Abstract:This article presents empirical evidence that the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), especially key concepts in Negotiation for Meaning, bears little relevance for language learning outside of class ('in the wild,' cf. Hellermann, Eskildsen, et al., 2018;Wagner, 2015) but seems to be epiphenomenal to experimentally elicited data. Instead, the article shows that the learning, vis à vis negotiation for meaning, that takes place in the wild needs to be viewed as repair practices, as it investigates speakers' di… Show more
“…The excerpt is an example of a word search initiated by the L2 speaker through turn‐design (pauses and other signs of productional trouble) and the use of another, shared language (Eskildsen, this issue, ; Kurhila, ; Theodórsdóttir & Eskildsen, ; ). In this case, the use of English did not immediately foster other‐repair, which is testament to the widespread occurrence of English in Iceland.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead of focusing primarily on the practice as one of an L1 speaker, or a language expert or teacher, providing feedback to L2 users, the CA stance taken here implies investigating these phenomena as co‐constructed endeavors, crucially dependent on the L2 user's actions in the form of initiation of and reaction to the repair. CA methods, including Membership Categorization Analysis, to be explained in the next section, enable the analysis of those instances in detail for a better understanding of how they are organized and lead to a rethinking in social terms of correction and explanation practices as well as noticing (Schmidt, , ): Corrections and explanations only work when oriented and agreed to as such by the L2 user through her initiations and uptakes, which in turn function as socially visible displays of noticing (Eskildsen, , ; Eskildsen & Markee, ; Greer, ).…”
Section: Correction Versus Repairmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research on learning in the wild has revealed that L2 speakers massively engage in word searches and publicly notice new items (Brouwer, ; Eskildsen, this issue, , Greer, ; Kurhila, ; Lilja, ; Theodórsdóttir & Eskildsen, ). Mapping out a range of learning behaviors in the wild, Eskildsen () showed how word search practices leave experiential traces in the L2 speakers as they re‐index the recently learned items in subsequent talk, and how word searches can be used by L2 speakers to preempt upcoming trouble as they ask their L1 speaking peers for particular words immediately before going on to use them.…”
Section: Second Language Learning and Teaching In The Wildmentioning
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
“…The excerpt is an example of a word search initiated by the L2 speaker through turn‐design (pauses and other signs of productional trouble) and the use of another, shared language (Eskildsen, this issue, ; Kurhila, ; Theodórsdóttir & Eskildsen, ; ). In this case, the use of English did not immediately foster other‐repair, which is testament to the widespread occurrence of English in Iceland.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead of focusing primarily on the practice as one of an L1 speaker, or a language expert or teacher, providing feedback to L2 users, the CA stance taken here implies investigating these phenomena as co‐constructed endeavors, crucially dependent on the L2 user's actions in the form of initiation of and reaction to the repair. CA methods, including Membership Categorization Analysis, to be explained in the next section, enable the analysis of those instances in detail for a better understanding of how they are organized and lead to a rethinking in social terms of correction and explanation practices as well as noticing (Schmidt, , ): Corrections and explanations only work when oriented and agreed to as such by the L2 user through her initiations and uptakes, which in turn function as socially visible displays of noticing (Eskildsen, , ; Eskildsen & Markee, ; Greer, ).…”
Section: Correction Versus Repairmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research on learning in the wild has revealed that L2 speakers massively engage in word searches and publicly notice new items (Brouwer, ; Eskildsen, this issue, , Greer, ; Kurhila, ; Lilja, ; Theodórsdóttir & Eskildsen, ). Mapping out a range of learning behaviors in the wild, Eskildsen () showed how word search practices leave experiential traces in the L2 speakers as they re‐index the recently learned items in subsequent talk, and how word searches can be used by L2 speakers to preempt upcoming trouble as they ask their L1 speaking peers for particular words immediately before going on to use them.…”
Section: Second Language Learning and Teaching In The Wildmentioning
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
“…As Ortega () notes, one line that separates cognitivist and social approaches to SLA is whether language knowledge is conceptualized as abstract, “transferable across bounded minds and contexts” (p. 168), or situated in and contingent on specific contexts. The interactional episodes investigated in this article embody both kinds of conceptualizations, insofar as they show students working to manage classroom activities with the help of prior “sediments” (Eskildsen, , p. 51) in their experience. Yet, in light of the present analysis, knowledge deriving from earlier experiences is not so much ‘transferable’ in itself as it is made to transfer by constructing change or continuity across time in some new context that has a myriad of its own contingencies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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).…”
Section: Language Learning As a Temporal And Observable Members' Phenmentioning
This article explores the temporal nature of language learning in classroom settings through the lens of Conversation Analysis (CA) by drawing on video‐recorded interactions from Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) classrooms. It outlines some methodological challenges that the task of documenting language learning in and as observable social interaction poses for CA studies of second language (L2) learning and proposes that learning has typically been described as either a situated activity (in cross‐sectional studies) or a series of intermediate achievements (in longitudinal studies). The empirical analysis focuses on interactional instances in which students observably invoke and describe their earlier learning activities or achievements as part of some ongoing classroom activity, either in whole‐class or peer interaction. It is argued that such instances of a retrospective orientation to learning offer empirical materials for examining learning trajectories from a participant's perspective, how connections between moments and social domains separated by time and space are forged, and how resources are accumulated, recalibrated, and put to use. The focal interactions also raise conceptual implications for the ways in which learning is both situated and transferable, as well as methodological implications for how retrospection can best be rendered analytically accessible by way of a CA approach.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.