The study depicts the relationship between pedagogical focus and language choice in the language teaching/learning environment of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) at a Turkish university. The article presents the organisation of code‐switching which is teacher‐initiated and ‘teacher‐induced’. The data were collected from six beginner‐level English classrooms. Transcripts of the lessons were examined using the conversation analysis (CA) method of sequential analysis in relation to the pedagogical focus, applying an adapted version of the classic CA question for interaction involving code‐switching: “why that, in that language, right now?” The study demonstrates that code‐switching in L2 classrooms is orderly and related to the evolution of pedagogical focus and sequence. Through their language choice, learners may display their alignment or misalignment with the teacher's pedagogical focus.

Interest in Conversation Analysis (CA) and its possible applications in the fields of language learning and language teaching has grown considerably over the last five years. There are now a range of publications which explore this area. The article therefore attempts to synthesise the current state of the research and identify the issues and problems that have arisen and those areas which are suitable for further research. This article starts with a brief introduction to CA methodology and then discusses the range of areas within the broad field of language learning and teaching in which CA has been applied: teaching languages for specific purposes; language teaching materials design; language proficiency assessment; language classroom interaction; NS–NNS (native/non-native speaker) talk; and code-switching. It then discusses the relationship between CA, Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, and examines the complex issue of what CA can contribute to the study of ‘learning’. The issues are illustrated by an example of a CA analysis of language learning processes. The article proposes that there are now three distinct approaches to the application of CA methodology to the field of language learning and teaching. The article concludes by positioning CA as a social science research methodology and considers possible future directions for research.

This article provides a summary of some of the key ideas of Seedhouse (2004). The study applies Conversation Analysis (CA) methodology to an extensive and varied database of language lessons from around the world and attempts to answer the question ‘How is L2 classroom interaction organised?’ The main thesis is that there is a reflexive relationship between pedagogy and interaction in the L2 classroom. This means that there is a two-way, mutually dependent relationship. Furthermore, this relationship is the foundation of the organisation of interaction in L2 classrooms. The omnipresent and unique feature of the L2 classroom is this reflexive relationship between pedagogy and interaction. So whoever is taking part in L2 classroom interaction and whatever the particular activity during which the interactants are speaking the L2, they are always displaying to one another their analyses of the current state of the evolving relationship between pedagogy and interaction and acting on the basis of these analyses. So interaction in the L2 classroom is based on the relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Interactants are constantly analysing this relationship and displaying their analyses in their talk. An example of data analysis is provided, including discussion of socially distributed cognition and learning.

The article examines “task” as research construct as predominantly conceived in terms of task‐as‐workplan in the task‐based learning/second language acquisition literature. It is suggested that “task” has weak construct validity and ontology in an overwhelmingly quantitative paradigm because the construct has a “split personality.” Conceptualization is based on the task‐as‐workplan, but data are gathered from the task‐in‐process. The article adopts a conversation analysis perspective and demonstrates that the two can be very different. It is proposed that a secure basis for “task” as research construct and for the quantification of discoursal data is attainable only by switching the conceptual and methodological focus to task‐in‐process.

No abstract