No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The descriptive focus of conversation analysis (CA) has not been considered optimal for second language (L2) acquisition research. Recently, however, some CA researchers have addressed the developmental agenda by examining longitudinal data (e.g., Brouwer & Wagner, 2004;Ishida, 2009;Markee, 2008;Pekarek-Doehler, 2010). The present article offers conceptual rationale and analytic demonstrations as to how CA's descriptive analyses contribute to L2 acquisition research with particular focus on English spoken discourse. While a great deal of prior L2 acquisition studies center on changes in L2 forms and functions, CA's emphasis on the sequential organization of spoken language can specify the process by which such developmental changes are occasioned in situated context of L2 use. What matters here is not just the presence of linguistic changes, but the contingent methods L2 speakers deploy in contextually occasioned language use. We present two sets of analyses in order to illustrate the case in point: cross-sectional data for story-prefacing work in an ESL setting, and longitudinal data on topic-shift in an EFL setting.

The distinction between language acquisition and language use has been a source of contention among those who study L2 interaction. However, as featured in The Modern Language Journal (in 1997–1998, 2004, and 2007), debates have essentially been limited to confirming the presence of discrepancies among different paradigms regarding theoretical content. As a result, where methodological practices are at all discussed they are judged only by the extent to which they realize underlying theoretical positions. By contrast, this article argues that there is a need to evaluate methodological practices on their own terms and to specify what is gained and lost in the respective approaches. It does so by examining and comparing descriptive analyses of L2 conversational interactions in the interactionist paradigm and in conversation analysis (CA). The article concludes that, if both approaches were held to a minimum level of descriptive adequacy regarding the respective parties' L2 use, analysts could gain a workable space regarding what can be said and what should be said about actual L2 interactions, including where to end description, that is created independent of theoretical positions.