S8 SUMMER 2012

Joshua J. Thoms (PhD, University of Iowa) is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics and Spanish at Utah State University, Logan.

Classroom Discourse in Foreign Language Classrooms: A Review of the Literature

Joshua J. ThomsUtah State University

Abstract: This article reviews studies that have investigated discourse in foreign language (FL) classroom contexts from the perspective of sociocultural theory. Socio-cultural theory maintains that language learning and development in a classroom context are intimately tied to the discursive practices by which and through which learners interact with each other and their teacher. Furthermore, the research has shown that teachers play an important role in that the specifi c types of patterns cre-ated in their interactions with students are a fundamental source of learners’ compe-tence in the FL. This review raises additional questions that remain to be addressed in future research that will potentially contribute to an evolving understanding of classroom discourse.

Key words: conversation analysis, discourse, initiation-response-feedback/evaluation sequences, interaction, sociocultural theory

IntroductionThe ever-changing landscape of teaching pedagogies and research methodologies over the last several decades, coupled with the emergence of the fi eld of second language acquisition (SLA) and concomitant proliferation of theoretical views of foreign language (FL) learning, has signifi cantly broadened the scope of research carried out by applied linguists. One area of research that has received considerable attention in recent years is classroom discourse. Classroom-based research stud-ies defi ne discourse as the oral interaction between teachers and their students and between students themselves that takes place in a classroom context. Some researchers have investigated how learners establish relationships with their peers in classroom contexts via talk-in-interaction (e.g., Hellermann, 2007, 2008), whereas others have examined how learners are socialized into particular language practices via distinct patterns of teacher discourse (e.g., Hall, 1995, 2004, 2010; Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004, among others). A common goal of this research is to establish a connection between different types of classroom talk and FL learning. From a discourse perspective, classroom talk is considered consequential to lan-guage learning and development.

Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 45, Iss. S1, pp. S8–S27. © 2012 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. DOI: 10.111/j.1944-9720.2012.01177.x.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S9

guistic approaches (e.g., Chomsky, 2002; White, 2003) typically involves analyz-ing language to identify its constitutive parts (e.g., syntax, morphology, phonol-ogy, phrasal categories, etc.) to determine how each language component functions and how each one contributes to the way in which one language works and/or differs from another. This kind of formal linguis-tic research does not take into account the context in which language is used or the linguistic systems by which it is bound and through which context is constituted. Some SLA theoretical work (e.g., Slabakova, 2006; Sorace, 2005) follows in this same vein by defi ning the nature of language learning as the acquisition of these isolated linguistic properties without taking into considera-tion the context and distinct ways in which learners acquire this knowledge.

In contrast, sociocultural theory views language as more than a formal system of linguistic properties. The sociocultural perspective maintains that the nature of language is fundamentally social and has its genesis in the interaction between peo-ple (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Specifi cally, language is “inextricably linked to the cul-turally framed and discursively patterned communicative activities of importance to our groups howsoever these groups are defi ned” (Hall, 1997, p. 303). In other words, the primary facets of language, as defi ned by the sociocultural theoretical view, are tied to and are fundamentally shaped by the ways in which individuals interact with others in a variety of communicative con-texts. Extending this idea to a FL learning environment, students’ knowledge of the FL is shaped by the ways in which students interact via distinct and recurrent discourse patterns and by other interactional mean-ing-making systems, such as gestures.

In terms of acquisition, sociocultural theory considers learners’ development of individual competence to originate in the social interactions and relationships that are established via participation in their communicative practices (e.g., carrying out a linguistic task in a classroom context

This review of the literature summa-rizes recent work1 related to investigations of classroom discourse using sociocultural theory as the framework for data analy-sis and interpretation. The review begins with an overview of a sociocultural view of language learning.2 The review then presents studies that investigated how teachers shape the communicative context in foreign language classes, with particular attention to literature classrooms. These studies attempted to show how oral inter-action has a potential impact on student learning. The review examines closely the initiation-response-feedback (IRF) and initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) inter-action patterns typically found in discourse in FL classrooms. IRF and IRE discourse patterns resurfaced in many studies on classroom discourse no matter the specifi c focus of the study (teacher-student dis-course, teacher questions, etc.), and it is therefore one of the main foci of this review. In addition, studies that investigated the discourse of student-student interaction in the FL classroom are highlighted followed by a brief review of studies that looked at the broader, social factors that infl uence classroom talk. Suggestions for future ave-nues of research in the area of classroom discourse and foreign language learning conclude the literature review.

Theoretical FrameworkMany of the studies on classroom discourse in FL classrooms have made use of a socio-cultural perspective on language learning (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987). It is fi rst necessary to briefl y highlight some of the major theo-retical assumptions inherent in a sociocul-tural view of language learning and explain how it differs from other SLA perspectives.

Historically, many formal linguistic theories, in one way or another, have had as their goal the investigation and identi-fi cation of the properties that constitute a language system, and, in some cases, how these properties are acquired (e.g., Slobin, 1985). Research carried out via formal lin-

S10 SUMMER 2012

each other, such as when they work through a jigsaw task using language as the primary tool for task completion. Through media-tion learners are able to make use of and develop their abilities in the second lan-guage in a manner that may not be possible when working alone. This collaboration, or what some have called the co-construction of knowledge (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995), has been shown to occur between learners and their teachers (Donato & Brooks, 2004; Hall, 1995, 1998, 2004, 2010; Thoms, 2011), between two or more learners (Donato, 1994; LaPierre, 1994; Mori, 2002; Platt & Brooks, 2002; Swain, 1997; Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2002), or via self-directed talk such as private speech (de Guerrero, 1999; McCafferty, 1998; Ohta, 2001).

Within sociocultural theory, oral inter-action among participants is a fundamental component of language learning. From this perspective, interaction is not just the facili-tator of learning but more fundamentally is the source of both what students learn and how they learn. In other words, oral interac-tion is both the means and the end (Swain, 1997) in that the language used during an interaction in an FL context is simultane-ously both the tool for learning and the object of what is to be learned (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2002).

It is also worth noting that some research on classroom discourse has drawn on the theoretical principles of language socializa-tion (Ochs, 1988; Schieffelin, 1990). Lan-guage socialization focuses on the ways in which novice members of a community or social group (e.g., children or, in the class-room context, students) develop and use linguistically and culturally appropriate knowledge based on interactions with more knowledgeable persons in the group. Fur-thermore, language socialization research “integrates discourse and ethnographic methods to capture the social structuring and cultural interpretations of semiotic forms, practices, and ideologies that inform novices’ practical engagement with others” (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011, p. 1). Closely related to the sociocultural view of learning,

or interacting with native speakers in a study abroad environment). Eventually, the linguistic means for accomplishing these social practices are appropriated by the learners and become part of their cogni-tive resources. Much of this appropriation happens via the guidance and assistance of more experienced participants. This guid-ance in completing tasks and solving prob-lems is referred to as mediation. According to the theory, mediation can be provided by others (other-regulation) or by the self (self-regulation) (Lantolf, 2006; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Poehner, 2008; Vygotsky, 1987). Often, mediation is provided through the use of language and other sign sys-tems, such as charts, graphs, numbers, objects in the immediate environment, etc. Because the majority of mediation that is given and received is linguistic and sym-bolic in nature, it is referred to as semiotic mediation, such as the talk directed toward others or the talk directed to oneself in the form of private speech (i.e., when a learner vocalizes his or her thoughts, thereby car-rying out a dialogue with him- or herself). Mediation is said, therefore, to regulate, shape, and constitute learners’ mental and physical activity and is largely responsible for development, or the ability to accom-plish actions on one’s own and recognize and generalize these actions, linguistic or otherwise, across analogous contexts (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

In several studies on classroom dis-course that were carried out within the sociocultural framework, this mediation, discussed above, was defi ned as the help of a more capable peer such as a more pro-fi cient learner or the teacher (Poehner & Lantolf, 2005). In contrast to input and interactionist views (Gass, 1997, 2003; Long, 1996; VanPatten, 2004), where lan-guage learning is often depicted as a soli-tary cognitive endeavor in which the brain processes, analyzes, and stores input data in the form of spoken or written utterances, the sociocultural view considers language learning to be fundamentally social and occurs when learners orally interact with

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S11

by the teacher (i.e., either an evaluative or follow-up comment) closes out the interac-tion before moving on to yet another tri-adic interaction sequence. Some (Donato & Brooks, 2004; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Thoms, 2011; Wells, 1993) chose to dif-ferentiate between the two interaction pat-terns (i.e., IRE vs. IRF), a distinction that is adopted in this article to highlight the dif-ferent functions of the third turn in the two interaction sequences.

The IRE pattern is similar to the IRF pattern in that it consists of three parts. However, the main difference between IRE and IRF sequences lies in the third turn. The IRE pattern functions as follows: The teacher initiates the interaction usually by posing a question (I); a student is then typi-cally expected to provide a response to the teacher’s question (R); and the exchange ends with the teacher evaluating the stu-dent’s response by saying something such as Exactly, Good point, or No, that’s incorrect (E). The teacher therefore is the speaker in the interaction who is usually responsible for carrying out the fi rst (initiation) and third (evaluation) turns of the exchange, while the student is the participant respon-sible for the second (response) turn in the interaction. Table 1 illustrates how teacher-student interaction typically unfolds within the IRE pattern.

The roles taken on by both teacher and student within the IRE interaction pat-tern allow the teacher to act as an expert in charge of guiding the interaction and evalu-ating the accuracy of the student’s response. In contrast, the student assumes a role par-tially determined by the teacher’s decisions about who participates when and how much interaction takes place between student and teacher. The teacher’s role within the IRE pattern controls and sanctions the amount and type of interaction that takes place in the classroom (Hall & Walsh, 2002). As a result, students’ freedom to interact and respond in meaningful ways within the IRE pattern is determined by the teacher.

Many studies have been carried out analyzing the effects of the IRE pattern

SLA research adopting a language socializa-tion perspective analyzes how learners are socialized as language learners in FL class-rooms based on oral interactions with the teacher and their peers. For example, learn-ers can take on the role of novice or expert during pair and group work tasks depend-ing on the situation and with whom they are interacting in the FL classroom (Ohta, 1995; Storch, 2002).

In sum, interactions in the FL class-room serve to socialize students into understanding what counts as the offi cial curriculum as well as inculcate in students ways of acting with (or reacting to) the sub-ject matter being studied (Hall & Walsh, 2002). “Through time and experience in practices with other, more experienced members, the less experienced participants learn to recognize what is taking place, and to anticipate the likely unfolding and typical consequences of the uses of the practices’ resources” (Hall, 1997, p. 302). Therefore, from a sociocultural perspective, acquisition is inextricably tied to the social and linguistic opportunities that are present in the FL classroom context, in so much as these opportunities are perceived by learn-ers as meaningful, valuable, and relevant. As such, teachers play an important role in shaping classroom discourse and affording students with opportunities for meaningful interaction.

Teacher-Student Interaction: IRE/IRF Interaction PatternsOne of the more commonly studied inter-action patterns found in the classroom is that of IRE. It is important to note here that in the literature on classroom discourse, some researchers have referred to the ubiq-uitous triadic dialogue sequence/structure as IRE (Lemke, 1990; Mehan, 1979, 1985, 1998), while others referred to it as initia-tion-response-feedback or IRF (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Waring, 2009). In many of the aforementioned studies, however, researchers were referring to essentially the same thing: where the third turn produced

S12 SUMMER 2012

session, such as that established by the IRE pattern. Specifi cally, Wells (1993) discov-ered a subtle variation on the IRE pattern in his analyses of classroom discourse—the IRF pattern. As previously noted, the fi rst two parts of the IRF exchange function as they do in the IRE sequence. Again, the teacher initiates the exchange usually by posing a question in the fi rst turn, and then the student responds to the question in the second turn. However, instead of evaluat-ing students’ responses in the third turn, the teacher provides a response that takes the form of non-evaluative feedback. The feedback may include asking students to expand on their response by justifying or clarifying their opinions. Table 2 illustrates how teacher-student interaction typically unfolds within the IRF pattern.

One of Nassaji and Wells’s (2000) conclusions was that the third part of the exchange (i.e., evaluation) in the tradi-tional IRE sequence limits students’ ability to respond to their teacher in a meaning-ful way during whole-class discussion. On the other hand, if the teacher provides the kind of feedback found in an IRF sequence, students are then allowed more opportuni-ties to participate in the discussion, explain their thinking, and elaborate upon their responses. Nassaji and Wells also suggested that these two triadic exchange patterns found in classrooms are neither wholly good nor bad. Whether or not teachers rely on one pattern over the other is often depend-ent upon variables such as the nature of the activity, the participants involved in the dis-cussion, or the purpose of the lesson.

on classroom discourse in a variety of fi rst and second language classroom contexts (Cazden, 2001; Hall, 1998; Mehan, 1979; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Nystrand, 1997; Wells, 1993). The IRE discourse pattern has been found to limit students from speaking freely about the topic of class discussion and to prevent students from extending and elaborating upon their utterances. Further results have shown that it does not allow for complex ways of thinking and communicat-ing between student and teacher (Barnes, 1992). Others have suggested that the IRE sequence contributes to the asymmetrical discourse patterns typically found in lan-guage classrooms by preventing students from managing turn-taking, developing the topic of conversations, or negotiat-ing the direction of instruction (van Lier, 1998). The IRE pattern places the teacher at the center of instructional activities in the language classroom and limits student responses and contributions to discussion. In sum, IRE maximizes teacher talk and minimizes student talk.

Some researchers have examined class-room discourse to investigate the pres-ence of other kinds of interaction patterns between teachers and their students. Nassaji and Wells (2000), while investigating the IRE pattern in English elementary science and literature classrooms in Canada, dis-covered that subtle changes in the third part of the IRE pattern resulted in an increase in students’ participation in whole-class dis-cussion. The resulting discourse between teacher and student refl ected more of a dia-logic interaction in contrast to an inquisitive

TABLE 1

Sample IRE Interaction Pattern (Thoms, 2011, p. 330)

123456

I

RE

T:

S:T:

Entonces, ¿qué pasa con el dueño de la mina? ¿Quién es eldueño de la mina? ¿Quién es? ¿Bueno, sí?Don Pedro.Don Pedro—¡exactamente!

[So, what happens with the owner of the mine? Who is the owner of the mine? Who is it? Well, yes?][Don Pedro.][Don Pedro—exactly!]

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S13

such as equality and symmetry are at the heart of negotiation and the joint construc-tion of talk between teacher and students in the language classroom. Many of these same issues are also central components of socioculturally oriented language learn-ing theories and research methodologies of SLA, which seek, among other things, to discover specifi c points in discourse that represent the genesis of how students attend to a specifi c grammatical form, idea, or concept in the second language (Mercer, 2004; Toth, 2011). However, as has been noted, teachers’ actions can facilitate or inhibit learners’ participation in classroom discourse.

Teachers’ (In)ActionsA body of research on classroom discourse has focused on the role of teachers in struc-turing the talk in their classroom, with a specifi c interest in understanding the effects of teachers’ actions (or inactions) on the learning opportunities created for students in their discourse. Findings have suggested that particular kinds of teacher-fronted activities can limit how much stu-dents participate in whole-class discussions (Donato & Brooks, 2004; Hall, 1995, 2004; Thoms, 2008; Waring, 2008). For example, Hall (1995) analyzed the way in which a

While acknowledging that IRE and IRF interaction patterns are widely used in the FL classroom and are therefore the most common ways in which teachers and students interact, some researchers have argued for new pedagogical approaches to engage students in equitable, meaningful ways. Van Lier (1998)3 indicated that the third follow-up turn in the IRF sequence has the possibility to lead students and teach-ers to “emancipatory forms of discourse” (p. 168). He suggested that teachers may be able to create discursive patterns of inter-action between themselves and students when teachers ask meaningful questions in the follow-up slot of the IRF pattern, as suggested by Nassaji and Wells (2000). Van Lier (1998) argued that the IRF pattern, particularly the follow-up slot, can act as a springboard that promotes shared inquiry rather than a question-and-answer session where student responses are expected or already known by the teacher.

The kind of conversation that evolves out of discourse patterns that engage stu-dents on an equal footing with the teacher has the potential to lead to classroom interactions between teacher and students that are more symmetrical in nature (e.g., students may also pose questions, ask for clarifi cation, and probe for more informa-tion). Van Lier (1998) indicated that issues

TABLE 2

Sample IRF Interaction Pattern (Thoms, 2011, p. 331)

123456789

101112

I

R

FR

E

T:

S:

T:S:

T:

Capítulo 14. Hay un momento importante allí. Aquí pasan muchas cosas, ¿verdad? Para vosotros, ¿cuál sería una cosa importante?Creo que cuando Ángel va y trata de ver a su familia.Y ¿por qué es importante?Porque él quiere visitar a su padre. Es un momento importante.Sí.

[Chapter 14. There is an important moment there. A lot of things happen here, right? For you all, what would be one important thing?][I think when Angel goes and tries to see his family.][And why is it important?][Because he wants to visit his father. It is an important moment.][Yes.]

S14 SUMMER 2012

texts. For example, in their analysis of whole-class discussions between students and their teacher in an advanced undergraduate Spanish literature classroom, Donato and Brooks (2004) reported that although liter-ary discussions had the potential to allow students to speak at the advanced level of profi ciency, the way in which the whole-class talk was structured by the teacher did not allow for this to happen. Specifi cally, students were not allowed ample opportu-nities during the course of the whole-class discussions to produce extended, paragraph-length responses, nor did they make use of complex grammatical structures and lexical items. As such, the researchers indicated that a disconnect existed between what students in their study were observed saying and the more complex language or talk one would expect to be used in upper-level FL litera-ture courses. They drew two implications from their study. First, literature discus-sions should include a variety of interac-tion patterns that present opportunities for learners to elaborate their responses during whole-class discussions. Second, teachers in these courses should be made aware of the need for varying the way in which they discuss literary works with their students to promote students’ participation in the talk. Although Donato and Brooks’s study sheds light on the nature of classroom discourse in upper-level, content-based courses at the college level, much more research is needed in this area.

While analyzing the transcripts of teacher-student interaction in adult Eng-lish as a Second Language (ESL) classes in a community educational program in the United States, Waring (2008) focused on the use of “explicit positive assessment” utterances (p. 577) put forth by the teacher when checking homework with her stu-dents in a whole-class setting. The study raises an important point: Teachers often justify or defend the use of evaluative state-ments in IRE as a way of building a positive and encouraging classroom climate. The author indicated, however, that the explicit positive assessment utterances (e.g., well

teacher provided speaking opportunities for his students in a fi rst-year high school Spanish class via whole-class discussions. A unique discursive practice observed in the transcripts, termed local lexical chaining (p. 46), involved the teacher asking students a series of unrelated questions in order to review various lexical items. As such, the discourse resulted in a disjointed conver-sation that focused primarily on reviewing the vocabulary words in the context of a list of unrelated sentences that did not share a unifying theme or context. The question-ing pattern of the teacher did not allow for a cohesive conversation, prevented the teacher from asking follow-up questions for elaborating upon statements, and violated pragmatic conventions of conversation.

In a similar study, Hall (2004) observed the discourse between the teacher and her students over a nine-month period in a fi rst-year high school Spanish language class. Hall found that the way the teacher allowed her students to practice speak-ing was reduced to two activities—“listing and labeling of objects and concepts” and “lexical chaining” (pp. 76–77). These two ways of speaking involved students listing objects, ideas, or vocabulary words when-ever prompted by the teacher, activities that involved limited cognitive engagement and linguistic skills. The repeated use of these two speaking activities resulted in low levels of cognitive and linguistic develop-ment, as evidenced by students’ abilities at the end of the year. Hall concluded that because of the teacher’s almost exclusive reliance on uninteresting and intellectually limited instructional routines, the students learned very little. Both of Hall’s (1995, 2004) studies underscore the importance of understanding the consequences of talk to language learning and development in the FL classroom.

Findings on the inhibiting nature of such interactional activities are not limited to high school Spanish language courses. Researchers have also focused on college-level, content-based courses to understand how discourse evolves in these specifi c con-

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S15

& Donato, 2000; Waring, 2009), how native and nonnative teachers of the FL differenti-ate the types of questions used to engage students in classroom discussion (Consolo, 2000), how small changes in a teacher’s follow-up questions in triadic interaction can affect classroom discourse (Hellermann, 2003, 2005), and how teachers and students share responsibility for co-constructing questions in the openings between IRF sequences (Waring, 2009).

In a study that investigated the class-room discourse of an ESL teacher and her students, McCormick and Donato (2000) analyzed a variety of data sources (e.g., 20 videotaped class meetings, interviews with the teacher, teacher journals) to understand how the teacher’s questions served to scaf-fold learning in teacher-fronted activities. Specifi cally, the study sought to demon-strate how teacher questions refl ected the six functions of scaffolding originally delin-eated in Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976). In that study, Wood et al. defi ned scaffolding as the process by which experts assist nov-ices to achieve a goal or solve a problem that the novice could not achieve or solve alone. The authors went on to specify six functions that make up scaffolding: recruit-ment (i.e., the expert “enlists the problem solver’s interest in and adherence to the requirements of the task” [p. 98]), reduc-tion in degrees of freedom (i.e., the expert makes adjustments to the task to reduce the number of actions needed by the novice to solve the problem), direction maintenance (i.e., the expert keeps the novice on task by motivating the novice to achieve the task objective), marking critical features (i.e., the expert provides cues or “accentuates certain features of the task that are relevant” [p. 98]), frustration control (i.e., the expert encourages the novice whenever the novice makes an error while working on the task), and demonstration (i.e., the expert models solutions to the task).

Based on their fi ndings, McCormick and Donato (2000) suggested that teacher questions should not take on the role of an elicitation device where teachers, who

done, excellent job) functioned as an evalua-tion, thus producing an IRE discourse pat-tern that limited students’ participation in the interaction and the students’ learning opportunities around the topic of correcting homework assignments. Waring concluded that what is seemingly appropriate and typi-cal pedagogical behavior on the part of the teacher (i.e., providing a nurturing, posi-tive response to a learner when going over answers to homework) may not be ideal feedback for the learner in terms of FL acquisition. That is, given the way in which explicit positive assessment utterances limit students’ participation in classroom talk, perhaps providing feedback that extends the conversation with learners in an ESL setting would better facilitate their learning of English. In this way, Waring called into question assumptions about nurturing stu-dents through positive evaluation given in the context of pedagogical tasks that osten-sibly have the goal of student learning. The essential question is, therefore, how can teachers create a positive and nurturing classroom environment without compro-mising opportunities for student participa-tion and reducing interactions to the IRE discourse pattern? One way that teachers can promote learners’ participation in class-room discourse while creating a positive discursive space is through thoughtful and meaningful teacher questions, an area that has received much attention.

Teacher Questions and Student ActionsGiven that the sociocultural perspective views language learning as a social process where more capable participants provide nonjudgmental assistance to less experi-enced learners via oral interactions, teacher questions can help establish a nonthreat-ening communicative context in which these discursive interactions can take place. Research on teacher questions has analyzed how questions can be used as a way to facilitate the co-construction of knowledge between teachers and students (McCormick

S16 SUMMER 2012

classroom interaction patterns. To this end, researchers have relied on conversation analysis (CA). CA is a research methodol-ogy that involves a close analysis of verbal and nonverbal interactions in “‘natural’ sit-uations” (ten Have, 2007, p. 10). The pri-mary data sources used in CA are the audio and/or video recordings of talk resulting in detailed transcriptions of the oral inter-action. Typical transcription conventions used in CA include the documentation of pauses, participants’ intonation, and, in some cases, information that describes par-ticipants’ paralinguistic cues (e.g., gestures) while they are participating in the conversa-tion. A primary tenet of CA research meth-odology is that analyzing interaction is best achieved via a close analysis of the turn-by-turn sequence of talk. This type of analysis allows the researcher to determine how par-ticipants mutually construct conversation and how they orient themselves toward the specifi c instance of talk-in-interaction under examination (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). In other words, a CA per-spective assumes that conversation is not merely a series of individual acts. Rather, human oral interaction is “an emergent collectively organized event” (ten Have, 2007, p. 9). CA’s purpose is not to explain why participants interact as they do but to understand and explain how interaction is carried out and accomplished in a specifi c context.

To illustrate how CA is used to inves-tigate classroom discourse, Lazaraton (2004) employed CA to understand an oral exchange between an NNS ESL teacher and one of her students. The researcher ana-lyzed a particular section of transcription from a whole-class discussion and looked at how an NNS ESL teacher teaching in a university setting responded to a student’s question about whether or not the term cheddar cheese referred to a kind of bread. Lazaraton explained that the purpose of CA “is to discover the systematic properties of the sequential organization of talk and the social practices that are displayed by and embodied in talk-in-interaction” (p. 52).

already know the answer to the questions they ask, elicit students’ knowledge about the content of the discussion. Rather, they advocated that teacher questions be con-ceptualized as “dynamic discursive tools [used] to build collaboration and to scaf-fold comprehension and comprehensibility” (p. 197). In this way, teacher questions function as “semiotic tools for achieving goal-directed instructional actions within the context of teacher-student classroom interaction” (p. 198). In addition, the sup-port that questions have the potential to provide creates a nonjudgmental environ-ment in which students perceive that help is available from the teacher and will be offered when they experience diffi culty.

Other studies have looked at the way in which native speaker teachers differ from nonnative speaker (NNS) teachers with respect to the kinds of questions they pose during whole-class discussions and the effects of these questions on subsequent stu-dent discourse. Consolo (2000), for exam-ple, found that NS teachers in an English as a foreign language classroom provided more follow-up moves in IRF sequences when compared to NNS teachers, thereby gener-ating more student discussion. In addition, he identifi ed several other factors that may affect the amount and kind of oral discourse between teacher and student that were not analyzed in his study and need to be inves-tigated further. Some of these include the teaching methodology employed, the text or textbook used, the length of the class ses-sion, the overall goals of the teacher (e.g., reviewing information from a larger lecture format or introducing new material), and the varying profi ciency levels of students in the same class (i.e., catering to a variety of students whose FL speaking abilities range from Novice to Intermediate High on the ACTFL scale).

More recent work (e.g., Hellermann, 2003, 2005, 2007; Lazaraton, 2004; Waring, 2009) has sought to add to previous research on classroom discourse by pro-viding an even more detailed understand-ing of participants’ actions within routine

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S17

attention, etc. Her study provides a good explanation and illustration of how CA is used to investigate classroom discourse and, in particular, how talk-in-interaction is developed from the complex organization of discourse moves serving myriad social, affective, and cognitive functions.

Using a conversational analytic approach, Hellermann (2003) analyzed the effects of prosody in a teacher’s follow-up/feedback utterance in the third turn of the IRF interaction pattern to understand how it affected classroom discourse. The researcher identifi ed four prosodic resources—pitch contour, pitch level, timing, and rhythm (p. 88)—that were used when the teach-ers in his study repeated a lexical word originally uttered by a student in the sec-ond turn of the IRE pattern. One of the main fi ndings of Hellermann’s work was

Table 3 is a segment of the transcript ana-lyzed in her study.

Lazaraton concluded that the NNS ESL teacher (TE in Table 3) provided a rather normal explanation of cheddar cheese for one of her students in the class. She went on to provide a detailed analysis that showed “how ‘meaning making’ and understanding are progressively and collaboratively con-structed” (p. 63) among participants in a classroom context. The talk-in-interaction above was built across several mutually sup-porting and sequential moves on the part of the teacher and student. At particular moments of time in the interaction, these moves raised questions, sought clarifi cation of a lexical item and confi rmation of under-standing, identifi ed attributes of the word cheddar, pointed out differences in under-standing, incorporated gestures to direct

TABLE 3

Segment of Transcript Using CA Transcription Conventions4 (Lazaraton, 2004, p. 59)

123456789

10111213141516171819202122

TE:

F2:TE:

TE:

M1:F2:TE:

??:??:TE:??:F2:TE:??:

TE:

M?:

so (.) >when you are< doing your role-play you can directly specify (it) �� [excuse me the <cheeddar> is kind of bread:d?[moves to F2(.5)<it’s a kind of> cheese.(.5)chee:se.��uh huh[(yeah)[nod[cheddar cheese[cheese[(it means) a kind of ye:llow right?[(like a: (.2) [cream cheese?[yellow])(.8)Cream cheese is [<whi:te.>[points to F2[%no::!%

S18 SUMMER 2012

teacher. Waring showed that IRE interac-tion patterns found in whole-class discus-sions were typically sequenced together to form discourse clusters (e.g., IRE ∞ IRE ∞ IRE ∞ IRE). In her analysis, the author showed how the silent gaps between the IRE clusters generally allowed for little to no participation on behalf of students due to the fact that they were not “free-for-all” spans of silence but rather were “specifi c pre- ‘next teacher move’” gaps where the teacher was inherently authorized to speak in the subsequent turn (p. 807). Nonethe-less, the researcher went on to illustrate how the student in her study was able to pose a question to the teacher during one of the gaps between IRE clusters. Waring called the student’s question a “pivot ques-tion” (pp. 807–808), because it pivoted the talk away from the structured IRE sequence and resulted in a more student-led line of inquiry in the discussion. By opening up talk in this way, the student-generated pivot question (1) created “a space for consider-ing more complex issues” (p. 815), which, in turn, can provide more learning oppor-tunities not only for the student who asked the question but for the other students in the class, and (2) “promotes learning by virtue of the very learner agency it entails” (p. 816).

The fi ndings of the study suggest that the impervious nature of the IRE interac-tion pattern can be penetrated if students can pose questions to their teacher in the silent gaps between IRE clusters in the dis-course. Teachers should therefore be aware of these opportunities for learners during whole-class discussions and allow students the ability to pose questions at these spe-cifi c points in the discourse as they can lead to valuable learning opportunities for all learners in the classroom.

Student-Student InteractionWhile the majority of the studies reviewed thus far have focused on teachers’ actions and their effects on student participation in classroom discourse in ESL and FL

that a teacher’s utterance in the third turn of the IRF pattern (i.e., a repetition of a lexi-cal item stated by the student in the second turn of the pattern) made use of prosodic cues to indicate whether a student’s contri-bution to classroom talk was either correct or off target. That is, whenever a teacher’s repetition of a lexical item in the third turn of the IRE was said with a high pitch, it indi-cated that the teacher was questioning the accuracy of the student’s response. In con-trast, if the teacher’s third turn follow-up/repetition was uttered in a low pitch, then that signaled that the utterance was correct and talk moved on to a different topic. In addition, Hellermann’s results indicated that the timing of the teacher’s utterance in the third turn also affected how students responded to the ongoing whole-class dis-cussion. When a teacher paused and did not provide an immediate follow-up turn, “students orient[ed] to its absence as a negative assessment and offer[ed] alter-nate responses” (p. 98). The researcher concluded that in the discourse of the ESL classrooms that he observed, subtle pro-sodic effects in the teachers’ utterance in the third turn of the triadic exchange either was interpreted by the student as an evalu-ation (i.e., high pitch intonation) or pushed learners to further explain their contribu-tion to the discussion (pausing after a stu-dent response), which, in turn, provided for extended discourse. Hellermann’s close analysis of the prosodic features of the teacher’s feedback sheds light on the sub-tle signals that can be sent to students by teacher prosody and silences in the third move of triadic discourse.

In another study that provided for a more detailed understanding of the IRE interaction pattern in an ESL classroom, Waring (2009) carried out a single case anal-ysis of talk that evolved between an adult ESL student and her teacher. The researcher indicated that the IRE interaction pattern was omnipresent in the context of the ESL classroom analyzed in her study and that it allowed little space for students to speak and freely interact with others or with the

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S19

their analyses illustrate how tasks are car-ried out in a “locally and socially distributed way through the actions of the participants involved and through their ongoing inter-pretations of the instructional setting” (p. 510). In other words, the way in which a task is defi ned and/or carried out in a FL environment relies heavily upon a number of context-specifi c factors such as the way in which learners and teachers interact to accomplish the task.

The authors went on to suggest that being a successful learner in any given FL context not only relies on a certain amount of linguistic competence in the FL, but also involves having “socio-institutional com-petence” (p. 509). Socio-institutional com-petence involves the ability of learners to understand and adapt to the evolving nature of learning activities in the FL classroom. The authors indicated that “neither tasks nor learning situations have a priori defi nitions, nor do they trigger a predetermined indi-vidual capacity. Rather, they demand that the learner put to work variable resources and adapt them continuously to the local contingencies of the ongoing activities” (p. 514). The study concluded by under-scoring the notion that learners are able to gain both types of competencies through the ways in which they are “socialized into the communities of practice in which they use the FL” (p. 510). The pedagogical impli-cation of this research is that FL teachers should seek to create a classroom context in which learners are regularly exposed to a variety of speaking activities that push them to learn how to adapt to the ever-changing nature of talk-in-interaction. Allowing stu-dents the ability to interact with each other and the teacher in this way will not only pro-vide them with the opportunity to improve their linguistic ability in the FL, but will also help develop their socio-institutional and interactional skills, both of which are important for social interactions with native or more profi cient speakers in discursive contexts beyond the FL classroom.

The Mori (2002) and Mondada and Pekarek Doehler (2004) studies shed light

classrooms, others (e.g., Huong, 2007; Mori, 2002; Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004) have examined student-student interaction in the classroom context. Using a conversation analytic framework for the analysis, Mori (2002) closely examined the talk of American learners of Japanese while they interacted with an NS visitor in a Jap-anese-as-a-FL classroom. She found that, although the goal of the task was to have a conversation with the NS visitor based on the theme of the unit of study and the students’ advanced planning for the discus-sion, the exchange with the native Japanese speaker resembled an interview; that is, students posed discrete and unrelated ques-tions and the NS provided answers when prompted. Mori’s analysis further revealed that when the students abandoned their previously scripted questions and began to provide spontaneous and unplanned utter-ances throughout the course of the activity, the question-and-answer interview trans-formed itself into the desired discussion. Mori’s work indicated that specifi c tasks in the FL classroom might refl ect how speak-ers’ institutionalized understanding of talk within particular speaking activities, such as an interview, can potentially infl uence how the discourse unfolds more than the amount and kind of students’ pre-task plan-ning and preparation.

Guided by the sociocultural theoretical view of FL learning, Mondada and Pekarek Doehler (2004) closely analyzed the inter-actions between learners and their teachers in two different French-as-a-FL classroom contexts in Europe. One data set included interactions between teachers and immi-grant children (i.e., 10- to 12-year-olds) who were learning French while the other data set consisted of recorded interactions in a French-as-a-FL class in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. The authors argued that tasks used in FL classrooms are not fi xed entities that are somehow pre-determined by a curriculum, program, or lesson plan and do not remain unchanged when carried out by different groups of learners in the same classroom. Rather,

S20 SUMMER 2012

other in the classroom. The point of this research is that to analyze classroom talk adequately, researchers must take into account sociocultural views about the roles of teachers and students and to situ-ate their analysis of classroom interactions into larger frames of institutional beliefs held by specifi c social groups.

Similarly, Blommaert, Mullaert, Huys-mans, and Dyers (2005) analyzed how English was used in a socioeconomically disadvantaged South African high school setting. The researchers discovered that both learners and teachers shared ortho-graphic, grammatical, and lexical peculiari-ties and inaccuracies when communicating in English. One of the principal fi ndings indicated that by committing similar errors in English, the teachers were more effective in reaching their diverse, often marginal-ized groups of learners. That is, given the common socioeconomic backgrounds and similar linguistic preparation and abilities in the FL, teachers in the study were better able to identify with students (and students with their teachers) in the FL classroom. While the study did not explicitly focus on the external social factors shared by the teachers and their students and resulting effects on classroom discourse, it did call attention to the idea that sociocultural vari-ables outside of the classroom can poten-tially affect the ways in which teachers and students mutually interpret each other, which in turn can lead to a comprehensive understanding of interactions inside the classroom.

Both the Blommaert et al. (2005) and Ho (2006) studies indicate that class-room oral interactions between teacher and students refl ect the educational values espoused by the larger sociocultural struc-ture in which the class or particular aca-demic institution exists. However, much more research is needed in this particular area to fully understand how sociocultural forces and societal beliefs about the nature of interaction outside the classroom affect the shape of classroom discourse inside the classroom.

on how learners, when working together, understand and carry out tasks discursively in the FL classroom. Each study demon-strated that tasks in the FL classroom are interpreted by learners differently and that student-student interaction during small group work can lead to different outcomes among learners. Similarly, Huong (2007) analyzed student-student interactions of university-level Vietnamese students learn-ing English. The researcher observed the way in which learners worked together when a more profi cient nonnative English speaker participated in small-group work versus when the NNS was not present. Huong found that the participation of the more profi cient English speaker in the small-group work allowed for more English to be used overall and led to an increased use of vocabulary when compared to the small groups, in which all of the speakers were at the same profi ciency level. Huong’s study underscores the idea that the presence of a more knowledgeable learner in a discussion group infl uences the quantity and quality of the talk and, as a consequence, has the potential to facilitate language learning of the less profi cient learners.

Social Factors Infl uencing Classroom DiscourseIn addition to clarifying the interactions that occur inside the classroom, factors outside of the classroom can also affect how discourse unfolds in the classroom. For example, Ho (2006) examined how social and cultural aspects in Bruneian society (a sultanate near Malaysia) affect the peda-gogical decisions made by ESL teachers. In Brunei, ESL teachers are viewed as indi-viduals who are all-knowing and whose role in the classroom is to transmit knowl-edge. Ho found that teachers who drew on this belief in making decisions about how to structure instructional activities limited interactions with their students to recita-tion scripts (i.e., IRE interaction patterns), which rarely allowed students opportuni-ties to dialogue with them or with each

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S21

work is needed. What follows are potential future research avenues in this area along with sample research questions.

First, given that much of the research on classroom discourse has been carried out in FL classrooms that focus on language-related issues, more research is needed to understand the nature of discourse pat-terns found in higher-level, content-based courses such as FL literature and culture classrooms. Additional work could also investigate the ongoing development of learners’ linguistic and interactional compe-tencies in these upper-level, content-based FL contexts. This type of research could help shed light on the nature of advanced and superior language profi ciency, which, in turn, could help inform FL method-ologies for advanced or highly profi cient learners in upper-level FL courses. Possible research questions to be explored include: How do highly profi cient learners partici-pate in class discussions with their teachers and peers? What are the features of discus-sions in upper-level, content-based class-rooms where many of the learners may be highly profi cient? Similarly, how do teach-ers structure class discussion when working with highly profi cient learners?

Second, the majority of the studies reported here have examined the discourse patterns characteristic of FL classrooms. However, virtually none have dealt with the question of how teachers can be prepared to engage their learners in the types of discur-sive interactions necessary for advancing student profi ciency. Future studies might investigate the following questions: How can language educators prepare teachers to become aware of discourse patterns in their classrooms? What types of professional development opportunities are needed to transform teacher discourse, for example, to help teachers incorporate less evaluative and more meaningful and discourse-sus-taining feedback to students? Can teachers who use the IRE pattern be mentored or coached to integrate IRF into their class-room discourse? If yes, what are the most effective ways to coach teachers on their

Discussion of Findings on Classroom DiscourseThis article has provided a brief review of recent work related to understanding class-room discourse in FL classrooms from a sociocultural perspective on language learn-ing. When taken together, the fi ndings sug-gest that language learning in a classroom context is closely tied to the discursive practices by which learners interact with each other and their teacher. This article has noted how teachers play an important role in the development of learners’ compe-tence in the FL. In a majority of the studies that have been reviewed, it is the teacher who determines and sanctions which kinds of speaking activities are carried out in the classroom and the kinds of questions that are posed to students. Thus, the structur-ing of interaction by FL teachers can either facilitate or inhibit interaction between teacher and students and among students with each other. However, as the research has shown, subtle changes within IRE and IRF sequences can allow for more extended discourse that affords learners more oppor-tunities to participate in whole-class discus-sion and potentially advance profi ciency.

Research on classroom discourse, when based on the sociocultural view of language learning, also suggests that learning to be a profi cient FL speaker is fundamentally tied to the interactional activities in the classroom into which learners are social-ized. More specifi cally, the grammatical, lexical, and other critical features of inter-actional competence take shape and have their origins within these interactions. Finally, broader sociocultural forces outside of the school context can affect how talk unfolds during FL instruction and can help researchers explain why interactions take place in the way they do in classrooms.

Directions for Future ResearchAlthough a great deal of information has been learned about the nature of oral dis-course in FL classroom contexts over the past several years, much more empirical

S22 SUMMER 2012

participation in whole-class discussions in these FL classrooms? Are there are cultur-ally specifi c speaking conventions that are inherent in, for example, Japanese conver-sational routines that affect how discussion evolves in a Japanese-as-a-FL classroom?

Fifth, another possible project could entail an empirical investigation of the rela-tionship between whole-class discussions among learners and their teacher and the second language reading comprehension of learners in second language literature courses. Specifi cally, little empirical evi-dence exists that analyzes the ways in which whole-class discussions facilitate learners’ comprehension (i.e., literal understanding of the events, characters, etc., and textual interpretations) of second language liter-ary texts. What is the role of whole-class discussions in second language reading comprehension? Do learners understand literary texts better when participating in class discussions with their peers and/or teacher? Do whole-class discussions facili-tate learners’ understanding of a text at an abstract/symbolic level?

Sixth, the majority of the studies reviewed here and in the FL classroom dis-course literature overall have almost exclu-sively analyzed contexts in which adults are participating in the discussion. Few stud-ies investigate classroom discourse issues where young learners (e.g., those in pri-mary or middle school contexts) and their teachers engage in classroom discussions in the FL. What are the characteristics of whole-class discussion with young learn-ers? How do the discourse patterns char-acteristic of secondary and postsecondary FL classrooms compare with the discourse found in classes of elementary and middle school FL learners? What might account for the similarities or differences? These questions represent a number of issues that language educators know little about and therefore would contribute signifi cantly to the literature on classroom discourse.

Many studies on classroom discourse have focused on how teachers engage their students in talk via specifi c interaction

discourse practices? These questions are essential and beg to be addressed if educa-tors are to make progress in changing the IRE discourse pattern that, according to the research, appears to be so pervasive and prevalent in FL classrooms.

Third, much of the work on classroom discourse has been carried out in ESL lan-guage learning contexts while fewer stud-ies have looked at FL classrooms. As such, future projects that look at FL classroom contexts would help fi ll this research void and enable better understanding of the nature of talk in FL language and litera-ture classrooms. In addition, the paucity of research that investigates broader sociocul-tural factors present in a community and the resulting effects on how teachers and students interact with each other inside the classroom means that more work is nec-essary that makes a connection between larger societal infl uences and classroom talk. While some work on language sociali-zation issues have begun to address these kinds of issues (e.g., Duff, 2002), much more effort is needed in this area. Questions to be investigated regarding this area could include the following: Do students’ socio-economic factors affect how they use lan-guage and/or engage in class discussion in the classroom? Does the ethnic background of learners in a particular community affect how students interact with other students and with the teacher during whole-class discussions inside the classroom?

Fourth, the little research that exists on discourse found in language class-rooms other than English has focused on the ubiquitous FL courses, such as Spanish and French. Thus, more work is needed to understand the discourse dynam-ics in classrooms of less commonly taught languages (e.g., Arabic, Chinese, Japanese) and their effects upon learning. Given the diffi culty of learning less commonly taught languages for students whose fi rst language is English, at what point in the sequence of coursework can teachers and learners carry out a whole-class discussion? What are reasonable expectations regarding student

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S23

of what we know and what we have yet to learn about classroom discourse and the consequences of classroom interaction on student language learning.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to sincerely thank Joan Kelly Hall for reading previous drafts of this article and for providing me with helpful feedback. I would also like to acknowledge Richard Donato and Eileen Glisan for their guidance and suggestions during the fi nal stages of this project.

Notes1. The scope of this review primarily

focuses on work on classroom discourse in FL classrooms that has been carried out over the last decade in the United States. However, I have included some studies on classroom discourse that pre-date 2000 along with a few projects that were carried out in non-Western con-texts because they are still relevant to this research area. Studies that did not make use of a sociocultural theoretical framework were not included in this review. However, some (Polio & Zyzik, 2009; Zyzik & Polio, 2008) are making valuable contributions to the classroom discourse literature while using interac-tionist perspectives on second language learning.

2. When referring to sociocultural views in this article, I am referencing both the work of Vygotsky (1978, 1987) and other sociocultural aspects of language learning, such as those found in research related to language socialization con-cerns. For an overview of various socio-cultural perspectives, see Zuengler and Miller (2006).

3. As a reviewer correctly pointed out, van Lier’s (1998) claims are not based on empirical work. However, I feel that his views are respected by many SLA researchers and therefore relevant to any review on classroom discourse.

patterns (e.g., IRE or IRF patterns), by pos-ing different types of questions to students, via a variety of questions, etc. While some demographic information about the teacher is provided in many studies, few have focused on the teacher’s linguistic abilities in the FL. Specifi cally, a seventh possible area of future research could include a pro-ject that investigates whether or not there is a relationship between a teacher’s level of profi ciency in the FL and the kind of class-room discourse that occurs in the course. For example, if a teacher is less profi cient in the FL, does this mean that students will participate less or more in whole-class dis-cussion?

Finally, projects that investigate how the use of technology outside of the class-room context can potentially facilitate how learners orally interact inside the class-room may also be worthwhile research endeavors. Given the ubiquitous nature of Web 2.0 tools (e.g., social networking sites or text- and video-based chats) in the eve-ryday lives of many learners, coupled with the fact that these kinds of technologi-cal applications can and will continue to shape the ways in which learners interact with each other and their teachers in their regular and academic lives, it may be worth pursuing research that seeks to understand how technology affects discourse both in and out of FL classroom contexts. Do tools such as class wikis or blogs used outside of class enhance in-class discussion? Can the aforementioned tools be used to suc-cessfully extend discussion beyond the physical classroom? How are these tools reshaping/re-conceptualizing what consti-tutes class discussion?

Regardless of future changes in teach-ing pedagogies and research methodologies, classroom discourse will continue to be an area of inquiry relevant to researchers and practitioners alike. As sociocultural theory continues to inform how educators under-stand language learning and teaching, the research agenda will also expand in this important area of investigation. My hope is that this review has provided a helpful view

S24 SUMMER 2012

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language (A. Belletti & L. Rizzi, Eds.). New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Consolo, D. (2000). Teachers’ action and stu-dent oral participation in classroom interac-tion. In J. Hall & L. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through class-room interaction (pp. 91–107). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

de Guerrero, M. (1999). Inner speech as men-tal rehearsal: The case of advanced L2 learn-ers. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 10, 27–55.

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

Donato, R., & Brooks, F. (2004). Literary dis-cussions and advanced speaking functions: Researching the (dis)connection. Foreign Lan-guage Annals, 37, 183–199.

Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construc-tion of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289–322.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the sec-ond language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Hall, J. K. (1995). “Aw, man, where you goin’?”: Classroom interaction and the devel-opment of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 37–62.

Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 301–306.

Hall, J. K. (1998). Differential teacher atten-tion to student response: The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics and Education, 9, 287–311.

Hall, J. K. (2004). “Practicing speaking” in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In D. Boxer & A. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second lan-guage learning (pp. 68–87). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

4. Transcription conventions used in the excerpt are taken from Atkinson and Heritage (1984) as cited in Lazaraton (2004, pp. 64–65):

(a) unfi lled pauses or gaps—periods of silence timed in tenths of a second by counting “beats” of elapsed time. Micropauses, those of less than 0.2 seconds, are symbolized (.); longer pauses appear as a time within parentheses: (0.5) is fi ve tenths of a second;

(b) colon (:)—a lengthened sound or syllable; more colons prolong the stretch;

(c) punctuation—markers of intona-tion rather than clausal structure; a period (.) is falling intonation, a question mark (?) is rising intona-tion, a comma (,) is continuing into-nation. A question mark followed by a comma (?,) represents rising into-nation, but is weaker than a (?). An exclamation mark (!) is animated intonation;

(d) equal sign (=)—a latched utterance, no interval between utterances;

(e) brackets ([ ])—overlapping talk, where utterances start and/or end simultaneously;

(f) percent signs (% %)—quiet talk;

(g) arrows (> <)—the talk speeds up; arrows (< >)—the talk slows down;

(h) underlining or CAPS—a word or SOUND is emphasized.

ReferencesAtkinson, J., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conver-sation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Barnes, D. (1992). From communicating to cur-riculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Blommaert, J., Mullaert, N., Huysmans, M., & Dyers, C. (2005). Peripheral normativity: Literacy and production of locality in a South African township school. Linguistics and Edu-cation, 16, 378–403.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S25

Hall, J. K. (2010). Interaction as method and result of language learning. Language Teach-ing, 43, 202–215.

Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186–203.

Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher rep-etition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32, 79–104.

Hellermann, J. (2005). Syntactic and prosodic practices for cohesion in series of three-part sequences in classroom talk. Research on Lan-guage and Social Interaction, 38, 105–130.

Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic inter-action: Focus on task openings. Modern Lan-guage Journal, 91, 83–96.

Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for class-room language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multi-lingual Matters.

Ho, D. (2006). Classroom talk: Exploring the sociocultural structure of formal ESL learning. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang AG.

Huong, L. P. H. (2007). The more knowledge-able peer, target language use, and group par-ticipation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 329–350.

Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construc-tion: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 171–183.

LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a coop-erative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Ontario.

Lantolf, J. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67–109.

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language devel-opment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazaraton, A. (2004). Conversation analy-sis and the nonnative English speaking ESL teacher: A case study. In D. Boxer & A. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second lan-guage learning (pp. 49–67). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Lemke, L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.

In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.

McCafferty, S. (1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech. Applied Linguistics, 19, 73–96.

McCormick, D., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. Hall & L. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183–201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mehan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, Volume 3: Discourse and dia-logue (pp. 119–131). London: Academic Press.

Mehan, H. (1998). The study of social interac-tion in educational settings: Accomplishments and unresolved issues. Human Development, 41, 245–269.

Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguis-tics, 1, 137–168.

Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated prac-tice: Task accomplishment in the French sec-ond language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88, 501–518.

Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and devel-opment of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 23, 323–347.

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguis-tics, 21, 376–406.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Dialogic instruction: When recitation becomes conversation. In M. Nystrand, A. Gamoran, R. Kachur, & C. Prendergast (Eds.), Opening dialogue: Under-standing the dynamics of language learning and teaching in the English classroom (pp. 1–29). New York: Teachers College Press.

Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language devel-opment: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook

S26 SUMMER 2012

of language socialization (pp. 1–21). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ohta, A. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 93–121.

Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Platt, E., & Brooks, F. (2002). Task engage-ment: A turning point in foreign language development. Language Learning, 52, 365–400.

Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and pro-moting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.

Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Lan-guage Teaching Research, 9, 233–265.

Polio, C., & Zyzik, E. (2009). Don Quixote meets ser and estar: Multiple perspectives on language learning in Spanish literature classes. Modern Language Journal, 93, 550–569.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organi-zation of turn-taking for conversations. Lan-guage, 50, 696–735.

Schieffelin, B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli children. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. (1975). Toward an analysis of discourse. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research, 22, 302–338.

Slobin, D. (1985). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Volume 1: The data. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sorace, A. (2005). Syntactic optionality at inter-faces. In L. Cornips and K. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 46–111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.

Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learn-ing. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 115–132.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analy-sis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Thoms, J. (2008). Teacher-initiated talk and student oral discourse in a second language literature classroom: A sociocultural analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Univer-sity of Iowa, Iowa City.

Thoms, J. (2011). Researching the (dis)con-nection between literary discussions and speaking functions: A replication with inter-mediate learners. In A. Cortazar & R. Orozco (Eds.), Lenguaje, arte, y revoluciones ayer y hoy: New approaches to Hispanic linguistic, literary, and cultural studies (pp. 315–345). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Toth, P. (2011). Social and cognitive factors in making teacher-led classroom discourse rel-evant for second language development. Mod-ern Language Journal, 95, 1–25.

van Lier, L. (1998). Constraints and resources in classroom talk: Issues of equality and sym-metry. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 157–182). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds.), L. S. Vygotsky, collected works, volume 1 (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum.

Waring, H. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 92, 577–594.

Waring, H. (2009). Moving out of IRF (initia-tion-response-feedback): A single case analy-sis. Language Learning, 59, 796–824.

Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. S1 S27

Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disci-plines, 17, 89–100.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. (2006). Cogni-tive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.

Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish litera-ture courses. Modern Language Journal, 92, 53–70.

analysis of teaching and learning in the class-room. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–17.

White, L. (2003). On the nature of interlan-guage representation: Universal grammar in the second language. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 19–42). Malden, MA: Black-well Publishing Ltd.

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of