Chapter 4: Second Language Classroom Discourse

- This chapter focuses on exploring classroom processes, in particular, the nature of oral
discourse in second language (L2) classrooms (focuses on descriptive research of the
discourse processes that arise when teachers & learners accomplish lessons)
+ discourse is defined as language produced as a result of communication – important to focus
on how utterances realize functional meanings & how they combine to form larger units
+ observation of classroom discourse is fundamental in developing an understanding of lang.
teaching & its relationship to learning
- The study of classroom discourse can be conducted in two ways:
+ by examining the functions of communicative acts in classroom interactions
+ by examining the structure of language lessons/parts of lessons (how communicative acts
combine to create larger discourse units)
- Observation can be conducted either by means of interaction analysis systems (keeping
field notes) or recording lessons & preparing & analyzing transcripts
+ data analysis can be quantitative (the frequency of specific interactional features is recorded) or
qualitative (in conversational analysis & ethnographic research seeking to understand the ways
that teachers & learners interact in the way they do)
- Observational studies of L2 classroom discourse flourished from the late 1960s –
disappointment with the global method studies of that decade & influenced by
developments in general education research where there was a shift of interest from
investigating ‘methods’ to ‘teaching style’ (in linguistics the interest in the functional
properties of lang.)
+ motivated by 2 concerns:
 to record teacher and student behaviors to provide feedback in teacher training and
encourage self-evaluation by trainee teachers
 to document the processes that occur during language instruction through classroom
interactions (focus of the book)
- Initially, researchers aimed to determine whether observed behaviors conformed to the
prescriptions of specific teaching methods or to identify which instructional techniques
were effective or ineffective
-> over time, researchers adopted a more descriptive approach (concentrates on identifying
the behaviors of teachers and students, the overall structure of lang. classroom discourse, and
how specific instructional activities (teacher questioning and corrective feedback) were
carried out)
-> led to an attempt to understand the motivations behind these behaviors and to speculate which
processes were most likely to foster language learning by drawing o theories of L2 acquisitions
- This chapter explores classroom discourse through the following approaches:
+ Interaction Analysis Systems - these were among the first methods used to investigate
classroom discourse
+ Discourse Frameworks – consider research based on discourse frameworks aimed to provide
systematic accounts of interactional structures found in language classrooms.
+ General Language Use - this section examines typical types of language use in teacher-
centered classrooms.
+ Conversational Analysis - this approach analyzes classroom discourse through the lens of
conversational analysis.
+ Sociocultural Theory and Language Socialization - these perspectives provide more theoretical
accounts of L2 classroom discourse, looking at the socio-cultural aspects of language learning.
- The order of these sections broadly reflects the chronological development of classroom
research over the years + moves from the description to the interpretation of classroom
discourse
+ emphasizes process research, which focuses on understanding classroom interactions
+ the author address ‘process research’ in this chapter
1. Interaction Analysis
- Interaction analysis systems can be
+ generic – they are designed to capture the behaviors arising throughout a lesson
+ limited – they focus on some specific aspect of lang. teaching
- An interaction analysis system consists of a set of categories describing classroom
behaviors that are directly observable
- 3 types of systems:
+ in a category system each event is coded each time it occurs during a lesson
+ in a sign system each event is recorded only once within a fixed time span
+ in a rating scale an estimate of how frequently a specific type of event occurred is made after
the period of observation
- Plentiful examples of category systems & sign systems >< no rating scales (all 3 types of
systems require the direct observation of a lesson)
- Later systems made use of transcript of lessons (a lesson was audio- or video-recorded, a
transcript prepared & the categories coded based on a close reading of the transcript) –
coding from transcript allows for more complex systems & greater reliability in coding
a. Early systems
- Early interactional analysis systems were based on Flanders's Interaction Analysis
Categories (FIAC), created for trainee teachers in content classrooms.
+ included ten categories with a focus on teacher behaviors, categorizing them into "direct
influence" (lecturing and giving directions) and "indirect influence" (accepting feelings and
asking questions)
+ student behaviors were categorized as "response" or "initiation."
- Moskowitz adapted this system for the foreign language classroom, resulting in the
Foreign Language Interaction (FLINT) system, which included 20 categories aligned
with Audiolingual Method principles.
+ Moskowitz also assumed that ‘indirect’ patterns of teacher behavior were more conducive to
learning than ‘direct’.
- Other early interaction analysis systems were designed for research purposes rather than
teacher training
e.g. Jarvis created a system based on a teaching model involving sequential stages like
encountering language elements, imitating them, manipulating them, and using them in
communication
+ featured major categories for "real language" and "drill language," each with several
subcategories
-> Jarvis claimed that his instrument was successful in recording the teaching behaviors that
distinguished more & less effective teachers in terms of the model of teaching on which the
system was based >< only a ‘descriptive’, not a ‘evaluative’ tool
+ similarly, Politzer sought to validate specific instructional techniques associated with the
Audiolingual Method by correlating them with achievement test results.
=> These early systems were often prescriptive and aimed to measure the extent to which
teachers conformed to specific teaching methods - while they played a significant role in
understanding classroom interactions, they were primarily used to assess adherence to a
particular teaching ideal.
b. Discourse-based interaction systems
- All of the mentioned interaction analysis systems consisted of discrete categories
representing isolated behavioral acts -> provided little information about how the
categories interlinked to form instructional sequences
1, Fanselow's FOCUS (Foci for Observing Communications Used in Settings) system,
developed in 1977 still consisted of discrete categories to represent different behavioral acts
in the classroom but differed by demonstrating how these categories combined to form larger
units of classroom discourse
+ aim of the FOCUS system: to provide researchers and teachers with a technical language for
discussing lang. teaching
+ the FOCUS system categorized classroom communication based on five characteristics: (1) the
source, (2) the pedagogical focus, (3) the medium, (4) the use, and (5) the content. - each of these
categories was further divided into sub-categories
-> this system allowed for a more detailed and complete description of language teaching
compared to earlier systems
>< the complexity of the FOCUS system made it challenging for direct classroom observation ->
to address this, Fanselow suggested that different parts of the system could be used at different
times rather than using the entire system for each observation & for in-depth analysis, lessons
could be recorded and transcribed
- The FOCUS system had two significant advantages:
+ it captured the sequential nature of classroom discourse to some extent
+ it wasn't limited to describing the behaviors of a specific teaching method; it could be applied
to any classroom setting
2, Allwright's system of classroom discourse analysis, developed in 1980, drew on the emerging
research on everyday conversations and the principles of conversational analysis.
- He incorporated ideas from research conducted by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974)
on turn-taking in conversation, as well as insights from Mehan (1974) about how the
analytical techniques used by conversational analysts could be applied to classroom
interactions.
- Allwright's system featured both a macro-analysis of language teaching and learning and
a micro-analysis of turn-taking within the language classroom.
- In his macro-analysis, he identified three key elements:
+ samples: instances of the target language used in isolation or within communication
+ guidance: instances of communication related to the nature of the target language
+ management activities: activities aimed at ensuring the effective occurrence of samples and
guidance
- These elements could vary in terms of their frequency within a lesson, their distribution
between the teacher and learners, their sequence, and whether they were conducted in the
target language.
- The turn-taking aspect of Allwright's system included two general categories:
+ turn-getting: actions taken to acquire a turn to speak
+ turn-giving: actions taken to yield the opportunity for someone else to speak
- Each of these categories was further divided into minor categories, such as 'accept'
(responding to a personal solicit) or 'steal' (responding to a personal solicit directed at
another participant)
+ e.g. of 'turn-giving' actions included 'fade out' and 'make a personal solicit.' - Allwright also
included 'topic' categories that classified discussions based on their primary focus, whether on
providing language models, sharing information, discussing pedagogical matters, or other uses of
language or non-verbal communication.
- Allwright applied his system to a detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of a
university-level ESL class
+ his goal was to account for the classroom data by understanding why interactions occurred as
they did - while his analysis provided valuable insights and allocated attention to both teachers
and learners, it was a time-consuming process and hasn't been widely used in subsequent studies.
c. Strengths & limitations of interaction systems
- Interaction analysis systems serve as valuable tools for examining classroom discourse
and understanding teaching and learning processes
+ they offer a common terminology for discussing teaching, facilitating the communication of
research findings to teachers and other stakeholders
>< these systems have both strengths and limitations, as outlined by Long (1980):
- Strengths:
+ ease of use: many interaction analysis systems are user-friendly, making them accessible to
researchers and educators.
+ common terminology: they provide a shared language for discussing teaching practices.
+ facilitating dissemination: these systems help researchers convey their findings to teachers and
others interested in education.
- Limitations:
+ teacher-centric focus: many of these instruments heavily emphasize teacher behaviors,
potentially overlooking student contributions.
+ superficial sampling: the behaviors recorded by these systems are often superficial, and the
systems themselves can be reductionist.
+ neglecting linguistic organization: these systems code isolated pedagogical acts and might not
consider the broader linguistic structure of classroom discourse.
+ assumption of teacher-centered pedagogy: some systems assume a teacher-centered approach
to teaching and may not fully capture more learner-centered approaches.
+ lack of triangulation: There is a lack of efforts to gather multiple perspectives on what the
coded events mean to different participants in the classroom.
- Long's main criticism was that the value of analytical systems must ultimately depend on
the significance of the categories within these systems for teaching and learning
+ he emphasized that these categories should be validated based on theory and research in
second language acquisition (SLA) -> led to the development of a new interaction analysis
system by Allen, Frohlich, and Spada in 1984, which aimed to address these issues
d. The Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme
- The Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme (known as
COLT) was developed to provide a system that was better suited to researching the
 communicative approach than existing systems as it emerged as an alternative to more
traditional methods
- The scheme consists of two parts:
+ part A involves real-time coding of classroom behaviors at the level of "classroom activity" -
focuses on the identification of various aspects of classroom activities
 the observer records a written description of the ongoing activity, the time it began, and
marks relevant categories from five parameters that apply to the activity
 the categories are generic and pedagogic in nature, and they do not align with any
specific teaching method -> allows COLT to be applied to observe lessons regardless of
the instructional approach >< interpreting the completed coding form is necessary to
determine the instructional orientation of the lesson. The categories in Part A are
sometimes subjective and require judgment, especially the "Activity Type" category
+ part B requires detailed coding of communicative features based on the analysis of a lesson
transcript - aims to describe the "communicative features" within each activity.
It comprises seven major features, each with sub-categories. These features include:
 use of target language (L1 or L2)
 information gap (giving information and requesting information)
 sustained speech (ultraminimal, minimal, sustained)
 reaction to code or message (form or message)
 incorporation of preceding utterances (correction, repetition, paraphrase, comment,
expansion, clarification request, elaboration request)
 discourse initiation (frequency of self-initiated turns by students)
 restriction of linguistic form (choral work, restricted, unrestricted)
+ these features are selected based on prevailing ideas about language acquisition, emphasizing
the role of interaction in the process.
+ to use Part B, a lesson is audio-recorded, and coding occurs for one minute at the start of each
activity, followed by a two-minute interval - the frequency of each category is recorded during
each one-minute period of coding.
- Spada and Frohlich (1995) provided a detailed explanation of how to analyze data
obtained from the COLT system and reported several studies that utilized the system:
1. Vandergrift's study focused on high school students in a core French program - the study
revealed that these classes lacked authentic texts and placed little emphasis on global listening
and understanding of meaning.
2. Yohay and Suwa examined English classes in Japanese elementary schools - these classes
predominantly involved whole-class interaction, covering aspects of form, discourse, and
sociolinguistic elements of listening and speaking activities.
3. Zotou and Mitchell's study explored foreign language teaching in Greece using a modified
form of COLT - their findings indicated a persistence of traditional, teacher-centered, and form-
focused instruction >< they also observed some aspects of communicative language teaching,
such as the use of broad topics and a focus on listening and speaking.
-> These studies demonstrated that COLT can successfully describe the instructional orientation
of language classes >< it may need modification for specific instructional contexts.
- The COLT system was used in process-product research.
e.g. Allen et al. (1990) conducted a study on Canadian Grade 11 classrooms in a core French
program – they observed classes using COLT and collected language proficiency data through
various tests to measure communicative competence - classes were categorized as "experiential"
or "analytic" based on COLT observations, and their proficiency scores were compared >< the
study did not find significant differences between the two class types.
+ Other studies, such as McKay's research on French classes in Australian junior secondary
schools and Sanaoui's study on vocabulary learning, also failed to demonstrate significant
differences between instructional approaches based on COLT observations and learning
outcomes.
-> Overall, attempts to establish links between instructional approaches revealed through COLT
and learning outcomes have not been successful.
e. Final comment
- Interaction analysis systems have served a valuable function in L2 classroom research –
provided researchers with the tools they need to describe teaching & assisted teacher
trainers
- Key question: whether interaction analysis schemes (including carefully designed ones
such as the COLT) are capable of identifying those classroom processes that are imp. for
L2 acquisition -> have not been successful in doing so
+ Allen et al. (1990) concluded from their own process-product study: A statistical analysis based
on schemes such as COLT cannot be depended on to distinguish between pedagogically effective
communicative activities and pedagogically ineffective ones
+ they noted that such schemes ‘do not pay sufficiently close attention to the exchange structure
of discourse’
-> proposed a diff. approach: supplementing the COLT with a ‘more detailed discourse analysis’
2. Discourse Frameworks
- Some key discourse frameworks & the insights they provided about the structure of
classroom discourse are examined
a. Sinclair and Coulthard’s framework
- Drew on and extended the discourse frame work of Bellack et al. (1966) by drawing on
the principle of rank0scale from Halliday’s (1961) systemic grammar which posited that
lang. systems are organized hierarchically with smaller units combining to form larger
ones - allowed the structure of each discourse unit to be expressed in terms of
combinations of units
- Identified the ranks in the structure of a lesson:
1, lesson
2, transaction (frame + focus)
3, exchange
4, move (initiating – respond – follow-up)
5, act
+ lesson: unidentified structural statement (in this respect, the authors suggested that it has the
same status of ‘paragraph’ as in descriptions of grammar)
+ transaction: frames – identified its boundaries (realized through a limited set of words “OK,
well, right, now, good”) & frequently followed by a focus (metastatement about the transaction)
+ exchange: the combination of frame & focus constituted a ‘boundary exchange’ (Coulthard
noted that such boundary exchanges were rare in naturally occurring conversation) - a
"transaction" consisted of several types of exchanges: informing, directing, or eliciting
+ moves: exchanges were made up of "moves," which were the minimal contributions a speaker
could make to an exchange - the structure of an exchange was more clearly defined and typically
included three types of moves: initiating, responding, and follow-up
e.g. of this was the common IRF (Initiating-Responding-Follow-up) exchange pattern seen in
classroom discourse. In an IRF exchange, a teacher initiates with a question, a student responds,
and the teacher provides a follow-up comment or evaluation.
+ act: the smallest unit in this framework - there were initially 22 acts distinguished, but
Coulthard later reduced this to 17, grouping them into three major categories: metainteractive
(marker & metastatement), interactive (informative statements), and turn-taking options (bid &
nomination)
- This framework allowed for a detailed analysis of classroom discourse and revealed the
prevalence of IRF exchanges in the classroom setting
+ IRF exchanges were common because they allowed the teacher to ensure that the entire class
attended to the student's response and to test whether students provided the correct responses
+ While this framework primarily focused on teacher-centered classroom discourse, adaptations
and other frameworks have been developed to explore various aspects of classroom talk,
especially in different instructional contexts and subject lessons
e.g. Nassaji and Wells (2000) developed a more elaborate framework to describe IRF exchanges
in subject lessons in Canadian schools, with larger units such as "episodes," "sequences," and
"exchanges." - these frameworks offer a means to explore how classroom discourse creates
opportunities for student learning and participation
b. The initiate-respond-follow -up exchange
- The IRF exchange is ubiquitous in all classrooms, including lang. classrooms – when the
teacher controls the discourse
- Lemke (1990) referred to the three-move exchange as ‘triadic dialogue’ & showed how
dominant it was in subject classrooms
+ he noted that even when students initiate an exchange, the teacher is likely to respond in a
manner that resembles the follow-up move in the IRF exchange
- Torr (1993) conducted an analysis of classroom discourse in two elementary school
classrooms - one mainly consisting of native speakers (NSs) and the other with mainly
non-native speaking children (NNSs)
+ she applied Hasan's (1988) message semantics framework
-> Torr's findings showed that teachers dominated interactions in both classrooms, with the basic
pattern being IRF >< there were differences in the quality of the questions asked in the initiating
moves by the two teachers
- Consolo (2000) reported that both native speaker and non-native speaker teachers of
Brazilian learners of L2 English followed the typical IRF pattern
+ hobserved that most of the time, teachers and students rigidly adhered to their socially defined
classroom roles -> the IRF pattern is the dominant pattern in instructional settings, whether they
involve foreign or second language instruction
- The ubiquity of the IRF exchange in classroom interactions can be illustrated through
various examples. It is particularly evident in drill-like sequences common in
audiolingual classrooms.
Extract 3:
1. T: Now, Tasleem.
2. T: What is this? (Teacher holds up pen)
3. S: This is a pen.
4. T: What are these? (Teacher holds up two pens)
5. S: This are a pen.
 6. T: These are ____?
7. S: Are pens.
8. T: What is this? (Teacher holds up a ruler)
9. S: This is a ruler. ...
10. T: What are these? (Teacher holds up two rulers)
11. S: This is a ... art ...
12. This are a rulers.
13. T: These are rulers.
14. T: What are these?
15. S: This are a rulers.
16. T: Not ‘a’.
17. These are ____?
18. S: Rulers.
19. T: Rulers.
20. S: Rulers.
+ in this exchange, the IRF pattern is consistently observed:
 the teacher initiates by presenting a prompt (e.g., "What is this?") with a specific
instructional target (plural utterances)
 when the student responds correctly, the teacher typically provides no feedback ><
when the student's response is incorrect, the teacher may either repeat the original
elicitation or execute a follow-up move, such as a "comment" or "evaluate."
+ it's evident that the student is familiar with their role in these exchanges, where the goal is
to produce target sentences with plural noun forms
 in this particular transaction, the learner doesn't manage to produce a complete target
sentence
 the teacher, in some cases, allows the learner to respond with just the plural noun
form (e.g., "Rulers") without the accompanying determiner
-> this extract illustrates the structured and repetitive nature of audiolingual classroom
interactions
- IRF (Initiating-Responding-Follow-up) exchanges, although less prevalent in task-based
lessons, can still occur, particularly when the teacher decides to focus the students’
attention on linguistic form
Extract 4:
T: Write down one thing about last week or last weekend.
S: I had been? I had been?
T: Past simple. I saw. I went.
S: I had b____, I had?
T: Past simple.
S: (Student writes down verb) That’s right.
S: I ran.
T: Not "I had been" because you need two things in the past. So last weekend I went to the
movies.
+ in this exchange, the teacher initiates with a 'directive', prompting the student to respond -> the
student responds incorrectly with "I had been?" and the teacher follows up with a 'comment'
+ the student again responds incorrectly -> the teacher repeats the directive, which serves as a
follow-up, with a confirmation >< the student still doesn't provide the correct response, leading
the teacher to make another comment on the mistake
+ eventually, the student produces the correct form and the teacher acknowledges this with an
"acknowledge" move
+ the student further reinforces the correct form with a response & the teacher follows up again
with a more elaborate metacomment
-> this extract demonstrates how the IRF pattern can emerge in task-based lessons, especially
when the teacher decides to emphasize specific linguistic aspects or address language errors
- The prevalence of the IRF exchange in classrooms can be attributed to the power
differential between teachers and students
+ teachers (primary knowers) often initiate these exchanges to maintain order and focus students'
attention - in the IRF exchange, when the teacher plays both the role of initiator and primary
knower, it is necessary to complete the exchange by confirming or disconfirming the student's
response, usually through a follow-up move
+ when the initiator is the secondary knower & the responder is the primary knower -> involve
an open request for information & do not require a follow-up move
- For the IRF exchange to be displaced as the dominant feature in classrooms, teachers
might need to abandon the role of primary knower or allocate the initiating role to
students
- Key question: to what extent does the IRF exchange afford or deprive learners of the
interactional resources that promote learning?
+ some educators & SLA researchers argue that the IRF exchange limits learning opportunities,
especially for extended utterances, a wide range of language functions, and negotiating meaning
(as communication breakdown is infrequent)
 Lerner (1995) argued that the follow-up move was especially limiting in that it
restricts learner participation by removing the opportunity for the learner to respond
further to the teacher’s question
+ however, when enacted differently, IRF exchanges can scaffold students' language use and
encourage richer contributions
e.g. teacher questions introducing issues open for negotiation can lead to richer contributions
from students
 Where the follow-up move serves to extend the student’s response & to make
connections with what has gone before & what will follow (rather than just evaluate
the student’s response), the discourse can become less pedagogic & more
conversational
 Studies have shown instances where students appropriated language from IRF
exchanges for use in subsequent group work - teachers in L2 classrooms have also
been observed to exploit the IRF exchange by incorporating "embedded extensions,"
which introduce new input and allow students to engage in activities related to their
own interests and agendas
-> Van Lier (2000) argued that the contribution that IRF makes to learning depends on the depth
of processing involved & proposed an ‘IRF continuum’ (precision -> display, cognition,
recitation)
 - From the studies, it is clear that the IRF exchange is not a monolithic structure but
exhibits significant variation - Van Lier (1996) identified several dimensions along which
IRF exchanges can vary:
1, conduct of initiation (a general, a general, unspecific elicitation directed at the
whole class or a specific, personal elicitation directed at a single student)
2, response function (whether the teacher’s follow-up move requires students to
repeat something, to recall material from their memory, or to express themselves
more precisely)
3, pedagogical purpose (display or assessment orientation)

-> the IRF exchange is capable of affording a greater range of learning opportunities than was
once thought
- While there is theoretical support for the importance of negotiation and scaffolding in
language learning, empirical evidence linking the prevalence of IRF exchanges in the
classroom to L2 acquisition is limited
+ existing research has mainly described classroom discourse and factors contributing to the IRF
pattern & more studies are needed to establish a direct empirical link between IRF exchanges
and language acquisition
c. Other classroom discourse patterns
- While IRF exchanges are typically dominant in L2 classroom discourse, other types of
exchange can also be found
+ studies by Van Lier (1988) and others have highlighted the potential for more flexibility and
variety in classroom talk – in some cases, learners initiate exchanges, and “schismic talk" (talk
that deviates from predetermined plans) are observed, at least in certain classrooms
- One context where different types of discourse can be found is task-based teaching.
Extract 5:
1. S1: My group has a name.
2. T: What name?
3. S1: Best.
4. T: Bess’ group.
5. S1: Best.
6. T: Oh, best. Okay.
7. S2: Best.
8. T: Best. Not group three. The best. That’s a lovely name.
e.g. students and the teacher engage in a more conversational exchange as they clarify the name
chosen by one group of students - the student takes the initiative, and the teacher's responses are
more focused on seeking clarification, confirming, and accepting the students' choice => makes
the interaction less rigid and more conversational in nature
- In Johnson's (1995) ESL classroom with low-proficiency learners, there are examples of
student-initiated talk:
Extract 6:
1. Wang: Kung Fu.
2. T: Kung Fu? You like the movie Kung Fu?
3. Wang: Yeah ... fight.
4. T: That was about a great fighter? ...
A man who knows how to fight with his hands.
5. Wang: I fight ... my hand.
6. T: You know how to fight with your hands?
7. Wang: I fight with my hand.
8. T: Watch out guys, Wang knows karate.
+ a student initiates the sequence by mentioning a movie he wants to talk about - the teacher,
rather than following the typical IRF pattern, encourages Wang to elaborate on the topic
-> the resulting discourse is more conversational, and Wang's utterances become progressively
more well-formed as the interaction continues - notably, there is no follow-up move in this
sequence
- This interaction displays features similar to those found in adult-child conversations,
which have been shown to assist in first language (L1) acquisition. Gibbons (2007),
drawing on Wells (1999), outlines four conditions for what she calls "progressive
discourse" in the classroom, all of which are met in this extract:
1. The need for ideas to be shared and questioned.
2. An encouraging classroom ethos that supports students in sharing their ideas.
3. Shared control of the discourse, not solely resting with the teacher.
4. Learner control of the interpersonal language necessary for participating in classroom talk.
=> The crucial issue in the language classroom is determining who controls the discourse,
particularly regarding topic establishment and development -> a skillful teacher can find ways of
building on the student’s contributions
d. Negotiation of meaning sequences
- One particular type of discourse structure that has attracted considerable interest from
SLA researchers is that which arises when negotiation of meaning occurs (this occurs
when the listener fails to fully understand what the speaker has said & attempts to remedy
the problem)
- Varonis and Gass (1985) developed a framework to describe the structure of discourse
that occurs during the negotiation of meaning in conversation - this framework for "non-
understanding routines" includes the following components:
1, trigger: the utterance or part of an utterance that creates a problem of understanding
2, indicator: an element that signals that something in a previous utterance was not understood.
3, response: a reaction to the indicator, where the listener attempts to clarify or seek further
information.
4, reaction to the response: this part is optional and reflects how the conversation continues after
the response
+ the "indicator-response-reaction to the response" part of a non-understanding sequence is
called a "pushdown" because it has the effect of pushing the conversation down rather than
allowing it to proceed in a forward manner
+ this framework is recursive (the response element can itself act as a trigger for another non-
understanding routine, creating a back-and-forth exchange to clarify meaning)
- Non-understanding routines are common in everyday conversations among L2 (second
language) learners >< occur much less frequently in teacher-centered classrooms
(because of the dominant use of the IRF exchange in classrooms, which is structured to
minimize the likelihood of communication breakdown)
+ research by Pica and Long in 1986 revealed that there was very little negotiation of meaning in
elementary ESL classrooms when compared to conversations between native speakers and non-
native speakers outside the classroom
+ negotiation of meaning is more likely to take place in task-based lessons where the primary
emphasis is on conveying and understanding the message & the teacher does not constantly act
as the "primary knower" and "initiator" of exchanges
- Negotiation sequences are more likely to occur when a learner initiates the exchange &
the teacher takes on the role of resolving the communication problem
+ these sequences are less likely to happen when the teacher initiates the exchange because
learners may be hesitant to signal that they haven't understood >< negotiation of meaning does
occur at times in teacher-initiated exchanges
Extract 7:
1. T: Are you a mountain climber?
2. S: No, walking.
3. T: Walking in the mountains.
4. S: Trekking.
5. T: Ah.
6. S: Tracking, tramping.
7. T: Trekking, trekking. Or in New Zealand?
8. S: Tramping.
9. T: Tramping.
e.g. the teacher starts with an open question, leading to the student clarifying that he's involved in
"walking" in the mountains -> the teacher confirms understanding & the rest of the sequence
focuses on selecting the best word to describe the student's activity, providing synonyms like
"trekking" and "tramping."
=> such sequences can be beneficial for language acquisition as they offer learners alternative
vocabulary and guide them toward the most appropriate word choices, facilitating the learning
process.
e. Final comment
- Discourse analytic frameworks such as the one introduced by Sinclair and Coulthard,
provide researchers with effective tools to thoroughly and precisely describe L2
classroom talk
+ these frameworks shift the focus from isolated talk categories to examining the interplay and
structure of utterances, known as contingency, which offers a more insightful account of
classroom discourse.
>< despite the detailed descriptions provided by these frameworks, there is a lack of empirical
studies that establish a direct link between different discourse patterns and L2 language
acquisition
+ research in this area has primarily concentrated on describing classroom discourse and
identifying the factors contributing to these patterns - the claims about the contribution of these
discourse patterns to language learning are largely theoretical or based on extrapolations from
first language acquisition research
+ although some studies highlight the positive effects of negotiation of meaning, there is no
empirical evidence demonstrating that classrooms rich in such features lead to faster language
learning compared to classrooms dominated by the IRF exchange pattern.
3. Types of Language Use
- Different types of lang. use have been distinguished to adopt an approach to describing
the communicative behaviors that arise in the L2 classroom – this approach was often
motivated by theoretical accounts of how interaction provides learning opportunities
 - McTear (1975) identified 4 types of lang. use based on the extent to which the lang.
focused on the code or on meaning:
1, mechanical: no exchange of meaning is involved
2, meaningful: meaning is contextualized but there is still no in4 conveyed
3, pseudo-communicative: new in4 is conveyed but in a manner that is unlikely in naturalistic
discourse
4, real communication: spontaneous speech resulting from the exchange of opinions, jokes,
classroom management…
+ mechanical & meaningful lang. use involves a focus on code – real communication entails
genuine in4 exchange with pseudo communicative lang. use lying somewhere in between
- The author distinguished ‘address’ (who talks to whom) and ‘goal’ (the overall purpose of
an interaction)
+ address types were based on the participatory structures in a language classroom, which
considered interactions involving the teacher addressing the whole class, the teacher addressing
an individual student, or students interacting with each other in small group work.
+ 3 types of goals were specified:
1, core goals - where the focus can be on language itself (medium), other content (message), or
embedded in ongoing activities like model-making (activity)
2, framework goals related to the organization and management of classroom events
3, social goals
- The author provided examples from an ESL classroom in Britain to illustrate how the
type of goal influences classroom discourse and the learning opportunities each type
affords - interaction with core goals tends to restrict learners to a responding role, while
framework and social goals allow for initiating discourse and performing a wider range
of language functions
- In Van Lier's (1988) framework, there are 4 basic types of classroom interaction based on
whether the teacher controls the topic (what is discussed) and the activity (how the topic is
discussed
1, type 1 - neither topic nor activity controlled by the teacher, such as small talk or private
conversations between students
2, type 2 - the teacher controls the topic but not the activity, often seen when the teacher makes
announcements, gives instructions, or delivers lectures
3, type 3 - the teacher controls both topic and activity, common in language drills where the
teacher elicits responses
4, type 4 - the teacher controls the activity but not the topic, typically in small group work where
procedural rules are defined, but students are free to choose the topic
+ in a later development of this framework, Van Lier (1991) added a third dimension,
considering the function of language - this dimension distinguishes between 3 types of function:
 ideational (imparting facts or experiences)
 interpersonal (managing relationships with people
 textual (signaling connections and boundaries, clarifying, summarizing, etc.)
- Johnson (1995) adopted a similar holistic approach to classroom discourse by
distinguishing between 'academic task structures' (how the subject matter is sequenced in
a lesson & the sequential steps involved) and 'social participation structures' (the
allocation of interactional rights and obligations that shape classroom discourse) - these
structures are interconnected:
+ rigid academic task structures -> tightly controlled social participation structures, resulting in
ritualized communication
+ flexible academic and social structures -> spontaneous and adaptive classroom
communication.
- Johnson emphasized that topic control plays a crucial role in determining how fluid the
communication is
- She also suggested 'optimal conditions' for L2 acquisition, which include:
+ creating reasons for attending to language
+ providing opportunities for language use
+ helping students engage in language-related activities beyond their proficiency level, +
offering various contexts for a full language performance
-> these optimal conditions are more likely to occur in relaxed discourse settings
=> These frameworks offer a macro-level understanding of classroom discourse, allowing
researchers to describe the nature of discourse in different classrooms and instructional activities
(cannot serve as schemes for describing the way discourse unfolds in L2 classrooms) & to
speculate on how diff. types of lang. use may impact L2 learning
4. Conversation Analysis and the L2 Classroom
- Conversation analysis is an approach that seeks to describe the organization of
conversational discourse by investigating how participants understand and respond to
each other in their turns at talk
+ entirely bottom-up and data-driven (there’s no reference to a priori norms or structures),
focusing on naturally occurring conversations & assumes that no detail can be dismissed
-> conversational analysts base their work on very narrowly transcribed conversations
+ CA aims to capture detailed features of interactions, such as hesitations, pauses, speech
modulation, stress, overlaps in speech, and non-verbal behaviors like gestures and eye-gaze –
involves the thorough transcription & analysis of data
- For classroom CA, researchers typically analyze classroom interactions as ‘a type of
institutional talk that is empirically distinct from the default speech exchange system of
ordinary conversation’, acknowledging the distinct characteristics of teacher-fronted
classroom discourse.
+ classroom interactions are seen as unequal power speech exchanges >< Seedhouse (2004)
argued that a range of interactions occur in classrooms & showed how these both differ from &
in some ways resemble conversations
+ classroom CA has focused on the same types of interactional organization as those found in
conversation – turn-taking & repair
- The author reports the key findings for turn-taking, repair & consider off-task talk, and
how participants' identities influence the organization of classroom discourse

a. Turn-taking
- Ethnomethodological studies of naturally occurring conversations have identified several
rules underlying speaker selection and change in ordinary interactions:
+ one speaker speaks at a time
+ a speaker can select the next speaker by nominating or initiating an adjacency pair
+ a speaker may also allow the next speaker to self-select & there is often competition for the
next turn.
>< in institutional settings like classrooms, turn-taking differs due to constraints related to the
institutional goals
- Classroom turn-taking is characterized by strict allocation of turns to manage potential
transition and distribution problems, control over who speaks to whom, at what time ->
less turn-by-turn negotiation and competition & individual student initiatives are typically
discouraged
- Lorscher (19860 examined turn-taking in English lessons in diff, types of German
secondary school -> turns were almost invariable allocated by the teacher
+ the right to speak returned to the teacher when a student turn was completed
+ the teacher had the right to interrupt or stop a student turn
=> He argued that the rules governing turn-taking in classrooms are influenced by the nature of
schools as public institutions and the teaching-learning process
- Some of the basic rules for classroom turn-taking are:
1, in L2 classrooms, when centralized attention is required:
a, one speaker speaks at any one time
b, many can speak at once if they say (roughly) the same thing, or at least if (a proportion of) the
simultaneous talk remains intelligible
2, if not (a) or (b), repair work will be undertaken
- Markee (2000) identified some general characteristics of turn-taking in classroom talk:
+ the pre-allocation of different kinds of turns to teachers and learners
+ the frequent production by learners of turns in chorus
+ the frequent production of long-turns by the teacher & short-turns by the student
+ the requirement that learners produce elaborated sentence-length turns in order to display
knowledge
+ a predetermined topic
- Markee has described classroom turn-taking as a reflection of "unequal power speech
exchange systems."
- The most detailed analysis of turn-taking in the L2 classroom is provided by Seedhouse
(2004) – he argued that classroom discourse should not be seen as a single exchange
system.
- He identified four distinct classroom contexts: (1) form-and-accuracy contexts, (2)
meaning-and-fluency contexts, (3) task-oriented contexts, and (4) procedural contexts
(where the teacher explains how to perform an activity.
- Seedhouse emphasizes the reflexive relationship between the pedagogical focus and turn-
taking organization & sequence.
>< he acknowledged the difficulty of achieving truly conversational exchanges in the L2
classroom - as soon as a lesson has an instructional purpose, it invokes an institutional goal,
making it challenging to replicate ordinary conversation & conversational exchanges are
typically only possible in "off-the-record" interactions, outside the traditional classroom setting
- Two related issues emerge from these accounts of classroom turn-taking:
1, the tension between identifying general characteristics of classroom speech exchange systems
and recognizing the considerable variety (this variety results from participants occasionally
transgressing the basic turn-taking rules and the differences in turn-taking mechanisms based on
pedagogical objectives)
2, the distinctions between L2 classroom turn-taking mechanisms and those found in natural
conversations - studies often compare classroom turn-taking to the speech exchange system of
ordinary conversation
b. Repair
- Conversational analysts view repair as a joint production – early studies focused on
repair in naturally occurring conversations and defined repair as the treatment of
‘trouble’ (anything that the participants consider is impeding communication)
-> includes a wider range of discourse phenomena than both negotiation of meaning &
‘corrective feedback’, which concerns the repair work undertaken to address trouble of a
purely linguistic nature (learner errors)
- Diff. types of repair in conversations have been distinguished based on who initiates the
repair & who carries it out
- The 4 primary types: (1) self-initiated self-repair, (2) self-initiated other repair, (3) other-
initiated self-repair, and (4) other-initiated other repair
+ in typical conversations, self-initiated self-repair (type 1) is the preferred form, while other-
initiated other repair (type 4) is the least common
- Later research examined repair in classroom contexts – general findings suggest that the
organization of repair varies with the pedagogical.
- Seedhouse distinguishes between "didactic repair" in form-and-accuracy contexts and
"conversational repair" in meaning-and-fluency contexts
+ didactic repair arises when the teacher is trying to elicit a linguistically correct utterance from a
student & the student fails to provide it – the teacher initiates the repair allowing the student the
opportunity to self- repair & if the student still fails, the teacher carries out the repair
+ Seedhouse noted that teachers often require students to produce the identical utterance they are
targeting & that repair-work can arise even if the learner produces a linguistically correct
utterance, which is viewed as unsatisfactory in some way
>< sometimes teachers adopt a different repair strategy in form-and-accuracy contexts – the
teacher elects to invite another student to repair a student’s grammatical error (a strategy often
recommended by language-teaching methodologists but occurs relatively rarely)
- Seedhouse found that in meaning-and-fluency contexts conversational repair is much
more likely to occur
+ conversational repair: purely linguistic problems are often ignored & the teacher is often
prepared to accept highly simplified learner lang. – repair-work occurs when there is a
breakdown in communication & when it is necessary to establish factual accuracy
- Seedhouse claimed that overt correction is undertaken only when there is an error which
impedes communication >< this is not always the case – some researchers have shown
that didactic repair is in fact quite common in communicative activities
- Repair sequences afford potential learning opportunities as they make problems explicit
and offer solutions >< explicit positive assessments like saying "good" or "excellent" to
student contributions can hinder learning opportunities by ending discussions and
implying that further exploration is unnecessary, according to Waring (2008) - this can
suppress the exploration of linguistic points, which are essential for learning
c. Off-task talk
- Van Lier (1988) observed that classroom discourse is not as strictly controlled as
commonly believed and that opportunities for "schismic talk" occur
 - Markee (2005) introduced the concept of "off-task talk," which refers to interactions that
deviate from the teacher's designated class agenda
+ he illustrated this with an example where one student invited another to a party during a lesson
focusing on the reunification of East and West Germany.
+ off-task talk occurred when an "interactional gap" emerged because the teacher did not
introduce a new topic effectively
+ in this situation, the two students assumed different roles ("inviter" and "invited"), while
maintaining a ‘skillful schizophrenia’ by concurrently orienting to the norms of their
‘conversation’ and the ongoing institutional talk of the classroom.
- Markee argues that such "hybrid contexts of talk" afford special opportunities for
language learning
d. Identity in classroom talk
- Another interesting angle that can be explored through conversational analysis is how the
identity of classroom participants affects the interactions that take place between teacher
& students.
- Richards (2006) drew from Zimmerman's (1998) framework, which categorizes identity
into three aspects: (1) ‘discourse identity’ involving the roles that participants take on
during the interaction (e.g., speaker, listener, questioner); (2) ‘situated identity’ arising
from typical roles in a specific context ("teacher" and "student" in the classroom) & (3)
‘transportable identity’ referring to personal identities that individuals can draw on & be
made relevant to the talk
- In the lang. learning classroom, a default identity often exists, primarily consisting of
"teacher" and "student." >< Richards argued that this default identity is not fixed
+ he provided examples from L2 classrooms, showing how interactions vary depending on the
type of identity in play
+ these variations included shifts in discourse identity, situated identity, or an orientation to
transportable identity
- Richards highlighted that interactions are most engaging when participants deviate from
their default identities, when transportable identities come into play
- Richards suggested that teachers could enrich the interactional resources made available
to students by introducing transportable identities into the classroom, e.g. through
personal revelation
+ he provided 2 extracts: (1) shows the teacher insisting on the IRF format – working to
achieve the response he requires to evaluate it >< (2) no evidence of situated identity &
nothing ‘institutional’ about the talk
=> The assumption that ‘institutional’ talk is less likely to afford opportunities for L2
development than the ‘conversational’ talk that can arise when the teacher & students activate
a transportable identity
e. Final comment
- Conversational analysis has illuminated some of the key characteristics of sequential talk
in the classroom:
+ give highly detailed descriptions of how classroom discourse unfolds, uncovering the ‘hidden’
social norms that shape it
+ show that classroom discourse is not as monolithic as earlier work based on discourse analytic
systems suggested
 - There is considerably variety reflecting the pedagogic purposes & the discourse identities
that inform how participants interact
- CA studies of L2 classrooms are deliberatively atheoretical, focusing on the objective
observation and description of classroom interactions without preconceived notions about
what should happen or what is essential for learning.
- This approach has its advantages and disadvantages:
+ it provides an unbiased account of classroom processes
+ it falls short in revealing how these processes impact L2 learning and does not enable
speculation about which processes are significant for learning
-> Recognizing this limitation, CA classroom researchers, like Waring (2008), have increasingly
aligned themselves with a theory that do address the connection between interaction and learning
5. Sociocultural Theory: Scaffoding
- The primary claim of Sociocultural Theory (SCT) is that language learning is dialogically
based (acquisition is seen as occurring in rather than as a result of interaction)
+ interaction mediates learning by affording opportunities to collaboratively produce new
linguistic forms (when learners produce a new linguistic form for the first time in discourse,
‘development’ takes place), not by providing learners with ‘data’ which they then process
internally -> ‘learning’ occurs when the form has become internalized
- A linguistic feature that learners could initially only produce with the help of scaffolding
can subsequently be produced independently (when it can be shown that the learner has
moved from ‘other regulation’ to ‘self-regulation’)
- The author focuses on ‘scaffolding’ (the process by which one speaker (an expert or a
beginner) assists another speaker (a beginner) to perform a skill that they are unable to
perform independently) - achieved by the joint construction of a Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) - a site of potential development where learners are helped to
perform a skill collaboratively)
- Scaffolding is both a discourse and cognitive construct – made clear by Wood, Bruner
and Ross’s (1976)
+ they identified the following features of scaffolding:
1, recruiting interest in the task
2, simplifying the task
3, maintaining pursuit of the goal
4, marking critical features and discrepancies between what has been produced and the ideal
solution
5, controlling frustration during problem solving
6, demonstrating an idealized version of the act to be performed
- Scaffolding needs to be tuned to the learner’s developmental level (it should be neither
too much or too little) to be effective in assisting learning
- At the discourse level, scaffolding in second language (L2) classrooms, as proposed by
Ohta (2001), is facilitated through the use of "interactional routines."
+ these routines help L2 learners progressively become more actively involved in classroom
interactions, moving from peripheral participation to more active engagement + Ohta's study
focused on the "IRF" routine (Initiation-Response-Follow-up), which she examined in the
context of learners of L2 Japanese
+ she showed how the follow-up move in an IRF exchange allows the teacher to model listener
responses (the use of ‘ne’ as an aligning expression) - teachers in her study used various listener
responses, including expressions like "ne" for assessments, expressions of alignment, and
confirmation questions, demonstrating their interest in student talk and making their responses
more noticeable
+ listener responses in IRF exchanges can also serve a structural function in the discourse by
signaling a topic shift
+ in another interactional routine involving a greeting sequence that conventionally includes a
reference to the weather, a teacher scaffolded students' use of "soo desu ne" - the teacher not only
modeled the use of "ne" but also provided explicit guidance, like requesting students to produce
"soo desu ne" chorally.
+ Ohta’s discussion of listener responses is of interest because it shows how the kinds of
sequences that discourse analysts have identified can provide scaffolding opportunities
>< she acknowledged that teacher-centered discourse, while beneficial for exposing learners to
exemplars of these routines, could also limit students' actual use of them -> she emphasized the
importance of peer learning setting as an environment for the development of interactional
competence
- In the context of classroom discourse analysis from a SCT perspective, Guk and Kellogg
(2007) conducted a study comparing the scaffolding used by a teacher when interacting with
students and the scaffolding used by students when interacting among themselves in a Korean
primary school
+ the teacher strongly emphasized language as a system, breaking down sentences into smaller
components
+ scaffolding is achieved through techniques such as demonstration, requests for repetition,
leading questions, and initiating solutions (all of which were in line with Vygotsky's SCT
principles)
>< when students engaged in group work, they worked with larger chunks and focused more on
co-constructing discourse - Guk and Kellogg suggested that these two forms of discourse
complemented each other with teacher-student discourse providing the intermental mediation
needed to create a ZPD while student-student discourse allowed students to internalize what has
been learned
-> Scaffolding, in this context, is the interactive process that assists in constructing a ZPD ><
there are two significant challenges:
1, there is no rigorous description of the specific discourse features involved in scaffolding,
making it difficult to precisely define what scaffolding is and what it is not
2, the operationalization of the ZPD is problematic since it is rarely demonstrated that a learner is
incapable of performing a skill without assistance, meaning that development has not already
taken place - complicates the task of convincingly demonstrating the construction of a scaffolded
ZPD in classroom discourse
- In the context of defining and understanding scaffolding, Anton (1999) drew on Stone's
(1993) concept of ‘prolepsis’ (a conversational implicature where the necessary context is
provided after the utterance rather than before it) – this approach challenges the listener
to reconstruct the speaker's view, which can have a transformative effect
- Anton examined interactions between two foreign language teachers with distinct
interactional styles
+ one teacher used a proleptic style, which involved open-ended questions designed to encourage
learners to reflect on language form and verbalize rules - Anton argued that this proleptic
teaching constituted "effective assistance" or scaffolding
+ the other teacher followed a more traditional transmission model, providing their grammatical
explanations and dominating the interaction
- While Anton provided a more defined discourse category for scaffolding (prolepsis), she
did not provide evidence that this approach effectively constructs a ZPD for learners
+ there was no clear demonstration that learners were developing new knowledge or
transforming existing knowledge in the microgenetic analyses of the extracts discussed
- The potential for achieving this may lie in examining discourse over time (longitudinally)
to track how learners progress from assisted performance to independent use of a skill.

6. Ethnographic Accounts of the L2 Classroom

- Classroom ethnographers aim to provide an emic and holistic account of classrooms as
‘cultural scenes’ - they employ various data collection methods (video and audio
recordings, field notes, interviews, and diaries), which are then subject to qualitative
analysis to describe and understand how participants behave in the classroom
>< the focus is on microethnographic accounts, which specifically investigate the processes of
face-to-face interaction in classroom events to understand how their outcomes are produced
+ microethnography constitutes 1 way of conducting an ethnography of communication, with the
focus on the discourse features & structures of classroom events
- An influential early study by Philips (1972) explored the differences in the participation
of Indian and non-Indian children in a classroom on an Indian reservation in Oregon,
USA
- Philips identified different "participant structures" within the classroom.
1, the teacher interacted with all students, addressing the whole class or individual students, with
students responding either individually or chorally
2, the teacher interacted with a smaller group of students, requiring individual participation
3, students worked independently at their desks – individual students can choose to make contact
with the teacher & engage in private talk with her
4, small group work where students communicated with each other, often with one student acting
as a proxy teacher
-> Philips found that non-Indian children's participation in classroom discourse varied based on
these participant structures, emphasizing the impact of cultural differences and the structure of
classroom interaction on students' participation
- Philips' study highlights the significance of cultural differences in how students from
diverse backgrounds engage in classroom interactions and how the participant structure
influences their participation
- More recent ethnographic and microethnographic studies have used the concept of
"language socialization" to investigate how learners develop the interactional competence
needed for L2 classroom participation
+ lang. socialization involves novices in a community being socialized into both lang. forms and
the values, behaviors, and practices of the community through language use -> entails
‘socialization through the use of lang. & socialization to use lang.’, affording a promising way of
examining the complex relationship between classroom social behavior & lang. learning
- Zuengler and Cole (2005) reviewed various studies of socialization in educational
settings, seeing these as sites for ‘secondary socialization’ (primary socialization
occurring in the home and family)
+ several of the studies they examined focused on "interactional routines" in L2 classrooms, such
as greetings, attendance, and personal introductions, which are highly predictable in structure
and repetitive - learners in such contexts have the opportunity to understand what constitutes
appropriately socialized behavior through these routines
- Other ethnolinguistic studies conducted within the language socialization paradigm have
examined the participatory patterns of L2 students in mainstream classrooms
e.g. Duff (2003) found that L2 learners in such classrooms were often silent, and even when they
did participate, their turns were typically shorter, more cautious, and less audible compared to
students who had been living in Canada for a longer period
- Zuengler and Cole concluded their review by emphasizing that the socialization of L2
learners is a complex and fluid process that can be challenging, tense, and unsuccessful -
this is due to:
+ differences between the socialization practices in the home and the classroom
+ differences between the socialization practices learners have internalized from previous
language classroom experiences and the practices in their current classroom
- To understand how classrooms socialize L2 students in managing classroom talk,
longitudinal studies are essential, but they are relatively rare
e.g. Cekaite's (2007) investigation of one student's (Fusi) development in a Swedish reception
immersion classroom over a year - Cekaite thoroughly analyzed the teacher-fronted classroom
interactions in which Fusi participated and identified three phases in her development
1, Fusi was mostly silent
2, she attempted to participate inappropriately through "aggravated direct disagreements" with
the teacher
3, she demonstrated mastery of ‘timely self-selections’, displaying her understanding of the
sequential organization of classroom activities & becoming a ‘socially competent actor’ + this
study is particularly interesting because it demonstrates the interrelatedness of Fusi's developing
interactional and linguistic competence
+ Cekaite also emphasizes that learners' positions within an L2 classroom community are not
fixed; they can change over time, as Fusi moved from a peripheral participant to a fully active
one

- Ethnolinguistic accounts of L2 classrooms, like Cekaite's study, focus on general

interactional repertoires rather than specific features like turn-taking or repair work - they
document these repertoires in great detail through reference to minutely-analyzed extracts
of classroom talk.
+ a common finding in such studies is the important role played by interactional routines in
helping learners both master the rules of engagement & also develop their linguistic repertoires
- It's worth noting that most of these studies have examined "second" rather than "foreign"
language classrooms
+ in the former, the L2 serves as both the target language and the medium of instruction, while in
the latter, this may or may not be the case
- There is a need for microethnographic accounts of foreign language classrooms to
investigate how the management of classroom talk unfolds when two languages are
available