Advertisement

Language Alternation as an Interactional Practice in the Foreign Language Classroom

  • Anna FilipiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Multilingual Education Yearbook book series (MEYB)

Abstract

Language alternation (code- or language-switching) has been a long-standing focus of research in language classrooms and multilingual communities. We know about its functions, about the distribution and frequencies in speakers’ use of their languages, about the cognitive impact of language alternation on learning, and about social and interactional accounts of language alternation that are concerned with indexing shifting identities and social inequalities, and with showing how they are deployed as interactional resources in languaging practices. This chapter presents an overview of recent research in the Conversation Analytic (CA) tradition which treats language alternation in the foreign language classroom as a social practice. It describes how the micro-analytic methods of CA have contributed to understanding language alternation through analysis of two samples from Australia: a secondary Italian foreign language classroom and a tertiary Japanese foreign language classroom. The focus of the analyses is on the language alternation practices between teacher and learners and between learner and learner. The chapter ends with a consideration of the implications of this research for language teacher education with reference to medium of classroom interaction.

Keywords

Conversation analysis Language alternation as a social and learning practice in the classroom Medium of instruction Medium of interaction 

References

  1. 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). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316874.0006.
  2. Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.v.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auer, P. (1998). Introduction: Bilingual conversation revisited. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. aus der Wieschen, M. V., & Sert, O. (2018). Divergent language choices and maintenance of intersubjectivity: The case of Danish EFL young learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1447544.
  5. Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479–507.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2019). Multilingualism and language mixing among Singapore university students. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2019: Media of instruction & multilingual settings (pp. 43–61). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bonacina, F., & Gafaranga, J. (2011). ‘Medium of instruction’ vs. ‘medium of classroom interaction’: Language choice in a French complementary school classroom in Scotland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(3), 319–334.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2010.502222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butzkamm, W. (1998). Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The mother tongue as a conversational lubricant. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1(2), 81–89.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13670059808667676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canagarajah, S. (2001). Constructing hybrid postcolonial subjects: Codeswitching in Jaffna classrooms. In M. Heller & M. M. Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 193–212). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  10. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilinguals: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 356–369.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng, T-P. (2013). Codeswitching and participant orientations in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 869–886.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12046.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheng, T.-P. (2016). Authentic L2 interactions as material for a pragmatic awareness-raising activity. Language Awareness, 25(3), 159–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1154568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423.  https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Council of Europe. (2001). The Common European Framework Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154–166.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1990.tb02561.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eldridge, J. (1996). Code switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal, 50(4), 303–311.  https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.4.303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review, 16, 38–51.  https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.16.05fer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filipi, A. (2001). The organisation of pointing sequences in parent-toddler interaction. Doctoral thesis, Monash University.Google Scholar
  19. Filipi, A. (2018a). Making teacher talk comprehensible through language alternation practices. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 183–204). Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  20. Filipi, A. (2018b). Using language alternation to establish epistemic status in an Italian as a second language lesson. In P. Seedhouse, O. Sert, & U. Balaman (Eds.), Conversation analytic studies on teaching and learning practices: International perspectives. Hacettepe University. Journal of Education, 33(Special issue), 36–53.  https://doi.org/10.16986/huje.2018038795.
  21. Filipi, A., & Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2015). An interaction-focused pedagogy based on conversation analysis for developing L2 pragmatic competence. In S. Gesuato, F. Bianchi, & W. Cheng (Eds.), Teaching, learning and investigating about pragmatics: Principles, methods and practices (pp. 231–252). UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Filipi, A., & Markee, N. (2018). From research in conversation analysis to applications: Exploring pedagogical practices that benefit language alternation. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 205–224). Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gafaranga, J. (2007). Talk in two languages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gafaranga, J. (2018). Overall order versus local order in bilingual conversation: A conversation analytic perspective on language alternation. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 35–60). Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gafaranga, J., & Torras, M.-C. (2001). Language versus medium in the study of bilingual conversation. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(2), 195–219.  https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069010050020401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gafaranga, J., & Torras, M.-C. (2002). Interactional otherness: Towards a redefinition of codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069020060010101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoang, L., & Filipi, A. (2019). In pursuit of understanding: An analysis of language alternation practices in an EFL university context in Vietnam. Language Learning Journal, 47(1), 116–129 https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1221439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah”; and “mm hm”. Papers in Linguistics, 17(2), 197–216.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim, S.-H. O., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreign language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 355–380.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr173oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject: What foreign language learners say about their experience and why it matters. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kunitz, S. (2015). Scriptlines as emergent artifacts in collaborative group planning. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 135–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kunitz, S. (2018). L1/L2 alternation practices in students’ task planning. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 107–128). Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2005). Learner code-switching in the content-based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 234–247.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00277.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin, A. Y. M. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(1), 195–218.  https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64–77.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809990310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 63–84). Boston, MA: Springer Science and Business Media.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24565-0_5.Google Scholar
  43. Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  44. Markee, N., & Kunitz, K. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63(4), 629–664.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morton, T., & Evnitskaya, N. (2018). Language alternation in peer interaction in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 61–82). Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Musk, N., & Cromdal, J. (2018). Analysing bilingual talk: Conversation analysis and language alternation. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 15–34). Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reichert, T., & Liebscher, G. (2018). Transitions with “okay”: Managing language alternation in role-play preparations. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 129–148). Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.  https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection. Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90019-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.  https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott, V. M., & De La Fuente, M. J. (2008), What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 100–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00689.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sert, O. (2013). ‘Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 13–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Code-switching and other language practices in mathematics, science and English Language classrooms in South Africa. Language and Education, 16(2), 128–149.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780208666824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shaw, R., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Memory in interaction: An analysis of repeat calls to a home birth helpline. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 40(1), 117–144.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701331307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  61. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, L., & King, J. (2017). A dynamic systems approach to wait time in the second language classroom. System, 68, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2017). The design of directives in action. Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  64. Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in talk. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stoewer, K. (2018). What is it in Swedish? Translation requests as a resource for vocabulary explanation in English mother tongue instruction. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 83–106). Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tran, H. Q. (2018). Language alternation during L2 classroom discussion tasks. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 165–182). Philadelphia, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204–218.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). Introduction. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 1–14). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  70. Üstünel, E. (2016). EFL classroom code-switching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302–325.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00093.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. van der Meij, H., & Zhao, X. (2010). Codeswitching in English courses in Chinese universities. The Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 396–411.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01090.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Waring, H. Z. (2016). Theorizing pedagogical interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. New York: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
  74. Wells, B., & Macfarlane, S. (1998). Prosody as an interactional resource: Turn-projection and overlap. Language and Speech, 41, 265–294.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099804100403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. You, H.-J. (2015). Reference to shared past events and memories. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 238–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations