brouwer 2003, word searches nns-ns interaction

Word Searches in NNS: NS Interaction: Opportunities for Language Learning?Author(s): Catherine E. BrouwerSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 87, No. 4 (Winter, 2003), pp. 534-545Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern LanguageTeachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1192802Accessed: 12/10/2008 13:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Blackwell Publishing are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1192802?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

Word Searches in NNS-NS Interaction: Opportunities for

Language Learning? CATHERINE E. BROUWER Institute of Language and Communication

University of Southern Denmark

Campusvej 55 DK 5230 Odense M Denmark Email: [email protected]

A substantial portion of second language acquisition research focuses on interactional practices in which nonnative speakers (NNSs) engage. From various theoretical viewpoints, it is assumed that certain types of interactional practices, specifically those in which participants focus on linguistic form, may promote language learning. The question of whether, and under which conditions, such sequences can be seen as providing the NNS with language learning opportunities, is considered in a purely data-driven way, applying conversation analysis (CA) as a method. The article considers one specific type of interactional practice, "word search" sequences, and opportunities for language learning that they may provide for NNSs on the basis of naturally occurring interactions between native speakers of Danish and Dutch speakers of Danish. It is argued that in order to distinguish between "language learning opportunities" and other types of interactional practices, the researcher needs to analyze the data in detail.

SEVERAL RESEARCH PARADIGMS IN SECOND

language acquisition (SLA) see interaction, in a broad sense, as a prime source of data for the study of language learning. Such paradigms occur in sociocultural theory, studies on input modification, and Focus on Form; they are also found in certain studies based on functional and pragmatic ap- proaches, sociolinguistics, communication strategies, and conversation analysis (CA). These paradigms are methodologically and theoretically diverse, and researchers analyze interactions for various reasons. In paradigms relying on sociolinguistics, sociocultural theory, CA, and ethnogra- phy, and, to some degree, in functional ap- proaches, researchers work with data that are as naturally occurring as possible, whereas, for reasons of comparison or other requirements in the research design, other paradigms are forced to work with elicited interactions. However, researchers in all of the above-mentioned paradigms

The Modern LanguageJournal 87, iv, (2003) 0026-7902/02/534-545 $1.50/0 ?2003 The Modern LanguageJournal

seek to describe interaction as a central constitu- ent in the acquisition of a second language (L2). There is, from various theoretical viewpoints, little doubt that interactions involving at least one nonnative speaker (NNS) are worth studying in order to shed light on the issue of L2 learning.

Researchers from the different paradigms focus on a variety of interactional practices that somehow seem remarkable because they may advance L2 learning. Roughly, one can distinguish between two ways of regarding interactional practices as beneficial for L2 acquisition. According to one view, participation in extensive and varied types of sociocultural practice is the source of

language development. This view sees language essentially as a social process, and L2 acquisition (often referred to as "L2 learning"-see Donato, 2000, for a discussion) is seen as a socioconstruc- tional process. Often, the types of interactional practices that are considered are those in which learners in some way are assisted by peers, teachers, or native speakers (NSs). They are discussed in terms of scaffolding or mediation (e.g. Do- nato, 1994, 2000; Ohta, 2000a, 2000b; and Swain,

Catherine E. Brouwer

2000). In another view, based on Long's interaction hypothesis (Long, 1981), specific practices stand out as particularly interesting because they seem to "provide important information about L2 form-function relationships" (Long & Robin- son, 1998, p. 23) and, therefore, they may advance L2 acquisition. This view sees language as the linguistic system and L2 acquisition as the

process of incorporating this system into the indi- vidual's mental structure. Practices in interaction, considered from this view, are defined in a broad way, such as Focus on Form (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Long & Robinson; Williams, 2001), negotiation of meaning (Long, 1983), recasts (Lyster, 1998), or negative evidence (Long, Inagaki, &

Ortega, 1998). In this article, I consider the contribution of

specific types of sequences in interaction to L2 acquisition in a purely data-driven way. One can identify sequences in naturally occurring interaction in which participants focus on some formal linguistic aspect of the language, as for example, phonemes (Brouwer, forthcoming). These sequences correspond to what researchers have described for classroom interaction as Fo- cus on Form-the participants take a time out from the communicative business in which they are engaged to deal with a matter of linguistic form. Although NNSs are evidently instructed in and practice a linguistic form, the central issue in relation to these sequences (and to research on Focus on Form, negotiation of meaning, recasts, and the like) would be whether they actually learn from them. Obtaining empirical evidence for this would not be easy and would require at least large quantities of data. A question that should be considered beforehand, however, is whether, and under which conditions, sequences in which participants focus on particular linguistic forms count as language learning opportunities. In other words, which exactly are the features of such sequences that, in Long and Ro- binson's terms, "provide important information about L2 form-function relationships" and, as such, have the potential to promote language learning. The relevance of this question lies in the fact that sequences in which participants focus on linguistic form may, at some level, have certain features in common, but because they occur in a wide variety of contexts, they may serve different purposes. As a prerequisite for locating learning at a precise point in interaction, it needs to be shown that these sequences actually have the potential to advance language acquisition.

This article concentrates on a specific type of

interactional practice, in which the participants focus on lexical items: word searches. As a pre- liminary definition, word searches can be described as cases where a speaker in interaction

displays trouble with the production of an item in an ongoing turn at talk. Often, the display of trouble will be a phrase like: "what's it called," "whatchamacallit," "what's her name again?" or the like.

Word searches (or lexical searches), Hammar- berg (1998) notes, are remarkable with regard to L2 learning in interactions because one could assume that they "constitute crucial moments in the learner's acquisition of target language structure" (p. 178). However, this is no more than an assumption. In this article, this is taken up as a research question: Do word search sequences provide opportunities for language learning?

I argue that, on the basis of their architecture, one can distinguish between the word search sequences that can and those that cannot be identified as learning opportunities. Moreover, some sequences that on the surface do not even look like word search sequences may turn out to be word search sequences that are language learning opportunities.

The article analyzes word searches with regard to language learning, applying CA as a methodol- ogy. The data stem from a transcribed, 6.5-hour corpus of audio-taped, naturally occurring con- versations between Danes and Dutch speakers of Danish (see Appendix A for transcription conventions). From this corpus, a collection of 122 excerpts that appeared to be relevant for the analysis of word searches was built and analyzed in detail. The excerpts presented are repre- sentative of the types of word searches found in the corpus.

WORD SEARCHES AND LEXICAL ACQUISITION

Most of the research on lexical acquisition focuses on lexical processing, lexical repre- sentation, or both and is based on written texts or tests (e.g., Barcroft, 2001; Bogaards, 2001; de Bot, Paribakht, & Wesche, 1997; Haastrup & Henrik- sen, 2000; Liu & Shaw, 2001). A smaller number of studies, however, addresses what may happen in contexts where a learner needs to express something and has difficulty doing so; the major- ity of these studies belong to the research body on communication strategies (Kasper & Kellerman, 1997; Kellerman & Bialystok, 1997; Poulisse, 1997a). Now in most of this research, the argu-

535

536

ment is that communication strategies are a problem-solving activity. Describing lexical strategic competence, Kasper and Kellerman (1997) suggested that researchers should look at these

strategies under a specific condition in communication:

This condition is one where a speaker wishes to label a concept for which she does not have the lexical resources, or where these resources are available but cannot be recalled, or where available and retrievable resources cannot be used successfully because of con- textual constraints. (p. 8)

All three categories may apply to word searches.

Interestingly, the distinction between the categories is based not on the observable features of the communication strategy, but on the supposed motive for a communication strategy: Lexical items may be unavailable, lexical items may be irretrievable, or the context may call for a communication strategy. Researchers have mainly re-

garded communication strategies as indicative of

gaps in the learner's lexical knowledge. Some researchers (e.g., Hammarberg, 1998) even claim that lexical communication strategies are cases of

acquisition attempts; a gap in the lexical knowl-

edge of the learner is being filled. Although other researchers study communication strate-

gies in order to build taxonomies of communication strategies (Yule & Tarone, 1997), a number of researchers accordingly presume that word searches and the like indicate a gap in the learner's knowledge, on the basis of a supposed motivation having to do with the identity of the learner as a L2 learner (Hammarberg, 1998; Kas-

per & Kellerman, 1997; Kellerman & Bialystok, 1997; Poulisse, 1997a). As pointed out more generally for L2 learning in Firth and Wagner (1997), specific types of interactional practices are not necessarily indicative of gaps in the learner's knowledge of the L2. In this article, I

analyze word searches on the basis of their observable features in order to clarify whether they are possibly indicative of the motivations characterized by Kasper and Kellerman (1997). I do not

question whether lexical items sometimes are unavailable to L2 learners, nor whether learners may attempt to learn a lexical item in interactions. Nor can I deny that the analysis of instances of such strategies would shed light on L2 acquisition as such. The issue is, however, how we as analysts may distinguish between instances of NNS-related or learner-related lexical communication strategies, and those that are not NNS- or learner-related.

The Modern LanguageJournal 87 (2003)

RELEVANT IDENTITIES

The treatment of communication by a NNS as a priori extraordinary is a common problem in L2 acquisition research and has been debated in the past several years (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Gass, 1998; Hall, 1997; Kasper, 1997; Long, 1997; Poulisse, 1997b). In short, Firth and Wagner ar-

gued that the issue of the NNS as a learner is, in

many studies, taken for granted. Despite the fact that NNSs are learners and see themselves as learners, the issue is whether that category, for a

specific communicative practice and the analysis of it, is a relevant category. People have a variety of potentially relevant identities simultaneously. However, not all of these identities are relevant at all points in all of their interactions. Taking the relevance of the identities as learner or NNS for

granted is problematic in three ways: First, many interactions or parts of interactions with a NNS

may take place in a fashion that equals NS-NS interaction, despite the fact that there may be

(linguistic) errors in the NNS talk (Rasmussen &

Wagner, 2000). Second, more specifically, even those sequences that address trouble in the ex-

change may be parallel to similar sequences in NS talk-after all, even NSs address trouble in their interactions, at times even linguistic trouble. Third, although some interaction sequences may be identified as sequences where the NNSs and their interlocutors display that the NNSs' identity as NNSs is relevant, this does not mean that such

sequences can automatically be considered as ac-

quisition attempts. The issue, then, is, how practices that are related to the identity of NNSs as the

participants can be distinguished from those that are not.

A CONVERSATION ANALYTIC APPROACH TO WORD SEARCHES

The issue of relevant identities is predominant in CA research, which has shown how participants in an interaction position themselves and others in the social-constructional context of their interaction. In CA, this is treated in terms of the observable orientation to this context-that is, "what their interaction is about and their relevant biographies and institutional identities in that particular situation" (Wilson, 1991, p. 22). As is argued in CA, relevant identities, rather than being a given, are made relevant, or "oriented to" in the interaction. Often in subtle ways, but notice- able to other participants, participants show each other which social categories are relevant for the interaction in progress. When such an orienta-


tion to relevant social categories is demonstrated

by the participants, it is made public and thus becomes available for analysis.

As participants in interactions, we seem to be able, by and large, to recognize what other participants are doing and in which types of activities we are participating. This ability, in CA termed

"membership knowledge," may give us a gut feel-

ing about some sequences in a corpus of data

having to do with NNS-ship, but not about others, because we rely on our own experience. For the

analyst, however, a gut feeling will not do. Ana-

lysts need to account for such sequences as being the type of sequences we initially take them to be. And, because the analyst is not a participant in the interactions that are being analyzed, it may turn out that such sequences are different from what we initially took them to be, or that we can

analyze them into finer categories. What I analyze in this study, then, are the particularities in word search sequences-how those sequences are built

interactionally.

WORD SEARCHES AS A PRACTICE

In CA, unlike other fields such as psycholinguis- tics (Levelt, 1989), the term "word search" is used to refer to an interactional practice. The object of

investigation is not a cognitive or psycholinguistic process, but rather something that people regularly do in interaction; it is recognizable as such.

Although each word search has its particularities, word searches as a species of social practices have several traits in common that make them distinct from other types of practices. Furthermore, because word searches seem to have a format, they can be identified by the participants in the interaction, as well as by the analyst. Moreover, participants in an interaction are able to recognize the traits of a word search sequence as it unfolds, and

thereby engage in building such sequences. Word searches appear in all types of naturally

occurring interaction, even between native speakers, which is one reason for not regarding them a

priori as instances of L2 learning. Excerpt 1 comes from an interaction between two NSs of Danish:

Excerpt 1

F=Danish female, M=Danish male 1 F un[garsk og Tfinsk l-er]

Hun[garian and Finnish are] 2 M [finsk det er helt hab] il1st

[Finnish that is totally hope] less 3 F-e ungarsk og Tfin[sk] er meg Ioh

?hva er det hedder?=

Hungarian and Finn[ish] are ver uh what's it called=

4M

5 F =beslaegtet related

6 M oomhoo mh

[>jai?] [yeah]

F starts an assertion in line 1, but gets overlapped by M. She restarts her assertion in line 3 and then starts a word search with an explicit word search marker. In this case, it is the Danish version of "what do you call it?" The word search marker is followed by a solution for the missing word or

expression. In this excerpt, the word search item is pro-

vided by the speaker herself (henceforth referred to as "self' [see Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977]) almost immediately after the ex-

plicit marking of the word search. The explicit marking, syntactically, has the form of a question. Interactionally, however, it does not function as a question posed to the interlocutor (henceforward referred to as "other," for any other participant than the speaker; see

Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977). The question is immediately answered by self, thus leaving no opportunity for other to provide a candidate solution. Cases like these occur regularly in my data, and I assume that they are recognizable as a routine practice.

Solving Problems

In many word search formats with explicit word search markers, the immediate solution seems to be embedded in interactional problem solving. Consider the following example:

Excerpt 2 V = Danish; C = Dutch. C just moved to Den- mark; she is an exchange student. V is her tutor. HC0 is the acronym for a dorm.

1 V men 0hm (1.0) but uhm

2 ha ce X der borjeg talte med en ohvor var han frao HC0 there lives I spoke to someone where was he from

3 fra Po:rTtul-gal (.) from Portugal

4 det er en dreng fra PorTtuIgal it is a guy from Portugal

5 C mh [Serge] mh [Serge]

537

538

6 V [,sa ikke sa gamm-?] (0.2) [didn't look that ol-]

7 V ved ikke -Ihvad han hed4lder don't know what he is called

The word search marker (hvor var han fra) in line 2 is immediately followed by a solution (fra Portu-

gal). In line 1, which follows a 1.4 second silence, V marks the shift to a new topic. In line 2, by left dislocation of HC0, the name of a dorm, she makes a link to an earlier topic-V and C had been talking about HC0 previously. After V has uttered: "ha ce 0 der bor"(HC0 there lives) she abandons the grammatical structure that she started. At this point, it would be appropriate to

give the name of a person or some other specific reference that would make the identity of a person recognizable to C. Instead, V starts a new

grammatical string. By continuing with "jeg talte med en" (I spoke to someone) V shows that she is not going to produce a name, but rather some other type of reference. However, at this point, V

again abandons the grammatical string that she started and produces an explicit word search marker: "hvor var hanfra" (where was he from).

V has not made this person recognizable to C. The marker is spoken in a lower volume than the

preceding talk: Instead of producing a silence, which may invite C to take the floor, V shows that she is in the process of thinking (a practice referred to as "doing thinking" [Houtkoop-Steen- stra, 1994, pp. 192-193]). V thus informs C that her word search marker is not to be understood as a question or request for help.

V produces the projected referential immedi-

ately after the explicit marking: "fra Portugal" (from Portugal) and then restates the referential items "det er en drengfra Portuga'l (it's a guy from

Portugal). At this point, the person is recognizable enough for C to produce a name, which she does in overlap with yet another reference type from V. Although V says that she does not know the name of the person, V and C have now inter-

actionally established that they are talking about the same person.

The word search marker in this excerpt is not an invitation to help, but rather a technique that is used to produce a mutually recognizable reference in otherwise problematic talk. The explicit word search marker and the immediate providing of the word search item are embedded in larger interactional problem solving. V does not use the preferred type of reference, a name (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979), but pursues a specific type of reference, namely, origin. In pursuing this reference, she communicates to C that she is pro-


ducing a second-best type of reference. The word search marker can, thus, be seen, first, as an account (i.e., explanation) for not having produced a name, and, second, as a cue to the recipient about what type of reference to expect as the next item. By producing the word search marker, V shows that she has trouble producing a recognizable reference. The word search marker and the solution to the word search, therefore, have an interactional function.

These interactional practices do not necessar-

ily reflect problems in speech planning, or at least not exclusively. They have a communicative function. This analysis shows a word search that is used to deal with and account for trouble of a more general kind. It suggests that word searches may appear in interaction for a variety of reasons. Moreover, even if we consider cognitive motivations for the occurrence of the word search in Excerpt 2, the lexical item 'Portugal is not a gap in V's lexical knowledge. Rather, it is a tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomenon (Levelt, 1989). The issue is whether the occurrence of

explicit word search markers reveals anything about L2 learning. The analysis of Excerpts 1 and 2 shows that a word search marker in itself does not necessarily indicate an opportunity for

language learning.

Inviting Help

Explicit word search markers may be taken as

requests or invitations to help. We can see how this works in the following example:

Excerpt 3

J=Dutch, A=Danish. Prior conversation was about a couple who traveled to Nepal on their

honeymoon.

1J in- (0.4) in 0h hvad Thedder det oih det dero bjerg in- in uh what is called the ih this mountain

2 (1.5) 3 det hojeste bjerg,

the highest mountain 4 (0.8) 5 aeh ka ikke huske det

ah cannot remember it 6 (2.0) 7 Thvad er en bjerg i Nepal

what is a mountain in Nepal 8 (0.3) 9 h0jeste Tbjergotop?

highest mountain top


10 A det hedde:r (0.3) det Nepalesiske bjerg. it is called the Nepalese mountain

11 (0.8) 12J *nej::*

no 13 (0.2) 14J a(h) Mount Everlest.

In line 1, J is starting a word search with an ex-

plicit word search marker. After a 1.5 second

pause, he produces what can be called a hint at or an attempt at1 a solution of the word search. In line 3, he produces an account for not providing an item himself, and in line 4, an additional hint.

The trajectory shows that the participants orient to the preference for self-repair, an interactional phenomenon that is described in detail by Schegloff,Jefferson, and Sacks (1977). This study distinguishes, on the one hand, between repair initiation and repair outcome, and on the other, between 'self' and 'other.' The term 'self refers to the speaker of the trouble-source turn (TST), 'other' is anyone other than the speaker of the TST. The possibilities for the distribution of initiation and repair are thus: self-initiated self-re-

pair, self-initiated other-repair, other-initiated

self-repair, and other-initiated other-repair. As

Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks demonstrate, participants in a conversation orient to a preference for self-repair in various ways, which means that

they observe a norm that both favors self-initiation over other-initiation and self-repair over

other-repair. The preference can be observed in

Excerpt 3, as well as in Excerpt 1 and 2. Even after the explicit marker is produced, other does not come in and provide help. In order to get help from a hearer, the speaker has to do specific work to make it clear to the hearer that he wants other to participate in the word search. As Goodwin and Goodwin (1986) put it, "This raises the possibility that rather than operating simply on the basis of a fairly general preference, participants might be able to negotiate within the activity itself the type of coparticipation it is to receive" (p. 53).

We can see some of this work being done in Excerpt 3. In line 5, by saying that he cannot remember the reference, J indicates that he has given up, providing an account for not producing a reference term. Hinting at the solution, as in line 3 and line 9, may inform the hearer about what kind of word is being sought so that she can participate in the search. In line 7, J produces a word search marker yet again. We may suppose that these activities build to invite participation in

the word search. For several reasons, explicit word search markers, although they may have the form of a question, do not regularly get an answer from an other speaker. This pattern reveals the

preference for self-repair rather than immediate

help upon the production of an explicit word search marker. An additional indicator of this

preference is the lower volume of the markers, showing that the speaker is "doing thinking" (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1994, pp. 192-193).

EXPERTISE REFERRING TO KNOWLEDGE

In order to hear an explicit word search marker as an invitation to participate in a word search, the other participant must hear enough information about the type of word that is being sought. In

Excerpt 3, the information about the kind of word in line 1 is not specific: J communicates that he is

searching for the name of a mountain. His hint in line 3, however, makes the search more specific: He is searching for the name of "the highest mountain." Even if it is specific, the information is not relevant for what J is going to say about Mt. Everest2-it is relevant information for the interaction because it revealsJ's supposition about C's

knowledge and abilities. This display is one way speakers invite others to participate in searches. In Excerpt 3,J reveals a supposition that A has the same (common) knowledge that he has. In some cases, however, speakers display that their interlocutors are experts on some matter. The following is an example:

Excerpt 4 S=Danish, B=Dutch. They are talking about the United States.

1 S det var ligesom mu:lighedernes la:nd (.) it was just like the land of opportunity

2 det var de:r folk de emigrrede til it was there people they emigrated to

3B ja: yeah

4 S for [a] starte pa en frisk [otikkeo] in order [to] start a new right

5 B ja1 [netlop] yeah exactly

6 B ja (0.2) yeah

7 land lme::d ode l10h:o (0.6) land with the uh

8 ?rige mulighedeir hva sagde du om 1i0h om Tdeto rich opportunities what did you say about uh about that

539

540

9 at det va:r that it was

10 S det er (nogen) muliglhedernes land (.) it was (some) land of opportunity

In line 1, S is making a concluding remark about

something B has been saying. In line 8, B recycles this concluding remark, but she indicates with an

explicit marker in line 9 that she cannot repeat it with the exactwording. She turns explicitly to S for

help, and S then provides the word search item. This word search is different from the previous

examples. First, the wording of the marker ("hva sagde du om det"-what did you say about it) does not suggest that the speaker is "doing thinking": It is explicitly directed to the hearer, S. Second, the word search marker can be heard as an account for B's not providing the word search item. S offered the expression earlier in the conversation and, thus, can be seen as the author or ex-

pert. Third, the sequential structure of this word search is different from those in the first three

excerpts in that there is a candidate solution be- fore the explicit word search marker is produced.

When speakers directly invite hearers to help in this way, they are orienting to the hearers'

expertise. Thus, we can see that an explicit word search marker in itself is not taken as a request for help. In order to encourage others to help, speakers do specific interactional work (i.e., providing information about the item searched for, specifically addressing other speakers, and producing an account for not providing the item).

REFERRING TO LANGUAGE EXPERTISE

In some cases, not only do participants solicit help from other, but they simultaneously orient to their interlocutor's expertise in the language being used. For example, they use explicit word search markers, such as 'Jeg ved ikke hvad det er pa dansk" (I don't know what it is in Danish) or "Er det dansk?" (Is it Danish?), 'Jeg ved ikke hvordan man siger det" (I don't know how to say it), "Hvor- dan siger man det?" (How does one say it?), and "Hvad siger man?" (What does one say?) These explicit markers account for the word search and, simultaneously, point to the hearer's expertise. Excerpt 5 provides an example:

Excerpt 5 S=Danish, B=Dutch

1 S har du hjem,lve are you homesick

The Modern Language Journal 87 (2003)

2 (0.2) 3 nu

now 4B mm::: (0.6) afog til

mm::: now and again 5 (0.5) 6 - er det tdansk h(h)0

is that Danish h(h)e 6 (0.6) 7 S Tja [ ($0h] Tdet Igodt)=

yeah uh that's good 8 B [sa:]

so 9B =Tokkey h(h) [0h0(h)]

In line 1, S asks B a question, which is not imme-

diately answered. After a 0.2 second pause, S

specifies her question by adding the word now. The short pause in line 2 is already taken by S as an indication of possible trouble. In line 4, B shows that she is going to answer the question, but that she is "doing thinking." At this point, what B does can already be heard as searching for a word. After a longer pause, there is a candidate answer, an idiomatic expression. This candidate answer is "try-marked" (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979) by questioning intonation, which shows that B does not necessarily regard it as a definitely cor- rect answer. After another pause, B indicates why her answer is try-marked: She is not sure that it is the right expression in Danish. At the same time, this is an appeal directed at S for help. Cases like these, at first glance, seem to be clear-cut ways to

provide opportunities for L2 learning: In Excerpt 5, B may learn that the expression she used is

acceptable in the target language. However, first of all, only a small portion of the markers in the

excerpts considered for this study have wordings that showed an orientation to language expertise (10 out of 122 excerpts). Second, these 10 excerpts have the same structure as Excerpt 5; the explicit marker is produced after a candidate solution. This ordering poses a problem for the interpretation of these excerpts as learning se-

quences. In Excerpt 5, it is not clear whether "af og tir' for B was a lexical gap or whether B already had acquired this lexical item (in this light it may be important to note that the expression "afog tit' [now and then] can be literally translated from B's native Dutch "afen toe"). An alternative analysis of what happens in Excerpt 5 is that B try- marks this item not because she is unsure about the appropriateness of it as a linguistic item, but because she may be unsure about what exactly S's "nu" (now) refers to, and, thus, whether her answer is appropriate. "Nu" (now) could be under-


stood as "now that you are in Denmark" or, alter-

natively, "as we are speaking," and although B's answer would be appropriate in relation to the first meaning of "nu," it would not be appropriate in relation to the second meaning. The fact that S does not react right away may indicate that B's answer in some way is inappropriate, and this, again, could be the reason that she produces the

explicit word search marker in line 5. The word-

ing that points towards expertise may, thus, be based upon the noticeably absent reaction of S in line 6. So, even when participants in interaction seem to orient to other being a language expert, it is not at all clear that we can regard such se-

quences as opportunities for language learning.

WHAT COUNTS AS A WORD SEARCH?

Until now, we have considered cases with ex-

plicit word search markers-cases that stand out in the data as rather clear-cut word searches. However, these cases cannot decisively be re-

garded as opportunities for language learning. The explicit word search markers that can be heard as orienting to linguistic expertise, at least in my data, point backwards: They question the

(linguistic) suitability of a candidate already produced. The question, then, is at what point these items acquire the status of a lexical search. To answer this question, one should consider the

trajectory of a word search. The previous excerpts have disruptions in the

conversation that precedes the explicit word search marker: There are pauses and uh's. In CA studies, such breaks in the flow are described as nonlexical speech perturbations and regarded as self initiations of repair: "Self-initiations within the same turn (which contains the trouble source) use a variety of nonlexical speech perturbations, e.g. cut-offs, sound stretches, 'uh's etc., to signal the possibility of repair-initiation immediately following" (Schegloff et al., 1977, p. 367).

Moreover, a distinction is made between different types of nonlexical speech perturbations: "The cut-off initiates repair on some already-produced element of the turn: it is postpositioned. 'Uh' or a pause, standing in the place of a next-due element, is more likely to initiate repair on a next-due item; that is, it is generally prepositioned" (Schegloff, 1979, p. 273).

Schegloff (1979) also notes that stretches can be common preindicators of a particular type of repair, such as (word) searches. In CA, therefore, "0h" (uh) and pauses are understood as markers for searches, and stretches can be seen as prein-

dicators of repair. In Excerpt 5, for instance, the word search can be seen as preindicated when B stretches her "mm" and initiates a word search by virtue of the pause of 0.6 seconds. Now, as has been shown in CA research, when a specific type of activity or conversational practice is started, it can go in different directions. A word search can be resolved during the ongoing turn by self, or it can result in the explicit marking of a word search, and then be resolved immediately. Also, as has been shown, when others are invited to

participate in the search, another speaker may produce an acceptable outcome for the search.

Finally, as Goodwin and Goodwin (1986) note, searches can also be closed without the word's

being found (p. 55). The issue here is that word searches, in most cases, are already well under

way when an explicit word search marker is produced. In this regard, Excerpt 6 contains several word searches, although no explicit word search marker is uttered:

Excerpt 6 M = Danish, J= Dutch speaker of Danish

1J det fordi (0.2) its because

2 0h og hvad vi skal 0:hm (0.3) uh and what we shall uhm

3 0h Taftale hvad vi uh agree-on what we

4 (0.5) [0h] (.) uh

5 M [vi] skal lave madja we will have to make food yes

6J vil (.) lave mad want (.) to make food

7M ja

yes

In this excerpt, J seems to initiate several searches: in line 1 a 0.2 second pause; in line 2 "uh," later "uhm," and a 0.3 second pause; in line 4 "uh"; in line 5 a pause of 0.5 second, an "uh," and a micropause. Although J does not hint at a specific word search solution, M, in line 5, provides a completion of the turn that J is in the process of producing. This completion can be seen as offering a solution to J's search.

In order to consider word searches as opportunities for lexical acquisition, sequences that on the surface might not seem to fall into this category need to be included. It is clear that to detect such instances in the data, the transcript needs to be quite accurate (a point made in Laursen, 2002, pp. 6-7).

The markers for J's initiations of searches are

541

542

not explicit. Goodwin and Goodwin (1986) and Laursen (2002), among others, have shown that

gesture and gaze are operational in the initiation of word searches and that they may do the work of inviting others to participate in the search. Nonetheless, there is no orientation towards others being language experts in the wording of the initiation. The issue is, therefore, whether this

type of sequence can be categorized as one in which language learning is made possible. It may be assumed that M is providing J with valuable lexical material that she can exploit for language learning purposes. In order to make this evident, the excerpt should be examined with regard to other indications of orientation to language ex-

pertise besides the word search marker.

DOING LEARNING

In Excerpt 6, M completes the turn thatJ is in the process of producing. How M does this can be contrasted with the sentence completions that Lerner (1991) describes for interactions between NSs. Lerner identifies several turn formats called

"compound turn formats" in which sentence

completions by another speaker occur regularly. These are characterized as a type of turn that "in the course of its construction projects a [prelimi- nary component + final component] turn format" (p. 444). Examples are quotation marker

plus quote formats, "if X-then Y' constructions, and lists.

J's turn in Excerpt 6 is not a compound turn format: First, there is no specific type of final

component projected. The fact that M, neverthe- less, offers a completion of the turn, points at an orientation to language expertise. Second, M's contribution ends with a "ja" (yes), which may indicate that M, even though he produced the last part of the turn, attributes the authorship of this turn to J. The "ja" communicates something like "I know what you are saying," and the com-

pletion of the turn can, therefore, be understood as assistance rather than as taking over. Third, we may consider what J does in the next turn, the place where participants primarily display their

understanding of others' actions. In line 6, she repeats the lexical items "lave mad" (make food = cook). Such repetition is sometimes done by NNSs, but not always. In many cases, corrections or completions of NNS's turns are merely ac- knowledged by the NNS with a "yes." In other cases, NNSs may resist the (other-initiated) other- corrections that involve linguistic issues (Brou- wer, 2000, pp. 176-177). By repeating, J shows


that she recognizes M's completion as a (partly) relevant contribution and that she can exploit his contribution by incorporating some of its parts into her own completion of the turn-under-construction. In so doing, she demonstrates that she

exploits linguistic material offered by another

speaker in the course of building a turn. This demonstration can be seen, at least locally (i.e., at this particular point in the interaction) as lan-

guage learning. A final indication that points in the direction

of M's turn as linguistic assistance is the acknow-

ledgment token that M produces in reaction toJ's line 6. This token indicates once more that M attributes authorship of the turn to J. Simultane-

ously, the acknowledgement token can demonstrate that M accepts the form ofJ's turn.

Based on these indications, we can suppose that cases like Excerpt 6 offer opportunities for

learning in interaction. Word searches (almost by definition) concern lexical issues. Participants in interaction rarely initiate a word search on function words. In my data, all searches are on so- called content words and often on names. Al-

though some researchers address the fact that it

may be problematic to make a formal distinction between content words, function words, and other items in spoken discourse (McCarthy & Carter, 1997), at least when it comes to searches, interactants seem to make that distinction.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of several types of word search

sequences shows that word searches may take

place for a number of reasons. In order to make assertions about language learning, we need to consider the details of the interaction. Sequences that may qualify as language learning opportunities share the following characteristics: (a) the other participant is invited to participate in the search, and (b) the interactants demonstrate an orientation to language expertise, with one participant being a novice and the other being an expert. This orientation may be found in the ac- tual wording of a word search initiation, but it can also be exhibited in other components of the sequence. It should be stressed that such an expert need not be a NS, or even a person who is generally better at the language, although this difference in language competence is the case in my data.

Furthermore, cases where an orientation towards language expertise lies in explicit wording should be scrutinized for the possibility that this


wording is done for other reasons (as in Excerpt 5). The analyses show that identifying sequences in interaction as opportunities for language learning is not an easy task. It demands a dedica- tion to detail to a degree that many quantitative studies of interactional learning seemingly do not provide.

Some aspects of learning cannot be analyzed on the basis of the type of data shown in this article. The NNSs may be demonstrating that they learn to produce a word or a lexical item correctly in a

particular context-however, it is not clear how such words may be produced by the same NNS in future interactions, or whether and how they had been producing these lexical items in earlier interactions. Also, it is not clear whether NNSs may learn in an abstract way (e.g., by reasoning from

particular cases in order to formulate rules about the target language). Even if this is the case, it does not mean that sequences of interaction that cannot conclusively be analyzed as opportunities for language learning do not contribute to language learning. They probably contribute in a more general way. In a number of studies on L2 lexical acquisition, researchers have discussed the idea of "incidental learning" (e.g., Laufer & Hul- stijn, 2001)-which may be described as "learning by doing" or "learning as (part of) social practice," a line of thinking pursued in general theo- ries of learning. However, as Lave (1999) says, such a view of learning may pose a dilemma: On the one hand, if learning is seen as a social practice and needs to be described as such, only those sequences in interactions that can be analyzed as displaying learning would be considered as such-and that would exclude much linguistic conduct that may contribute to (language) learning as well. On the other hand, if all social practice is considered learning, then 'learning' as a concept seems to be lost. A solution to the dilemma, offered by Lave, Lave and Wenger (1991), and Dreier (1999), is to consider learning as diverse and changing practices in a number of social contexts. In this regard, learning is understood as "en proces, der kan finde sted i kraft af, at de larende personer tager del i social praksis, og at de aendrer eller udvikler deres deltagelse heri" (a process that may take place by the learning persons' participation in social practice, and by them changing or developing their participation) (Dreier, 1999, p. 83).

In certain contexts, however, such development or change is demonstrated in a single sequence in interaction. This article has suggested how to identify such sequences.

543

NOTES

1 The boundary between hints and attempts may be

fuzzy-hints can in the course of the talk become attempts or even solutions (i.e., when the interlocutors settle for a description because none of them can find the exact expression).

2As it turns out, J in Excerpt 3 tells A about the government of Nepal having decided that Mt. Everest is closed for tourism because the mountain climbers litter too much. In this telling, the fact that Mt. Everest is the highest mountain in the world is unnecessary information.

REFERENCES

Barcroft,J. (2001). Acoustic variation and lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 563-590.

Bogaards, P. (2001). Lexical units and the learning of

foreign language vocabulary. Studies in L2 Acquisi- tion, 23, 321-343.

Brouwer, C. E. (2000). L2 listening in interaction. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, University of South- ern Denmark, Odense.

Brouwer, C. E. (forthcoming). Doing pronunciation: A

sequence of novice-expert interaction. In R. Gard- ner &J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language talk. New York: Continuum.

de Bot, K., Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1997). Towards a lexical processing model for the study of L2 vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from ESL reading. Studies in L2 Acquisition, 19, 309-329.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in L2 learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskyan ap- proaches to L2 research (pp. 35-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and L2 classroom. InJ. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and L2 learning (pp. 27-50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on Form in classroom L2 acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press.

Dreier, O. (1999). Laring som andring af personlig deltagelse i sociale kontekster [Learning as change of personal participation in social contexts]. In K. Nielsen & S. Kvale (Eds.), Mesterlere: Lering som social praksis [Apprenticeship: Learn- ing as social practice] (pp. 76-99). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern LanguageJournal, 81, 285-300.

Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or, why apples are not orange and don't need to be. A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 82, 83-90.

Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and

544

coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51-75.

Haastrup, K, & Henriksen, B. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition: Acquiring depth of knowledge through net- work building. InternationalJournal of Applied Lin-

guistics, 10, 221-240.

Hall,J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of

practice. Modern LanguageJournal, 81, 301-306.

Hammarberg, B. (1998). The learner's word acquisition attempts in conversation. In D. Albrechtsen, B. Henriksen, I. M. Mees, & E. Poulsen (Eds.), Per-

spectives onforeign and second language pedagogy (pp. 177-190). Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press.

Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1994). De interactionele func- tie van zacht spreken in interviews [The interactional function of low volume in interviews]. Gramma/TTT, 3, 183-202.

Kasper, G. (1997). "A" stands for Acquisition. Modern

Language Journal, 81, 307-312.

Kasper, G., & Kellerman, E. (1997). Introduction: Ap- proaches to communication strategies. In G. Kas-

per & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strate-

gies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 1-13). New York: Longman.

Kellerman, E., & Bialystok, E. (1997). On psychological plausibility in the study of communication strate-

gies. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Com- munication strategies: Psycholinguistic and socio-

linguistic perspectives (pp. 31-48). New York:

Longman. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary

acquisition in a L2: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26.

Laursen, L. (2002). Kodeskift, gestik og sproglig identitet pa internationale arbejdspladser [Code-switching, gesture, and linguistic identity in international work-

places]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-

versity of Southern Denmark, Odense. Lave, J. (1999). Laering, mesterlere, social praksis

[Learning, apprenticeship, social practice]. In K Nielsen & S. Kvale (Eds.), Mesterlere: Lering som social praksis [Apprenticeship: Learning as social

practice] (pp. 35-53). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels

Forlag. Lave,J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate

peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cam-

bridge University Press. Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-

progress. Language in Society, 20, 441-458. Levelt, W. M.J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articu-

lation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Liu, E. T. K, & Shaw, P. M. (2001). Investigating learner

vocabulary: A possible approach to looking at EFL/ESL learners' qualitative knowledge of the word. IRAL, 39, 171-194.

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and L2 acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker


conversation and the negotiation of input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.

Long, M. H. (1997). Construct Validity in SLA research. Modern LanguageJournal, 81, 318-323.

Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on Form:

Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty &J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in classroom L2 acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in L2 Acquisition, 20, 51-81.

McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1997). Written and spoken vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 20-39). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2000a). Re-thinking interaction in SLA:

Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. InJ. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocul- tural theory and L2 learning (pp. 52-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2000b). Rethinking recasts: A learner-cen- tered examination of corrective feedback in the

Japanese language classroom. InJ. K Hall & L. S.

Verplaetse (Eds.), Second andforeign language learn-

ing through classroom interaction (pp. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Poulisse, N. (1997a). Compensatory strategies and the

principles of clarity and economy. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psy- cholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 49-64). New York: Longman.

Poulisse, N. (1997b). Some words in defense of the

psycholinguistic approach. Modern Language Jour- nal, 81, 324-328.

Rasmussen, G., & Wagner, J. (2000). Reparatur i international kommunikation. MOVN Publications, 1.

Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15-21). New York: Irvington Publishers.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Giv6n (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax (Vol. 12, pp. 261-299). New York: Academic Press.

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dia- logue. InJ. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and L2 learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press.


Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325-340.

Wilson, T. P. (1991). Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure (pp. 22-43). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

545

Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1997). Investigating communication strategies in L2 reference: Pros and cons. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication

strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 17-30). New York: Longman.

APPENDIX A

Transcription Conventions

This is a [word] [Oh ye]ah?

(0.5) (.) word= =word

T

word words

wo:rd wo:rd wo:rd

wo:rd

WORD wo- hhh hhh-

wo(hh)rd (hh)uh *word* <<word> >word? (word)

left-hand brackets mark the onset of simultaneous talk by the second speaker right-hand brackets mark where simultaneous talk stops length of a silence in tenths of seconds a silence less then 0.2 seconds

equal sign: no perceivable silence between turns of two speakers, or between twosubsequent utterance units of the same speaker (i.e. sometimes just used for readability of very long turns) the syllable following the arrow is relatively high-pitched (several arrows mark very high pitch) the syllable following the arrow is relatively low-pitched (several arrows mark very low pitch) the words or syllables between degree signs are relatively less loud (several degree signs mark very low volume) the underlined syllable or sound is stressed colons indicate stretching of sounds (sonorants) the combination of underliningfollowed by a colon indicates a pitch movement downward in the syllable (syllable becomes gradually lower-pitched) an underlined colon after a vocal indicates a pitch movement upward in the syllable (syllable becomes gradually more high-pitched) Capitals indicate high volume relatively to surrounding talk a hyphen marks that the speaker "cuts off' his or her speech a high periodfollowed by 'h' indicates a hearable inbreath (the more 'h's the longer the inbreath) 'h'followed by a high period indicates a hearable outbreath (the more 'h's the longer the outbreath) 'h' in parentheses marks the plosive sound made in laughter (sometimes in words) asterisks around stretches of speech mark that speech is produced with a creaky voice marks that speech is produced relatively slow marks that speech is produced relatively fast transcriber is not sure about transcription of speech

Forthcoming in The Modern LanguageJournal

Tony Silva & Ilona Leki. "Family Matters: The Influence of Applied Linguistics and Composition Studies on Second Language Writing Studies-Past, Present, and Future"

Paul D. Toth. "When Grammar Instruction Undermines Cohesion in L2 Spanish Classroom Discourse"

Dalila Ayoun. 'The Effectiveness of Written Recasts in the Second Language Acquisition of Aspectual Distinctions in French: A Follow-Up Study"

Alice Y. Chan. "Syntactic Transfer: Evidence from the Interlanguage of Hong Kong Chinese ESL Learners"

Kim Potowski. "Student Spanish Use and Investment in a Dual Immersion Classroom: Implications for Second Language Acquisition and Heritage Language Maintenance"

Ming-chung Yu. "Interlinguistic Variation and Similarity in Second Language Speech Act Behavior"

brouwer 2003, word searches nns-ns interaction

Documents