L2 Teaching in the Wild: A Closer Look at Correction and Explanation Practices in Everyday L2 Interaction

Abstract

This article argues for a reconceptualization of the concept of 'corrective feedback' for the investigation of correction practices in everyday second language (L2) interaction ('in the wild'). Expanding the dataset for L2 research as suggested by Firth and Wagner (1997) to include interactions from the wild has consequences for the traditional concept of corrective feedback, which comes from classroom dyads of native speakers and nonnative speakers and focuses on a native speaker's correction of a linguistic error in an L2 speaker's turn. Correction practices in the wild, however, are co-constructed and predominantly initiated by the L2 learner herself. The study also shows that explanation practices are initiated by the L2 speaker or otherwise occasioned and that they emerge following a lack of understanding on the part of the L2 speaker during a correction episode. The data reveal no examples of L2 teaching in the wild as correction or explanation practices that are not occasioned, that is, they do not come 'out of the blue.' I will argue that L2 teaching practitioners might benefit from more awareness of the circumstances that occasion and sustain correction and explanation practices.Keywords: CA-SLA; repair; corrective feedback; L2 teaching in the wild; L2 learning in the wild THE NOTION OF CORRECTION HAS BEEN studied in detail in second language acquisition (SLA) research as a feedback practice, that is, a practice in which second language (L2) speakers receive feedback on their output by first language (L1) speakers in interactional dyads. These dyads are often referred to as native speaker-nonnative speaker (NS-NNS) talk and staged primarily as information gap tasks for research purposes, or they consist of teacher-student interactions. The focus in this research has been on instances of erroneous language use by an L2 learner and the subsequent reaction of the L1 speaker or the language expert in such dyads. In particular, this reaction to the erroneous turn by the L1 speaker has been targeted as this is where the feedback is located. Designed to provide the L2 learner with feedback on the correctness of her output, this

‘We're Learning a Lot of New Words’: Encountering New L2 Vocabulary Outside of Class

“…Learner‐initiated repairs, such as word searches, are a good place to start because of the interactional preference for self‐repair (Schegloff et al., ; cf. Theodórsdóttir, this issue). In the remainder of this section I will briefly go through the main practices of NfM—confirmation and comprehension checks, clarification requests, and corrective feedback—as they pertain to my data.…”

“…Then Lena takes over again, uttering the final part of the word, klæde . Tina repeats the entire word, and Lena comments that it contains the ‘soft d’ (a phoneme similar to /ð/) (lines 11–15); a comment which can be heard as a teaching activity by way of a meta‐linguistic explanation (Theodórsdóttir, this issue) and a display of epistemic access where Lena makes it public that she is categorizing the word phonemically with other known words; she is displaying how it falls into place with her existing knowledge. Tina repeats it again and gets a positive assessment from Lena.…”

“…In the present approach I draw on data from naturally occurring situations ‘in the wild.’ Borrowed from Hutchins (), this term indicates that the data come from non‐lab contexts, were not recorded in situations staged for the sake of research, and were not controlled by a teacher (Eskildsen & Theodórsdóttir, ; Theodórsdóttir, this issue). Such data, as will be shown, yield other phenomena than data from a lab (Wagner, , ).…”

Retrospective Orientation to Learning Activities and Achievements as a Resource in Classroom Interaction

“…Cross-sectional studies typically address L2 learning by investigating interactions in which participants observably orient to the ongoing activity as learning (as opposed to some other social activity) by identifying and working on 'learnables' (Majlesi & Broth, 2012). These kinds of situated learning practices have been explored both in pedagogical settings (e.g., Lee, 2010;Majlesi & Broth, 2012;Merke, 2016;van Compernolle, 2010) and in everyday life (Eskildsen, 2018;Lilja, 2014;Sahlström, 2011;Theodórsdóttir, 2018). Recent work within this literature has examined points of convergence and divergence between the classroom and 'the wild,' with a view on how these life arenas may involve distinct interactional practices for doing learning, and how participants may build bridges between settings (see e.g., Eskildsen & Theodórsdóttir, 2017;Lilja & Piirainen-Marsh, 2018).…”

“…Yet another focus in the cross-sectional inquiry is represented in the body of literature that takes as its starting point well-established cognitive constructs of SLA to explore their social organization and interactional building blocks. These studies have re-specified notions such as planning (Lee & Burch, 2017;Markee & Kunitz, 2013), noticing (Kääntä, 2014;Kunitz, 2018), corrective feedback (Theodórsdóttir, 2018), and communication strategies (Burch, 2014) as interactionally observable phenomena of situated cognition (see Kasper, 2009) and thereby within the reach of a CA methodology.…”