Advertisement

“We Limit Ten Under Twenty Centu Charge Okay?”: Routinization of an Idiosyncratic Multi-word Expression

  • Sangki KimEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 38)

Abstract

This chapter investigates the role of idiosyncratic multi-word expressions (MWEs) in adult second-language (L2) learning in the wild. MWEs are typically argued to be the source of rule derivation in L2 acquisition ((Bardovi-Harlig K, Stringer D, Second Lang Res 33(3):61–90, 2016; Wray A, Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002),), but to date, there have been few studies on how idiosyncratic MWEs are routinized from a usage-based perspective embedded in a material and sequential context; and such studies mostly account for routinization as the result of frequency effects. Accordingly, the aim of the present research is to examine how routinization processes are affected by the participants’ in situ sense-making practices and by the material world. Data for this study were drawn from 79 h of video recordings of service encounters that were collected at a convenience store in Honolulu over a 30-month period. The study focuses on one adult Korean shopkeeper and the simultaneous use of one idiosyncratic L2 English MWE and a printed notice of the store’s policy in service encounters. Multimodal conversation analysis revealed how customers’ knowledge of the store’s policy, and the participants’ orientations vis-a-vis the notice, contributed to customers’ successful recognition of the use of MWE with the printed notice as an action. The findings show the process of routinization as comprised of embodied, sequential, and experiential phenomena that were co-constructed in a particular material context.

Keywords

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Learning in the wild Usage-based Conversation analysis 

Notes

Funding Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A5B5A01033037)

References

  1. Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 25(1), 7–36.  https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2006). On the role of formulas in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 1–28). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Stringer, D. (2016). Unconventional expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition of formulaic language. Second Language Research, 33(3), 61–90.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316641725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer, C. E., Rasmussen, G., & Wagner, J. (2004). Embedded corrections in second language talk. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversation (pp. 75–92). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, L., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function [special issue]. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 329–335.Google Scholar
  6. Ellis, N. C. (2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 49–74). Berlin/Boston: DE Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira–Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00698.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2007). Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. In M. Nenonen & S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the first Nordic conference on syntactic freezes (pp. 86–99). Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2015). Introduction. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 1–15). Berlin/Boston: DE Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65(2), 268–297.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2018). From trouble in the talk to new resources: The interplay of bodily and linguistic resources in the talk of a speaker of Engish as a second language. In S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Wagner, & E. González-Martínez (Eds.), Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction (pp. 143–171). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The language of service encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feminism. (n.d.). Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/724633/feminism.
  15. Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2004). An invitation to ethnomethodology: Language, society and interaction. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardner, R. (2004). On delaying the answer: Question sequences extended after the question. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 246–266). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1986). On formal structures and practical action. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp. 157–189). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Goldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127.Google Scholar
  20. Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative, organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmaics, 46(1), 8–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Günthner, S. (2011). Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 156–185). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. P. Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1–15). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Han, Z. (2013). Forty years later: Updating the fossilization hypothesis. Language Teaching, 46(2), 133–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hauser, E. (2013). Stability and change in one adult’s second language English negation. Language Learning, 63(3), 463–498.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Heritage, J. (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–578.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Holt, E. (2010). The last laugh: Shared laughter and topic termination. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1513–1525.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 155–175). NJ: Mahwah.Google Scholar
  32. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jefferson, G. (1983). Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation: Notes on some orderliness in overlap onset. In Tilburg papers in language and literature (Vol. 28, pp. 11–38).Google Scholar
  34. Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. Paper in Linguistics, 17(2), 197–216.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  36. Kääntä, L. (2014). From noticing to initiating correction: Students’ epistemic displays in instructional interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 86–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). Conversation analysis as an approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Klein, W., & Dimroth, C. (2009). Untutored second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 503–522). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization: There is no end, and there is no state. In Z. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 189–200). Frankfurt Lodge: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  40. Levinson, S. C. (2012). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). West Sussex: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Long, M. (2003). Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 487–536). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Macbeth, D. (2011). Understanding understanding as an instructional matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 438–451.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mauranen, A. (2009). Chunking in ELF: Expressions for managing interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 217–233.  https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nguyen, H. T. (2008). Sequence organization as local and longitudinal achievement. Text & Talk, 28(4), 501–528.  https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nissi, R., & Lehtinen, E. (2016). Negotiation of expertise and multifunctionality: PowerPoint presentations as interactional activity types in workplace meetings. Language & Communication, 48, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Perdue, C., & Klein, W. (1992). Why does the production of some learners not grammaticalize? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(3), 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation (Vol. 2). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. R. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Socially shared cognition (pp. 150–171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmid, H. J. (2015). A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–26.  https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  55. Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 195–215.  https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmaics, 43, 1811–1835.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–101). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  59. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Multilingual and Multicultural Research Institute, Konkuk UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations