Emergent learnables in second language classroom interaction

Emergent learnables in second language classroom interaction

Ali Reza Majlesi ⁎, Mathias BrothLinköping University, Dept. of Culture and Communication, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 6 October 2011Received in revised form 13 August 2012Accepted 29 August 2012Available online 6 October 2012

This paper studies how unplanned ‘learnables’ emerge in classroom interaction. A ‘learnable’ isdefined as whatever is interactively established as relevant and developed to become a sharedpedagogical focus. A learnable can thus be related to any social practice. In the context that weare studying, a Swedish as a second language classroom, we show how interactive processesconstructing something as a learnable may originate not only in the use of an unknownSwedish word whose meaning is then asked for (which amounts to a verbal source for alearnable), but also in an unknown name for an object (a material source for a learnable) or anunknown meaning of a gesture (a gestural source for a learnable). These last two sources havenot been much described in the existing literature on objects of learning. Through detailedanalyses of video recorded classroom interaction, focusing on the ways in which participantsgradually accomplish learnables, we show how learnables can arise, step by step, in and for therelevant needs of an emergent learning project that may be quite different from the teacher'spedagogical agenda.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Classroom interactionConversation analysisVideo analysisSwedish as a second languageLearnablesEmergent learning project

1. Introduction

This paper is about objects of learning in pedagogical activities and just how they can emerge in and through situatedinteraction. Using video recordings of Swedish as a second language classes for adult learners in Sweden, we explore theinteractional processes throughwhich different specific objects are turned into relevant objects of learning, or as wewill call themhere, ‘learnables’, by the participants themselves. A learnable is thus defined as whatever is interactively established as relevantand developed into a shared pedagogical focus. This process originates in different kinds of objects, and we centrally focus on howthree such sources – a linguistic item, a material object and a gesture – are developed into learnables in an emergent way.

Pedagogical activities in the form of passing on accumulative knowledge to others through interactive teaching and learning in aninstitutional gathering are probably one of themost remarkable activities of humanbeings (cf. Csibra&Gergely, 2006). By analyzing thedetailed ways in which knowledge is passed on in naturally occurring situations, we study how participants use different commonsocial practices to construct recognizable pedagogical moments in interaction; how an object1 is interactively operated on, that is,topicalized, negotiated, modified, co-confirmed, etc. to become the centrally constitutive element of a pedagogical activity or at least alocal communicative project (Linell, 2009). We are interested in the details of such interaction, seeing them as part and parcel ofparticipants' “mutually oriented methods” (Garfinkel, 1967, 2002; Rawls, 2008: 702) toward those objects within an ongoing activity.

From this perspective, we see participants as active social agents who cooperatively turn something into a learnable. Alearnable in this view does not exist on its own (though there exist potential ones that might shape learning textbooks, for

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 193–207

⁎ Corresponding author at: Linköping University, IKK. SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.R. Majlesi), [email protected] (M. Broth).

1 “Object” in general is whatever entity which exists in the world, concrete (paper, glass, book, written word, etc.) or abstract (grammatical labels, imaginarythings, etc.), or verbal (linguistic forms) or nonverbal (embodied actions), or course of actions (performances such as greeting, complaining, etc.) whichconstitute either or both of our knowhow and knowwhat. In both social learning and pedagogy such an object could be anything whose use is in part or totallyaccounted for by the community of its users.

2210-6561/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.004

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / lcs i

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.004

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22106561

instance) but it would not be a pedagogical focus in any participation framework unless it is oriented to, negotiated, and ratifiedby the participants as learnable.

In this paper, we will centrally focus on the ways through which learnables endogenously and within the contingency ofinteraction emerge from verbal, nonverbal and material sources. We thus analyze the interactional work leading to theemergence of a learnable out of particular sources, and also demonstrate the subsequent interactional collaboration asparticipants develop the learnable to become a pedagogical focus.

2. Interactive learnables and their sources

The phenomenon of learning is usually treated as being situation-transcending or trans-situational by definition. That is,concepts and tasks that were previously unknown or not mastered are considered to be learnt only if the person (“learner”)shows evidence of retaining knowledge by using the concept or mastering the task in more advanced or more accurate ways innew situations, or in a more long-term perspective. In this paper, however, we will only be concerned with the understanding or“learning” of words, concepts and courses of actions in specific situations. We do not know to what extent learners retain theirnewly acquired understandings for future use. One may therefore claim that we deal “only” with the situated, local interactionalresources that are mobilized for improving situated understanding and that potentially lead to retained learning effects. We doinsist, however, that by taking a serious interest in just how (second language) learning can take place within real life situations,we are dealing with something that many other approaches to the study of learning actually overlook.

Interactionally oriented language learning studies have begun to show how language learning in a social setting is emergent andco-constructed by its participants (Mondada & Pekarek-Doehler, 2004). In second language classrooms, objects of learning have beenshown to be contingent upon interaction (Lee, 2010) and practiced through coordinated sensemaking processes in the interactionalorganization of talk. Interactional approaches have also begun to describe how what is learnt is oriented to and reified by learners(Seedhouse, 2007), and can be documented as occurring “during a particular time period” in interaction (Markee, 2008: 404).

In second language classrooms, objects of learning have been typically studied as discrete linguistic phenomena in a secondlanguage, such as grammatical structures of words or sentences and single verbal items (Markee, 2008: 406). They are consideredas target forms that are oriented to and negotiated by learners in interaction (Mori, 2004; Mori & Hasegawa, 2009). However,what still is somewhat missing in the literature are investigations of how such learnables are brought about in interaction bymeans of different resources. This insufficiency particularly concerns learnables that do not form part of a teacher's pedagogicalpre-planned agenda but rather emerge entirely in and through interaction in the classroom, beginning in learners' own initiatives.Central to our study will be what the sources of learnables and the modes of access to them can be, and how a learnable as ashared pedagogical focus in classroom interaction is socially accomplished.

Just like repairables (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977) and laughables (Sacks, 1974), learnables are retrospectively orientedto and accomplished in and through a subsequent action. It is in a subsequent action that a participant can display that s/he didnot understand a prior form, object or course of action. This is potentially the starting point for an interactional process throughwhich an object is turned into a learnable and a pedagogical focus.

3. Toward the study of learnables

During the last decade or so a more dialogical and action-based approach has begun to emerge within studies of pedagogicalactivities (Egbert, Niebecker, & Rezzara, 2004; Koschmann, Le Baron, Goodwin, & Feltovich, 2010; Koshik, 2002; Mondada &Pekarek-Doehler, 2004; Young & Miller, 2004). The significance of interaction, the in situ development of learners' productivity,and attention to different resources at the time of social interaction have steered research in this area toward the endogenousanalysis of pedagogical activities (see Firth & Wagner, 2007).

What is known about language learning environments has started to become more precise through the detailed study ofnaturally occurring video recorded interaction (see for instance Kasper & Wagner, 2011; Macbeth, 2004; Markee, 2000;Slotte-Lüttge, 2005). We now know more about how e.g. pedagogical tasks are achieved in collaboration between students andteachers (see also Koshik, 2002). The analysis of the sequential organization of talk has successfully shown the significance ofintersubjectivity in second language interaction (Markee, 2000), the situatedness of the process of a language learning activity(Mondada & Pekarek-Doehler, 2004), and the highly interactional competence of second language learners when it comes to theuse of various communicative resources and strategies (Carroll, 2000, 2004; cf. Faerch & Kasper, 1983). Moreover, on the groundsof the reflexive relation between talk and other embodied conduct (Goodwin, 1994, 2000b; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1987), it hasalso been displayed how language learners “engage in complex, multimodal, finely tuned co-participation” (Firth & Wagner,2007: 807; cf. Egbert et al., 2004; see also Lemke, 2003; O'Halloran, 2005 for other learning settings).

Through detailed analyses of second language classroom talk,we ultimately observe, for instance, that a task at handand its contextare locally managed through “socioculturally shaped collaborative activities” (Pekarek-Doehler, 2002: 22). Learner development canbe traced in interactional participation (Young & Miller, 2004; cf. Emanuelsson & Sahlström, 2008), and most fundamentally, secondlanguage is both utilized as a resource to communicate and approached as an object of learning (Seedhouse, 2004, 2007).

Our exploratory study contributes to this body of work by investigating the nature of learnables, their sources, the ways inwhich they are turned into a pedagogical focus, and the role of other conduct besides talk in the generation of learnables in alearning activity. These aspects are presumably central to the understanding of classroom interaction or any pedagogical activitiesin general, and could provide useful empirical specification to different learning theories ranging from socio-cultural (Lantolf,

194 A.R. Majlesi, M. Broth / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 193–207

2000) to constructivist (Dewey, 1980; Doolittle & Hicks, 2003) or socio-interactional theories (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger,1998).

4. Approach and methodology

Taking a dialogical (interactional, contextualized) and praxiological (i.e. ethnomethodological, conversation analytic)approach (Garfinkel, 1967; Linell, 2009; Sacks, 1992), we examine pedagogical activities as they happen and with all theirdetailed complexity. We consider that any pedagogical activity has a root in social interactions in which pedagogy becomespossible (Goodwin, forthcoming; Mondada & Pekarek-Doehler, 2004). Pedagogy is seen as situated, contextualized andessentially contingent upon interaction (Lee, 2010; cf. Lave & Wenger, 1991), in which the ordering of how it proceeds is neverdirectly predictable but always contingent. We study the order of the organization of naturally occurring interactional activitiesand participants' endogenous methods, allowing the data to inform the theoretical description that we are building (Garfinkel,1967; Sacks, 1984). Thus, what a learnable is is not established before the analysis, based on some external expectancies. Instead,we find it as the result of mutual orientations in and through an interactional sense-making process. Such interactional collaborationis achieved through “recognizable practices, which are the necessary foundation for pursuing projects” (Rawls, 2006: 21). Theseprojects are social, i.e. institutional, pedagogical, conversational, etc., and the practices that we chose to study are the participants'own ordinary methods for achieving them. Further, we describe how participants' practices, manifest in interactional sequences,accommodate learnables, and build communicative projects focused on understanding and learning previously unknown aspects of alanguage. For short, we call these ‘learning projects’ (cf. Linell, 2009). In order to analyze learning projects, the recognition of accountsand accountable details of those recognizable practices performed by participants is essential.

Obviously what is analytically significant to participants cannot be accessible by casual exploration and general observation ofactions. Instead, recovering participants' methods demands a detailed scrutiny of the activities in which meaningful practices areproduced. We therefore study participants' practices as they are documented in video recordings of naturally occuring interaction. Tocapture the social and situated order of the organization of pedagogical activities, we attend to anymodalities and resources employedin interaction in shaping ‘learnables’, be they verbal, otherwise embodied, spatial or material (cf. Goodwin, 2000a).

5. The data used

For this study, recordings were made during classes in SFI (Svenska för invandrare or Swedish for immigrants), which is a course,designed, administered and financed by the state for non-Swedes to learn Swedish. It has four levels covering a basic knowledge ofSwedish2 including the four skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking. The teaching starts with lessons on the Swedish alphabet inthe first level and develops into lessons on making some daily conversations at the last level. The students in the course are all adults ofdifferent backgrounds, having come to Sweden to reside for different reasons,mostly asylum seeking ormigration. The participants in ourdata are all beginners of Swedish, although the group in the course is far fromhomogenouswhen it comes to their fluency and accuracy inSwedish. They are from different parts of the world ranging from Somalia to Belgium and from the United States to Afghanistan.

The data collection consisted of five different recording sessions in Swedish as a second language classroom, totalingapproximately 20 h of classroom interaction. In each occasion of data collection, two cameras were used to video record theclassrooms. The recordings were produced with informed consent from the participants and carried out after a few sessions ofethnographic fieldwork including the researcher's participation in the setting, taking notes, observing the classroom activities andcollecting basic information about all of the participants. After repeated and extended watching sessions of the entire corpus, arestricted number of extracts that in some way displayed “unplanned learning trajectories” were chosen for closer study. Theseextracts were then carefully transcribed with regard to the details of the recorded participants' unfolding embodied interaction(see Appendix A for transcription conventions). Out of these worked up cases, three are presented here to illustrate three possiblesources for a learnable: ‘verbal’, ‘material’, and ‘gestural’ ones.

6. Analysis

Whereas the first extract shows a learnable that is touched off from a word that is not understood (Section 6.1), the secondextract shows how a learnable may also have its source in something in the material surround which is perceptually available(Section 6.2), and the third one displays how a learnable can originate in a participant's embodied behavior (Section 6.3).

6.1. A learnable emerging from a verbal source

The first excerpt shows how aword, i.e., a verbal object, is turned into a learnable. The interactive process toward the learnableis initiated by one of the students. At the beginning of the Excerpt (1a), the teacher stands beside a group of students as they aretalking about a task that they seem to have just finished (Fig. 1). The first thing the teacher says as she joins the students'conversation is “är ni klara?” (are you done?). This question receives an adequate answer from several of the students: yes (weare done). As several of the students display an understanding of the question, the teacher moves on to a second question that is

2 More information about SFI is available on the website of Skolverket (Swedish National Agency for Education) http://www.skolverket.se/2.3894/in_english.This information was retrieved on June 26, 2012.

195A.R. Majlesi, M. Broth / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 193–207

http://www.skolverket.se/2.3894/in_english

contingent on an affirmative answer to the first one (that thus comes off as a “pre-offer”, see Schegloff, 1980). This secondquestion is “vill ni ha ett facit,” (do you want an answer key, line 7), an offer by the teacher to give the students the answers to thetask they have just been working on. Unlike the first question, this question does not, at first, get any answer upon its completion:

Excerpt (1a) “Facit”. 090904 — tape 3 [00.00:07–00.00:25].Participants: Cynthia, Sandra (behind Cynthia), Ellen, Linda (behind Matteus), teacher and Matteus.

Following the teacher's second question (line 7) all students are quiet, except for someone who actually says “°nej°” (“no”) which isnot verbally responded to by the teacher. This lack of immediate uptake signifies some kind of trouble about the offer, as is evidenced inthe teacher's following action. In her next action, the teacher does not respond to the lack of immediate uptake in a way that wouldentertain the possibility of the students actually not wanting the answer key (i.e., as a silence foreshadowing a dispreferred answer, seePomerantz, 1984). Instead, by repeating her question in a slower andmore accentuatedway that brings out the boundaries between thedifferent words of the question, the teacher treats the trouble as being related to the perception and proper analysis of the Swedishutterance she used for making the offer. The teacher's repeated question (line 11) now gives the students a second opportunity toprovide an acceptable or a preferred next action to the offer. This second time, several students say “yes”, and also “I (understand)” (line15). Even though these students claim an understanding of the question and of the sequential implication of the offer, i.e., that theyshould relevantly either accept the offer or reject it, the answers, built as stand-alone “yes” answers, are not treated as doing acceptance.Instead of giving the students the answer key as the next action, the teacher repeats verbatim the same question a third time (line 18).


Although the teacher hears and understands the students' affirmative answers to the offer, through repeating her question, shetreats the students' utterances as improvablewith regard to their form. In other words, a teacher-initiated learnable emerges in relationto how to properly respond to an offer. In response to the teacher's third question, some students nowmodify their answers by addingwords to the initial “yes” (lines 23 and24), inwhat appears as an attempt tomake themmore acceptable as properly formatted answersto the offer. That the local project is no longer a real offer but an exercise in form is further demonstrated by the teacher's response to thenew versions of the students' answers: instead of handing over the answer keys, she evaluates their answers (line 26).

The modified answers are elicited as part of a locally organized pedagogical project for teaching how to respond properly to an offer.For allwe know, the teachermayhave beenpursuing this teaching project right from the start of the pre-offer sequence. However,withinthis project, another learning project emergeswhenMatteus (line 20) problematizes one of the teacher's words as a learnable. Hemakesit clear that he does not understand the word for what is being offered (“facit”, “answer key”) and initiates this project through askingwhat “answer key” means. His lack of understanding is displayed both in his attempt to repeat “ett facit” (an answer key) and in hiserroneous segmentation of the phrase “ett facit”. This results in him asking for the meaning of a non-existing word, ‘tvåsit’ (that weconsequently render as “nanswerkey”). By repeating the word and asking what it means (line 20), Matteus initiates turning it into alearnable. However, as the teacher's response is discontinued (line 21), Matteus will have to try again later on. This happens when theteacher is repeating her question “vill ni ha ett facit?” for the fourth time (line 26 in Excerpt (1b) below). This time, Matteus' attempt tomake the word relevant as a learnable is received by the participants, and “facit” becomes a shared pedagogical focus.

Excerpt (1b), which is the direct continuation of Excerpt (1a), shows how the teacher and the other students deal with thisquestion about the meaning of the word “tvåsit”:

Excerpt (1b) “Facit”. 090904 — tape 3 [00.00:23–00.00:37].Participants: Cynthia, Sandra, Ellen, Linda, teacher and Matteus.

That “facit” is probably not something that the teacher had planned to teach explicitly at this point is visible in the way shereacts to Matteus' inquiry. At first she just repeats the word (line 35), and then she repeats it again while tilting her head and


Unlabelled image

quickly raising her shoulders (lines 36 and 37). Arguably, this embodiment of the word gives it an evident character, as somethingthat Matteus should already know. Sequentially speaking, by repeating the problematic item and addressing it to Matteus bylooking at him, the teacher gives Matteus a series of new opportunities of successfully recognizing it without providing anyadditional explanations. As he fails to do this on several occasions (lines 35, 37 and 43), some other students soon take Matteus'turn.

Whereas Ellen first encourages Matteus by saying that this is something that he surely knows (line 41), Cynthia then providesa synonym, the slightly mispronounced “svaran” (translated as “the answours”, line 44). This synonym is picked up and correctedin an embedded way (Jefferson, Sacks, & Schegloff, 1987) to “svaren” by the teacher, first in a one word utterance (line 46), andthen in a phrase formed as the previous offer, but where “facit” has been replaced by “svaren”3 (line 48). Matteus is thus giveneven more opportunities to display recognition of the word, and he is also informed by Ellen that he should indeed be able to doso (see lines 41 and 45). It is only when the teacher has incorporated the synonym into a new version of the offer that Matteusdisplays recognition, which he does by a change-of-state token (Heritage, 1984) followed by a repetition of the newly introducedsynonym (“ah: svarehhn”, line 51).

The focus on “facit”, which is initiated by Matteus and not by the teacher, is thus locally developed as a learnable inan extended side sequence. Having clarified the meaning of “facit”, the teacher then goes back to the previous learningproject. This was to make students produce an acceptable response to an offer in Swedish. Therefore, Matteus' contribution(line 51) does not seem to be treated as enough to show recognition of the previous problematic item. Overlapping the endof Matteus' turn, the teacher repeats the question once more with an added modifier: “vill ni ha de rätta svaren.” (do youwant to have the right answers.), which is arguably used to achieve a better description of the meaning of “facit”, line 53 in(1c) below:

Excerpt (1c) “Facit”. 090904 — tape 2 [00.00:37–00.00:43].Participants: Cynthia, Sandra, Ellen, Linda, teacher and Matteus.

This time, Matteus responds with a second change-of-state token (“uhum::”), and then adds the word “facit”, by whichhe displays that he has finally identified the word. At this point, then, the learnable has been manifestly understood byMatteus.

At the end of this extended sequence, the teacher switches from the language exercise to a redoing of the real offer again. Thisis done first by a “yes” and then by changing the form of the offer (line 56). The new form is built using a pronoun instead of theinitially used “facit” (“do you want to have it?”), which presupposes some knowledge about what has just been talked about. Theoffer is thus marked as a second offer where the first version sequentially took place before all this trouble in understandingappeared (i.e. in line 7 above). The learning project of what ‘facit’ means thus emerged within the communicative project ofoffering an answer key to the students.

6.2. A learnable emerging from a material source

Whereas previous research in second language learning has overwhelmingly focused on verbal learnables in learningactivities, we have here also explored other sources for learnables in the current pedagogical environment. In this section, we will

3 This accomplishes the interchangeable character, for local practical purposes, of “facit” and “svaren” in the utterance's syntactic structure (cf. Goodwin,2000b).


Unlabelled image

examine how material objects in the physical context may be turned into learnables. Goodwin has shown the importance of thelocal surround in which “[s]eeable structure can not only constitute a locus for shared visual attention, but can also contributecrucial semiotic resources for the organization of current action” (Goodwin, 2000b: 157). Following Goodwin, we will show theimportance of the local surround and its material objects in the process of the emergence of learnables in language learningactivities.

In the example below, the camera and the researcher standing behind it are visible material objects, which get oriented toas learnables and are turned into the current pedagogical focus. In a beginner's class, while the students are busy doing a task inpairs (Fig. 3), one of the students (Salim) pays attention to the camera and orients toward where the camera stands, which ison his right side in the corner of the classroom. He negotiates with the teacher over the presence of the camera and thecameraman, Excerpt (2a):

Excerpt (2a) “Journalist”. 091008 – Tape 1 [00.47:51 – 00.48:05].Participants: teacher, Rahman, Salim and Kinza.

Even though Salim has trouble formulating a syntactically complete utterance in Swedish, he is nevertheless sufficientlycompetent to manifest his turn as a request. Through producing a fewwords (line 1) andmaking a question (line 2), it is apparentthat his contribution is an inquiry about the camera which is filming them as he speaks. He formulates his contribution in arelatively long turn. He establishes his speakership by self-selecting, and positions the teacher as his recipient by orienting bodilytowards her (Fig. 3). The teacher displays recipiency (see Goodwin, 1980) by turning and moving closer to Salim (Fig. 4) and alsoby producing a next responsive turn (line 6).

Before his question, Salim produces a noticing: “din gäster kommer idag” (you guests come today, line 1). Then while torqueinghis body (Schegloff, 1998) to the right, first toward the camera and then toward the teacher, he asks a question “va heter det”(what is it called) to which he gives a first incomplete answer himself “film?” (line 2). After a long pause, not having received anyreply, he pursues a response from the teacher in a second utterance (line 4), which seems to be a reformulation of the firstquestion. Despite being neither syntactically nor semantically very clear (han ge-o (kameristik) vad¿ in line 4), the utterance, thatinvolves a referring expression (“kameristik”) as well as an interrogative pronoun (“vad”, what) is communicative enough to get aresponse (line 6).

The word “kameristik” used by Salim (line 4) is not a well-formed word in Swedish but very close to the word “camera”which appears in the teacher's repair initiation (Schegloff et al., 1977) in her responsive turn (line 6). Saying “den ka:meran?”(that camera?) (line 6), the teacher is not only providing a candidate understanding and asking for a confirmation but is alsoaligning with Salim in building a learnable that consists of the verbal item and its associative physical referent (“den ka:meran”/ka:meran/, line 6).

In responding with what is close enough to be hearable as a repetition, the teacher makes some significant alterations in thestructure and pronunciation of the word (“kameristik”) that Salim has just produced. She replaces the end of the stem “-istik” to“-a”; she inserts some indexical features by adding definite marking inflectional morphemes (den, -n) in the beginning and theend of the word; she also changes the short /æ/ into a long /a/ in “kamera”.

These features of the learnable, each of which could be a learnable per se (the linguistic item associated to the object, itspronunciation and grammatical features), arose from interaction revolving around a physical object. The teacher's repetition ofthe word along with an embedded correction (Jefferson et al., 1987) provides the opportunity for the learnable also to become aninstructable pedagogical object (cf. Garfinkel, 2002). At the same time, by her contribution (line 6), she also tests her ownunderstanding of Salim's prior utterance (the teacher's utterance is produced with rising intonation, which makes it hearable as


Unlabelled image

requesting confirmation). The teacher thus accomplishes three things at once: she works to secure understanding, orients to andco-builds a learnable, and also corrects Salim's word-formation and pronunciation.

These relevancies are immediately reflected in Salim's next turn (line 8). He confirms the teacher's understanding andsignificantly corrects his pronunciation, and it seems that the sequence moves toward its closure. The teacher raises her arm up toher waist showing her palm to Salim and at the same time walks backward (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5

In this way, the teacher treats the “camera” (word and/or apparatus) as a learnable and, therefore, projects the possible end ofthis learning project. However, it turns out that Salim is not yet finished with his inquiry. Instead, he continues developing thetopic further, Excerpt (2b):

Excerpt (2b) “Journalist”. 091008 — tape 1 [00.48:05–00.48:18].Participants: teacher, Rahman, Salim and Kinza.

While the teacher is disengaging by beginning to walk away (Broth & Mondada, submitted), Salim gives a further account ofhis prior action to clarify that they have only dealt with part of what he wanted to inquire about. He produces an elongated /e/that solicits the teacher's attention, and that projects Salim's an imminent further contribution to the sequence (“°for example°(1.9) the same ali in Swedish”, lines 11 and 13). This new turn, a non-minimal post-expansion (Schegloff, 2007), reworks hisfirst turn. He does not disagree with the teacher's understanding of his prior turn, but an incipient misalignment with orrejection of (cf. Pomerantz, 1984) the answer provided by the teacher is displayed through a further account in his subsequentturn (lines 11, 13 and 16).

In a telegraphicway, Salimbuilds on his first turn, producing a noun phrase and a prepositional phrase. He accentuates the topic of hisinquiry by pointing at the cameraman, saying “°for example° (1.9) samma ali” (“the same ali” — line 11) and then continues “på svenska”(“in Swedish” — line 13).

The teacher is still in the dark. She cannot connect the new turn to the first one to figure out what Salim means (lines 11 and13). Salim's new turn contains both verbal forms and hand gestures (line 16), and in this way he arguably works to make it clearthat what he has tried to communicate is ‘what the person behind the camera is called in Swedish’. Salim's contribution hearably


Unlabelled image

Unlabelled image

and visibly turns something in the local material context (cf. Bergmann, 1993: 74, for the notion of “local sensitivity”) into alearnable. In Excerpt (2c), some aspects of Salim's gestures during his talk in line 16 above are transcribed:

Excerpt (2c) “Journalist”. 091008 — tape 1 [00.48:11–00.48:15].

The learnable is clearly also referred to through Salim's embodied actions. The absence of talk is compensated for and the wholemeaning is achieved through hand gesture, gaze, body torque, and head movements. His contribution involves pointing to a visiblematerial object to become the locus of joint attention. Such a public, visible display of a learnablemakes the object visually accessible forothers, who now become participants in talk.

In line 12, the participation framework has already become expanded when Kinza, who is sitting next to Salim, enters into theongoing interaction. We can also see that Rahman, who is sitting in the back row, has already oriented to the interaction by turning hisbody and gaze toward the speakers (Figs. 3–4), and soon also makes a claim for a turn (line 20). In line 17, Kinza eventually provides aword,whichmaybe to further help Salim clarify the inquiry or to actually suggest a possible response to his question (“fotografer°a°”, takea picture, line 17). He leans forward, slanting his torso and getting closer to Salim, and drops theword. Salim, however continues to havethe teacher as his main recipient by orienting to her and continuing speaking to her. However, right after the next possible transitionrelevance place (TRP, Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), despite Rahman's beginning turn, Kinza tries his contribution again (line 21).

The analysis of the final part of this sequence, Excerpt (2d), displays how the co-participants collaboratively provide a solution toSalim's problem:

Excerpt (2d) “Journalist”. 091008 — tape 1 [00.48:18–00.48:40].Participants: teacher, Rahman, Salim and Kinza.

After two attempts (lines 17 and 21) that Kinza makes to contribute a suggestion (“fotografer°a°”) for Salim's inquiry (probably aconcept that hemight have been looking for), Rahman brings a new alternative to Salim's description. He proposes the word “journalist”(line 25). In this turn, it seems pretty obvious that the negotiation and recognition of the learnable involves more parties gettinginterested in the talk. Salim's reuse of Kinza's contribution in line 23 and confirmation of Rahman's suggestion in line 26 are evidence ofaccepting this collaboration. The learnable at this moment appears to be pinpointed by Salim and recognized by other participants.


Unlabelled image

Unlabelled image

The teacher's final confirmation in the following turn (line 29), where she says “ja: de kan de ju va¿” (“yes, that may be true¿”)seems to be indicating a possible closure to the concept/word search and the end of the sequence of topicalizing a learnable whichoriginated in the material surround (a camera and a cameraman).

The sequence, which is initiated by one of the learners and built through multiparty talk, is yet another evidence of theemergence of a learnable and the co-construction of a learning project. This project, that is not always controlled by the teacher(Lee, 2010; cf. Firth & Wagner, 2007), opens up a new pedagogical opportunity in which the participants turn a temporarydiversion from the current activity into a pedagogical event. The participants negotiate over a linguistic term/concept for a visibleobject, and the teacher contributes some instructive information to it (she examines the learners' uptake by explaining where theword “journalist” can be used as a profession in line 31).4 At the end they resume the activity (a given task) that they were doingbefore this sequence started.

6.3. A learnable emerging from a gestural source

Learnables may also arise as participants orient to some aspect of a participant's embodied behavior as unknown. In contrast toverbal and material sources for learnables, gestural sources are both visual and transient at the same time (a gesture is visual andquickly disappearing). These particular properties of gestures mean that it takes particular work to turn a gesture into a mutuallyrecognized learnable. In the last Excerpt (3), we will show how a speaker's gesture that is produced and coordinated with her talkgets attended to by some other parties and becomes oriented to as a learnable.

During a reading comprehension task, one of the students picks up a word, “luftvägar” (“respiratory system”), from the textand asks the teacher to explain what this word means. To explain the word, the teacher splits this compound noun into twoseparate words: “luft”, which literally means “air”, and “vägar”, meaning “ways” or “paths”. To show that “vägar” in thiscompound does not really mean “paths” or “ways”, she produces air quotes with both hands when repeating the word vägar. Thisgesture is taken up and oriented to as a learnable by some of the students, Excerpt (3a):

Excerpt (3a) “air quotes”. 090910 — tape 2 [00.45:42–00.45: 54].Participants: Yaser, Kazem, Nazli, Ghasem, Valeria and teacher.

As shown in the transcript (lines 1 and 3), the teacher tries to explain to Valeria what “luftvägar” (“respiratory system”)means. As she is talking, she puts her fingertips on her face and slides them down from her throat to her chest, illustrating therespiratory system and the ways air can be breathed into the lungs. Ghasem has been paying attention to the interactionbetween the teacher and Valeria from the beginning of the sequence (line 1). The repetition of the word “luftvägar” by Ghasemindicates that he is attending to the verbal item (line 2), and also shows his orientation to the interaction that offers a learnable:“luftvägar”.

Continuing her turn, the teacher literally tries to indicate that air goes into different “paths” and makes a gesture lifting bothhands over her shoulder, holding the index and middle fingers of each hand together and moving them up and down (Fig. 8) – agesture that may be called ‘air quotes’ – when articulating the word “vägar” (line 3). This conventionalized gesture, of a typecalled illustrator by Ekman and Friesen (1969: 68), is visually attended to but apparently not understood by Ghasem. He reacts to

4 Interestingly, we know that the cameraman is not a journalist but a researcher and the teacher could have rejected the referential term that the students cameup with, but she does not do so and plays along in co-building a situational learnable.


Unlabelled image

it with a smiley face (line 7), by which he treats the gesture as a laughable (Sacks, 1974). As it happens, the air quotes gesture alsogets attended to by other students, Excerpt (3b):

Excerpt (3b) “air quotes”. 090910 — tape 2 [00.45:54–00.46:00].Participants: Yaser, Kazem, Nazli, Ghasem, Valeria, teacher and an unidentified learner (L).

In the subsequent turns (lines 4–13), the learners first display their orientation to the word “luftvägar”, and those who happento have Arabic as their first or additional language try to find its Arabic equivalent. Then the teacher's air quotes gesture attractstheir attention (Fig. 9).

The air quotes gesture is then turned into a candidate learnable. It is first interactionally established as an unknown object betweenthe learners. The unfamiliarity with the gesture is problematized in a publicly visible way. The communication between Ghasem andYaser displays such a non-understanding of the gesture in a sequentially organized exchange of nonverbal signs, shown in lines 16through 18. The intricate work of gesturing between Ghasem and Yaser is demonstrably (Figs. 10–13) composed of embodies actions:lifting a hand up to the recipient's line of sight, redoing the teacher's conventional hand gesture, tilting heads, raising eyebrows, smiling,looking closely at each other's moves, looking away, shrugging shoulders, and making an open hand gesture. The exchange of signsbetween Ghasem and Yaser is shown in the following transcript (Excerpt 3c):

Excerpt (3c) “air quotes”. 090910 — tape 2 [00.46:00–00.46:07].Participants: Yaser, Nazli, Ghasem, teacher and an unidentified learner (L).


Unlabelled image

Unlabelled image

In line 15, at the same time as Ghasem is showing Kazem where “luftvägar” is located in the body, Yaser repeats the “airquotes” gesture by mimicking an inexact version of it, using only his two indexes. He raises his hands to Ghasem's line of sight(Fig. 10) and partly repeats the teacher's gesture. In response, Ghasem also repeats the gesture (line 17). The exchange of repeatsbetween Yaser and Ghasem from lines 16 through 18 (Figs. 11–13) highlights both a change in the learners' attention from theverbal item of “luftvägar” to the hand gesture of the air quotes, and topicalizes a new focus in their activity.

In line 17, having repeated the air quotes, Ghasem chuckles and turns to the teacher as he simultaneously shows his open handto Yaser while turning it from the wrist (line 19; Fig. 13). The ways that Ghasem and Yaser redo the gesture already show thatthey are orienting to the air quotes as an unknown object, and thus as a learnable. With the chuckle and the subsequent handgesture (lines 17 and 19), Ghasem treats the gesture both as a laughable and a learnable. His action, then, becomes noticeable andwill be treated as accountable by the teacher in subsequent turns in which the learnable develops further into a sharedpedagogical focus in the classroom, Excerpt (3d):

Excerpt (3d) “air quotes”. 090910 — tape 2 [00.46:07–00.46:22].Participants: Ghasem, Berjes, teacher and unidentified learner(s) (L/LL).

Ghasem's smiley face after his gesture exchangewith Yaser is attended to by the teacher. She turns to Ghasem and remarks on hissmiling,making him accountable for this behavior by saying “you are smiling” (line 28). In response, Ghasemputs the cup down, fromwhich he was just drinking, and giggles. With his gaze toward the teacher, he points to Yaser with his open hand (Fig. 14), producesthe air quotes gestures and laughs (Fig. 15). The gesture is thus produced as an account forwhyhewas smiling previously. The teacher“laughs along with” him (line 33, Glenn, 2003), displaying recognition of a laughable in Ghasem's response (line 35).

However, at the same time the teacher is also building on Ghasem's reproduction of the air quotes gesture as a potential objectof learning, which can be instructed publicly (lines 35–36). At this moment everybody in the class is watching and listening. Thelearnable that now has become noticeable to more participants is given a chance to become an openly shared pedagogical focus inthe class. The teacher gives an explanation of what her gesture can be used to communicate while raising her hands twice andproducing it again. Some students laugh together5 (line 37), which may be the sign of a congruent appreciation of the air quote(cf. Sacks, 1974). The teacher closes the sequence by giving a positive assessment (line 39), which could also be an appreciation ofthe learners' attending to an emergent learnable worth being taught to the whole class. They then resume the readingcomprehension task that they were previously engaged in.

7. Conclusion: emergent learnables in emergent learning projects

We have used three relatively extended single cases to demonstrate how learnables may emerge out of different sources inSwedish as a second language classroom interaction. We have shown how a linguistic source (here, the word “facit” in Swedish)can be oriented to as unknown by learners, and how this is different from visually available sources within the physical surroundsuch as a material object (here a camera and a filming researcher) or a gesture (“air quotes”). We have thus shown that sourcesfor learnables can be anything from verbal to embodied actions referring to concrete or abstract things. We have also shown howlearnables are accomplished as situated phenomena.

5 Not everybody whose voice is captured in the video is filmed. So in the transcripts we indicate the students who we cannot identify as LL.


Unlabelled image

Three different pedagogical situations in which a learnable can emerge were studied. The learnable in the first exampleemerges during a transitory period between two different but complementary tasks in the classroom. It occurs in a sequence ofoffering an “answer key” to a group of students to check out their responses after a grammar exercise. The teacher's offer, with theexpectancy of receiving a particular response that is not immediately forthcoming, however, turns out to contain a word that wasunknown for at least one of the participants. The initial offer therefore leads into a Swedish language practice. These learnablesare observably noticed and collaboratively developed in interaction initiated by learners.

In the second example, one of the learners in an off-task activity attends to the camera and the researcher behind it, and orients tothem as sources for learnables. The camera and the cameraman motivate an inquiry about their presence in the classroom, andbecome the situated loci of shared attention. The interaction revolving around them leads to a negotiation over what the camera isand what the social/linguistic category of a person behind the camera could be. The interaction is sequentially developed into acollaborative search for the possible linguistic labels for the cameraman, and a learning project is cooperatively shaped. In theunfolding interaction, we have demonstrated how the learner's attempt to make himself understood by the teacher simultaneouslyinvolves two different ongoing projects of both a communicative and a learning nature. The learner initiates his inquiry with hislimited verbal repertoire and uses other nonverbal resources to have his turn communicated (see Section 6.2). The teacher'scontribution, however, not only complements the interaction but also embeds some further help with the language for the learner.

The third example shows how a gesture (a pair of air quotes) is picked up by a learner from the teacher's embodied activityand turned into a learnable. In this particular example, the conventionalized gesture, and its pragmatic use as a simultaneousmeta-comment on the current speaker's talk in the second language context constitutes the learnable. The teacher's use of the airquotes gesture as a communicative device noticeably draws the attention of the learners to it, and they openly develop it into alearnable in a side-sequence.

In each case there is thus an emergent pedagogical situation, which provides a possibility for the participants to orient tosomething as a learnable.6 Sequentially speaking, some source for the emergence of learnables first gets oriented to byparticipants (through both verbal and bodily actions) and then topicalized by means of different multi-semiotic resources tobecome a shared pedagogical focus. We call such a sequence an emergent learning project. The sequential development ofemergent learning projects may be summarized as in Table 1.

Any learnable (i.e. any ‘object’ which partly or wholly constitutes a social practice), originated in verbal, material or gesturalsources, is thus contingent upon interaction and emerges within a local communicative/learning project. The project within theimmediate context of interaction is centered on an emergent learnable and like any other communicative projects it “oftenrequires some concerted efforts by two or more individuals” (Linell, 2009: 178). We have shown how emergent learning projectscan be occasioned in and through interactional collaboration. In classroom interaction, they may or may not form a part of ateacher's pedagogical agenda.

6 We notice that all the learnables analyzed here are situationally present i.e. occasioned by something in the course of the activity, and thus different fromsome other kinds of learning or teaching objects which may be defined by teachers prior to the activity.

As an activity of any kind is being developed,

1. a participant may orient to one of the constituent parts of that activity or something in the concrete

social setting and make it relevant as unknown by referring to and inquiring about it.

2. If one or several others respond to such a contribution, a side sequence is interactionally initiated.

The main activity is temporarily halted, and the initiator of the side sequence is cast as an unknowing

participant.

3. The initiator of the side sequence (or others) now has the opportunity to confirm the source of what

is unknown. The unknown is thus accountably achieved as a mutually recognized learnable.

4. If this happens, some knowing participants may provide a resource for unknowing participant(s) to

understand the learnable.

5. If the participants (including the initiator of the side sequence) treat the learnable as

a) not understood, the sequence may be recycled from 4.

b) understood, the sequence moves on to 6.

6. The emergent learning project as a side sequence ends and the main project may be resumed.

Table 1. Sequential organization of learning projects.


image of Table�1

Unlabelled image

Within pedagogical activities, any social practice can undoubtedly become the focus of joint attention and gradually developinto a learnable and a shared pedagogical focus. Such a development can be traced in the social interaction of the participants(both inside and outside of the institutional settings of language learning). In other words, learnables are interactive and lodged inthe participants' natural engagement in pedagogical activities. The reciprocal nature of interaction can make anything in context,a propos of initiative and cooperation, a learnable if oriented to by the participants as such.

We suggest that a dialogical, i.e. interactional and contextualized, approach to pedagogical activities can reveal the howness ofaccomplishing those activities, that is, how learnables become part of the pedagogical activities and how they provide learningaffordances. A close attention to detail, verbal and nonverbal actions, the contextual/environmental factors including theco-presence of bodies in pedagogical activities might even contribute to the induction of new potentials “to reconceptualizenotions of learning” (Firth & Wagner, 2007: 807). Similar studies and their findings can be rewarding to all shareholders in theenterprise of learning, including both theoreticians and those who create inventories of learning/teaching styles. What is beinglearnt (if one claims it is ever being done in situ) can be bolstered by showing how learning is observably practiced by theparticipants, learners as well as teachers, in an ongoing activity.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Per Linell, Charlotta Plejert, Lorenza Mondada, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful andhelpful comments and critiques during the process of shaping and improving our article.

Appendix A. Transcription conventions

References

Bergmann, J. (1993). Discrete indiscretions: The social organization of gossip. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Broth, M. & Mondada, L. (submitted for publication). Walking Away. The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction. Journal of Pragmatics.Carroll, D. (2000). Precision timing in novice-to-novice L2 conversations. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11, 67–110.Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Disfluencies or interactional achievements? In R. Gardner, & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations

(pp. 201–220). London: Continuum.Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2006). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. In Y. Munakata, & M. H. Johnson (Eds.), Processes of change in brain and

cognitive development. Attention and Performance, XXI. (pp. 249–274) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Dewey, J. (1980). The need for social psychology. In J.A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works, 1899–1924 (Vol. 10, pp. 53–63). Carbondale, IL: Southern

Illinois University. (Original work published 1916).Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education,

31(1), 72–104.

[ left square bracket: a point of overlap onset= equal signs: 1. two lines are connected 2. one turn is latched by another(0.5) numbers in parentheses: silence, represented in tenths of a second(.) a dot in parentheses: a micropause (usually less than 0.2 s). period: falling intonation? question mark: rising intonation, comma: continuing intonation¿ inverted question mark: a rise stronger than a comma but weaker than question::: colons: prolongation or stretching of the sound- hyphen: after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruptionword underlining: stress or emphasis by increased loudness or higher pitchWORD all capital letters: much louder than the surrounding words° ° degree signs: the word is markedly quiet or soft↑↓ up and down arrows: sharper rise or fall in pitch> b more than, less than: with a jump-start, said in rush quicklyb > less than, more than: is markedly slowed or drawn outhhh aspiration: laughter.hhh aspiration: in-breath(( )) double parentheses: transcriber's comments(word) utterance in parentheses: transcription is not certain( ) empty parenthesis: something is being said, but no hearing can be achieved

On occasion we also use the following multimodal transcription symbols:..... described gesture's preparation----- gesture's preparation apex is reached and maintained,,,,, gesture's retraction----> gesture or action described continue across subsequent lines---->> gesture or action described continue until and after excerpt's end# with a specific sign showing its position within a turn at talk.


Egbert, M., Niebecker, L., & Rezzara, S. (2004). Inside first and second language speakers' trouble in understanding. In R. Gardner, & J. Wagner (Eds.), Secondlanguage conversations (pp. 178–200). London: Continuum.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire or nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.Emanuelsson, A. J., & Sahlström, F. (2008). The Price of participation: Teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 52(2), 205–223.Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social 54 accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal,

91, 800–818.Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology's program. Working out Durkheim's aphorism. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 272–302.Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633.Goodwin, C. (2000a). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.Goodwin, C. (2000b). Practices of seeing: Visual analysis — An ethnomethodological approach. In T. v. Leeuwen, & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis

(pp. 157–182). London: Sage.Goodwin, C. (forthcoming). Laminated action and knowledge: combining varied resources to build both co-operative action and diverse, situated knowledge. To

appear in a special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics on Multimodal Interaction edited by Arnulf Deppermann.Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–54.Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button, & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation

(pp. 152–205). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative Approaches to Second Language

Acquisition (pp. 117–142). London: Routledge.Koschmann, T., Le Baron, C., Goodwin, C., & Feltovich, P. (2010). “Can you see the cystic artery yet?” a simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 521–541.Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: a pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language

and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309.Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lee, Y. (2010). Learning in the contingency of talk-in-interaction. Text & Talk, 30(4), 403–422.Lemke, J. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.),

Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Brooklyn, NY: Legas.Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33, 703–736.Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Markee, N. (2008). Towards a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29, 404–427.Mondada, L., & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The

Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 501–518.Mori, J. (2004). Pursuit of understanding: Rethinking “negotiation of meaning” in view of projected action. In R. Gardner, & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second Language

Conversations (pp. 157–177). London: Continuum.Mori, J., & Hasegawa, A. (2009). Doing being a foreign language learner in a classroom: Embodiment of cognitive states as social events. International Review of

Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(1), 65–94.O'Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. New York: Continuum.Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2002). Mediation revisited: The interactive organization of mediation in learning environments. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(1), 22–42.Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.),

Structures of Social Action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Rawls, A. W. (2006). Respecifying the study of social order — Garfinkel's transition from theoretical conceptualization to practice in details. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.),

Seeing Sociologically. The Routine Grounds of Social Action (pp. 1–98). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Rawls, A. W. (2008). Harold Garfinkel, ethonomethodology and workplace studies. Organization Studies, 29(05), 701–732.Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In J. Sherzer, & R. Bauman (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking

(pp. 337–353). London: Cambridge University Press.Sacks, H. (1984). On doing “being ordinary”. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413–429).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sacks, H. (1992). In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation, vols. 1 and 2, Oxford: Blackwell.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 104–152.Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535–596.Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Seedhouse, P. (2007). On ethnomethodological CA and “linguistic CA”: A reply to Hall. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 526–532.Slotte-Lüttge, A. (2005). Ja vet int va de hete på svenska: Interaktion mellan tvåspråkiga elever och deras lärare i en enspråkig klassrumsdiskurs [I don't knowwhat it is

called in Swedish: Interaction between bilingual students and their teacher in a monolingual classroom discourse]. Åbo Akademis förlag (Doctoraldissertation).

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Negotiating discourse roles in the ESL writing conference. Modern Language Journal, 88,

519–535.


Documents

Emergent learnables in second language classroom interaction