Tracing Developmental Changes Through Conversation Analysis: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis

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.

Analyzing Storytelling In TESOL Interview Research

“…For example, Hellermann () documents how novice L2 speakers' participation in storytellings developed in peer activities in English as a second language (ESL) classrooms over time. Lee and Hellermann () show how students in an ESL setting accomplished story‐prefacing and how students in an English as a foreign language (EFL) setting managed topic shifts as their linguistic resources expanded. Holmes and Marra () describe how migrants used narratives in workplace settings with varying success and identified entry points for pedagogic support.…”

The development of L2 interactional competence: evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization

“…Existing work has explored the development of practices for taking turns at talk (Cekaite 2007), for disengaging from classroom tasks (Hellermann 2008; Hellermann and Cole 2009), for disagreeing (Pekarek Doehler and Pochon-Berger 2011), for opening tasks (Hellermann 2007) and storytellings (Hellermann 2008;Pekarek Doehler and Pochon-Berger forthcoming) or for responding to such tellings (Ishida 2011), for repairing conversational troubles (Hellermann 2009(Hellermann , 2011Farina, Pochon-Berger and Pekarek Doehler 2012), for formulating request in interaction (Al-Gahatani and Roever 2013), for shifting conversational topics (Lee and Hellermann 2014) and more generally for managing participation (Achiba 2012;Nguyen 2011;Rine and Hall 2011; see also Pallotti 2001). These typically focus on a distinct action or course of action (e.g.…”

Variations in developmental patterns across pragmatic features

“…One possible method to unveil the interactive features in speech acts is to adopt the conversation analysis (CA) perspective. Several studies have started to apply CA to investigate L2 development (e.g., Hauser, 2013;Lee & Hellermann 2015). Hauser (2013) collected naturalistic conversation data between an immigrant (Nori) and the researcher and analyzed the production of negation forms.…”