From Trouble in the Talk to New Resources: The Interplay of Bodily and Linguistic Resources in the Talk of a Speaker of English as a Second Language

  • Søren W. Eskildsen
  • Johannes Wagner
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores how a family of related expressions emerge from repairs and are refined over time by a novice speaker of L2 English. We trace longitudinally a connection between a complex of deictic (pointing) and dynamic (hand movements) gestures and a small family of specific, related linguistic resources centred on the verbs “ask”, “tell”, and “say”. The data reveal that the L2 speaker packages these linguistic resources with particular gestures and re-uses these gesture-word packages in subsequent conversations. We will show in detail how the gesture-talk combination is used to display understanding and achieve intersubjectivity and how it changes over time as the gesture is subsumed by the emergent verbal language and becomes a communicative resource in its own right when circumstance demands it.

References

  1. Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language learning? The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 534–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Fornel, M. (1992). The return gesture: Some remarks on context, inference and iconic gesture. In P. Auer & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 370–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eskildsen, S. W. (2011). The L2 inventory in action: Conversation analysis and usage-based linguistics in SLA. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 337–373). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
  8. Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). Negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based l2 learning of English questions. Language Learning, 65(1), 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eskildsen, S. W. (in press). Because I no remember: Sub-ordination and co-ordination in English L2 learning. In A. Tyler & C. Moder (Eds.), What does cognitive linguistics look like? Answers from the L2 classroom and SLA studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Eskildsen, S. W. (2017). The emergence of creativity in L2 English – a usage-based case-study. In N. Bell (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on language play (pp. 281-316). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2007). Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. In M. Nenonen & S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the first Nordic conference on syntactic freezes (pp. 86–99). Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2013). Recurring and shared gestures in the L2 class-room: Resources for teaching and learning. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied l2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65(2), 419–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eskildsen, S. W., Cadierno, T., & Li, P. (2015). On the development of motion constructions in four learners of English. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 207–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gardner, R., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2004). Second language conversations. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. D. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
  21. Gullberg, M. (2011). Multilingual multimodality: Communicative difficulties and their solution in second-language use. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 137–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hauser, E. (2013). Stability and change in one adult’s second language English negation. Language Learning, 63(3), 463–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  24. Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–387). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
  25. Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 171–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, Y. (2009). The Korean discourse markers -nuntey and kuntey in native-nonnative conversation. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 317–350). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
  28. Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(7), 1083–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2004). CA-for-SLA? It all depends. Modern Language Journal, 88, 603–607.Google Scholar
  31. Markee, N. (1994). Towards an ethnomethodological respecification of second language acquisition studies. In E. Tarone, S. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 89–116). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mortensen, K. (2016). The body as a resource for other-initiation of repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–268). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  36. Reder, S. (2005). The lab school. Focus on Basics, 8(a), 1–6.Google Scholar
  37. Reder, S., Harris, K. A., & Setzler, K. (2003). A multimedia adult learner corpus. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 546–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roehr-Brackin, K. (2014). Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning, 64(4), 771–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schegloff, E. A. (2009). One perspective on conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 357–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seo, M., & Koshik, I. (2010). A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair in ESL conversational tutoring. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2219–2239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manufacture of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner, J. (2004). The classroom and beyond. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 257–278.Google Scholar
  43. Yuldashev, A., Fernandez, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2013). Second language learners’ contiguous and discontiguous multi-word unit use over time. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Søren W. Eskildsen
    • 1
  • Johannes Wagner
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Southern DenmarkSønderborgDenmark
  2. 2.University of Southern DenmarkKoldingDenmark

Personalised recommendations