Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:28:32.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction as method and result of language learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2009

Joan Kelly Hall
Joan Kelly Hall*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The premise of this paper is that the interactional practices constituting teacher–student interaction and language learning are interdependent in that the substance of learners' language knowledge is inextricably tied to their extended involvement in the regularly occurring interactional practices constituting their specific contexts of learning. After laying out the central components of a theoretical framework for understanding the interdependent nature of interaction and learning, I provide an overview of the Initiation–Respond–Feedback organization (IRF), a ubiquitous classroom interactional practice, and then examine two instances of the IRF taken from two language classrooms. I pay particular attention to actions in the IRF that give shape to learners' developing understandings of, and skills for, using the target language. After briefly discussing the likely consequences of extended participation in the IRF in terms of L2 outcomes, I suggest directions for future research.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 202 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal 91, 863–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The new psychology of language (vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 147–197.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82, 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (2001). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of language use, language change, and first and second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 92, 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, D. (2007). Research ‘fitting’ practice: Firth and Wagner, Classroom language teaching, and language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal 91, 893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galatolo, R. & Drew, P. (2006). Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. Text & Talk 26, 661–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Goody, E. (1995). Introduction: Some implications of a social origin of intelligence. In Goody, E. (ed.), Social intelligence and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1995). ‘Aw, man, where we goin?’: Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6, 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal 81, 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1998). Differential teacher attention to student utterances: The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics and Education 9, 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2004a). Language learning as an interactional achievement. The Modern Language Journal 88, 607–612.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2004b). ‘Practicing speaking’ in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In Boxer, D. & Cohen, A. (eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 68–87.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A. & Carlson, M. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27, 220–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, W. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Heap, J. (1992). Seeing snubs: An introduction to sequential analysis of classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction 27, 23–28.Google Scholar
Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society 32, 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, J. (2005). Syntactic and prosodic practices for cohesion in series of three part sequences in classroom talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38, 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2004). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In Fitch, K. & Sanders, R. E. (eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 103–137.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Maynard, D. (2006). Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The new psychology of language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 155–175.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 35–71.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66–100.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2006a). On the human ‘interaction engine’. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Roots of human sociality. Oxford: Berg, 39–69.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2006b). Cognition in the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies 8, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Macbeth, D. (1994). Classroom encounters with the unspeakable: ‘Do you see, Danelle?’. Discourse Processes 17, 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macbeth, D. (2000). Classrooms as installations. In Hester, S. & Francis, D. (eds.), Local educational order. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society 33, 703–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markee, N. & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal 88, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. & Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 88, 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. (2002). Becoming a speaker of culture. In Kramsch, C. (ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization. London: Continuum, 99–120.Google Scholar
Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language Learning 42, 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational materials for doing sociology. In Sunow, D. N. (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 31–74.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, R. E. (1987). Cognitive foundations of calculated speech. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. E. (2007). Validating ‘observations’ in discourse studies: A methodological reason for attention to cognition. In Molder, H. te & Potter, J. (eds.), Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–78.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In Resnick, L., Levine, J. & Teasley, S. (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 150–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Roots of human sociality. Oxford: Berg, 70–96.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analytic perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2006) Acquiring linguistic constructions. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. (eds.), Handbook of child psychology (vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press, 255–298.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar