Situation 8: Your new classmate is having a problem deciding which course to take next year—industrial computers or multimedia—because both of
3. METHOD 1. Participants
4.6. Evaluating the Questionnaire Responses
Of the questionnaire respondents, 82% stated that CA was helpful for understanding the important principles of spontaneous conversation, while 81% believed that repeated listening to naturally occurring conversation could be helpful in improving their own listening comprehension skills.
Regarding the gap between the language presented in textbooks and the language of real-life spoken conversation, 70% of respondents agreed that the naturalness of everyday conversation is intentionally omitted from most
textbooks. Regarding authenticity, 82% of the respondents found the video clips of actual conversations to be more interesting than conventional audio-visual teaching materials. This finding contradicts previous research studies (e.g., Peacock, 1997) in which authentic materials were found to be less interesting. When the participants were asked whether they were aware of the unnaturalness of conversational scripts in textbooks, the responses varied, with 30% saying they had never given it serious thought. As for the question concerning self-identity and language learning, 70% of the respondents felt that understanding other languages and cultures provided a good opportunity to explore their own identity. A notable 91% of respondents acknowledged that conversation, specifically in English, is a complex process, although this response may be partly due to the learners’ lack of competence in English. Additionally, 67% of respondents felt that the silence between turns in English conversation seemed to be brief. As a result of the heightened awareness produced by their participation in this study, 94% expressed a willingness to try to use fillers such as “uhs” and “ums” when interacting with English speakers, and 86% said they would try to use minimal responses like
“mm hms” and “uh huhs.” Finally, 56% of respondents stated that the sense of humor of English speakers could be confusing at times.
In addition to these closed-ended questions, respondents were asked to provide written comments relating to CA and its applicability to language learning. Some comments made in response to the question about the usefulness of CA in acquiring a second language are as follows:
x “CA is useful for understanding language-specific ways of talking.”
x “I believe that knowing the characteristic features of the target language and being aware of the features not found in one’s native language make it easier to acquire the target language.”
x “CA is useful in that it helps learners to understand the rules of language that they have not noticed before.”
x “This method enables an analysis of the little words in conversation that would otherwise have been missed, such as fillers and minimal responses, and also gears learners’ attention toward these little words.”
Most second language acquisition (SLA) researchers maintain that attention, awareness, and noticing of target language forms all play an important role in L2 learning (Gass & Selinker, 2008). Attention, a limited capacity system, is defined as the process of selecting information for further processing, while awareness is defined as the subjective experience of noticing. Most researchers claim that attention is necessary for L2 acquisition to take place, while noticing with some level of awareness plays a facilitative role in L2
acquisition (Swain & Suzuki, 2008). Evidence from these questionnaire responses suggests that CA-based language learning activities are an effective way to help learners notice and learn precise form-function relationships in a target language. (For a more in-depth discussion of the development of a native, emic CA for SLA, see He, 2004).
Respondents were next asked to write about their discovery of spontaneous conversations occurring in people’s lives. Some of the comments received are as follows:
x “The biggest discovery for me is that there is orderliness in everyday interactions among people. I have never been aware of these characteristics, even within my own language.”
x “I discovered how English speakers manage their conversations in ways that are different from schoolbook grammar rules.”
CA’s key insight regarding verbal interactions suggests that ordinary mundane speech can exhibit an extraordinary level of orderliness. This orderliness is not determined by innate cognitive structures of language;
rather, it reflects a socially organized order of interpersonal action. Indeed, learners’ knowledge of underlying linguistic competence seems ill-equipped to allow them to understand the observable orderliness of everyday interaction (Wooffitt, 2005). This position rejects Chomsky’s (1965) well-known but misdirected assessment that talk per se is too messy, flawed, and degenerate to use in studying observable phenomena such as competence.
Finally, respondents were asked to write freely on their own views. Here are some of the responses received.
x “I feel I have become more interested in English.”
x “The method piqued my interest, as I have seldom had the opportunity to experience real English in my everyday life.”
Overall, the participants’ attitudes toward learning English became more positive as a result of the methodological approach adopted in this study.
Motivation is considered one of the main determining elements of success in developing a second language and determining the extent of active, personal involvement in L2 learning (Takahashi, 2005). It is clear that many participants enjoyed the experimental procedure, and this enjoyment led to increased motivation. The eventual goal of language learning, of course, is for the teacher to use such increased motivation to increase students’ personal efforts undertaken outside the classroom (Karimnia & Zade, 2007). The next section further discusses and summarizes the key findings of this study.
5. Conclusion
This article investigated the feasibility of applying CA to language teaching;
specifically, using CA to increase language learners’ awareness about interactional features of the target language and how speakers of the target language make sense of linguistic acts in real time to achieve orderliness in their social interactions. The results show that the majority of the participants responded positively to the study of CA and subsequent data analysis of L2 interactions using authentic video resources. CA helps learners both to overcome certain psychological barriers to language learning and also to notice a number of aspects of L2 interaction which otherwise may have escaped them.
This perspective of applied CA is offered by Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm’s (2006) study to illustrate how materials used to teach German phone conversation openings can be modified based on findings derived from CA.
From the CA literature, Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm drew examples of opening sequences for telephone conversations from American English and German (Pavlidou, 1994; Schegloff, 1979; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002) and used them for activities to raise learners’ awareness of cross-cultural differences. The learners were asked to reflect on their learning experiences after engaging in the activities, and it was found that these materials and activities noticeably improved learners’ performance (Roever, 2009, p. 569).
It is also worth noting that many participants in the present study reported gaining renewed interest in the English language. This finding is encouraging, considering that science students like those in the present investigation tend to have an aversion toward foreign languages. In fact, the participants commented during the investigation that they enjoyed working with and analyzing conversational data so as to logically infer the behavioral patterns that English speakers orient to in any talk-in-interaction.
Since learners’ resistance to adopting the native-speaker norms they have learned has been observed in the field of SLA (Davis, 2007; Ellis, 2008), it is worth considering whether and to what extent learners should be expected to emulate these norms. Liddicoat (2000, 2004), a conversation analyst, argues that, while learners need to be informed of the culturally appropriate aspects of language, they should not be pressured to simply and without question assimilate into the target culture. Each individual must choose whether he or she wishes to model his/her language use after native speakers or maintain some of the characteristics of his/her own native language.
A crucial point here is that knowing one’s own and others’ interactional practices and becoming more aware of what makes sense in the target
language is an invaluable process in helping students learn the target language and increase their intercultural sensitivity and tolerance. These points of views are certainly valid, as language learners are likely to experience some resistance to conforming to these norms. Learners thus need to be taught cross-cultural communication skills in a way that lets them know clearly that it is up to them how much like native speakers they want to become. The findings presented in this article suggest that exercises in CA using authentic video materials are useful for teachers, as they highlight the orderliness of conversation and give them a structure to use to teach L2 conversation. CA-based materials are also helpful for learners, as the exercises unveil mechanisms through which target language speakers actually achieve that order.
Learners’ enthusiasm for computer-based technology can also help to invigorate the learning process. Online video resources have the added benefit of providing visual information about nonverbal aspects of communication. For instance, one participant thought the English speakers seemed cold not because of what they said but because they were not displaying the same nonverbal cues (i.e., head nods) that Japanese speakers would have used (Kita & Ide, 2007). Another illustrative example of nonverbal communication is that English and Japanese speakers tend to differ in their ways of telling jokes and maintaining listenership. For example, Japanese speakers often tell jokes and laugh at the same time, while English speakers might tell jokes without laughing or even with a serious face and wait for a response. A Japanese person might react seriously and negatively to an utterance with a serious face.
These are language areas where sociocultural differences are very clear. The importance of infusing sociocultural dimensions into language programs has been recognized by conversation analysts like Barraja-Rohan (1999, 2000, 2011), who emphasizes the benefits of teaching sociocultural strategies to language students. She has demonstrated how applied CA in a second language classroom is effective in raising learners’ awareness of both the mechanisms and the norms of spoken language, as well as in helping learners to become analysts of conversation themselves and thus more adept conversationalists in the second language.
Because language is an activity rather than an object (van Lier, 2004), language learning should eventually move out of the head and into the world, becoming a social practice where learners and target language speakers jointly participate in using the target language. In L2 CA, learning refers to students’ increased awareness of and participation in the discursive practices of L2 (Hellermann, 2008). In terms of increasing learner awareness, by drawing their attention to specific L2 forms and developing their intercultural
sensitivity, CA can contribute to learners’ understanding of themselves as practitioners of another’s understanding of the world at large. This version of applied L2 CA is incipient and not yet fully tested, but it does offer many possibilities. Seedhouse (2011) suggests that more studies along this same line are needed in order to examine a wider range of the languages being learned and taught by using a wider range of teaching practices and activities in a broader range of contexts. The present study is intended to offer encouragement for still further development and application of CA to language teaching by linguists and language teachers.
The Author
Yasunari Fujiiteaches translation and interpreting theory and practice at the Department of English in Faculty of Foreign Languages at Daito Bunka University, Tokyo, Japan. Dr. Fujii has extensive experience as a legal translator, conference interpreter, educator, and researcher. He holds a B.A.
in history and an M.A. in Spanish from Sophia University, as well as a Ph.D. in linguistics from the Australian National University. His research interests are conversation analysis and social interaction in both ordinary and institutional settings. He has investigated the organization of story initiation and the workings of response tokens in both English and Japanese, and he is currently conducting research in the verbal and nonverbal aspects of interaction. He is also interested in examining languages not yet uncovered by the ongoing research efforts in conversation analysis.
References
Antaki, C. (2002). “Lovely”: Turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings. Discourse Studies, 4(1), 5–23.
Antaki, C. (2011). Six kinds of applied conversation analysis. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 1–14). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Nickels, E. L. (2011). No thanks. I’m full! Raising awareness of expressions of gratitude and conventional expressions. In N. R. Houck & D. H. Tatsuki (Eds.). Pragmatics: Teaching natural conversation (pp. 23–40). New York: TESOL Publications.
Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (1999). Teaching conversation for intercultural competence. In J. L. Bianco, A. J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for
the third place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 143–154). Melbourne: Language Australia.
Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2000). Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms with conversation analysis. In A. J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching languages, teaching cultures (pp. 65–78). Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2003). Past troubles-talk in nonnative-native interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(4), 615–629.
Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479–507.
Basturkmen, H. (2001). Descriptions of spoken language for higher level learners: The example of questioning. ELT Journal, 55(1), 4–13.
Bilmes, J. (1993). Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature: Toward an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics, 3(4), 387–409.
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44–58.
Brace, I. (2008). Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research (2nd ed.). London/Philadelphia:
Kogan Page.
Britain, D., & Newman, J. (1992). High rising terminals in New Zealand English.
Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 22(1/2), 1–11.
Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20(1), 1–25.
Burns, A., & Radford, J. (2008). Parent-child interaction in Nigerian families:
Conversation analysis, context and culture. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24(2), 193–209.
Carroll, D. (2000). Precision timing in novice-to-novice L2 conversations.
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 67–110.
Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Disfluencies or interactional achievements? In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 201–220). London/New York: Continuum.
Carroll, D. (2005). Vowel-marking as an interactional resource in Japanese novice ESL conversation. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 214–234). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide to spoken and written English grammar and usage.
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.
Press.
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking.
Cognition, 84(1), 73–111.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
Crandall, E., & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal, 58(1), 38–49.
Davis, J. McE. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning, 57(4), 611–649.
de Kok, B. C. (2008). The role of context in conversation analysis: Reviving an interest in ethno-methods. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 886–903.
Duranti, A. (2006). The social ontology of intentions. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 31–40.
Ellis, R. (2008). Study of second language acquisition (2nd ed). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003). Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in Latin American Spanish and American English.
Multilingua, 22(3), 225–255.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using conversation-analytic tools to teach pragmatics in the classroom. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 11, pp. 165–197). Honolulu:
National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Pedagogical intervention and the development of pragmatic competence in learning Spanish as a foreign language. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 49–84.
Fox Tree, J. E., & Clark, H. H. (1997). Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 62(2), 151–167.
Gardner, R. (1997a). The conversation object mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(2), 131–156.
Gardner, R. (1997b). The listener and minimal responses in conversational interaction. Prospect, 12(2), 12–32.
Gardner, R. (1998). Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 204–224.
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gardner, R. (2007). The Right connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society, 36(3), 319–341.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
Geyer, N. (2008). Discourse and politeness: Ambivalent face in Japanese.
London/New York: Continuum.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language teaching. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–118.
Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. Bristol/Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 568–582.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning.
Clevedon/Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Hopper, R., & Chen, C. (1996). Languages, cultures, relationships: Telephone openings in Taiwan. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(4), 291–313.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1991). Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp.
232–250). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (1998). From sentence to discourse: Discourse grammar and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 263–
287.
Hutchby, I., & Barnett, S. (2005). Aspects of the sequential organization of mobile phone conversation. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 147–171.
Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2025–2050.
Huth, T. (2010). Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects
of elicited second-language interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 537–553.
Huth, T. (2011). Conversation analysis and language classroom discourse.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(5), 297–309.
Huth, T., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 53–79.
Karimnia, A., & Zade, S. S. (2007). Communication strategies: English language departments in Iran. International Journal of Language Studies, 1(4), 287–300.
Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567.
Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (2003). Repetition as a source of miscommunication in oral proficiency interviews. In J. House, G. Kasper, & S. Ross (Eds.), Misunderstanding in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk.
(pp. 82–106). London: Longman/Pearson Education.
Keevallik, L. (2010). Minimal answers to yes/no questions in the service of sequence organization. Discourse Studies, 12(3), 283–309.
Kim, K. H., & Suh, K. H. (1998). Confirmation sequences as interactional resources in Korean language proficiency interviews. In R. Young & A.
W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 297–332). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Kita, S., & Ide, S. (2007). Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 1242–1254.
Kramsch, C. J. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lambert, R. (1999). Language and intercultural competence. In J. L. Bianco, A.
J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the third place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 65–71). Melbourne:
Language Australia.
Lazaraton, A. (1997). Preference organization in oral proficiency interviews:
The case of language ability assessments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(1), 53–72.
Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton, A. (2003). Incidental displays of cultural knowledge in the nonnative-English-speaking teacher's classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 213–245.
Lazaraton, A. (2004). Conversation analysis and the nonnative English speaking ESL teacher: A case study. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 49–67).
Clevedon/Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Lee, Y. A. (2004). The work of examples in classroom instruction. Linguistics and Education, 15(1/2), 99–120.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2000). Everyday speech as culture: Implications for language teaching. In A. J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching languages, teaching cultures (pp. 51–63). Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). The conceptualisation of the cultural component of language teaching in Australian language-in-education policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(4), 297–317.
Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 125–144). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lindström, A. (1994). Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings. Language in Society, 23(2), 231–252.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London/New York: Longman.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1995). Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we teach it? ELT Journal, 49(3), 207–218.
McConachy, T. (2009). Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis: Some tools for teachers. ELT Journal, 63(2), 116–125.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Markee, N. (2004). Zones of interactional transition in ESL classes. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 583–596.
Markee, N. (2005). The organization of off-task classroom talk in second language classrooms. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 197–213). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern
Language Journal, 88(4), 491–500.
Mindt, D. (1996). English corpus linguistics and the foreign language teaching syllabus. In J. Thomas & M. Short (Eds.), Using corpora for language research: Studies in honour of Geoffrey Leech (pp. 232–247).
London/New York: Longman.
Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 501–518.
Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom.
Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 323–347.
Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities:
A case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 536–550.
Mori, J. (2007). Border crossings? Exploring the intersection of second language acquisition, conversation analysis, and foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(Focus Issue), 849–862.
Mushin, I., & Gardner, R. (2009). Silence is talk: Conversational silence in Australian Aboriginal talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 2033–2052.
Pavlidou, T. (1994). Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 487–511.
Pavlidou, T. (1998). Greek and German telephone closings: Patterns of confirmation and agreement. Pragmatics, 8(1), 79–94.
Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal, 51(2), 144–156.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rendle-Short, J. (2006). The academic presentation: Situated talk in action.
Aldershot, UK/Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.) (2005). Applying conversation analysis.
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2010). Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 501–533.
Roever, C. (2009). Teaching and testing pragmatics. In M. H. Long & C. J.
Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 560–577).
Chichester, UK/Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ross, S. (1998). Divergent frame interpretations in oral proficiency interview interaction. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 333–353).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. C. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.
21–27). Cambridge (Cambridgeshire)/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 23–78). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Some other “uh(m)”s. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 130–
174.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–
327.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom:
A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38(4), 165–187.
Seedhouse, P. (2008). Learning to talk the talk: Conversation analysis as a tool for induction of trainee teachers. In S. Garton & K. Richards (Eds.), Professional encounters in TESOL: Discourses of teachers in teaching (pp.
42–57). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seedhouse, P. (2011). Conversation analytic research into language teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 345–363). New York:
Routledge.
Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2009). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized
language instruction (4th ed.). Boston: Heinle Cengage.
Sidnell, J. (Ed.) (2009). Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sun, H. (2004). Opening moves in informal Chinese telephone conversations.
Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1429–1465.
Sun, H. (2005). Collaborative strategies in Chinese telephone conversation closings: Balancing procedural needs and interpersonal meaning making. Pragmatics, 15(1), 109–128.
Swain, M., & Suzuki, W. (2008). Interaction, output, and communicative language learning. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 557–570). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Tanaka, H. (2008). Delaying dispreferred responses in English: From a Japanese perspective. Language in Society, 37(4), 487–513.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90–120.
Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2002). A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and nonnative speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1807–1832.
Usó-Juan, E. (2007). The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In E. A. Soler & M. P.
S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp.
223–244). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston/Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wong, J. (2007). Answering my call: A look at telephone closings. In H. Bowles
& P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language for specific purposes (pp. 271–304). Bern/New York: Peter Lang.
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York: Routledge.
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463–489.
Appendix: The questionnaire (the numbers of responses for each question are included) (the bulleted items are examples of participants’
actual responses)
This questionnaire was designed to gather information about your thoughts, feelings, and attitudes about the CA project.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE:
x Sections 1 to 11 have five-scaled answers: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree.
x For the sections where a comment can be written in (S12, S13, remarks column), please be as specific as possible with your remarks.
Please do not discuss your answers with other participants in the questionnaire. Please base your ratings of the statements on your own ideas and experiences only.
S1: By studying the basic principles of talk-in-interaction from a CA perspective, I feel I have been able to gain a better understanding of the organization of the conversation and linguistic behavior of English speakers.
1. 25 2. 57 3. 16 4. 2 5. 0
S2: I think that repeated listening to recordings of natural conversations has an added benefit of improving listening comprehension skills in general.
1. 43 2. 38 3. 14 4. 4 5. 1
S3: Textbooks tend to eliminate important cultural aspects of spontaneous conversation.
1. 26 2. 44 3. 22 4. 4 5. 4
S4: Spontaneous conversations are more interesting than scripted dialogues as represented in textbooks.
1. 41 2. 41 3. 14 4. 3 5. 1
S5: Prior to this study, I have always felt that scripted dialogues in textbooks were somewhat unnatural.
1. 13 2. 27 3. 30 4. 17 5. 13
S6: Increasing my understanding of other languages and cultures gives me an opportunity to think about my own language, culture, and identity.
1. 29 2. 41 3. 24 4. 5 5. 1 S7: Conversation is a complex and dynamic process.
1. 69 2. 22 3. 7 4. 2 5. 0
S8: In English conversation, the silences between turns, resulting in a turn exchange, are relatively brief (at least compared to similar silences in Japanese conversation).
1. 33 2. 34 3. 26 4. 6 5. 1
S9: If I were engaged in a conversation with an English speaker and could not think of what to say next, I would use “uhs” and “ums,” for instance, to let the other person know I am searching for a word.
1. 67 2. 27 3. 5 4. 0 5. 1
S10: If I were engaged in a conversation with an English speaker who is telling a story, I would try to utter English minimal responses such as “mm hm”
and “uh huh” to let him or her know that I am following the conversation.
1. 48 2. 38 3. 12 4. 1 5. 1
S11: There are times when I don’t understand an English speaker’s sense of humor.
1. 17 2. 39 3. 30 4. 9 5. 5
S12: In what ways do you think CA is useful in acquiring a second language?
x “There are preconceived notions about how learners should speak in a conversation, such as that learners are expected to speak with precision and that it is unacceptable to be at a loss for an answer during a conversation. CA helps to eliminate such preconceived notions and minimize learner resistance to language learning.”
x “Knowing the rules of interaction in English will allow learners to attain a greater amount of information from actual conversational interactions with English speakers.”
x “With CA, learners can study a second language without getting caught up in grammar.”
x “I think CA is good because it allows learners to break free from conventional formulas (e.g., grammar) in learning a second language.
It is more like reading the atmosphere of a conversation.”
x “It is possible to learn the structure of sentences through textbooks, but with textbook-based learning, the focus is on learning one word at a time. However, with CA, we can learn actual linguistic phenomena, such as turns and minimal responses, which can be difficult to comprehend via textbooks alone.”
x “We get an opportunity to analyze conversational phenomena, such as the appropriate minimal responses, silence, and laughter of the target language that cannot easily be heard or seen in everyday life.”
x “Dialogue in textbooks is too stiff and doesn’t seem very useful in real life settings, but if we continue to study English through CA, I believe we will be able to develop a greater ability to understand real conversations in English-speaking countries.”
x “I feel that listening to the talk of native speakers is really practical, as it helps us appropriately capture a sense of the English language.
There is something amiss about the English we learned in junior and senior high schools.”
S13: What has been the most important discovery for you after viewing the video clips of spontaneous conversations?
x “Sentences used in real conversations are actually neither long nor complex.”
x “There are in fact many sentences that contain a number of TCUs made up of a series of ands and commas.”
x “In reality, there are no fixed rules to the rising and falling intonation patterns in conversation. I really wonder why our junior high school teachers instructed the students that it was necessary to end declarative sentences with falling intonation.”
If you have any general comments which you would like to add, please write them below.
x “CA has helped me realize that I don’t actually dislike English. On the contrary, it made me want to study English more.”
x “This was the first time I studied CA, and it was very difficult for me at first. English minimal responses were especially challenging. But having studied CA, I am now very curious as to what it would be like to analyze Japanese conversations using the principles of CA.”
x “Please give us at least one CA-related assignment each semester. I found this kind of study very useful.”