Second Language Acquisition as Situated Practice: Task Accomplishment in the French Second Language Classroom

Second Language Acquisitionas Situated Practice:Task Accomplishment in the FrenchSecond Language ClassroomLORENZA MONDADAUniversité de Lyon IILaboratoire ICAR–CNRS ENSBP 7000F 69342 Lyon CedexFranceEmail: [email protected]

SIMONA PEKAREK DOEHLERInstitut de Philologie Romane et de LinguistiqueFrançaiseUniversité de NeuchâtelEspace Louis Agassiz 1CH 2000 NeuchâtelSwitzerlandEmail: [email protected]

This article provides an empirically based perspective on the contribution of conversationanalysis (CA) and sociocultural theory to our understanding of learners’ second language(L2) practices within what we call a strong socio-interactionist perspective. It explores the in-teractive (re)configuration of tasks in French second language classrooms. Stressing thatlearning is situated in learners’ social, and therefore profoundly interactional, practices, weinvestigate how tasks are not only accomplished but also collaboratively (re)organized bylearners and teachers, leading to various configurations of classroom talk and structuring spe-cific opportunities for learning. The analysis of L2 classroom interactions at basic and ad-vanced levels shows how the teacher’s instructions are reflexively redefined within courses ofaction and how thereby the learner’s emerging language competence is related to other(interactional, institutional, sociocultural) competencies. Discussing the results in the lightof recent analyses of the indexical and grounded dimensions of everyday and experimentaltasks allows us to broaden our understanding of competence and situated cognition in lan-guage learning.

OVER THE LAST 2 DECADES, IT HAS BECOMEmore and more accepted within such differentfields as cultural anthropology, language acquisi-tion, and developmental psychology that learn-ing processes, and more generally cognition,have something to do with social interaction. Theproblem, of course, remains how to pin down thatsomething, that is, how to identify, both theoreti-cally and empirically, the exact contribution ofthe interactional dimension to learning.

This embedded nature of cognitive develop-ment in social practices has been the focus ofstudy in two intellectual frameworks. During the

last 2 decades, studies undertaken in conversa-tion analysis (CA), as well as in the socioculturaland sociocognitive frameworks, have providedempirical evidence suggesting that the socialrealm cannot be reduced to a mere backgroundfactor in relation to which activities, includingcognitive processes, take place, but is an integralpart of cognitive development itself. This viewhas been captured by the notion of situated learn-ing (Lave & Wenger, 1991), according to whichlearning is rooted in the learner’s participationin social practice and continuous adaptation tothe unfolding circumstances and activities thatconstitute talk-in-interaction. Situated learninginvites us to look from a new perspective at whatthe learner is doing when he or she engages in aspecific task or activity in a given socio-institu-

The Modern Language Journal, 88, iv, (2004)0026-7902/04/501–518 $1.50/0©2004 The Modern Language Journal

tional context. Such a view, however, has beenconsistently excluded from mainstream secondlanguage acquisition (SLA) research.

In what follows, some basic principles of whatwe call a strong socio-interactionist approach tosecond language (L2) learning will first besketched out, drawing from both CA andsociocultural theory. Second, classroom interac-tion will serve as an empirical testing ground forinvestigating the interactional nature of learn-ing processes, focusing on practical instances oftask accomplishment. Given the current enthusi-asm for tasks as both a research and pedagogicalobject (e.g., Ellis, 2003), the notion of task ac-complishment deserves critical analysis. On theone hand, tasks as instructed actions are a classicaltopic of ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1963,2001), allowing us to respecify the problem offollowing a rule; on the other hand, socio-cultural theory deals with tasks as activity that isboth locally and historically shaped. On the ba-sis of these two theoretical frameworks, we willbe treating L2 classroom tasks as practices thatare reflexively defined and accomplished bylearners, and collaboratively (re)configured inrelationship to partners, either present, virtual,or absent. We will show the interpretive workthat is done during instructed action, by display-ing the active role that learners play in theachievement of learning opportunities. We willalso demonstrate the intricate nature of theirlinguistic competencies and how these compe-tencies intermesh with other types of socio-insti-tutional capacities. Finally, we will develop anumber of conclusions regarding our under-standing of language competence, social media-tion, and cognition.

SOCIO–INTERACTIONIST APPROACHES TOLEARNING

Toward a Strong Socio-Interactionist Perspective

The relationship between social interactionand L2 acquisition, although still marginalizedin mainstream L2 research, has been the focus ofincreasing interest because the first systematicstudies on these questions were undertaken inthe late 1970s and early 1980s (see e.g., Faerch &Kasper, 1983; Hatch, 1978; Long, 1983). To date,the role of social interaction in L2 acquisitionhas received very different interpretations in re-search, ranging from what can be considered astrong to a weak conception of this role. Theweak version of the interactionist approach ac-knowledges that interaction is beneficial (or

even necessary; e.g., Gass & Varonis, 1985) forlearning by providing occasions for learners tobe exposed to comprehensible, negotiated, ormodified input (e.g., Long, 1983, 1996). Thisframework basically assumes that social interac-tion plays an auxiliary role, providing momen-tary frames within which learning processes aresupposed to take place.

Contrary to this position, the strong version ofthe interactionist approach recognizes interac-tion as a fundamentally constitutive dimensionof learners’ everyday lives. That is, interaction isthe most basic site of experience, and hencefunctions as the most basic site of organized ac-tivity where learning can take place. In this view,social interaction provides not just an inter-actional frame within which developmental pro-cesses can take place; as a social practice, it in-volves the learner as a co-constructor of jointactivities, where linguistic and other competen-cies are put to work within a constant process ofadjustment vis-à-vis other social agents and in theemerging context. This position is typicallyadopted by conversationalist (Bange, 1992; Gajo& Mondada, 2000; Krafft & Dausendschön-Gay,1994; Pekarek, 1999) or sociocultural (Hall,1993; Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Appel, 1994;Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995) approaches to L2 ac-quisition.1

In this article, we develop the constitutive orstrong version of the interactionist approach,which formulates a radical critique of some cen-tral notions emanating from mainstreamcognitively oriented research. Many aspects ofthis position were discussed in Firth and Wag-ner’s (1997) seminal article on these issues. Ourown view is that the abstraction and isolation oflearning processes (or cognitive processes ingeneral) from action and interaction has givenrise to a number of fundamentally problematicconcepts in L2 research. These include: (a) thenotion of competence that is treated as a phe-nomenon that is isolated from socialization pro-cesses; (b) a conception of learning that is ab-stracted from the organization of actions,community membership, participation frame-works, and so forth; and (c) a notion of contextthat tends to be reduced to a stable variable af-fecting cognitive events.

The strong version of the interactionist ap-proach leads to a respecification of these con-cepts. For instance, if interactional activities arethe fundamental organizational tissue of learn-ers’ experience, then their competence cannotbe defined in purely individual terms as a seriesof potentialities located in the mind/brain of a

502 The Modern Language Journal 88 (2004)

lone individual, but needs to be conceived of as aplurality of capacities embedded and recognizedin the context of particular activities.

These considerations also have importantmethodological consequences: If everyday inter-action is a fundamental locus of socializationand of cognitive and linguistic development,then learning processes need to be observedwithin ordinary contexts of routine activities.This position motivates a focus on studyinglearning within empirical settings, concentratingon the organizational details of naturally occur-ring actions and interactions, rather than on in-vestigating data that are elicited by researchers.The emphasis put on this locally achieved orderoffers not just a methodological input to the in-vestigation of SLA but also provides a fundamen-tal contribution to the understanding of boththe context-dependent and the context-renew-ing methods by which learners become compe-tent members in a community of practice.

Two Sources of Theoretical Inspiration: ConversationAnalysis and Sociocultural Theory

The strong interactionist position can be lo-cated within the partial convergence of two linesof research, namely the ethnomethodologicaland CA approach to social interaction and thesociocultural approach to cognition. We havediscussed in detail elsewhere how these twoframeworks contribute to a notion of cognitionthat is consistent with an interactionist approachto L2 learning (Mondada & Pekarek Doehler,2000). Here, we limit ourselves to sketching onlybriefly their relevance for L2 research.

Ethnomethodology and CA have played a cen-tral role within the social sciences in understand-ing social order as praxis, that is, as an interlock-ing set of reasoning practices, institutionalstructures, and language. In Garfinkel’s (1963)ethnomethodological program, order is viewedas a phenomenon that is constantly achieved lo-cally by participants in a way that produces itsindexicality as well as its stability. Normative ex-pectations and social order are seen as the

emergent products of a vast amount of communica-tive, perceptual, judgmental and other “accomo-dative” work whereby persons, in concert, and en-countering “from within the society” theenvironments that the society confronts them with,establish, maintain, restore and alter the socialstructures that are the assembled products of thetemporally extended courses of action directed tothese environments as persons “know” them. (pp.187–188)

Contrary to what is sometimes assumed, this viewdoes not deny the existence of social structures,norms, and values, but focuses on the way inwhich they are continuously achieved throughmembers’ practices in a methodic way. CA,launched by the work of Harvey Sacks andEmanuel Schegloff, deepens our understandingof the methods by which participants structuretheir action in an accountable way, by showingthe endogenous, systematic organization oftalk-in-interaction (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson,1974; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). CA also dealswith the ways in which social order is jointly es-tablished (Schegloff, 1991) and shared cogni-tion is continuously generated, maintained, andtransformed. CA methods are systematic proce-dures (of turn-taking, repairing, opening or clos-ing conversations, etc.) by which members sus-tain, defend, and adjust their interpretationsand their conduct in order to make them mutu-ally understandable. As such, they are part ofpractical reasoning that defines human cogni-tion not as an individual, decontextualized, oruniversal property but as a situated process thatis enacted through social activities. We suggestthat these methods play a central role in situatedlearning and are at the same time part of thecompetence that allows members to participatein adequate ways in social interactions, includinglearning activities.2

Although ethnomethodology and CA do notaim to develop a model of language acquisition,they provide a framework that has stimulated anumber of analyses of socialization processes, ofschool settings as well as of other social institu-tions involving learning (e.g., Cicourel, 1974;Francis & Hester, 2000; Lerner, 1995; Macbeth,1990; McHoul, 1978, 1990; Mehan, 1979). Withregard to L2 learning, this framework has beenan influential resource for investigations into in-teractions between native and nonnative speak-ers (see de Pietro, Matthey, & Py, 1989; Py, 1991;Krafft & Dausendschön-Gay, 1993; Markee,1994) and into the detailed unfolding of class-room and other instructional interactions (seeGajo & Mondada, 2000; Markee, 2000; Mori,2002; Pekarek, 1999; for a discussion, see alsoMondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2000; Wagner,1996).

The second theoretical inspiration for thesocio-interactionist view of learning that we drawfrom is the sociocultural approach to cognition,inspired by the work of Vygotsky and developedin the neo-Vygotskian line of thought (Cole,1985, 1995; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995; Rogoff,1990; Wertsch, 1991b). In our sense, CA and

Lorenza Mondada and Simona Pekarek Doehler 503

sociocultural theory offer complementary ele-ments with regard to our understanding of every-day activities and of cognitive processes, theformer focusing on the way participants method-ically and systematically accomplish ordinary ac-tions (including learning), the latter stressingthe sociocultural dimension of activities and ofcognitive development (for recent studies bring-ing the two approaches together, see Ohta’s2001 investigation on classroom socialization orPekarek Doehler’s 2002 reconsideration of me-diation in the L2 classroom). The comple-mentarity of the two approaches, however, can-not be reduced to using CA merely as ananalytical tool in the service of sociocultural the-ory. As we illustrate through our analyses, one ofthe crucial contributions of CA’s analytic mental-ity is that it allows us to respecify crucial notionssuch as task or competence from a member’s per-spective (see also Markee & Kasper, this issue).

Sociocultural theory addresses the issue ofcognition more explicitly than CA does, decon-structing the division between the individualand the social dimensions. A central idea here isthe Vygotskian notion of mediation (Vygotsky,1978): Higher forms of human mental function-ing are mediated by tools (objects and symbolicmeans such as language) collaboratively con-structed by members of a culture, and the devel-opment of these forms is rooted insocio-interactional practices within that culture(cf. Cole, 1985; Wertsch, 1991b). Cognition isthus understood to be situated in social interac-tion (as stressed by Rogoff, 1990) and in largercontexts (as focused by e.g., Cole, 1995;Wertsch, 1991a, 1991b): As Wertsch (1991a)noted: “Human mental functioning is inher-ently situated in social interactional, cultural, in-stitutional and historical contexts” (p. 6).

Activities take a particular shape in particularsocial and institutional settings, a process thatimplies specific forms of conduct and socializa-tion, and therefore specific forms of social accep-tance, recognition, and valuing of displayedcompetencies. Learning a language is under-stood as being profoundly bound to social prac-tices (see Ochs, 1988, for first language acquisi-tion), as being contingent on the learner’sparticipation as a competent member in the lan-guage practices of a social group (see Hall, 1993;Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf & Pavlenko,1995, for L2 learning). Empirical studies haveshown, for instance, how students’ joint manage-ment of L2 discourse is based on the establish-ment of intersubjectivity (Donato, 1994) or howthe classroom community serves as a mediator,

defining rules of conduct that value certainforms of agency and involvement (Lantolf,2000).

Situated Cognition

Both of these frameworks converge in insistingon the central role of contextually embeddedcommunicative processes in the accomplish-ment of human actions and identities as well asof social facts.3 In bringing these two lines ofthought together, we want to stress that learningactivities are both negotiated and accomplishedin local contexts and transmitted and elaboratedacross historical contexts.

Learning a language, in this sense, essentiallymeans learning how to deal with contextualized,interactionally oriented discourse activities. Thatis, language learning involves much more thanan expert-novice relationship and much morethan scaffolded sequences of negotiation. Morespecifically, language learning is rooted in learn-ers’ participation in organizing talk-in-interac-tion, structuring participation frameworks, con-figuring discourse tasks, interactionally definingidentities, and becoming competent members ofthe community (or communities) in which theyparticipate, whether as students, immigrants,professionals, or indeed any other locally rele-vant identities (see also He, this issue; Kasper,this issue; Mori, this issue, for related insights).Such participation gives rise to cognitive prac-tices, forms of attention, and conjoined orienta-tions that are embedded, publicly exhibited, andmade recognizable in actual actions, and are so-cially mediated and collectively monitoredthrough interaction.

In this sense, cognition can be said to be so-cially situated in a twofold sense, in thesociocultural definition of the situation as well asin the local contingencies of everyday actions.

THE LEARNER’S PRACTICE:INTERACTIONAL CONSTRUCTION OFTASKS AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Formulating, understanding, and accomplish-ing tasks is an omnipresent problem for mem-bers in the classroom—for pupils and teachersalike. This problem relates in general to thequestion of rules and of following rules(Garfinkel, 1963; Suchman, 1987; Wittgenstein,1953) and to the issues of indexicality and reflex-ivity. Instructions are general phenomena occur-ring in everyday and professional contexts wheretheir clarity, consistency, completeness, and im-


plementation are issues that are dealt with bymembers within the practical circumstances ofthe “work of following instructions” (Garfinkel,2001, pp. 197–218). This work is not to be con-fused with the rules themselves, because rulescan, strictly speaking, neither predict action noraccount for it as it is locally and contingently ac-complished. On the contrary, this work involvesskilled practices of adequately interpreting tasks,and this is a competence that pupils have to ac-quire, but which escapes formal instruction. Inthis sense, analyzing the detailed ways and prac-tices through which tasks are interpreted and ac-complished can provide an understanding ofcentral dimensions of learning processes.

In the following analysis of interaction in aFrench as a second language classroom, we focuson a series of different tasks, ranging from gram-mar to communication, and show how possibleinterpretations and decisions are implementedby the highly tuned, moment-by-moment ways inwhich learners respond to and accomplish them.Thus, we treat tasks not as products but as pro-cesses, insisting that they cannot be understoodas stable predefined entities. Rather, these tasksare configured by the learner’s own activitiesand interpretation processes.

Data

The data for this study come from two largecorpora collected during the 1990s by the au-thors within two related projects sponsored bythe Swiss National Foundation on the acquisitionof French as a second language. One of the proj-ects was studying the acquisition of French by im-migrant children in the French-speaking part ofSwitzerland. The corpus consists of recordings inclasses specially designed for newly arrived immi-grant children, between 10 and 12 years of age,and of recordings made by these children in theirordinary out-of-school activities. Excerpts 1, 2,and 3 were collected in three of these classrooms.The second project investigated French as a L2classrooms in a high school in the German-speak-ing part of Switzerland. The database consists ofconversational classroom activities, including aseries of literature discussions that were based onthe reading of French novels or plays. Excerpt 4 isdrawn from this database.

The Fundamentally Interactional Nature ofClassroom Tasks

Let us first turn to our most basic claim, namelythat a great deal of learning is profoundly

socio-interactional in nature. Even when it doesnot appear to be so, learning is interactional be-cause it is always rooted in activities, in languagegames, in forms of experience. There are, in fact,activity types that our common sense (and muchof the technical literature on acquisition) doesnot immediately or generally associate with socialinteraction. Instead, these tasks are viewed as be-ing typically individual or as being concernedwith noninteractional objects and objectives.However, once we consider these activities froman empirical perspective, we discover that theyare interactionally achieved in their detailed andembodied realizations. Even a traditional gram-mar exercise in the classroom, generally not con-sidered to be a communicative activity, is a taskthat is interactionally organized by the partici-pants, as shown in Excerpt 1, taken from a specialclass for immigrant children (2, in this case, Adaand Dani) who had difficulties with the standardcurriculum.

This first excerpt shows how a grammar task isrealized through a recurrent pattern, consistingof a series of questions. Each of these questions isinitiated (1–4, 14–15, 21–22, 28–29) by theteacher, Eliane (E), and each presents the infini-tive verb plus the person to one or the other ofthe students, Ada (A) or Dani (D). The studentsorient to this pattern, partially repeating or re-casting the questions, mostly in a lower voice, be-fore providing their answers (6, 16, 24). Theirrepetitions manifest their work in progress, pro-spectively giving them time to formulate theiranswers while retrospectively exhibiting their un-derstanding of the question.

The participants’ attention to the formulationof the task is observable in the first sequence:Eliane asks her question (1–2), highlighting itsrelation to the previous question (2). When noanswer is provided (3), she repeats part of it (4)in a lower voice. Ada prefaces her answer (6) byrephrasing the task, mentioning the verb thatshe has to conjugate, then the person, withoutthe number. Within the same turn, she suggestsa first solution (irons ‘we will go’), followed by apause that is not taken by Eliane as an opportu-nity for repair, and a second solution that self-re-pairs the first (non irez ‘no, you will go’). It is in-teresting that the first and the second solutionsuse the same format, whose repair is initiated byEliane by means of a strong correction initiator,EH? (9), and by the formulation of the regularpattern that is expected (dis-moi toujours avec le:pronom ‘tell me with the: [personal] pronoun’).Ada self-repairs her first solution in the norma-tive format (nous irons) and then, after a new re-



EXCERPT 1Let’s Continue with the Future

1 E: euh aller, (0.6) euh: Ada (0.7) deuxième personne, pluriel,eh to go, (0.6) eh: Ada (0.7) second person, plural,

2 on repart dans le futur hein,let’s continue with the future ok,

3 (1.4)4 E: °deuxième personne pluriel,°

°second person plural,°5 (0.7)6 A: aller (0.6) deuxième personne (0.4) irons

to go (0.6) second person (0.4) will go (1st ps. pl.)7 (2.55)8 non irez

no will go (2nd ps. pl.)9 (0.4)10 E: EH? dis-moi toujours avec le: pronom [(personnnel)

HEY? why don’t you tell me with the: (personal) pronoun11 A: [nous irons,

[we will go,12 E: deu:xième personne

second person13 A: non vous irez

no you will go14 E: vous irez. (0.4) .h faire, euh:: troisième personne

you will go. (0.4) .h to do, eh: third person15 pluriel (0.35) Dani

plural (0.35) Dani16 D: faire, (0.4) troisième (.) ils feront

to do, (0.4) third (.) they will do17 E: ils feront. comment est-ce que t’écris ça

they will do. how d’you write that18 (1)19 D: èf a i (0.4) non èf eu èr (.) o èn °té°

f a i ((spelling)) (0.4) no f e r (.) o n °t° ((spelling))20 E: voilà, èf eu, hein, (.) tout du long eu, alors que le verbe

right f e ((spelling)) ok right all long e while the verb21 faire èf a i èr eu. d’accord.(0.7).h être:, (0.9) euhm

to do f a i r e. ((spelling)) ok. (0.7) .h to be:, (0.9) uhm22 première personne singulier (0.3) Ada

first person singular (0.3) Ada23 (1.7)24 A: °être°

°to be°25 (3.4)26 A: je serai,

I will be,27 E: je serai. elles les savent bien hein? c’est vraiment

I will be. they know it well don’t they? it’s really28 épatant, (0.35) je serai, très bien. (1.4) euhm (.) veni:r,

stunning (0.35) I will be, very well. (1.4) ehm (.) to come,29 (2.8) deuxième personne singulier, Dani.

(2.8) second person singular, Dani30 D: je v- non, tu viendras

pair initiated by Eliane, her second solution(13). The exercise is thereby organized in a waythat secures the production not only of the ex-pected grammatical form, but also of an ex-pected answer format. The latter seems to beeven more strongly corrected than the former byEliane’s initiation in line 9. In this way, the orga-nization of the exercise directs the orientation ofall participants toward the appropriate pattern.

This pattern is further developed in a contin-gent way with regard to the specific difficulty in-volved: For instance, when the question involvesan irregular verb (such as faire ‘to make, do’ inline 14), the correct answer is followed by an ex-tra request, which focuses on the spelling of theform (17). The spelling is initiated and thenself-repaired by Dani (19), who exhibits in the re-pair itself her orientation toward the difficulty(which is further accentuated by her way of pro-nouncing the repaired letters eu, line 19). A simi-lar extra request is made in the last case (31),and obtains two answers in two different formats(Dani providing a spelling; Ada pronouncingboth letters). In a locally occasioned way, thesespecificities are taken by Eliane as an opportu-nity to insist on a grammatical phenomenon inher closings of the sequence (20), where she pro-vides an explanation in the form of a generaliza-tion. Adjusting the requests to the specificities ofits object occasions variations of the exercise for-mat that orient the participants’ attention to-ward their status as grammatical particularities.In this way, the regularities and specificities ofthe grammar are reflexively embodied in thevery sequential format—both stable and vari-able—of the exercise.

The excerpt shows not only a grammar exer-cise on verb forms but also practice on how thisexercise may be done acceptably. Moreover, thispractice is clearly being accomplished in andthrough the interaction. The clarity and com-pleteness of the task formulation and accom-plishment are designed and recognized in ways

that depend on the sequential format and un-folding of turns at talk and on social practicessuch as turn taking, answering, repairing, assess-ing, and so forth. A successful accomplishmentof the task, as well as the fulfillment of its peda-gogical virtues, rests on the mutual identificationof the relevant linguistic forms that are identi-fied (verb, person, and number), the relevantturn formats to be used, and the purpose of thetask (e.g., the difference between quoting andspelling).

The Intertwining of Competencies

Even if traditional grammar exercises are notdesigned as communicative tasks, they are in-deed interactionally achieved. Moreover, suchactivities and the problem-solving tasks they im-ply always involve more than one type of compe-tence. As a consequence, deploying and devel-oping language competencies also meansdeploying and developing a complex set of (so-cial, cultural, or historical) competencies.

In Excerpt 2, the teacher, Thérèse (T), is do-ing a grammar exercise on demonstratives, in-volving different students: Mohammed (M),Bernardo (B), Pierre (P), Lorena (L), Karl (K),William (W), Ariane (A), Robert (R).

The students are involved here in anothergrammar exercise that consists of using a noun,adding a demonstrative, and using it in a sen-tence. Mohammed is selected (1) by the teacher,Thérèse, and suggests a determiner � noun pair(6). It is interesting that his selection takes time:Thérèse just mentions his name, as if the previ-ous format of the exercise allows Mohammed toanswer without being given any extra instruc-tion. Because he does not answer (2), Thérèserepeats the task, in a way that deals with ballon(5) not just as the previous item, but also as thelast item in a series, thereby showing that instruc-tions take their recognizable character not in iso-lation but in sequentially built paradigms. The


I w- no, you will come31 E: tu viendras. (.) terminaison?

you will come. (.) ending?32 D: a [ ès

a [ s ((spelling))33 A [a ès,

[a s, ((spelling))34 E: voilà.

right.


EXCERPT 2This Pencil Case

1 T: Mohammed?2 (1.9)3 T: au suivant

the next4 (2.4)5 T: le suivant, (0.5) après ballon

the next, (0.5) after balloon6 M: ah cette cette trousse

ah this this pencil case7 T: cette trousse, comment on écrit

this pencil case, how do you write8 (3)9 M: té èr[o (.) u [:

t r [o (.) u [: ((spelling))10 T: [cé:, [NON, trousse c’est écrit. mais cette:

[c ((spelling))[NO, pencil case it’s written. but thi:s11 (1.4)12 M: euh ès eu�

ehm s e ((spelling))�13 T: �cé,

�c, ((spelling))14 M: cé eu té (i) té eu

c e t (i) t e ((spelling))�15 T: cé eu, (.) [té eu.] (.) une phrase avec [( )

c e, (.) [t e ((spelling)) (.) one phrase with [( )16 R: [c’est juste]

[that’s right]17 B: [cette chaîne,

[this chain,18 T: °chhhh::::::° (.) Lorena une phrase avec ce[tte (trousse)

°chhhh::::::° (.) Lorena a phrase with thi [s pencil case19 L: [cette trousse

[this pencil case20 est dans ma valise

is in my bag21 T: ok[é:. (.) ou]ais:,

ok[ay:. (.) ye]ah:,22 B: [( )]23 P: cette trousse est à moi

this pencil case is mine24 J: ((cough))25 K: cette trousse est [(0.3) dans ma:] (0.9) ma sac

this pencil case is [(0.3) in my: (fem.)] (0.9) my (fem.) bag26 J: [((cough)) ]27 T: °mon:,°

°my:,° (masc.)28 K: mon sac

my bag29 T: sac.

bag.30 (0.7)

item, cette trousse ‘this pencil case,’ is accepted byThérèse (7), who then adds a new request. Thatis, she asks Mohammed to spell it. Her formula-tion of the request does not specify its object. Af-ter a 3-second silence, Mohammed answers byspelling the noun but not the determiner (9).His turn is overlapped by the beginning of another repair by Thérèse (10), which is followedby an explanation of the response’s inadequacy(10). After a while, Mohammed gives a spelling,the initial letter of which is repaired by Thérèse(13). His spelling is accepted for all practicalpurposes, by means of Thérèse’s repetition of it(15) and another student’s assessment (16).

At that point, although Thérèse extends theactivity focused on cette trousse by asking for it tobe to included in a sentence, another student,Bernardo (B), suggests a new pair of items, cettechaîne ‘this chain’ (17), demonstrating a diver-gent orientation toward the closing of the se-quence—which is not accepted by Thérèse (18).The request for a sentence is now repeated withthe selection of the next student, Lorena (L), inline 18, who answers immediately (19–20).Bernardo again utters something that overlapsThérèse’s ratification, possibly showing his ori-entation toward the ending of that task. Pierre(P) initiates a new phrase (23) and so does Karl(K; 25). In this way, different students show dif-ferent orientations toward the interactionalcompletion of the task, the problem being toknow whether the task is complete after a firstcorrect response or if the teacher expects fur-ther responses coming from various students.Thérèse orients toward the latter. She does notdo this as a preplanned way of doing the exer-cise, but as an emergent response that resultsfrom the collaborative volunteering of solutionsby other students, namely Pierre and Karl. Sheselects Ariane (A) as the next speaker (31).

Ariane does not take the opportunity to an-swer (33, 35) until William (W) suggests a possi-ble sentence (37), which is partially repeated byAriane (rouge ‘red,’ 38). Ariane’s difficulties, likethe ones encountered previously by Mohammed,exhibit the indexical character of Thérèse’s in-structions. That is, they demonstrate the amountof interpretive work, of socialization, of specificschool skills that are necessary to deal with theseinstructions. As problems arise, instructions tendto become more elaborated, their relevant tar-gets are reformulated and focused—but also dis-placed (37). Possible misunderstandings andpersisting difficulties show that making instruc-tions explicit does not simply imply that they willbe followed more accurately; rather, instructionsand their results remain embedded in the class-room course of action. Moreover, the reformula-tion of instructions does not simply perpetuatethem, but reflexively reconfigures the task, alter-ing it, adjusting it to presumed facilitating proce-dures.

In addition, different skilled orientations to-ward the task are embodied in different partici-pation frameworks: Pierre and Karl do not par-ticipate in the same way as Ariane or Bernardo(22) do. Hence, for the teacher, a central issue ishow to make them participate within a conver-gent definition of the ongoing sequence and itspossible completeness.

The excerpt demonstrates an importantpoint: Being recognized as a good student pre-supposes putting to work not only one’s linguis-tic competence, which focuses on academiccontent, but also on one’s socio-institutionalcompetence. Being recognized as such involvesthe proper way of formulating content as well asthe proper ways of participating in a specific in-structional setting. In general terms, we can as-sume that this competence always combines


31 T: fais une phrase avec cette trousse Ariane.make a phrase with this pencil case Ariane.

32 (0.9)33 T: cette, (0.4) trousse, (2) comment elle est? (2) cette trousse?

this, (0.4) pencil case, (2) how is it? (2) this pencil case?34 B: hhhh,35 (1.5)36 T: elle est de quelle couleur cette trousse?

which color is this pencil case?37 W: elle est rouge

it is red38 A: rouge

red

with the way learners are socialized into thecommunities of practice in which they use theL2, whether as a student, an immigrant, or aprofessional person.

This latter point is clearly corroborated by crit-ical experimental work undertaken within boththe psychosocial approach to development andthe sociocultural paradigm. For instance, work-ing within the first of these approaches,Perret-Clermont, Perret, and Bell (1991), re-ported a series of experiments that showed thattheir participants’ cognitive processes in spatialplanning and other tasks administered withinthe Piagetian theoretical framework were oftennot centered on dealing with the logical andsymbolic features of the task but were focused onunderstanding the people, social contexts, andinteractions in which they were involved. The au-thors argued that social factors can no longer be“considered external independent variables af-fecting the cognitive responses, but appear to beintrinsic parts of the process by which personscreate meaning” (pp. 43–44). This idea is sup-ported by further findings reported by the sameauthors, showing, for instance, that gender andsocial class differences repeatedly observed inpretest performances sometimes disappear bythe posttest, the participants having come to abetter understanding of the kind of reasoningthat is expected to be displayed in the given con-text.

This finding is also in line with Rogoff’s (1990)observation, from a sociocultural perspective, ac-cording to which the participant’s cognitive per-formance is the result of his or her interpreta-tion not only of the cognitive dimensions of thetask but also of its social meaning and the com-municative situation through which the task isadministered. A more general and more radicalview was offered by Wittgenstein (1953), whosearguments suggest that instructions are in-dexical in the sense that their execution alwaysinvolves a range of possible interpretations(Garfinkel, 1967; Suchman, 1987). That is, thepossibility of following a rule rests on its situatedunderstanding.

The Interactional Reconfiguration of Tasks andTheir Social Mediation

The preceding discussion clearly shows thatwe cannot consider a task as something predeter-mined by a curriculum, a program, a plan, or ascientific experiment. Rather, tasks are accom-plished in a locally contingent and socially dis-tributed way through the actions of the partici-

pants involved and through their ongoing inter-pretations of the instructional setting. This situ-ated and praxeological dimension of tasks alsomeans that learners themselves can be activelyinvolved in reconfiguring the task at hand, as inExcerpt 3. In this excerpt, the students, Fabian(F), Pablo (P), Rita (R), and Beat (B), are in-volved by the teacher, Mrs. Klein (K), in an exer-cise that consists of finding nouns derived fromverbs.

The teacher, Mrs. Klein, formulates the task byasking for a verb corresponding to the verbphrase mettre dans la terre ‘to put into the earth.’Fabian, in looking for the solution, repeats onlythe noun terre ‘earth’ (3–4). In the absence of anadequate response, Mrs. Klein recasts her ques-tion in other terms (6). Pablo provides the an-swer in overlap (7). This first sequence shows aserial format, similar to the previous examples.Here again, we witness a reformulation and anadjustment of the task—which first consists ofderiving verbs from nouns or nominalizing themand then in looking for a verb in response to thesemantic context provided by Mrs. Klein (6).

The second sequence, initiated by Rita, showsan alternative organization. Rita reads the nextoccurrence and immediately provides the ade-quate solution, cri/crier ‘scream/to scream’ (14),which is accepted by the teacher (15). But shethen adds a context in which the target form isused. It is interesting that this context refers tothe title of a painting. In this way, Rita does notsimply initiate a topical development out of theexercise, but she also displays her ability to usean abstract form, an isolated noun phrase, in arelevant sociodiscursive context. Her proposalcan be compared to Beat’s (17): He also orientstoward an autonomous noun phrase, but com-pletes it (le cri [de/dans] la nuit, ‘the scream[of/in] the night’); he too refers to a culturalcontext, a film title, as a relevant context of usefor the noun phrase. Like Rita, he orients towarda possible narrative by imitating the scream. Butthe cultural horizons of the students do not in-terest Mrs. Klein in the same way, because sheprovides for a continuation of Rita’s and not ofBeat’s proposal (18). By asking about the nameof the painter, she deals with the visual arts as atopic that can be fed into in an encyclopedic way.In this manner, however, Mrs. Klein reacts toRita’s topic less as a teacher than as a cultivatedperson.

It is not only the initial task that is reconfiguredby this topical sequencing, but also the relevantcategorizations of the participants (Mondada,1999). Indeed, the participation framework itself



EXCERPT 3The Scream in the Night

1 K: essayez de trouver un mot de la même famille, (0.5) untry to find a word of the same family, (0.5) a

2 verbe, (0.8) mettre dans la terre. [°comment tu dis°�verb, (0.8) to put into the earth. [°how do you say°�

3 F: [°terre terre°[°earth earth°

4 °°comme terre ( )°°°°like earth ( )°°

5 (1)6 K: q[uand quelqu’un est mo:rt (.) voilà.

w[hen somebody is dead: (.) there you go.7 P: [enterrer,

[to bury (lit. to put in the earth)8 (0.6)9 K: Pablo?10 P: enterrer

to bury11 K: en:[terrer.

to bur[y12 R: [madame?

[missis?13 F: en:terrer.�

to bury.�14 R: �madame, là:, (.) crier, le cri.

�missis, there:, (.) to scream, the scream.15 K: ouais.�

yeah.�16 R: �y a un tableau qui s’appelle le cri. il a été volé (j’pense)

�there’s a painting which is called the scream. it has been stolen (I think)17 B: le cri, (dans/de) la nuit, (0.5) [aaaah

the scream, (in/of) the night, (0.5) [aaaah18 K: [tu sais qui l’a fait?

[do you know who did it?19 (0.9)20 R: non

no21 X: ( )22 K: (c’était pas Van Gogh)

(wasn’t it Van Gogh)23 A: non c’est Munch

no it’s Munch24 K: non, (0.5) qu[i?

no, (0.5) wh [o?25 A: [c’est c’est Munch (0.25) le[::

[that’s that’s Munch (0.25) th[e::26 K: [ah:: Munch,27 (0.3) oui c’est juste,

(0.3.) yes that’s right,28 (0.8)29 A: c’est un p[eintre euh [norvégien

he is a norwegian eh painter30 K: [( ) [c’est très: (1) frappant. (0.6)

[( ) [it’s very: (1) striking. (0.6)31 c’est juste.

that’s right.32 (2.3)

is modified, enlarging it to the researcher,Agathe (A; 23, 25), who is normally silent, andmodifying the relevant categories (expert/nov-ice instead of teacher/student)

This intrusion of the out-of-school world is col-laboratively established, being initiated by a stu-dent, accepted by the teacher, and taken up bythe researcher; it allows the students to expressspecific types of knowledge that are not linguisticin nature but encyclopedic; it radically modifiesthe participation structure of the interaction andleads up to various asymmetric displays of knowl-edge on the extracurricular topic. This modifica-tion gives the students the opportunity to be in-volved differently in the exercise, to becomemore active, to solicit the teacher’s attention ex-plicitly, to initiate topics, to present their pointsof view, and to provide contributions to talk thatare longer and more complex than before. Thestudents thus end up putting to work differentdimensions of their language and more diversesocial competencies than before.

Such observations draw our attention, amongother things, to the reciprocal nature not only oftask accomplishment but also of the processes ofsocial mediation, focused on by Vygotsky. Theyshow that it is not simply experts who help learn-ers solve specific linguistic problems but alsolearners who can help experts adapt their media-tion to their own needs and possibilities. In otherwords, the learners themselves can be mediatorswith regard to the experts’ tasks (PekarekDoehler, 2002). Moreover, the relevance of cate-gories, such as expert or learner, can be rede-fined and renegotiated in the contingent courseof the action (Mondada, 1999, 2000).

The Permeability of Tasks and Potential Objects ofLearning

A consequence of the intertwining of variouscompetencies and types of knowledge on theone hand and the situated and socially config-ured nature of learners’ tasks on the other handis that tasks are multilayered (involving linguis-tic, socio-interactional, institutional work) andthat their targets (i.e., the potential objects oflearning they are oriented to) are permeable toeach other. Excerpt 4 is taken from a discussionbetween a high school teacher, Mr. Ecker (E),and his students about “Les jeux sont faits” byJean-Paul Sartre. The student in this excerpt,Gilles (G), and the teacher are actually talkingabout Pierre and Eve, the protagonists of theplay.

In this literary discussion, the teacher followsup on a student’s remark, asking in what senseEve had changed. Responding to the student’s si-lence, he further comments on his questions be-fore the student, Gilles, provides a first response(6–8), stating that Eve understands Peter’s ac-tions. In the following turn (9–12), the teacherfirst confirms this assessment and then inquiresabout the noun corresponding to the verbcomprendre ‘to understand.’ He thereby first ori-ents to the activity of interpreting a piece of liter-ature (9–10), and then formulates a meta-linguistic question (10–11). This move, however,is not just a simple shift from a focus on commu-nicative interaction to a focus on form. Rather,the focus on form is clearly embedded in a con-versational exchange centered on the interpreta-tion of Sartre’s work.

Various characteristics of the interactional ex-change support this interpretation. Havingasked what noun corresponded to the verbcomprendre ‘to understand,’ the teacher developshis question at the level of content, inquiringabout Eve’s character (10–12). The issue of lin-guistic form is thereby embedded in the discus-sion of a specific communicative content. Ac-cordingly, Gilles does not confine himself toproviding a linguistic form but integrates thisform into the expression c’est de la compréhension‘it’s understanding’ (13), thereby providing ananswer to the question about Eve’s character.Finally, the teacher himself evaluates the stu-dent’s response, thereby accomplishing a typicalinitiation-reaction-evaluation format, while rein-serting the term compréhension ‘understanding’into the talk about Sartre’s work (14) andcontextualizing it in this way within the literaturediscussion. At the same time, the teacher writesthe word on the blackboard. The parallel deploy-ment of talk and writing by means of the use oftwo tools of social mediation—one semiotic (lan-guage, spoken and written) and the other mate-rial (the chalk and blackboard)—allows at thisvery moment for an explicit double focus oncontent and form.

As a result, the focus on the noun compré-hension ‘understanding’ has two parallel effects.It allows the teacher to attract the students’ at-tention to a lexical element and at the same timeserves, on the conceptual level, to deepen the in-terpretation of the play: Eve not only under-stands Peter, but what is more, she shows that sheunderstands him. An understanding of the nounphrase la compréhension leads to a better under-standing of the literary work. In this sense, the


twofold orientation of teacher and students to-ward linguistic form and communicative contentis perfectly incorporated in the task accomplish-ment as an interactionally enacted activity.

These observations lead to three criticalpoints. First, they cast some doubt on any cate-gorical distinction between focus on form andfocus on communicative content. Not only areformal tasks often organized as interactional ex-changes (see Excerpt 1), but also a focus on formmay imply a reconceptualization of content thatwould not otherwise take place. This is anotherlevel where linguistic competencies interact withother types of knowledge and skill.

Second, the simultaneity of a content-focuseddiscussion and the material inscription of a for-mal element on the blackboard illustrates the in-

tertwined orientations of the ongoing activities,revealing that tasks as well as activities are perme-able, allowing for subtle transitions betweenthem.

Finally, the example cited reveals the funda-mental, multilayered character of discourse andlanguage learning activities. That is, languageuse in social contexts always involves the deploy-ment of linguistic and discourse capacities aswell as modes of interpreting and thinkingabout communicative content and ways of actingadequately within socioculturally relevant inter-action, patterns, and communicative cultures.This fact corroborates the idea that dealing withthe linguistic aspect of the situation is insepara-ble from dealing with its socio-interactional andcontextual dimensions. In this way, language ac-


EXCERPT 4

Understanding

1 E: et maintenant, est-ce que: vous avez dit qu’elle aand now, di:d you say that she has

2 changé? eh �je pense qu’elle a effectivement changé ((rapide))�, danschanged? eh �I think that she has in fact changed ((fast))� in

3 quel sens, (5) qu’est-ce qu’elle montre ici, (0.5) vis-à-vis dewhat sense, (5) what does she show here, (0.5) regarding

4 Pierre, (.) et vis-à-vis de son acte de ses actes politiques (4) et jePierre, (.) and in relation to his act to his political acts (4) and I

5 pense que ça c’est nouveau (.) dans le comportement d’Eve. (3)think that that’s new (.) in Eve’s behavior. (3)

6 G: je pense qu’elle le comprend pourquoi il veut faire ça et: et elleI think that she understands him why he wants to do that and: and she

7 elle essaye de (.) lui donner des forces (et elle lui dit) il y a aussishe tries to (.) give him strength (and she tells him) there are also

8 des autres (.)others (.)

9 E: exactement, (.) elle le comprend, elle veut lui donner ( ) la forceexactly, (.) she understands him, she wants to give him ( ) the

10 nécessaire oui donc le substantif (.) comprendre (0.5) elle fait preuvenecessary strength strength yes so the noun understand (0.5) she shows

11 là de quelle (.) qualité? (1) qu’on a encore pas très bien ren- enfinwhat quality? there (.) which we have not yet very much en- well

12 qu’on n’a encore pas souvent rencontrée chez elle, (0.5)which we have not yet often encountered with her, (0.5)

13 G: c’est de la compréhensionit’s understanding

14 E: voilà n’est-ce pas elle fait preuve de compréhension vis-à-vis de desyes right she shows understanding with regard to (singular)to (plural)

15 actes de Pierre ((note le terme au tableau)) �bon je pense ça c’estPierre’s acts ((puts the term on the blackboard)) �well I think that’s

16 une des phrases-clé de ce passage ((plus forte voix))� ((continue))that’s one of the key sentences of this passage ((louder))� ((continues))

quisition is inevitably tied to processes of social-ization.

The Socio-Institutional Situatedness of CognitiveProcesses

The data analyzed here draw our attention notsimply to the impact of socio-interactional fac-tors on cognitive development, which has beenrichly documented in previous research, but alsoto an aspect that has received only limited atten-tion. Social interaction and the related coordina-tion of perspectives, activities, and cognitive ef-forts contribute to creating the task at hand, todefining the problem to be solved, and therebyto shaping the context of learning, as well as themeaning of what learning is (cf. Chaiklin & Lave,1993; Coughlan & Duff, 1994). This process, ofcourse, raises crucial questions with regard tothe relevance of tasks as abstract predefinedproblems to be solved and, instead, stresses theirlocal contingencies.

One of the conclusions we can draw is that thedynamic dimension of social interaction involvesongoing transformations of activities and givesrise to a continuing emergence of new objects oflearning and of new potentials for learning. Thisissue is highly consequential—reaching far be-yond the classroom—for the way we collect andinterpret data. It means that neither tasks norlearning situations have a priori definitions, nordo they trigger a predetermined individual ca-pacity. Rather, they demand that the learner putto work variable resources and adapt them con-tinuously to the local contingencies of the ongo-ing activities.

Such observations raise some fundamentalquestions about the possibility of treating tasks asa reliable means for testing individual competen-cies and of transposing tasks from one context toanother. The data discussed here illustrate apoint clearly made by McNamara (1996), whosuggested that individual testing—and hence theassessment of competencies put to work—is acomplex social situation that implies social rou-tines as well as cognitive skills and that requiresthe learner to put to work not only linguisticcompetencies but also social and institutionalknowledge and skills. These skills include thecommunicative means and interactive proce-dures that are necessary to interpret the situa-tion and to act accordingly in order to solve thetask at hand. These phenomena draw our atten-tion to the contextualized nature of the learner’sproblem solving activities, and hence to thesocio-interactional deployment of competencies

and the collective configuration of their localrelevancies, whether they are related to ordinaryor experimental tasks.

On this and other points, our observationsconverge with empirical studies that show thatcognitive skills are embedded in the actual activi-ties of members. That is, cognitive skills cannotbe extracted from these activities nor taken forgranted in a general, decontextualized way. Anillustration of this point is provided in a study un-dertaken by Cole (1995) and his team, who orga-nized a series of activities involving reading, writ-ing, and human–computer interaction tasks forchildren in primary school. These activities wereimplemented in four different institutional con-texts: a school, a library, a youth club, and a kin-dergarten. Results showed that the children wereperforming the tasks very differently from con-text to context, depending on their own inter-pretation of the setting and on the social rela-tions developed in each of them.

In a study on arithmetic tasks, Lave (1988)documented that participants show elaborateskills in a practical context (such as calculatingprices on the market or calories in the everydaypreparation of meals) while sometimes obtain-ing very poor scores in formal tests. A fortiori,this study also cast doubt on the context-neutralvalue of experimental tests, which are supposedto assess the abstract, general skills of partici-pants. These tests also measure the participants’ability to respond to a particular social situation,represented by the experimental device thattransforms settings, reducing them to a con-trolled and constrained frame, largely dissoci-ated from the everyday activities of the partici-pants.

Such analyses not only draw our attention tothe researcher’s paradox—or, more radically, tothe unavoidable reflexivity of the researcher’swork—but also underline that the situation setup for studying language or other skills shapesthe participant’s production. They also questionthe possibility of transferring the manifestationand assessment of competencies from one con-text to the other and of regarding them in adecontextualized way. In this sense, our analysesproblematize the very possibility of assessing alinguistic or cognitive competence indepen-dently from social competence that interprets so-cial situations and responds to them in adequateways. This finding calls for further investigationsinto the contextualized efficiency, variability,and adaptation of learners’ competencies, as ob-served in actual settings of social action. In thissense, and in order to develop a better under-


standing of L2 acquisition, it is as important toinvestigate what learners are doing in variouslearning activities and settings as it is to investi-gate what they actually learn in these settings.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we have developed a series of ar-guments inspired by ethnomethodology and CAand by the sociocultural approach to cognitionand learning in order to explore some featuresof classroom tasks and their consequences for asocio-interactionist approach to learning. Theanalysis of classroom interactions showed how,through the details of the interactions’ sequen-tial organization, a task can be collectively inter-preted and even transformed, how the resolu-tion of a problem necessarily involves variousembedded linguistic, interactional, institutionalcompetencies, and how the ongoing and reflex-ive redefinition of the task affects the potentiali-ties and the objects of learning as well as the un-derstanding of what learning is.

In this sense, rather than emphasizing the im-pact of socio-interactional factors on cognitivedevelopment, we have focused on the idea thatsocial interaction and the related coordinationof perspectives, activities, and cognitive effortscontribute to creating the task at hand, to defin-ing the problem to be solved, and thereby toshaping the context of learning as well as themeaning of what learning is. Several conse-quences emanate from these observations.

First, if interactional activities are the funda-mental organizational tissue of learners’ experi-ences, then their competence cannot be definedin purely individual terms as a series of potential-ities enclosed in the mind of an individual, butneed to be conceived of as capacities that are em-bedded and expressed in collective action. De-ploying and developing language competenciesis contingent on deploying and developing acomplex set of (social, cultural, historical) com-petencies. In this sense, learning to participatein L2 discourse activities, to discuss or defend aposition, to solicit help or to instruct, or to en-gage in team work or in collaborative prob-lem-solving tasks involves socioculturally valuedinteractional competencies that are objects ofdevelopment themselves, and are at the sametime contingent on other objects of learning.

Second, the social construction of the learningsituation also calls for a revision of theVygotskian concept of social mediation, invitingus to look at mediation not only as a means ofcollaboratively solving a problem and creating

possibilities for learning, but also as an activitythat participates in the ongoing construction ofthe situation. In this sense, processes of media-tion-in-interaction can be understood as part ofthe methods by which members construct learn-ing environments, tasks, identities, and contexts(Pekarek Doehler, 2002).

Finally, this position not only stresses the con-textual nature of activities and competencies,but, even more radically, invites us to questionsome classic dichotomies regarding the conceptof cognition that are fundamentally incompati-ble with a socio-interactional understanding oflearning and cognition—such as the distinctionbetween interior and exterior processes, individ-ual and social dimensions, and universal or ab-stract capabilities and contextualized ones (seeCoulter, 1989; Firth & Wagner, 1997; Lave &Wenger, 1991; Rampton, 1997; Rogoff, 1990).

In summary, this position implies that we needto go far beyond merely postulating activity as acontextual phenomenon. It requires us to recog-nize that cognitive processes in general and lan-guage acquisition in particular are publicly de-ployed, socio-interactionally configured, andcontextually contingent. Although there is ad-mittedly still a long way to go before we canmodel this concept of cognition in terms of con-crete cognitive processes with any accuracy, theinteractionist approach to L2 acquisition, whichfocuses on the local activities, practices, andtasks that learners are performing in their every-day lives, participates in a broad framework ofcontemporary research that allows us to deepenits praxological understanding.

NOTES

1 Some of the interactionist SLA work has receivedno attention in the Anglophone literature, perhaps be-cause it has (almost exclusively) been published inFrench. Since the 1990s, a distinct European traditionin SLA has developed, which has so far had little effecton the cognitively oriented mainstream SLA work inthe United States. This European tradition is inspiredby conversation analysis and is concerned with the dif-ferent interactional patternings of learning occasionsand situations, which include negotiation sequences,different types of classroom interactions, and differentinteractional formats for learning (see, e.g., the paperscollected by Arditty & Vasseur, 1999, and PekarekDoehler, 2000). Although not explicitly drawing fromtheories of situated learning (or cognition) and beingcommitted to different degrees to CA’s analytic men-tality, these studies provide interesting insights into


the social accomplishment of interactional opportuni-ties for L2 development.

2 Notice, for example, how Garfinkel and Sacks(1970) spoke of the “mastery of natural language” (p.342).

3 It is worth noting that work emanating from asociocultural approach and CA (and more generallysituated cognition) is brought together in collectivevolumes—in domains other than L2 acquisition—suchas those by Chaiklin and Lave (1993) and Engeströmand Middleton (1996).

REFERENCES

Arditty, J., & Vasseur, M.-T. (Eds.). (1999). Interactionet langue étrangère [Social interaction and for-eign language; Special issue]. Langages, 134.

Bange, P. (1992). A propos de la communication et del’apprentissage de L2 [On communication andL2 learning]. Acquisition et Interaction en LangueEtrangère–AILE, 1, 53–85.

Cicourel, A. V. (1974). Language use and school perfor-mance. New York: Academic Press.

Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development:Where culture and cognition create each other.In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication andcognition. Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 146–161).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M. (1995). Cultural-historical psychology: Ameso-genetic approach. In L. M. W. Martin, K.Nelson, & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychol-ogy. Theory and practice of doing and knowing (pp.168–204). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, differentactivities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activitytheory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel(Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language re-search (pp. 173–193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Coulter, J. (1989). Mind in action. London: Polity Press.de Pietro, J.-F., Matthey, M., & Py, B. (1989). Acquisi-

tion et contrat didactique: Les séquencespotentiellement acquisitionnelles dans la con-versation exolingue [Acquisition and didacticcontract: Potentially acquisitional sequences inexolingual conversation]. In D. Weil & H.Fougier (Eds.), Actes du 3e Colloque Régional deLinguistique (pp. 99–124). Strasbourg, France:Université des Sciences Humaines.

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

Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teach-ing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Engeström, Y., & Middleton, D. (Eds.). (1996). Cogni-tion and communication at work. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1983). Strategies ininterlanguage communication. London: Longman.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, commu-nication, and some fundamental concepts inSLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.

Francis, D., & Hester, S. (Eds.). (2000). Ethnomethod-ological studies of education. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Gajo, L., & Mondada, L. (2000). Acquisition et interac-tion en contextes [Acquisition and interaction incontexts]. Fribourg, Switzerland: EditionsUniversitaires.

Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experi-ments with, “trust” as a condition of stable con-certed actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivationand social interaction (pp. 187–238). New York:Ronald Press.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Garfinkel, H. (2001). Ethnomethodology’s program. Lon-don: Bowman & Littlefield.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal struc-tures of practical actions. In J. D. McKinney & E.A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Task variation andnonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning.In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in sec-ond language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley,MA: Newbury House.

Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the ac-complishment of our everyday lives: Thesociocultural dimension of interaction with im-plications for the learning of another language.Applied Linguistics, 14, 145–167.

Hatch, E. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition—Abook of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from theChinese language classroom. Modern LanguageJournal, 88, 568–582.

Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in conver-sation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal, 88,551–567.

Krafft, U., & Dausendschön-Gay, U. (1993). Laséquence analytique [The analytic sequence].Bulletin CILA, 57, 137–157.

Krafft, U., & Dausendschön-Gay, U. (1994). Analyseconversationnelle et recherche sur l’acquisition[Conversation analysis and research on acquisi-tion]. Bulletin VALS/ASLA, 59, 127–158.

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and sec-ond language learning. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian ap-proaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural the-ory and second language acquisition. Annual Re-view of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108–124.


Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics,and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legiti-mate peripheral participation. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organiza-tion of participation in instructional activities.Discourse Processes, 19, 111–131.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-nativespeaker conversation and the negotiation of com-prehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environ-ment in second language acquisition. In W.Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second lan-guage acquisition (pp. 413–467). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Macbeth, D. (1990). Classroom order as practical ac-tion: The making and unmaking of a quiet re-proach. British Journal of the Sociology of Education,11, 189–214.

Markee, N. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodologicalrespecification of second language acquisitionstudies. In E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. Cohen(Eds.), Research methodology in second language ac-quisition (pp. 89–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: Anintroduction. Modern Language Journal, 88, 491–500.

McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at for-mal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7,183–213.

McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in class-room talk. Language in Society, 19, 349–377.

McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language per-formance. London: Longman.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Social organizationin the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Mondada, L. (1999). L’accomplissement de l’“étran-géité” dans et par l’interaction: Procédures decatégorisation des locuteurs [The accomplish-ment of “strangeness” within and through inter-action. Categorization processes of speakers].Langages, 134, 20–34.

Mondada, L. (2000). La compétence de caté-gorisation: Procédés situés de catégorisation desressources linguistiques [Categorization compe-tence. Situated categorization processes of lin-guistic resources]. In P. Martinez & S. PekarekDoehler (Eds.), La notion de contact de langues endidactique [The notion of language contact indidatics] (pp. 81–101). Fontenay/ Saint-Cloud,France: Editions ENS.

Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2000). Interac-tion sociale et cognition située: Quels modèlespour la recherche sur l’acquisition des langues?[Social interaction and situated cognition. What

kind of models for second language research?].Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère–AILE,12, 147–174.

Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development oftalk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small groupactivity in a Japanese language classroom. AppliedLinguistics, 23, 323–347.

Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundariesand learning opportunities: A case from a Japa-nese language classroom. Modern Language Jour-nal, 88, 536–550.

Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Lan-guage acquisition and language socialization in a Sa-moan village. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition process in theclassroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Pekarek, S. (1999). Leçons de conversation: Dynamiques del’interaction et acquisition de compétences discursivesen classe de langue seconde [Conversation lessons:Interactional dynamics and acquisition of dis-course competencies in the second languageclassroom]. Fribourg, Switzerland: EditionsUniversitaires.

Pekarek Doehler, S. (Ed.). (2000). Approchesinteractionnistes de l’acquisition des languesétrangères [Interactionist approaches to foreignlanguage acquisition; Special issue]. Acquisition etInteraction en Langue Etrangère–AILE, 12.

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2002). Mediation revisited: Thesocio-interactional organization of mediation inlearning environments. Mind, Culture and Activ-ity, 9, 22–42.

Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Perret, J.-F., & Bell, N. (1991).The social construction of meaning and cogni-tive activity in elementary school children. In L.B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.),Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41–62).Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-ation.

Py, B. (1991). Bilinguisme, exolinguisme et acquisi-tion: Rôle de L1 dans l’acquisition de L2 [Bilin-gualism, exolingualism, and acquisition: Therole of the L1 in L2 acquisition]. TRANEL, 17,147–161.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitivedevelopment in social context. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). Asimplest systematics for the organization ofturn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and so-cially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Le-vine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on sociallyshared cognition (pp. 150–171). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening upclosings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.


Suchman, L. (1987). Plans as situated actions. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisitionthrough interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 26,215–235.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991a). A sociocultural approach to so-cially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Le-

vine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on sociallyshared cognition (pp. 85–100). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991b). Voices of the mind: A socio-culturalapproach to mediated action. London: HarvesterWheatsheath.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Ox-ford, UK: Bla

ckwell.

Tribute to Phyllis Franklin

Phyllis Franklin, Executive Director Emerita of the Modern Language Association (MLA), died on Au-gust 20, 2004.

Franklin was born in 1932, grew up in Poughkeepsie, New York, graduated from Vassar College in1954, and received MA and PhD degrees from the University of Miami. She taught American literatureand women’s studies at the University of Miami until 1980. After a year as an American Council on Ed-ucation fellow, she served as director of English programs and the Association of Departments of Eng-lish for the MLA from 1981 until 1985. She was executive director of the MLA from 1985 until her re-tirement in 2002.

The recipient of honorary degrees from George Washington University (1986), Rollins College(2001), and Clark University (2001), Dr. Franklin was also named, in March, 2004, the recipient of theADE Frances Andrew March Award for Distinguished Service to the Profession by the Association ofDepartments of English.

As executive director, Dr. Franklin strengthened the finances of the MLA, initiated survey projectsabout curriculum and trends across the field, and worked to expand the scope of the MLA InternationalBibliography and to develop outreach projects such as the MLA-sponsored radio program “What’s theWord?” She was the editor of Preparing a Nation’s Teachers (1999), a collection of essays reporting on the3-year MLA teacher-education project that she initiated.

A strong believer in the importance of humanities education and an informed citizenry, she workedduring the 1980s to counter efforts to cut federal funding for the humanities. In 1991, she led the ef-fort to ensure that only the most highly qualified individuals would serve on the Advisory Council tothe National Endowment for the Humanities.

In honor of her service to the profession, when Franklin retired, the MLA Executive Council estab-lished the Phyllis Franklin Award for Public Advocacy of the Humanities. Memorial contributions maybe made to the Franklin award: MLA, 26 Broadway, 3rd floor, New York, NY 10004-1789.Her inspiration and dedication were a driving force in the profession.

Source: MLA Newsletter. 36(3), 2004, p. 1.


Documents

Second Language Acquisition as Situated Practice: Task Accomplishment in the French Second Language Classroom