Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Applied Linguistics 27/3: 349–376 � Oxford University Press 2006
doi:10.1093/applin/aml011
Towards Respecification of CommunicativeCompetence: Condition of L2Instruction or its Objective?
YO-AN LEE
The concept of communicative competence is one of the most influential theoretical
developments in language education as it helped redefine the objectives of
L2 instruction and the target language proficiency. While acknowledging
these contributions, this paper asks if the conceptual formulation of
communicative competence has other relevancies for our understanding of the
realities of language use in L2 instructional settings. Classroom interaction
itself is an occasion of language use that relies on the competence of the parties
to the interaction; the competence that is already in the room is then a
constitutive feature of the work-practices of teaching and learning. Informed
by Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, this paper proposes that
communicative competence may be as much the condition of L2 instruction,
one that makes L2 instruction possible in the first place, as its target outcome.
Brief analyses of transcripts from ESL classrooms are offered to demonstrate
how the communicative competence found in L2 classrooms is a contingent
resource for language teaching and learning.
INTRODUCTION
Hymes’ formulation (1971) of communicative competence has been one of the
most influential theoretical developments in natural language studies and
in applied linguistics (Ellis 1994; Firth and Wagner 1997; Stern 1983).
The language education literature has seen an array of proposals to formalize
communicative competence into theoretical constructs that can offer
common frames of references for establishing L2 (Second Language)
instructional objectives and measuring the language proficiency of nonnative
students (e.g. Bachman 1990; Canale and Swain 1980; Celce-Murcia et al.
1995; Cummins 1983; Harley et al. 1990; Widdowson 1978).
While recognizing continued efforts to generate more refined theoretical
models, this paper asks if the formulation of communicative competence has
other relevancies for the study of language education. Theoretical models
of communicative competence may help to formulate target objectives
for language teaching and learning and thus help to determine what L2
instruction needs to do to achieve them. Yet, we have rarely considered that
L2 classroom interaction itself relies on competent language use for its
accomplishment; the competence that is already in the room is a constitutive
feature of the work-practices of teaching and learning.
This question traces back to Hymes’ call (1971) for language studies that
take the organization of living speech as a viable object of study and thus,
recognizes the language classroom as a natural social setting in which
members carry out various interactional tasks through competent language
use. If so, what we need is a more closely considered account of language use
in L2 classrooms and examine how that figures into the realities—and
resources—of what goes on in the practical course of L2 instruction. This
paper begins by questioning what language behavior could count as evidence
of competence and what the parties to the interaction accomplish with it.
L2 classroom interaction is then not just an instrument to accomplish
communicative competence as an instructional objective, but is also a
practical occasion that exhibits competent language use.
This alternative undertaking of competence examines the interactional
detail in an L2 classroom in order to describe how the actual interactional
contexts and contingencies are managed by and made intelligible to the
teacher and students as practical matters of their competent hearing
and productions. Brief analyses of transcripts from undergraduate ESL
(English as a second language) classrooms are offered to demonstrate how
communicative competence sustains the very thing that goes on there,
namely, the work of teaching and learning.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN THE ACTUALCONTEXT OF LANGUAGE USE
Communicative competence for L2 instruction
This alternative interest in communicative competence in L2 instruction
begins with the question that prompted Chomsky and later Hymes, ‘What is
so competent and remarkable about language behavior?’ While Chomsky
(1965) found competence in the generative possibilities of language systems,
Hymes (1974) expanded the scope of competence to include knowledge of
social and cultural norms and rules of speaking that underlie language use
and an individual’s ability to realize it in actual speech. Competent speakers
are capable of producing adequate ways of speaking that each situation
demands and of making use of the rules for their own ends (Hymes 1973,
cf. Widdowson 1983). As a rejoinder to Chomsky’s cognitive essentialism,
Hymes reinstated the social realities of communications in language studies
that Chomsky had suppressed for analytic reliability (Taylor 1988).1
Hymes’ call to take interest in the sociability of language has been a
catalyst for the field of language education as it expanded the scope and
epistemic content of target competence that concerns L2 curriculum.
Furthermore, it offered a much needed theoretical rationale for L2 research,
which was leaning toward a more functional approach (Richards and Rogers
1986). This resulted in the development of various theoretical constructs
for L2 instruction (e.g. Canale and Swain 1980; Celce-Murcia, et al. 1995;
350 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
Munby 1978; Savignon 1983, 1997) and language assessment (e.g. Bachman
1990; Canale 1983; Canale and Swain 1980).
Behind this development was a common disciplinary interest, namely, to
generate broadly acceptable frames of reference that identify the essential
components of target competence. The adequacy of the given theories is
then to be assessed by the degree to which they offer systematic ways of
characterizing language phenomena in terms that can effectively identify
and organize the objects and objectives of L2 instruction. This would allow
language professionals to design their instructional programs and evaluate
the language proficiency of their L2 students from within a common or
unified perspective. This point is put forth in the seminal paper by Canale
and Swain (1980).
These (theoretical) principles serve as a set of guidelines in termsof which communicative approaches to second language teachingmethodologies and assessment instruments may be organizedand developed. Such a theoretical analysis is crucial if we areto establish a clear statement of the content and boundaries ofcommunicative competence—one that will lead to more usefuland effective second language teaching and allow more valid andreliable measurement of second language communication skills(Canale and Swain 1980: 1).
This has been an enormous theoretical undertaking that has shaped the
direction of L2 instruction significantly. However, it also entails a precarious
task, namely, representing in a few abstract constructs the complex realities
of language use across an unforeseeable range of variation and situational
contingency.2 The success of this enterprise depends largely on the capacity
of the theories to abstract the realities of language use into stable and
recognizable constructs.
Although this practice of abstracting is at the heart of any disciplinary
undertaking of formal analysis (Cazden 1996), it is still an open question
as to whether and how these analytic undertakings have been successful
(see Chalhoub-Deville 1997; Davis 1989; Fulcher 1998; Harley et al. 1990;
Hoekje and Linnell 1994; McNamara 1996, 1997; Schachter 1990; Skehan
1995; Spolsky 1989). Nonetheless, there is a disciplinary consensus that
communicative competence points to an underlying cognitive knowledge
system, and therefore, specifying distinctive properties of the system is an
important goal of language acquisition research. Doughty and Long illustrate
the case in point:
The focus is firmly on identifying the nature and sources ofthe underlying L2 knowledge system, and on explainingdevelopmental success and failure. Performance data areinevitably the researchers’ mainstay, but understanding under-lying competence, not the external verbal behavior that dependson that competence, is the ultimate goal. Researchers . . . recognize
YO-AN LEE 351
that language learning, like any other learning, is ultimatelya matter of change in an individual’s internal mental state.As such, research on SLA (Second Language Acquisition) isincreasingly viewed as a branch of cognitive science (Doughty andLong 2003: 4).
Hence, there remains a classic distinction between competence and perfor-
mance in which actual language use is regarded as a surface manifestation of
much larger and stable cognitive learning mechanisms.
However, the centrality of cognition in prior research has been challenged
recently by several researchers (e.g. Block 1996; Lantolf 1996; van Lier
1994). This controversy was brought out acutely in the exchange that was
featured in the special issue of Modern Language Journal that carried Firth
and Wagner’s (1997) critique of the SLA research. This debate furnished us
with a rare occasion to reflect on the nature of the enterprise of L2 studies
by tapping into the epistemological foundations that underlie it.
Interaction and interactional competence
One issue that figures centrally in this debate is the role of interaction
and what it shows about competence. Firth and Wagner (1997) argued for
the importance of contextual and interactional dimensions of language use
and the need to treat them analytically on their own terms. To this charge,
there was a firm stance on the generality and stability of cognitive
organization as a primary objective of L2 research (see Gass 1997: 83, 1998;
Kasper 1997; Long 1997); competence displayed in social interaction is
considered to represent the cognitive outcome of learning. That is to say, the
contextual and interactional dimensions of language use are recognized only
insofar as they contribute to building global language acquisition systems
(see Liddicoat 1997). Not all that can be found in interaction counts because
the aim of acquisition research is to distill a language structure that could
be mapped on an underlying knowledge system. The formulation by Gass
is illustrative:
The goal of my work has never been to understand language useper se, but rather to understand what types of interaction mightbring about what types of changes in linguistic knowledge . . . theemphasis in input and interaction studies is on the language usedand not on the act of communication. (Gass 1998: 84)
In this regard, for both sides of the debate, what can be seen in
interaction and how to characterize it is a central issue for understanding
competence.
There have been several analytic programs in language studies that center
on interaction. Hymes’ own ethnography of speaking is one such undertaking
that aims at ‘discovering and formulating rules for appropriate language use’
(Saville-Troike 1996: 353) in specific contexts that are culturally defined
352 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
and socially determined. This focus is also echoed in the undertaking
of interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz 2001) that provides ‘a framework
within which to analyze social context and to incorporate participants’
own understanding of context into the inferencing of meaning’ (Schiffrin
1996: 316).3
These analytic programs tend to find competence in the social/cultural
systems that underlie communicative conventions and in the speakers’
abilities to make use of them in interactional contexts. A great deal of
research has ensued by examining how social and cultural contexts become
embedded in language use and how they interact with language teaching
and learning (e.g. Allen 1992; Brooks 1992; Bryant 2001; Cheng and Warren
1999; Foster-Cohen 1990; Riggenbach 1991; Sato and Kleinsasser 1999;
Shehadeh 1999; Tyler 1995; Wilkins 1982). These analytic programs offered
a completely different epistemic stance toward interaction from the prior
emphasis on language cognition as they attempted to substantiate what
interaction reveals, for example, how actual interaction displays different
social and cultural conventions among the participants and how those
differences can render particular forms of language use relevant or
problematic.
Accordingly, the term ‘interactional competence’ has been used
increasingly in applied linguistics as several L2 researchers find it important
to examine what can be seen in actual interaction (e.g. Hall 1995a; Kramsch
1986; Young 2000). For example, interactional details are important in socio-
cultural theories because ‘the language that we learn to use in these practices
comes to us packaged with particular histories, already dialogized, spoken
about, and evaluated and we encounter it already ‘‘used’’ ’ (Hall 1995b: 218).
Interaction brings into view how individual competence is connected to,
and partially constructed by both those with whom she is interacting and
the larger sociohistorical forces (Hall 1995b; Vygotsky 1978). It is then
through the regularities of communicative practices that L2 learners gain
access to conventionalized means and activities; in a way this becomes
another dimension of target competence.
The analytic focus on interactional competence in applied linguistics carries
on its back a certain degree of tension between two conflicting interests:
on the one hand, there is a disciplinary interest to formulate interaction as
stable and recognizable constructs that can be transformed into target
objectives for language teaching while, on the other hand, analysts have to
preserve in some way the detail of interactional organizations that are
complete with contingency and variation. This tension can be found in the
papers by He and Young (1998) and Young (2000) that attempted to define
speaking abilities in a way to represent normal conversation in the target
language authentically. In their account, interactional competence is
co-constructed by all participants via discursive practices that are specific to
practice because ‘individuals do not acquire a general, practice-independent
competence; rather they acquire a practice-specific interactional competence
YO-AN LEE 353
by participating with more experienced others in specific interactive
practices’(He and Young 1998: 7).
While recognizing the specificity of interactional details within each
situational context, there is still the need for the common categories through
which an analytic program can ‘make principled comparisons between one
context of interaction and another’ (Young 2000: 2). Accordingly, Young
(2000) offers five regular and formal interactional resources that participants
bring to the interaction as a basis for comparative analysis.4
This is, however, a precarious task; it points to the discursive practice of
interaction that is locally contingent and situationally specific while at the
same time, it attempts to create stable and unifying categories with which
to compare language practices across contexts and even to document change.
This undertaking extends the scope of acquisition research into the detailed
interactional realm of language use, meanwhile maintaining what are
essentially ‘abstracting’ procedures with formal criteria; in a way, it continues
the program of specifying ‘competence’ as the target objective for both L2
analysts and classroom professionals. Recognizing this dualism, Kasper and
Rose (2002) proposed that interactional competence could be treated both
as a curricular objective and also as an interactional process that enables L2
learning:
They (L2 learners) perform their current interactional competencein collaboration with peers or participation in IRF-structuredclassroom discourse and at the same time develop theirpragmatic, sociolinguistic, and interactional ability. In the notionof interactional competence, goals and processes of L2 learningare dialectically related (Kasper and Rose 2002: 57–8).
The tension is thus clarified as the dialectic of goals and process. Yet the
question remains: what does this ‘process’ look like in actual language use
in L2 classroom interaction and how do we understand it analytically in
relation to the activities of the members who carry it out?
Analytic resources of conversation analysis
A central resource for addressing this question may be found in the literature
of conversation analysis (CA). Conversation analysts are concerned with the
competences that underlie ordinary social activities and interactional
routines. They focus on describing a common set of methods and procedures
that ordinary speakers use when they engage in intelligible conversational
interaction (Heritage 1984a). The emphasis on the procedural aspects means
that CA researchers consider language interaction ‘an achievement out of
structured sets of alternative courses or directions which the talk and the
interaction can take’ (Schegloff 1986: 114). CA’s analytic task is to explicate
how language interaction is posed as a problem to members and how they
(members of interaction) resolve it by constructing their talk methodically
354 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
in the moment-by-moment contingencies of interaction (Schegloff 1991).
Particularly notable is their finding that interaction exhibits identifiable,
stable, and thus recurrent structural regularities such as turn-taking, repair,
preference, and IRE structure (Mehan 1979; Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff et al.
1977; Schegloff et al. 2002). Ordinary speakers bring their knowledge of these
organizations as it influences their conduct and interpretation of the conducts
of others (Heritage 1984a).
Over the years, CA’s detailed findings about the sequential production of
talk-in-interaction have been appreciated and set to work across various
settings of social studies. As Wagner and Gardner noted, one of the real
strengths of CA that makes it attractive is that it is ‘based on the regularity of
behavior as documented in the collection of cases’ (Wagner and Gardner
2004: 7), which makes CA findings robust and cumulative.5
In the Modern Language Journal debate, Kasper expressed optimism that
CA’s analytic program may enable us to ‘reconstruct links between L2
discourse and the acquisition of different aspects of communicative
competence’ (Kasper 1997: 311). Since then, there have been some
recognizable efforts to examine SLA using CA’s methodological resource.
Broadly identified as CA for SLA (Markee 2000), these researchers
endeavored to give analytic accounts of the relation between pedagogy
and interaction by explicating how learning behaviors could be understood
as ‘a conversational process’ (Markee and Kasper 2004: 496; Seedhouse
2004). A recent volume of Modern Language Journal published several
exemplary studies to that end (He 2004; Kasper 2004; Markee and Kasper
2004; Mondada and Doehler 2004; Mori 2004; Young and Miller 2004).
Mondada and Doehler (2004) identified the contribution of interaction
to learning by examining how grammar exercises in second language
classrooms in Switzerland are being accomplished in and through the
interaction. Kasper (2004) showed how the definition of character of the
task by a native and nonnative speaker, whether it is conversation among
friends or meta-lingual focus for learning, is procedurally consequential in
their deployment of repairs and topic initiation of talk. In their examination
of one-on-one interactions between an adult ESL learner and his writing
tutor over a period of time, Young and Miller’s research (2004) identified
change in the ESL learner’s ability to engage in pedagogical interaction.
In his book on conversation analysis, Markee (2000) explored the
possibility that CA’s regularities would ‘enable SLA researchers interested
in understanding the effects of conversational repairs on language learning
to investigate whether the moment-by-moment sequential organization
of such talk has any direct and observable acquisitional consequences’
(Markee 2000: 42).
More recent reactions to the growing number of CA for SLA studies in L2
literature are still mixed. One of the criticisms is that CA remains descriptive
in delineating learners’ competence without manifesting explanatory
adequacy (see Ellis 1994: 38, 429–430; Gregg 1993; Long 1993 for earlier
YO-AN LEE 355
formulation of explanatory adequacy). Several critics in the Modern Language
Journal (2004) collection argued that CA oriented studies fail to go beyond
descriptive analysis in order to tackle the issue of learning and acquisition
(Gass 2004; Hall 2004; Larsen-Freeman 2004). Their critiques seem to
acknowledge the universal and generative possibilities of structural
regularities in CA’s findings and therefore, they urge CA researchers to
take up and solve the puzzle of acquisition. That is to say, there seems to be
confidence that CA’s structural regularities offer an important resource in
going beyond mere descriptive analyses of what happens in the classroom
in order to examine what kinds of change are possible and how.
Communicative competence in L2 instruction
The recognition of CA’s structural resources has energized various language
researchers to examine acquisition issue (e.g. Hall 1998; Young and Miller
2004). It is not entirely clear, however, to what directions CA for SLA will
take in coming years. As for my interest in an alternative undertaking
of communicative competence, I want to stay a little longer with what
CA’s sequential analysis can offer.
The sequential analysis of talk-in-interaction can show us how the parties
undertake their own discourse and assemble courses of action that we
commonly speak of as teaching and learning. While the promise of
explanatory adequacy implicates going beyond what the interactional details
reveal, the sequential analysis treats the descriptive analysis as a production
account. That is to say, interactional details are examined because they
show the competent and orderly production of the discourse as the
members produce and experience it. Interactional details exhibit structural
regularities but they also pull into view how members accomplish social
action and activities by managing and acting on those organizational
regularities.
The characterization that interaction is itself a competent production
contrasts sharply with the prior research that treats communicative
competence as a criterion reference to determine the qualities of classroom
interaction. The proposed criteria are used to reconstruct language use in the
classroom and therefore, interactional details recede into the background in
deference to the theories of target competence. Communicative competence
then becomes an analytic resource for L2 research, rather than an analytic
topic that shows how language use organizes the interactional realities
of L2 instruction or how the parties to L2 instruction make their way
through their interaction (see Lynch 1993: 147–52; Zimmerman and
Pollner 1970 for the distinction of topic and resource in the study of
practical actions).
This leads us to the useful distinction between communicative competence
as an outcome of L2 instruction and communicative competence as a condition
of L2 instruction. If we follow Hymes’ initial call for the study of actual
356 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
language use, we recognize L2 instruction as an actual occasion of language
use (Cazden 1988; Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz 1982; Erickson 1986;
Heap 1982; Mehan 1980). Accordingly, we treat language use as an analytic
topic and investigate what may be already competent about it before
subjecting it to pre-formulated criteria of competence or incompetence. The
idea is to find a collection of competency’s evidences in the practical
interactional details of L2 instruction as the students and their teachers
experience them; this can be accomplished by describing the interactional
choices made by the parties and analyzing what consequences their choices
have for how the instruction takes the shape that it does.
One of the primary tasks in this regard is to preserve and retrieve the ways
in which the parties understand what goes on across the emergence of their
contingent interactions. Prior literature has tended to treat understanding as
a matter of the propositional contents of the speakers’ intentions by invoking
inferences based on ‘mutually shared background information’ (Searle 1975:
60–1). Analysts make out the substantive contents by referring to speakers’
intentions, social and situational contexts and the relevant communicative
conventions. They then determine whether and how the contents are
recognized or problematized by the parties to the talk as a case of
competence or incompetence.
The alternative rendering of communicative competence, in contrast,
considers understanding to be a local-interactional matter (Garfinkel 1967;
Macbeth 2003; Schegloff 1988). Interaction itself brings out a contingent
task of common understanding: in the projectable course of interaction, the
parties attend to what has been said, what it entails, what it calls for next,
and figure out when and how to say it. Meaning making is a members’
task, first, and their work is made available to each other and to us in
the production of appropriate next turns on time (Moerman and Sacks
1971/1988). Understanding in this regard is a procedural operation (Garfinkel
1967; Schegloff 1992) rather than the matching of corresponding sets of
shared content knowledge.6
This does not mean that we disregard the substantive contents of language
interaction. Rather, we insist on finding those contents in the ways the
members locate, characterize, and act on them in their talk-in-interaction.
CA’s analytic strength is in helping us access and describe the ways in which
competence is made available and used in interaction. Mehan’s comment
is illustrative:
Interactional competence is not purely a cognitive or subjectivisticconsideration. It is not to be confused with underlyingabilities. The conception of competence being developed here isinteractional in the sense that it is a competence that is availablein the interaction (Mehan 1979: 129).7
Note in the following exchange how this difference becomes visible in the
analysis of its sequential production. This brief exchange was used to
YO-AN LEE 357
illustrate the role of a native speaker’s feedback on nonnative speech
(Day et al. 1984: 25).
NNS: How do you do on- o weekends? Usually, I mean usually.NS: What do I do on the weekends?NNS: Yeah.
The native speaker’s comment ‘What do I do on the weekends?’ is a part
of what is called negative input (Schachter 1982), informing the nonnative
speaker of what was problematic in his/her talk and supplying corrective
feedback.
However, if we consider this exchange purely to be a matter of linguistic
error and correction, we would miss and thus take for granted the competent
practices of language use that make this exchange intelligible in the first
place. Note, first, that the nonnative speech contains repair initiations
especially in the second utterance ‘Usually, I mean usually.’ This repair
indicates that this nonnative speaker is competent enough to see how his/her
earlier question may be problematic and therefore repairs it to tell the native
speaker how to hear the question: s/he is interested in knowing what the
native speaker does on weekends in general, not on one particular weekend.
The native speaker’s subsequent response then becomes the second repair
initiation that is oriented to the task of common understanding: it recognizes
what the nonnative speaker was doing and thus asks ‘Is this what you
mean?’ The native speaker’s question can be considered a language
correction and yet, identifying it only as a ‘correction’ does not adequately
recognize the interpretive works embedded in the exchange.8 That is to say,
this excerpt shows each member’s orientation to the intelligibility of their
talk and its contingent accomplishment as a course of action. We may not
know if this nonnative speaker finally learned how to ask a question about
what people do on the weekends. However, the issue of learning the correct
ways of speaking is preceded by the competent language use to make his/her
own talk intelligible.
The focus on structural and functional regularities of given language
production might be important in identifying language errors and generating
instructional remedies to address target competence. A close analysis of
sequential organizations shows, however, that it is the members’ interactive
production of their discourse that makes the interactional sequence what
it is, even when there appear to be communicative problems and incorrect
language use.
L2 classroom interaction is built on similar types of competent language
use and it is in this sense that we see communicative competence as the
condition to L2 instruction. This competence is to be found in the members’
operational methods by which they construct the orderly, evident, and
practical understandings of classroom interaction. CA’s resources are
informative, not just because they bring out recognizable regularities, but
also because they pull into view the members’ reflexive undertaking of
358 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
their discourse; this essentially constitutes their work-practices of classroom
interactions. That is to say, our understanding of L2 classroom interaction, its
pedagogy and accomplishment, and even problems, relies on the participants’
undertaking, their activities, and therefore, their communicative competence
that carries them.
EVIDENCE OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCEIN L2 INSTRUCTION
The present section offers a sequential analysis of two excerpts that are lifted
from a data corpus that includes three ESL undergraduate composition
courses and one speaking class across 46 class sessions that were audio/video
taped. These excerpts are selected because they are particularly telling cases
(Mitchell 1984) in demonstrating the communicative competence embedded
in the details of classroom interaction.
The students in these classes are either immigrant or international students
who are learning English to pursue their academic degrees at North
American universities. The speaking class is part of an ESL program that
offers comprehensive and intensive language courses in the area of speaking,
writing, reading, listening, grammar, and pronunciation. The students in
these classes are largely from Arabic or East-Asian countries. The composition
program has three levels; two composition classes in the data corpus are from
an intermediate level and the third one is from an advanced level. The
students are generally active in both teacher-led discussions and in other
small group activities. The teachers in these data sets are female native
speakers of English who have taught nonnative students for several years
in each program.
The collected materials were transcribed following the convention
developed in conversation analysis. Transcriptions provide a practical
means of describing actual social events in the details of their interactional
production (Drew and Heritage 1992; Jefferson 1985; Sacks 1984).9 This does
not mean, however, that the transcripts provide unmediated access to inter-
actional activities. Rather, they serve as detailed reminders of how the parties
to the interaction competently locate, analyze, and coordinate activities
in the course of interaction (Atkinson and Delamont 1990; Lynch 2002).
In this sense, I take transcripts as useful records of the participants’ sequential
production of their own discourse.
The communicative competence of repair
In the first excerpt, the teacher and her students are brainstorming ideas
about various types of inventions. This is a preliminary to a group activity
in which the students are to devise inventions that would be useful in
their everyday lives. The exercise is supposed to be fun and imaginative and
the students understand it as such.
YO-AN LEE 359
Note that this excerpt is full of incomplete utterances, uncertain hearings,
and subsequent repairs that may be indicative of nonnative discourse. The
study of errors in L2 discourse is an important area of L2 research that
identifies types of errors and proposes ways to correct them (Corder 1981;
James 1998). However, the sequential analysis shows that repairs bring into
view the members’ competence to monitor their talk, recognize potential
difficulties, and adjust in the course of interaction.
Excerpt 1–110
912. T: Think of something else that would be useful in your
913. everyday life, what’s something that would be useful in your
914. everyday life?
915. (5.0)
916. E: A machine to wake me.
917. T: A ma(h)chine to what?
918. E: OK(h), awake me.¼
919. T: ¼Wake you up, and I hope the machine would then actually
920. get you to class (.) on time, hahaha, all right, is this possible,
921. all right", this might be something similar to:: this
922. invention, it might be a little crazy and goofy (.) all right,
The teacher begins this exchange by characterizing the type of inventions
she is looking for, ‘something that would be useful in your everyday life?’
(913–914). After some considerable silence by the cohort (915), one student
(E) ventured an answer ‘A machine to wake me’ (916).
The teacher’s next turn to E’s answer is a repair initiation (917) pointing to
her problem in hearing E’s response: ‘A machine to what?’ (On reparative
organizations, see Schegloff 1989; Schegloff et al. 1977). This is followed by E’s
follow-up in line 918, ‘OK(h) awake me.’ As a repair, this turn displays her (E)
analysis of what may be problematic for the teacher’s hearing; her analysis
is both competent and correct as she transforms ‘wake me’ to ‘awake me.’
The laughter token embedded here also displays her self-assessment of what
her previous answer should have been in offering the alternative.11 The next
turn by the teacher then shows her recognition of the interpretive work by E.
Many L2 researchers have considered these kinds of sequences—repairs
producing reformulations—the key to successful language development
(Gass and Selinker 2001; Pica 1987). Teachers offer feedback that informs
L2 speakers of problems in their language production (Day et al. 1984,
Schachter 1982) and how to correct them in the form of a recast (Long and
Robinson 1998; Lyster 1998; Nicholas et al. 2001). However, the above repair
sequence also displays both participants’ orientations to the intelligibility
of the student’s reply to the teacher’s first question. Whatever instructional
objective was intended in this question, its success relies on the
communicative competence of all parties, particularly the students’ analytic
360 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
competence to recognize problems, locate, and analyze their object, and
repair them in the course of interaction. Their competence is then to be
found not just in the presence of structural features such as ‘recast’ or
‘correction’ but in how these repairs carry the course of interaction in
producing the relevant next turns. The repair brings into view the members’
orientation to the tasks of common understanding and my data corpus is
full of such sequences, contrary to Pica’s observation that this type of
interactional modification is not common in classroom settings (Pica 1987).
The next exchange in this same sequence offers a similar display of
competent language use. The teacher solicits more answers from the
students by offering formulation of what kinds of invention the students
could suggest, ‘it might be a little crazy and goofy’ (922). J’s answer in the
next turn (924) comes in this sequential context.
Excerpt 1–2
919. T: ¼Wake you up, and I hope the machine would then actually
920. get you to class (.) on time, hahaha, all right, is this possible,
921. all right", this might be something similar to:: this
922. invention, it might be a little crazy and goofy (.) all right,
923. what else, what’s another (.) possible invention?
924. J: A robot can (cook).
925. T: I’m sorry?
926. J: A robot can (cook) for me.
927. (0.5)
928. J: (Cook).
929. T: Oh, a robot to bring a can of coke to you?
930. J: Yeah.
931. T: Excellent, I wouldn’t mind having one of those myself Juma,
932. a(h)ll righ(h)t" all right, what else?
This answer is met by the teacher’s request for clarification in her repair
initiation ‘I’m sorry?’ (925). Drew (1997) calls this type of remark an open
class repair initiator because it does not specify the source of the difficulty.
With no further direction, J’s next turn repair makes his answer more
complete, ‘A robot can (cook) for me’ (926). His articulation is, however,
phonetically ambiguous as it can be heard as ‘coke’ or ‘cook’; this ambiguity
is played out in the subsequent turns.12
J’s repair is followed by another repair after a short pause (927) which he
apparently hears as a continuing problem for the teacher, and thus he
repeats the word, ‘(cook)’ (928). Note that the teacher’s initiation has been
open and non-specific, but J produces consecutive repairs in 926 and 928
that locate what the teacher’s problem of understanding is. In other words,
J’s repair in line 926 demonstrates his competence in analyzing what the
YO-AN LEE 361
teacher did and did not hear in his previous answer and his repair in 928
demonstrates his assessment of how effective his first repair was.
The analyses shown by J in his repairs yield an interesting result. The
teacher begins her next turn (929) with ‘Oh,’ signifying a change-of-state
in her understanding (Heritage 1984b), followed by her formulation of his
reply: ‘a robot can bring a can of coke to you?’ (929). This response can be
categorized as a ‘recast’ that shows how the teacher recognizes what J meant
and transforms his answer into a linguistically adequate utterance by
changing ‘coke’ into ‘a can of coke’ with her emphasis on the word ‘bring.’
To my hearing, however, ‘coke’ is not what J said or meant.13 In this light, his
subsequent agreement in line 930 to the teacher’s hearing in 929 displays his
decision to let it pass: perhaps, he sees that the repair so far has taken the
interaction in a different direction and decides that there is no time to work out
what a certain word was, especially when the larger task of talking about a
useful invention has already been accomplished. This in itself is quite a
sophisticated display of communicative competence, one that recognizes the
ambiguity of the discourse enacted in the sequence so far and what can become
of it. Similarly, the subsequent turn shows how the teacher brings this
exchange to a close by offering her acknowledgment of J’s invention and its
relevance to the task at hand.14 J’s comments might seem less than fluent
and even unsuccessful in getting his message across, and yet they show a com-
petent assessment of what is at stake in the interaction and how to proceed.
It is commonplace to find problems of understanding in natural
conversation; ambiguity and/or misunderstanding are routine occurrences
in talk-in-interaction. But as analysts of L2 instruction, we tend to look
beyond them to get at the source of the problems in things like
mispronunciation, a lack of grammatical competence or even an inadequate
understanding of social norms and rules of speaking. That would,
however, miss the competence of the participants who constantly monitor
the intelligibilities of their own discourses and act on them accordingly.
Rather than proceeding with the errors, J instead produced a next
turn that is appropriate for the construction of the lesson sequence. His
competent language use then becomes a condition for instruction to proceed.
As the discussion continues,wefind another case of competent language embed-
ded in repair sequences. The teacher wants another example of an invention.
Excerpt 1–3
931. T: Excellent, I wouldn’t mind having one of those myself Juma,
932. a(h)ll righ(h)t" all right, what else?
933. (2.0)
934. T: Give me one more.
935. (6.0)
936. T: In a perfect world, use your imagination (.) what else?
937. (5.0)
362 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
938. H: Uh like when you are drive- aha:: driving on the highway"
939. T: Uh [hmm.
940. H: [aha (.) boring (.) for long time [to make aha:: long
941. T: [Uh hmm
942. H: distance trip, so something like aha:: aha:: mo-, aha moving
943. moving:: aha::
944. S: Pillow?
945. H: Uh[:: yeah, so car rise on the::: [(.) like an:: escalator"
946. S: [(hh)
947. R: [( ) [( )
948. T: Oh::, [excellent, OK((h).
949. H: [I, I don’t have to drive [( ) just sit.
950. T: [Yes, you can just sit back
951. 5and watch movies [or read a book.4
952. H: [Yeah.
953. H: Yeah.
954. T: A(h)ll righ(h)t, OK, very good, now, with all this in
955. consideration, what do you think I am going to ask you to do
956. right now?
H begins his comment in line 938 by setting up the situation before explaining
what his invention is. This turns out to take up multiple turns as he begins with
a dependent clause ‘when . . .’ with an upward intonation at ‘highway",’ which
indicates that more is forthcoming (Lerner 1996). The teacher recognizes
it and offers her go-ahead with ‘Uh hum’ (939) (See Jefferson 1984; Schegloff
1981 on continuers). In this response, the teacher not only registers what H is
saying but joins him in securing the resources to complete his answer.
In his next turn, H continues to build his scenario of how ‘it’s boring
for long time to make aha:: long distance trip’ (940 and 942). This is a
continuation of his work by establishing a domain of everyday life in which
his invention could be useful, for which the teacher offers another continuer
(941). In line 942, H turns to the substance of his invention, something
that goes along with long distance driving. However, he struggles across a
string of self-repair initiations to say it (‘aha:: aha:: mo-, aha moving moving
aha::’), not being able to offer a sufficient description for others to recognize
what his invention is and what it does.
Seeing H’s struggles, another student (S) ventures a candidate suggestion
‘Pillow?’ (944). Completing an interlocutor’s incomplete utterance is a
display of communicative competence as well (Sacks 1992);15 it shows that
S was following what H was trying to say closely enough to anticipate
what might make his repair-initiations complete.
H acknowledges S’s candidate repair in his next turn (‘Uh:: yeah’: 945) but
does not use it to develop his account further. Instead, he marks and
acknowledges S’s candidate repair and continues his account differently to
YO-AN LEE 363
offer an alternative version of what he means: ‘so car rise on the::: (.) like
an:: escalator?’ (945). In this sense, H’s difficulties in saying what he means
are complemented by his competence in producing his continuing efforts
to say it. And his continued effort gets some recognition from his fellow
students (946–947).
The teacher finally recognizes H’s invention in ‘escalator’ in her next
turn (‘Oh excellent’: 948). With this recognition, H goes ahead to say
what the consequence of his invention would be (949): that one only
sits and does not have to drive.16 In her overlapped next turn (950–951), the
teacher not only claims her understanding, but also offers evidence of it by
describing what one could do with the machine that H has been trying to
describe: ‘Yes, you can just sit back and watch movies or read a book.’ H
recognizes and affirms the teacher’s formulation in line 952–953.
In this excerpt, H’s inability to articulate what his invention is drives the
sequence and may be the most prominent feature of the sequence. This
exchange shows, however, that H accomplishes the task of describing his
invention without being able to directly name it through collaborative
interaction; his next turn relies entirely on the recognition of the teacher
and his classmates. That is to say, this exchange shows how the teacher and
students rely upon their competent language use to accomplish the task
of understanding of those matters being talked about; H builds the preface
to his telling by managing his turns and recognizing how his last remarks
are interpreted by the teacher and his classmates, offering repairs and
reformulations as needed. The exchange also shows the teacher’s competent
hearing of non-native discourse and her ways of acknowledging the range
of interpretive work her students’ discourse manifests. It is these competent
practices of language use by the parties that construct the discourse and
accomplish the task at hand.
The most visible relevance of communicative competence to those who are
engaged in natural interaction is that they constantly refer to, invoke and rely
on each other’s competence to accomplish their interactional tasks of under-
standing. Any next utterance may yield misunderstanding, ambiguity or
confusion. Those problems, however, are found and addressed within the
sequences of actions as each next utterance displays its speaker’s analysis of
what has gone before, whether it is recognizing problems, acknowledging
responses, trying alternative hearings or even finding humor. There is no
question that the above excerpts reveal areas of English proficiency that these
students need to develop. Nonetheless, sequential analysis gives us a view of
the members’ competent undertaking of their discourse and this competence is
something that sustains and organizes the practical life of the L2 classroom.
Communicative competence in questioning sequences
The second excerpt shows a questioning sequence in another ESL classroom.
Questioning is one of the most familiar forms of teacher talk in language
364 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
classrooms that offers important language input for second language
development (Long 1996; Nunn 1999). Notice, however, that questioning
is also a central resource for classroom teachers in carrying out various
pedagogical and social actions, such as introducing topics, demonstrating
concepts, eliciting forms of reasoning, correcting grammar, and even
maintaining order. While many studies have classified questions according
to various functional characteristics (Carlsen 1991; Cullen 1998; Long and
Sato 1983), the intelligibility of a question often becomes a matter of
negotiation and interpretive adjustment by the parties involved in the
interaction. This following excerpt shows how one of the teacher’s questions
becomes an object of close analysis by her students, as they try to establish
a sense of what the question is asking.
The teacher is going over the directions for an oral presentation—the final
assignment for the course—that her students are required to do in a couple
of weeks. The direction under consideration reads ‘analyze your audience.’
Excerpt 2–1
597. T: OK, so, that’s the first thing, deci:de o:n the task, so make
598. sure you are doing this (.) second thing, analyze your
599. audience, what do I mean by this, analyze your audience,
600. what does this mean?
601. (4.0)
602. T: Who is your audience gonna be for this presentation?
603. S: ( )
604. K: [Classma[te and the::
605. S?: [�Classmate�
606. T: Good, OK, [so not just me (.) but all your classmates, now,
607. T: [((pointing to her and then, the cohort))
608. T: what would you need to analyze?
609. (4.0)
Each question the teacher asked in this excerpt is a display question
for which she knows the answer (Mehan 1979; Sinclair and Coulthard
1975; Wells 1993). What becomes notable in this questioning sequence is
not that it shows a process of unpacking the pre-figured propositional
content of the phrase ‘analyze your audience.’ Rather, the sense of ‘analyze
your audience’ becomes subject to a series of interactional exchanges in
which the teacher explores what students know and organizes her next
question accordingly. That is to say, the question’s sense remains indexical
and thus open for ongoing interpretation and negotiation.
The teacher’s initial question gets no response from the students (601) and
she then reformulates the question (602). Rather than a simple repetition
of the previous question, this reformulation shows the teacher’s analysis
YO-AN LEE 365
of what problems of understanding her students may have had with her
initial question. Accordingly, she narrows it into a question of ‘audience.’
In addition, the teacher ties the question to the actual context of the
students’ upcoming presentation by asking ‘who is your audience gonna be
for this presentation’ (602).17 The students’ silence in line 601 is, therefore, a
constitutive feature of her next question as the teacher determines what the
silence means and how it should be addressed.
Several students reply in line 603–605, and the teacher accepts them with
a positive evaluation in line 606. Now that they have practically settled the
issue of ‘audience,’ the teacher moves on to the first term of her initial
question, the ‘analyze’ part (606 and 608). This question, however, receives
another silence from the students and the teacher, once again, reformulates
and repairs the question in line 610–611.
Excerpt 2–2
610. T: What-, what would you need- what does the word ‘analyze’
611. mean?
612. (4.0)
613. T: 5Do you know what this word means?4
614. (3.0)
615. S?: ( [)-
616. W: [�Consider?�
617. T: Yeah
618. [((Nodding))
619. K: [We know what it means.
620. T: What does it mean?
621. K: The:: make order, [and::
622. T: [((Nodding))
623. O: To tell [to::
624. T: [((Turn to O and nodding))
625. (2.0)
626. K: Steps.
627. T: OK, what would it mean to analyze your audience?
Repairs routinely identify the source of the trouble—the thing to be repaired—
in the alternative they offer. In the above sequence, the repair is produced as
the teacher begins to repeat the previous question, but cuts it off twice (610).
The repaired question ‘what does the word analyze mean?’ becomes a
vocabulary question about the meaning of the word ‘analyze.’ We can say
then that the silence led the teacher to question her assumption as to what
students know and to rework her question: What was problematic for the
students is the semantic meaning of the word ‘analyze,’ not the pragmatic
sense of the question as her previous question has projected. The student’s
366 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
silence becomes a resource for the teacher in which the identity of L2 students
as second language learners becomes situationally invoked in her repair.
This repaired question, however, again receives no answer in the next turn
position (612), and the teacher pursues the question by making it into a yes/no
question (613). The answer by K (619) is interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, he speaks for the cohort by using ‘we’ rather than ‘I.’ Second, he
addresses the pragmatic sense of the question not the semantics of the
vocabulary item.18 In K’s reply, then, we can see how he understands the
question’s implications; he recognizes the teacher’s question as a prefacing yes/
no question and replies to it, rather than answering the question it prefaces.19
Just as each next question by the teacher shows how she understands the
students’ response and its projectable horizons, K’s response, too, shows his
understanding of the teacher’s last turn, the sense it carried. In this way, K’s
reply displays a keenly competent analysis of the teacher’s question, as he
speaks up on behalf of the competence of the cohort. Every next turn at talk
then becomes a mark of competent analysis of the previous turn and it is this
competence that sustains and makes the interaction move forward. The
participants’ next course of action then is the competence’s evidence.
Note that the claim by K that they know what it means is not enough for
the teacher as she pursues the question in line 620 (see Pomerantz 1984 for
how speakers pursue a response in ordinary conversation). A few students
including K offer answers in lines 621 and 623 even though they are
incomplete and fragmented.
Excerpt 2–3
627. T: OK, what would it mean to analyze your audience?
628. (5.0)
629. T: Before you give a speech to someone, what would you mi-
630. what might you want to know?
631. (0.5)
632. T: Why would this be important?
633. K: Consider of:: our audience.
634. T: Yeah, consider about- OK? take some consideration (.) Gima
635. (.) would not want to give this presentation to me if I was
636. Pele, OK, (.) or if I was this great soccer player, all right, he
637. would not want to give a presentation about learning about
638. how to play soccer to a roomful of soccer players (.) right?
639. So you need to take into consideration what does your
640. audience already know, what don’t they know (.) all right, so
641. think about this, next one, analyze the task.
In line 627, the teacher returns to her initial question posed in line 598–600.
Between these two iterations of the same question (line 598–600 and 627),
however, much has changed. One evidence is that the teacher takes the
YO-AN LEE 367
cohort’s silence in line 628 differently as she invites the students to
contemplate a particular situation (‘before you give a speech to someone’)
that calls for a particular course of action (‘what might you want to know
and why is it important?’). Although it is syntactically fragmented, K’s
comment in the next turn (633) is a direct reply to the question in line 627:
‘what does it mean to analyze your audience?’ The teacher immediately
accepts it, elaborates upon it, and provides a summary formulation: ‘So you
need to take into consideration . . .’ (639–641).To point out how the teacher reformulates her question this way is not
meant to criticize her on grounds that her initial question was ambiguous or
incomplete. Rather, it exemplifies the indexical nature of questions whose
sense is contingent on and made available by the parties’ interpretive work.
The sense of the questions, therefore, is managed and made sensible through
the on-going exercise of communicative competence in which what students
know and understand is made public and addressed in the course of
questioning and answering.
From a close analysis of the unfolding interactional sequences, one can try
to bring out categorical features of interactions to abstract teachable and
learnable constructs. Yet even that undertaking relies on the parties’
competence because their logic and knowledge are built into the sequential
organization of the discourse, which is made available and managed in the
course of interaction. Interaction when seen in its produced detail displays
these sequential contingencies and CA’s structural resources point to how
members accomplish their practical tasks of understanding across them.
The immediate purpose of the transcript and its analyses is to demonstrate
how a descriptive analytic program can show the essential sociability of
language behavior for which Hymes’ proposal of communicative competence
is instrumental. Instead of proposing to amend or refine it as a theoretical
construct, this treatment of communicative competence seeks ways to describe
the competent achievements of common understanding in the interactional
details of L2 instruction. This competence is displayed not in post hoc accounts
or in the observers’ categorical constructs, but in the ways in which the
members act on their discourse within the sequential order of their
interaction. Through this competent work, instruction falls into place,
curricula are brought into view, speakers are nominated and activities
develop. This is where we can recover the evidence of their communicative
competence as the very thing that organizes the possibilities of L2 instruction.
CONCLUSION
The primary goal of the present paper is to propose a respecification of
communication competence through a descriptive analysis of L2 classroom
interaction. Rather than treating communicative competence as just an
outcome of L2 instruction, we see it as an enabling condition. The task
of respecification begins by asking what occurrences of language behavior
368 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
could count as a competent case of language use. This question points
to a distinctively different analytic direction for understanding what
communicative competence is and how to locate it both analytically and
naturalistically. There is no question that previous theories of communicative
competence have offered L2 literature conceptually useful and analytically
powerful resources for understanding L2 instruction and L2 language
phenomena. The familiar analytic task has been to locate the systematic
theoretical bases for characterizing competence and then fitting the
instruction to the characterization in order to facilitate learning.
The alternative analysis of L2 instruction, however, demonstrates that
learning begins in the practical fields of understanding and that understanding
is the practical undertaking of the parties engaged and embedded in their
analysis of their discourse, which is visible in the detail of its production.
Communicative competence becomes available in action, rather than
something contained in an utterance whose presence or absence is indicative
of theoretical objects or constructs such as discourse competence or
grammatical competence. The alternative view, therefore, does not separate
the practical actions the members accomplish from the communicative
means for accomplishing it. The sequential organization of classroom
interaction shows this procedural course of action in which L2 instruction
is organized in and as the members’ competent language use in the room.
Accordingly, taking communicative competence as a condition of L2
instruction brings us closer to an understanding of L2 instruction because it
helps us to examine and take interest in the most mundane organizations
of classroom teaching and learning. This might coincide with what Allwright
and Bailey (1991) had in mind when they argued that ‘in order to help our
learners learn it is not ‘‘the latest method’’ that we need but rather a fuller
understanding of the language classroom and what goes on there’ (Allwright
and Bailey 1991: xviii). The task of respecification points to the teaching and
learning as activities and actions in the making as we attend to ‘those matters
which are visible in the midst of the activity which manifests them’ (Sharrock
and Anderson 1982: 173) rather than focusing on patterns or regularities that
could be indicative of target competence. This alternative analysis can then
tell us something about the organization of classroom interaction and
instruction that we hope to control and improve (Lynch and Macbeth 1998).
This paper takes an elaborate trajectory to untangle the complex and
variant history of communicative competence and proposes an alternative
way to specify it. While there have been various attempts to re-think and
re-characterize communicative competence, the present paper finds the
usefulness of communicative competence not in its adequacy as a conceptual
tool but in its relevance to the action and activities as the members
experience them. We want to keep the analytic interest in language use for
the ways in which the parties demonstrably do, and find an understanding of
their communicative competence in the actual affairs they competently
assemble in concert. This suggests a new possibility of how we might begin
YO-AN LEE 369
a production account of classroom interaction, exploring its contingencies,
achievements, and collaborations, which might lead us to reconsider the
practical life of teaching and learning.
Final version received October 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my thanks to the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their informative
comments that helped me clarify and refine the primary argument of the paper. A special thank
goes to D. Macbeth for his advice and support. This paper is the result of countless discussions
with him over several years and his influence is evident throughout.
APPENDIX: TRANSCRIPT NOTATIONS
[ ] Overlapping utterances
(2.0) Timed silence within or between adjacent utterances
( ) An uncertain hearing of what the speaker said
(( )) Scenic description and accounts
(.) A short untimed pause
¼ Latching that indicates no interval between adjacent utterances
- A halting, abrupt cutoff
. Falling intonation, e.g. sentence final� Quieter than surrounding talk
: A prolonged stretch
_ Stressed syllable
"# Marked change in pitch: upward or downward
(h) Aspirations
5 4 Utterance is delivered at quicker pace than surrounding talk
(cf. Atkinson and Heritage 1984).
NOTES
1 See Hymes (1992) and/or Cazden
(1996) for the historical development
of the concept of communicative
competence.
2 This challenge was noted by Stern
a couple of decades ago: The
dilemma for the linguistics systems
builder is that he either attempts
to take in everything that plays a
part in language and risks making
his system unwieldy and too complex
to handle or he makes a
deliberate choice and abstracts from
the complex reality and is thus in
370 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
danger of distorting it by restricting
the field of observation too severely.
(Stern 1983: 146)
3 See Singh et al. (1988) for a critique of
interactional sociolinguistics on the
ground that it is excessively focusing
on cultural and ethnic differences in
language use and thus misses out on
more universal principles of discourse
such as cooperation.
4 Participants bring (1) knowledge of
rhetorical scripts; (2) knowledge of
certain lexis and syntactic patterns
specific to that practice; (3) strategies
for managing turns; (4) management
of topics; and (5) knowledge of the
means for signaling boundaries
between practices and transitions
within the practice itself (Young
2000: 6–7).
5 This comment is taken from their
introduction of an edited book that
carries various CA works that involve
second language speakers.
6 Harvey Sacks clarifies this analytic
rationale in the following remark:
We can then say that a warrant for
the study of the phenomenon of
‘understanding’ is that it’s specifically
a thing that is achieved, and it can
proceed employing conversation, and
have places where it gets exhibited,
etc. We need not say we’re interested
in ‘understanding’ by virtue of, e.g.
some humanistic bias about the
nature of conversation or by reference
to some theoretical supposition
that people understood each other,
but by virtue of the fact that one of
the things people do in conversation,
as they do ‘questioning’ and
‘answering’, etc., is specifically,
‘showing understanding.’ (Sacks
1992: 141)
7 See Jacoby and Ochs (1995) and
Young and Miller (2004).
8 In their analysis, Day et al. (1984: 25)
noted that the native speaker’s
utterance could be also viewed as a
continuation of the topic.
9 There are a variety of theoretical
positions and practical recommenda-
tions as to how to interpret and
report transcribed discourse (Green
et al. 1997; Kasper 1997; Lapadat and
Lindsay 1999; Mishler 1991; Ochs
1979; West 1996). See Green and
Dixon (2002) for a comparison
of various approaches to classroom
discourse.
10 See appendix for transcript notations.
11 I owe this point to an anonymous
reviewer.
12 Note the (cook) in the transcript—it
is also uncertain for the transcriber.
13 To hear ‘a robot can coke for me’ is
to treat an internationally familiar
noun-object as a verb. While there is
no certainty, we can further observe
that ‘can (cook)’ may, in just
pronunciation, have been the
resource for the teacher’s ‘can of
coke.’
14 One of the reviewers offered this
point.
15 Fall 1965, Lecture 3 and Spring 1967,
Lecture 4.
16 I take it that the image of the
escalator is one of an ‘intelligent
roadway’ that rises above the traffic.
17 French and Maclure (1981) found
similar work in questions in infant
classrooms.
18 Note that the first response by
W (616) answers the definition
question: ‘Consider?’ K, in overlap-
ping the teacher’s continuer, is
changing the terms of the reply: he
is affirming the competence to the
pragmatic sense of what ‘analyze
audience’ means.
19 I owe this point to D. Macbeth
(personal communication).
YO-AN LEE 371
REFERENCES
Allen, J. P. Q. 1992. ‘Instructional processes
and the development of communicative
competence.’ IRAL 30/1: 1–20.
Allwright, D. and K. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the
Language Classroom: An introduction to classroom
research for language teachers. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Atkinson, P. and S.Delamont. 1990. ‘Procedural
display and the authenticity of classroom
activity: A response to Bloome, Puro, and
Theodorou.’ Curriculum Inquiry 20/1: 63–9.
Atkinson, J. and J. Heritage. 1984. ‘Transcript
notation.’ In J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds),
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis. New York: Cambridge, pp. ix–xvi.
Bachman, L. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in
Language Testing. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Block, D. 1996. ‘Not so fast: Some thoughts on
theory culling, relativism, accepted findings
and the heart and soul of SLA.’ Applied Linguistics
17/1: 63–83.
Brooks, F. 1992. ‘Communicative competence and
the conversation course: A social interaction
perspective.’ Linguistics and Education 4/2:
219–46.
Bryant, J. 2001. ‘Language in social contexts:
Communicative competence in the preschool
years’ in J. Gleason (ed.): The Development of
Language. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 213–53.
Canale,M.1983. ‘On somedimensions of language
proficiency’ in J. Oller (ed.): Issues in Language
Testing Research. Rowley: Newbury House,
pp. 333–42.
Canale,M. andM.Swain.1980. ‘Theoretical bases
of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing.’Applied Linguistics
1/1: 1–47.
Carlsen, W. 1991. ‘Questioning in classrooms: A
sociolinguistic perspective.’ Review of Educational
Research 61/2: 157–78.
Cazden, C. 1988. Classroom Discourse: The language
of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cazden, C. 1996. ‘Communicative competence:
1966–1996.’ ED 399764 Paper presented at the
American Association of Applied Linguistics.
Chicago, IL.
Celce-Murcia, M., Z. Dornyei, and S. Thurrell.
1995. ‘Communicative competence: A
pedagogically motivated model with content
specifications.’ Issues in Applied Linguistics 6: 5–35.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. 1997. ‘Theoretical models,
assessment frameworks and test construction.’
Language Testing 14/1: 3–22.
Cheng, W. and M. Warren. 1999. ‘Inexplicitness:
What is it and should we be teaching it?’ Applied
Linguistics 20/3: 293–315.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
Boston: MIT Press.
Cook-Gumperz, J. and J. Gumperz. 1982.
‘Communicative competence in educational
perspective.’ in L. Wilkinson, (ed.). Communicat-
ing in the Classroom. New York: Academic Press,
pp. 13–24.
Corder, S. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Cullen, R. 1998. ‘Teacher talk and the classroom
context.’ ELT Journal 52/3: 179–87.
Cummins, J. 1983. ‘Language proficiency and
academic achievement.’ in J. Oller (ed.): Issues
in Language Testing Research. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House, pp. 108–29.
Davis, A. 1989. ‘Communicative competence as
language use.’ Applied Linguistics 10/2: 157–70.
Day, R., N. A. Chenoweth, A. Chun, and
S. Luppescu. 1984. ‘Corrective feedback in
native-nonnative discourse.’ Language Learning
34/2: 19–45.
Doughty, C. and M. Long. 2003. ‘The scope of
inquiry and goals of SLA.’ in C. Doughty and
M. Long (eds): The Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 3–15.
Drew, P. 1997. ‘ ‘‘Open’’ class repair initiators in
response to sequential sources of troubles in
conversation.’ Journal of Pragmatics28/1: 69–101.
Drew,P. and J.Heritage.1992 (eds). Talk onWork:
Interaction in Institutional Settings. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisi-
tion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Erickson, F. 1986. ‘Qualitative methods in
research on teaching.’ in M. C. Wittrock (ed.):
Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York:
Macmillan, pp. 119–61.
Firth, A. and J. Wagner. 1997. ‘On discourse,
communication and (some) fundamental con-
cepts in second language acquisition research.’
Modern Language Journal 81/3: 285–300.
Foster-Cohen, S. 1990. The Communicative Compe-
tence of Young Children: A modular approach.
New York: Longman.
French, P. and M. Maclure. 1981. ‘Teachers’
questions, pupils’ answers: An investigation of
372 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
questions and answers in the infant classroom.’
First Language 2/1: 31–45.
Fulcher, G. 1998. ‘Widdowson’smodel of commu-
nicative competence and the testing of reading:
An exploratory study.’ System 26/3: 281–302.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction and the Second
Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gass, S. 1998. ‘Apples and oranges: Or, why apples
are not orange and don’t need to be—A response
to Firth and Wagner.’ Modern Language Journal
82/1: 83–90.
Gass, S. 2004. ‘Conversation analysis and input-
interaction.’ Modern Language Journal 88/4:
596–602.
Gass, S. and L. Selinker. 2001. Second Language
Acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Green, J. and C. Dixon. 2002. ‘Exploring differ-
ences in perspectives on microanalysis of class-
room discourse: Contributions and concerns.’
Applied Linguistics 23/3: 393–406.
Green, J.,M. Franquiz, andC.Dixon. 1997. ‘The
myth of the objective transcript: Transcribing as
a situated act.’ TESOL Quarterly 31/1: 172–6.
Gregg, K. 1993. ‘Taking explanation seriously; or
let a couple of flowers bloom.’ Applied Linguistics
14/3: 276–94.
Gumperz, J. 2001. ‘Interactional sociolinguistics:
A personal perspective.’ in D. Schiffrin,
D. Tannen, andH. Hamilton, (eds): The Handbook
of Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell,
pp. 214–28.
Hall, J. 1995a. ‘ ‘‘Aw, man, where you goin’?’’:
Classroom interaction and the development of
L2 interactional competence.’ Issues in Applied
Linguistics 6/2: 37–62.
Hall, J. 1995b. ‘(Re)creating our worlds with
words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-to-
face interaction.’Applied Linguistics 16/2: 206–32.
Hall, J. 1998. ‘Differential teacher attention to
student utterances: The construction of different
opportunities for learning in the IRF.’ Linguistics
and Education 9/3: 287–311.
Hall, J. 2004. ‘Language learning as an interac-
tional achievement.’ Modern Language Journal
88/4: 607–12.
Harley,B., J.Cummins,M.Swain, andP.Allen.
1990. ‘The nature of language proficiency.’ in
B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, and M. Swain
(eds): The Development of Second Language
Proficiency. New York: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 7–25.
He, A. 2004. ‘CA for SLA: Arguments from the
Chinese language classroom.’ Modern Language
Journal 88/4: 568–82.
He, A. andR. Young. 1998. ‘Language proficiency
interviews: A discourse approach.’ in R. Young
and W. He (eds): Talking and Testing: Discourse
approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.
Heap, J. 1982. ‘Understanding classroom events: A
critiqueofDurkin,with an alternative.’ Journal of
Reading Behavior 45/4: 391–411.
Heritage, J. 1984a.Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. 1984b. ‘A change-of-state token and
aspects of its sequential placement.’ in
M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds): Structures of
Social Action: Studies in conversation analysis.
New York: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 299–345.
Hoekje, B. andK. Linnell. 1994. ‘ ‘‘Authenticity’’
in language testing: Evaluating spoken language
tests for international teaching assistants.’
TESOL Quarterly 28: 103–26.
Hymes,D. 1971. ‘Competence and performance in
linguistic theory.’ in R. Huxley and B. Ingram,
(eds): Language Acquisition: Models and methods.
London: Academic Press, pp. 3–28.
Hymes, D. 1973. ‘Toward linguistic competence.’
Texas Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 16:
Department of Anthropology. Austin: University
of Texas.
Hymes,D. 1974. ‘Ways of speaking.’ in R. Bauman
and J. Sherzer (eds): Explorations In The
Ethnography of Speaking. London: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 433–51.
Hymes, D. 1992. ‘The concept of communicative
competence revisited.’ in M. Putz (ed.):
Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Philadelphia:
John Benjamin Publishing Company, pp. 31–57.
Jacoby, S. and E. Ochs. 1995. ‘Co-construction:
An introduction.’ Research on Language and Social
Interaction 28/3: 171–83.
James,C.1998.Errors in Language Learning andUse.
New York: Longman.
Jefferson, G. 1984. ‘Notes on a systematic deploy-
ment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘‘Yeah’’
and ‘‘Mmhm’’.’ Papers in Linguistics 17: 197–206.
Jefferson, G. 1985. ‘An exercise in the transcrip-
tion and analysis of laughter.’ in T. vanDijk (ed.):
Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse and
dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp. 25–34.
YO-AN LEE 373
Kasper, G. 1997. ‘ ‘‘A’’ stands for acquisition: A
response to Firth and Wagner.’Modern Language
Journal 81/3: 307–12.
Kasper, G. 2004. ‘Participant orientations in
German conversation-for-learning.’ Modern
Language Journal 88/4: 551–67.
Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic
Development in a Second Language. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kramsch, C. 1986. ‘From language proficiency to
interactional competence.’ Modern Language
Journal 70/4: 366–72.
Lantolf, J. 1996. ‘SLA theory building: ‘‘Letting all
the flowers bloom!’’ ’ Language Learning 46/4:
713–749.
Lapadat, J. and A. Lindsay. 1999. ‘Transcription
in research and practice: From standardization
and technique to interpretive positionings.’
Qualitative Inquiry 5/1: 64–86.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2004. CA for SLA? It all
depends . . .’Modern Language Journal 88/4: 603–7.
Lerner, G. 1996. ‘Finding ‘‘face’’ in the preference
structures of talk-in-interaction.’ Social
Psychology Quarterly 59/4: 303–21.
Liddicoat, A. 1997. ‘Interaction, social structure,
and second language use: A response to Firth and
Wagner.’Modern Language Journal 81/3: 312–17.
Long, M. 1993. ‘Assessment strategies for second
language acquisition theories.’ Applied Linguistics
14/3: 225–49.
Long, M. 1996. ‘The role of the linguistic environ-
ment in second language acquisition.’ in W. C.
Ritchie (ed.): Handbook of Second Language Acqui-
sition. New York: Academic Press, pp. 413–68.
Long,M. 1997. ‘Construct validity in SLA research:
A response to Firth and Wagner.’ Modern
Language Journal 81/3: 318–23.
Long, M. and P. Robinson. 1998. ‘Focus on form:
Theory, research and practice.’ in C. Doughty
and J. Williams (eds): Focus on Form in Classroom
Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 15–41.
Long, M. and C. Sato. 1983. ‘Classroom foreigner
talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’
questions.’ in H. Seliger and M. Long (eds):
Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language
Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,
pp. 268–85.
Lynch, M. 1993. Scientific Practice and Ordinary
Action. New York: Cambridge.
Lynch, M. 2002. ‘From naturally occurring
data to naturally organized ordinary activities:
Comment on Speer.’ Discourse Studies 4/4: 531–7.
Lynch,M. andD.Macbeth.1998. ‘Demonstrating
physics lessons.’ in J. Greeno and S. Goldman,
(eds): Thinking Practices in Mathematics and
Science Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 269–97.
Lyster, R. 1998. ‘Negotiation of form, recasts, and
explicit correction in relation to error types
and learner repair.’ Language Learning 48/2:
183–218.
Macbeth, D. 2003. ‘Hugh Mehan’s ‘‘Learning
Lessons’’ reconsidered: On the differences
between the naturalistic and critical analysis of
classroom discourse.’ American Educational
Research Journal 40/1: 239–80.
Markee, N. 2000. Conversation Analysis. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Markee, N. and G. Kasper. 2004. ‘Classroom
talks: An introduction.’Modern Language Journal
88/4: 491–500.
McNamara, T. 1996. Measuring Second Language
Performance. London: Longman.
McNamara, T. 1997. ‘ ‘‘Interaction’’ in second
language performance assessment: Whose
performance?’ Applied Linguistics 18/4: 446–66.
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lesson. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Mehan, H. 1980. ‘The competent student.’
Anthropology and Education Quarterly 11/3:
131–52.
Mishler, E. G. 1991. ‘Representing discourse: The
rhetoric of transcription.’ Journal of Narrative and
Life History 1: 255–80.
Mitchell, C. 1984. ‘Case studies.’ in R. F. Ellen
(ed.): Ethnographic Research: A guide to
general conduct. New York: Academic Press,
pp. 237–41.
Moerman, M. and H. Sacks. 1971/1988.
‘On understanding in the analysis of natural
conversation.’ in M. Moerman (ed.): Talking
Culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press, pp. 180–86.
Mondada, L. and S. Pekarek Doehler. 2004.
‘Second language acquisition as situated
practice: Task accomplishment in the French
second language classroom.’ Modern Language
Journal 88/4: 501–18.
Mori, J. 2004. ‘Negotiating sequential boundaries
and learning opportunities: A case from a
Japanese language classroom.’ Modern Language
Journal 88/4: 536–50.
Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
374 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
Nicholas,H., P. Lightbown, andN.Spada. 2001.
‘Recasts as feedback to language learners.’
Language Learning 51/4: 719–58.
Nunn, R. 1999. ‘The purpose of language teachers’
questions.’ International Review of Applied
Linguistics 37/1: 23–34.
Ochs, E. 1979. ‘Transcription as theory.’ in E. Ochs
and B. B. Schieffelin (eds.): Developmental
Pragmatics. NewYork:Academic Press, pp. 43–72.
Pica, T. 1987. ‘Second language acquisition, social
interaction and the classroom.’Applied Linguistics
8/1: 3–21.
Pomerantz, A. 1984. ‘Pursuing a response’ in
J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds): Structures of
Social Action: Studies in conversation analysis.
New York: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 152–63.
Richards, J. and T. S. Rogers. 1986. Approaches
andMethods in Language Teaching: A description and
analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Riggenbach, H. 1991. ‘Toward an understanding
of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative
speaking conversations.’ Discourse Processes 14/4:
423–41.
Sacks, H. 1984. ‘Notes on methodology.’ in
J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds): Structures
of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 21–7.
Sacks,H.1992. Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge:
Blackwell.
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974.
‘A simplest systematics for the organization of
turn-taking for conversation.’ Language 50/4:
693–735.
Sato, K. and R. Kleinsasser. 1999. ‘Communica-
tive Language Teaching (CLT): Practical
understandings.’ Modern Language Journal 83/4:
494–517.
Savignon, S. 1983. Communicative Competence:
Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S. 1997. Communicative Competence:
Theory and classroom practice. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Saville-Troike, M. 1996. ‘The ethnography
of communication.’ in S. L. McKay and
N. H. Hornberger (eds): Sociolinguistics and
Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 353–82.
Schachter, J. 1982. ‘On negative input.’ Paper
presented at the Language Universals and
Second Language Acquisition. Los Angeles, CA.
Schachter, J. 1990. ‘Communicative competence
revisited.’ in B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins,
and M. Swain (eds): The Development of Second
Language Proficiency. New York: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 39–49.
Schegloff, E. 1981. ‘Discourse as an interactional
achievement: Some uses of ‘‘Uh huh’’ and other
things that come between sentences.’ in
D. Tannen (ed.).Georgetown University Roundtable
on Language Linguistics: Analyzing discourse—Text
and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press, pp. 71–93.
Schegloff, E. 1986. ‘The routine as achievement.’
Human Studies 9/2–3: 110–51.
Schegloff, E. 1988. ‘Presequences and indirection:
Applying speech act theory to ordinary
conversation.’ Journal of Pragmatics 12/1: 55–62.
Schegloff, E. 1989. ‘Reflections on language,
development, and the interactional character
of talk-in-interaction.’ in M. Bornstein and
J. Bruner (eds): Interaction in Human Development.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associate, pp. 139–53.
Schegloff, E. 1991. ‘Conversation analysis
and socially shared cognition’ in B. Resnick,
J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley (eds): Perspectives
on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association,
pp. 150–71.
Schegloff, E. 1992. ‘Repair after next turn:
The last structurally provided defense of inter-
subjectivity in conversation.’ American Journal of
Sociology 97/5: 1295–345.
Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson, and H. Sacks. 1977.
‘The preference for self-correction in the
organization of repair in conversation.’ Language
53/2: 363–82.
Schegloff, E., I. Koshik, S. Jacoby, and
D. Olsher. 2002. ‘Conversation analysis and
applied linguistics.’ Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 22: 3–31.
Schiffrin, D. 1996. ‘Interactional sociolinguistics.’
in S. McKay and N. Hornberger (eds):
Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. New York:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 307–28.
Searle, J. 1975. ‘Indirect speech acts’ in P. Cole and
J.Morgan (eds): SpeechActs. NewYork: Academic
Press, pp. 59–82.
Seedhouse, P. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of
the Language Classroom: A conversation analysis
perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sharrock, W. and B. Anderson. 1982. ‘Talking
and teaching: Reflective comments on
in-classroom activities.’ in G. Payne and E. Cuff
YO-AN LEE 375
(eds): Doing Teaching: The practical management
of classrooms. London: Batsford Academic and
Educational, pp. 170–83.
Shehadeh, A. 1999. ‘Non-native speakers’
production of modified comprehensible output
and second language learning.’ Language
Learning 49/4: 627–75.
Sinclair, J. and R. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an
Analysis of Discourse: The English used by teachers
and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Singh, R., J. Lele, andG.Martohardjono. 1988.
‘Communication in amultilingual society: Some
missed opportunities.’ Language in Society 17/1:
43–59.
Skehan, P. 1995. ‘Analysability, accessibility, and
ability for use.’ in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer
(eds): Principle and Practice in Applied
Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press,
pp. 91–106.
Spolsky, B. 1989. ‘Communicative competence,
language proficiency, and beyond.’ Applied
Linguistics 10/2: 138–55.
Stern, H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language
Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, D. 1988. ‘The meaning and use of the
term ‘competence’ in linguistics and applied lin-
guistics.’ Applied Linguistics 9/2: 148–68.
Tyler, A. 1995. ‘The coconstruction of cross-
cultural miscommunication: Conflicts in
perception, negotiation, and enactment of
participant role and status.’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 17/2: 129–52.
van Lier, L. 1994. ‘Forks and hope: Pursuing
understanding in different ways.’ Applied
Linguistics 15/3: 328–46.
Vygotsky, L. 1978.Mind in Society: The development
of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wagner, J. and R. Gardner. 2004. ‘Introduction.’
in R. Gardner and J. Wagner (eds): Second
Language Conversations. New York: Continuum,
pp. 1–17.
Wells, G. 1993. ‘Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A
proposal for the articulationof theories of activity
and discourse for the analysis of teaching
and learning in the classroom.’ Linguistics and
Education 5/1: 1–37.
West, C. 1996. ‘Ethnography and orthography: A
(modest) methodological proposal.’ Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography 25/3: 327–52.
Widdowson, H. 1978. Teaching Language as
Communication. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Widdowson, H. 1983. Learning Purpose and
LanguageUse. NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press.
Wilkins, L. 1982 (ed). Communicating in the
Classroom. New York: Academic Press.
Young, R. 2000. ‘Interactional competence:
Challenges for validity.’ ERIC 444361. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Association for Applied Linguistics,
Vancouver, Canada.
Young, R. and E. Miller. 2004. ‘Learning as
changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL
writing conferences.’ Modern Language Journal
88/4: 519–35.
Zimmerman, D. and M. Pollner. 1970. ‘The
everyday world as a phenomenon.’ in J. Douglas
(ed.): Understanding Everyday Life. Chicago:
Aldine, pp. 80–103.
376 RESPECIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE