that CA can answer the call by Ellis (2005a) to develop a social accountof what participants do when they plan future tasks, explicate how they dothis, and discover whether they actually perform tasks in the way that theyhad planned. This account provides a clear response to cognitive skeptics whohave long maintained that CA has little to say about learning (see Ortega,2009, Chapter 10, for a review). In addition, we have shown how participants:(1) use talk and embodied actions to construct word and grammar searches,(2) cannibalize and recycle each others’ talk and embodied behaviors in suc-ceeding turns, and (3) hardly ever use technical linguistic metalanguage totalk about gender. However, these insights raise as many questions as theyanswer.

With respect to the first point, we agree with Kurhila (2006) that a prioridistinctions between word and grammar searches are not relevant to how thesepractices are interactionally achieved. We further argue that there is a system-atic, social order of organization that is independent of a priori psycholinguisticaccounts of cognition, mind, and learning as underlying, individual mental phe-nomena that allegedly generate “surface” manifestations of (in this particularcase) planning (see also Markee, 2011; Drew, 2005). At the same time, byrespecifying individual, mentalistic notions of cognition as socially distributedactions, we have shed new light on how participants laminate different semioticsystems to do planning work as real time behavior.

Concerning the second issue, we have shown that participants use canni-balization and recycling practices massively across turns and speech eventsto co-construct both word and grammar searches. Such cannibalization and



recycling practices are endemic in ordinary conversation, but they are used inour data to accomplish the institutional work of doing planning-related lan-guage learning behavior. This observation may seem banal until we realize thatit actually respecifies much of learning as just an institutional form of talk (seeNote 3).

Regarding the third issue, we have seen that the participants consistentlyand massively oriented to doing grammar searches on gender morphologyas a matter of making locally contingent selections among different lexicalchoices (la, nostra, il, nostro) that carry information about grammatical gen-der. Thus, doing grammar and knowing grammar are different things. Thisobservation suggests that cognitive notions of grammar may also need to berespecified, perhaps along the lines suggested by Schegloff (1996), who arguesthat grammar is an emergent phenomenon and that its natural habitat is talk-in-interaction.

We are obviously now moving far beyond the empirical analyses provided inthis article and acknowledge that the broad programmatic suggestions outlinedbelow may get us into very hot water. We have decided to take our chances andlet the cards fall where they may. We therefore conclude this article by askingthe following question: “What do(es) the interface(s) between behavior andcognition actually look and sound like?” Our answer is: “It looks and soundslike the videos and transcripts we have exhibited in this article.”

We now wish to ask our cognitive colleagues the same question. This issuemay seem to be an unlikely locus of possible common ground between behav-ioral and cognitive SLA. However, this is precisely the challenge articulated byMacWhinney (2005), who summarizes the main theme of his article thus:

Linguistic forms are shaped by forces operating on vastly different timescales. Some of these forces operate directly at the moment of speaking,whereas others accumulate over time in personal and social memory. Ourchallenge is to understand how forces with very different time scalesmesh together in the current moment to determine the emergence oflinguistic form. (p. 191)

We therefore argue that the conversation analyses of word and grammarsearches presented here may provide empirical insight into how massivelyoccurring, naturalistic, socially distributed language learning behaviors—suchas the repetitions that occur as participants cannibalize and recycle linguisticmaterial from previous turns—provide a primordial, universal, and interactionalfoundation for the cognitive, probabilistic, and frequency based accounts of



individual L2 learning developed by connectionist researchers working withartificial languages in laboratory contexts (see Ellis, 2003). This idea clearlyneeds much more work. We therefore look forward to collaborating with ourconnectionist and other cognitive colleagues in SLA on how these alternativemeanings of emergence ultimately converge. In so doing, we hope to contributeto the development of a radically new, and above all, 21st-century version ofSLA studies.

Final revised version accepted 3 March 2013

Notes

1 We prefer the phrase classical SLA rather than mainstream SLA to denoteindividual cognitive approaches to SL learning, because it is not exactly clear whatnow constitutes mainstream SLA (see Swain & Deters, 2007).

2 Following Markee (2008, 2011), we acknowledge that not all learning isobservable as public behavior (see also Pekarek Doehler, 2010). Notice, however,that even individual learning (for example, the kind of learning that happens whena learner reads a textbook):

[ . . . ] occurs through situated social practices that have emerged in theculture to facilitate learning. Individual learning is almost impossible tounderstand apart from these situated social practices. Learning always occursin historically unique social and cultural settings, with historically andculturally created social practices. Even formal classrooms are constructedsocial practices—they have emerged relatively recently in history, and theymay not always exist in their current form. (Sawyer & Greeno, 2009, p. 353)

3 See Markee (2008, 2011) for details of the learning behavior trackingmethodology that was used to identify and analyze the excerpted fragments.

4 That is, the lexical, phrasal, clausal, and sentential units that constitute thebuilding blocks of turns (Sacks et al., 1974).

5 We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting that we clarify ourtranscription practices here.

6 We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.7 The idea of cannibalizing and recycling material is an analogy (drawn from the

practices of mechanics, who use parts from old cars to rebuild engines that stillwork) that Emmanuel Schegloff used in his UCLA lectures on CA in the 1980s(and doubtless afterwards). However, to our knowledge, he has never used thisphrase in his publications. This phrase refers to the conversational practice ofcurrent speakers who construct their terms out of linguistic material that has



already occurred in recent turns-at-talk (see also the discussion of format tying inM. H. Goodwin, 1990, and M. H. Goodwin & C. Goodwin, 1987).

8 This particular behavior is not universal. See the language related episodeexhibited in Example 6 in Swain and Lapkin (1995, p. 380), in which the learneruses formal metalinguistic language to refer to different tenses in French.

9 This seems to be an interlingual form for Italian nostra. It also constitutes apossible exception to Kurhila’s (2006) claim that grammar searches do not targetthe stems of words.

10 We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.11 An anonymous reviewer had the following comments about this section:

Given that this article is based on a small amount of data, of which only 2excerpts are analysed in the article (and not as examples of a phenomenonbased on collection work), the conclusions seem to be too generalizing. Thefindings can be seen as beginning contributions to the points made. Thepoints should be formulated more cautiously.

We appreciate this point of view but have nonetheless decided not to follow thisadvice. Only time will tell whether we have committed hubris and over-reached, orwhether we have in fact identified some interesting new directions that planningresearchers could usefully explore.

References

Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language oflearners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching(pp. 36–46). Oxford, UK: Heinemann.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of orallanguage. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogictasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK:Pearson.

Bygate, P., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use oftask-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a secondlanguage (pp. 37–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Dysfluencies or interactionalachievements? In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations(pp. 201–220). London: Continuum.

De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking model” adapted.Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf& G. Appel (Eds.), Vygoskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.



Drew, P. (2005). Is confusion a state of mind? In H. te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.).Conversation and cognition (pp. 161–183). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: SAGE.Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of

second language structure. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in theuse of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–20.

Ellis, R. (2005a). Preface. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a secondlanguage (pp. vii–viii). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2005b). Planning and task-based performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning andtask performance in a second language (pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency,complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.

Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’performance. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in languageteaching (pp. 126–135). Oxford, UK: Heinemann.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance intask-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus ofplanning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),

Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernandez-Garcıa, M. (1999). The

effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2003). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA

Review, 19, 3–17.Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2

oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240.Goodwin, C. (1987). Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 50, 115–113.Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversation with an aphasic man.

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 233–260.Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities.

Discourse and Society, 18, 53–73.Goodwin, C. (2011). Contextures of action. In J. Streek, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron

(Eds.), Embodied interaction (pp. 182–193). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human actionand knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 8–23.



Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1986). Gesture and co-participation in the activity ofsearching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51–75.

Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among blackchildren. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children’s arguing. In S. Philips, S. Steele, &C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp.200–248). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gullberg, M. (2011). Multilingual multimodality: Communicative difficulties and theirsolutions in second-language use. In J. Streek, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.),Embodied interaction (pp. 137–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hayashi, M. (2003). Language and the body as resources for collaborative action: Astudy of word searches in Japanese conversation. Research on Language and SocialInteraction, 36, 109–141.

Helasvuo, M-L., Laakso, M., & Sorjonnen, M-L. (2004). Searching for words:Syntactic and sequential construction of word search in conversations of Finnishspeakers with aphasia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 1–37.

Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InJ. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299–345).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2005). Cognition in discourse. In H. te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.),Conversation and cognition (pp. 184–202). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemic in action: Action formation and territories ofknowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1–52.

Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories ofknowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 30–52.

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).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hulstijn, J., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processingconstraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Hutchins, E., & Nomura, S. (2011). Collaborative construction of multimodal

utterances. In J. Streek, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction(pp. 29–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Karkkainen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learnerswith low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and taskperformance in a second language (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kurhila, S. (2006). Second language interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units inconversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs,E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second languageacquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second languageacquisition (pp. 414–468). New York: Academic Press.

MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of linguistic form in time. ConnectionScience, 3–4, 191–211.

Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology forCA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29, 404–427.

Markee, N. (2011). Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43,602–615.

Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. ModernLanguage Journal, 88, 491–500.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on secondlanguage performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52–83.

Murphy, K. M. (2004). Imagination as joint activity: The case of architecturalinteraction. Mind, culture and activity, 11, 267–278.

Murphy, K. M. (2011). Building stories: The embodied narration of what might cometo pass. In J. Streek, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction(pp. 243–253). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ortega, L. (1995). The effect of planning in L2 Spanish narratives. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.

Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form duringpre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a secondlanguage (pp. 77–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder.Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On

language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P.Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising “learning” in appliedlinguistics (pp. 105–126). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009) A short primer on situated cognition. In P. Robbins& M. Aydede (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 3–10).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for theorganization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.



Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategicplanning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language(pp. 111–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sawyer, R. K., & Greeno, J. G. (2009). Situativity and learning. In P. Robbins & M.Aydede (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 347–367).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. AmericanAnthropologist, 70, 1075–1095.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon(Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 12, pp. 261–286). New York: Academic Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar andinteraction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction andgrammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correctionin the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognitionand second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2005). Pre-task and on-line planning: The influence ofsurprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis(Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193–218).Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Streek, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction in the materialworld: An introduction. In J. Streek, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodiedinteraction (pp. 1–28). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions(2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook& B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies inhonour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition throughcollaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and secondlanguage learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). New mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched.Modern Language Journal, 91, 820–836.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes theygenerate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16,371–391.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of thefirst language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 253–276.



Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue:Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researchingpedagogic task: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–117).London: Longman.

Tajima, M. (2003). The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as aforeign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.

Truong, A. T., & Storch, N. (2007). Investigating group planning in preparation fororal presentations in an EFL class in Vietnam. Regional Language Centre Journal,38, 104–124.

Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Temple University.

Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre task and on-line planning on fluency,complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24,1–27.

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of thisarticle at the publisher’s website:

Appendix S1. Fragments 4.1–4.3 with Video Files.


Documents

Markee & Kunitz (2013). Doing Planning and Task Performance in Second Language Acquisition: An Ethnomethodological Respecification