Abstract
This chapter explores how experientially based pedagogical activities that involve participation in real life service encounters provide occasions for developing L2 interactional competence. The data comprises novice L2 students’ self-recorded interactions in service settings and videorecordings of classroom planning activities and de-briefing discussions, where the students reflect on their experiences. The analysis traces what kinds of occasions for learning arise as the students move between the classroom and the real-world service settings. The findings show that the different phases of the task complement each other in supporting the development of interactional competence. The preparation phase enables students to plan initiating actions, but does not prepare them for contingencies of interaction in the wild. When carrying out the task in real world circumstances, occasions for learning can arise as students adapt to the interactional contingencies of the encounter and put their repertoire to use in interaction with others in the full ecology of the activity. Retrospective discussions enable detailed analysis of experiences as well as focused learning activity, whereby the participants develop an experientially based understanding of the interactional tasks, language practices, actions, organization and communicative norms pertaining to the social activity.
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The network of service providers included cafés at the University, a paper shop, a restaurant, a bicycle repair shop, hairdressers and a tourist information office. The idea for creating the network was based on earlier pedagogical initiatives, in particular Språkskap in Sweden (Clark and Lindemalm 2011) and The Icelandic Village hosted by the University of Iceland (Wagner 2015).
- 2.
- 3.
The comparative forms of adjectives in Finnish are formed through morphosyntactic means: in singular the appropriate forms in nominative case are vahva (strong) – vahvempi (stronger) – vahvin (strongest).
- 4.
- 5.
This is a self-service café, where the organization of the service encounter typically involves the customer picking up a cup, choosing the food items and beverages and then paying for them. In this café the coffee pots were placed on the counter in such a way that customers had to pay for the coffee before choosing the coffee and helping themselves.
- 6.
References
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M. (Ed.). (2015). Domains and directions in developing TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Clark, B., & Lindemalm, K. (2011). Språkskap: Swedish as a social language. Stockholm: Folkuniversitetet and Interactive Institute.
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskyan approaches to second language research (pp. 173–195). Norwood: Ablex.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383.
Edwards, D. (1994). Script formulations: An analysis of event descriptions in conversation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(3), 211–247.
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Theodórsdóttir, G. (2017). Constructing L2 learning spaces: Ways to achieve learning inside and outside the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 143–164.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2013). Recurring and shared gestures in the L2 classroom: Resources for teaching and learning. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 139–161.
Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S., Piirainen-Marsh, A., & Hellermann, J. (this volume). Introduction: On the complex ecology of language learning ‘in the wild’. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action (pp. 1–21). Cham: Springer.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a ‘reconceptualised’ SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 800–819.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.
Gonzales Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62(1–2), 51–75.
Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica, (191), 257–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0063.
Hall, J., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hasan, R. (1985). The structure of a text. In M. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context and text: Aspects of language in social semiotic perspective (pp. 52–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayashi, M. (2003). Language and the body as resources for collaborative action: A study of word searches in Japanese conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 109–141.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). On the contingent nature of language learning tasks. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 25–45.
Hellermann, J., Thorne, S., & Fodor, P. (2017). Mobile reading as social and embodied practice. Classroom Discourse, 8(2), 99–121.
Hellermann, J., Thorne, S. L., & Haley, J. (this volume). Building Socio-environmental Infrastructures for Learning. In J. Hellermann, S.W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.). Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action (pp. 193–218). Cham: Springer.
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.
Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567.
Kasper, G., & Burch, A. R. (2016). Focus on form in the wild. In R. A. van Compernolle & J. McGregor (Eds.), Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts (pp. 198–232). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Keisanen, T. (2012). “Uh-oh, we were going there”: Environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica, (191), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0061.
Kendrick, K. H. (2015). Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics, 1, 164–190. https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0009.
Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436.
Kidwell, M. (2000). Common ground in cross-cultural communication: Sequential and institutional contexts in front-desk service encounters. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 17–37.
Koshik, I., & Seo, M.-S. (2012). Word (and other) search sequences initiated by language learners. Text and Talk, 32(2), 167–189.
Kunitz, S., & Skogmyr Marian, K. (2017). Tracking immanent language learning behaviour in task-based classroom work. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 507–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.389.
Kurhila, S. (2006). Second language interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kurhila, S., & Kotilainen, L. (2017). Cooking, interaction and learning: The Finnish Digital Kitchen as a language learning environment. In P. Seedhouse (Ed.), Task-based language learning in a real-world digital environment: The European Digital Kitchen (pp. 157–179). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Lee, J., & Burch, A. R. (2017). Collaborative planning in process: An ethnomethodological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 536–575.
Lee, Y.-A., & Hellermann, J. (2014). Tracing developmental changes through conversation analysis: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 763–788. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.149.
Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lilja, N., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2019). Connecting the language classroom and the wild: Re-enactments of language use experiences. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 594–623
Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63(3), 629–664.
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 195–226.
Mondada, L. (2012). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 32–56). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.
Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 501–518.
Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 323–347.
Nguyen, H. T. (2012). Social interaction and competence development: Learning the sequential organization of a communicative practice. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(2), 127–142.
Nguyen, H. T. (2016). Interactional practices across settings: From classroom role plays to workplace patient consultations. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw007.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: on language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Pekarek Doehler S. & Berger, E. (this volume). On the Reflexive Relation Between Developing L2 Interactional Competence and Evolving Social Relationships: A Longitudinal Study of Word-Searches in the ‘Wild’. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action (pp. 51–75). Cham: Springer.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–268). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967.
Rossi, G. (2015). Other-initiated repair in Italian. Open Linguistics, 1, 256–282. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0002.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). “Task” as research construct. Language Learning, 55, 533–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00314.x.
Seedhouse, P. (Ed.). (2017). Task-based language learning in a real-world digital environment: The European Digital Kitchen. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030.
Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.5.391.29489.
Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 82–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Theodórsdóttir, G. (2011a). Second language interaction for business and learning. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. P. Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 93–116). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Theodórsdóttir, G. (2011b). Language learning activities in real-life situations: Insisting on TCU completion in second language talk. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 185–208). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Thorne, S. (2013). Language learning, ecological validity and innovation under conditions of superdiversity. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 6(2), 1–27.
Thorne, S. L., Hellermann, J., Jones, A., & Lester, D. (2015). Interactional practices and artifact orientation in mobile augmented reality game play. PsychNology Journal, 13(2-3), 259–286.
Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–102). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 1: Glossing Symbols Used
Appendix 1: Glossing Symbols Used
- PL:
-
plural
- PAR:
-
partive (partitiveness)
- COMP:
-
comparative
- SUP:
-
superlative
- COND:
-
conditional
- 2:
-
2nd person ending
- Q:
-
interrogative
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Piirainen-Marsh, A., Lilja, N. (2019). How Wild Can It Get? Managing Language Learning Tasks in Real Life Service Encounters. In: Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S., Pekarek Doehler, S., Piirainen-Marsh, A. (eds) Conversation Analytic Research on Learning-in-Action. Educational Linguistics, vol 38. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22165-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22165-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22164-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22165-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)