This chapter explores Interaction Analysis, a methodology used to examine the sequential development of turn-taking in interaction in order to understand how interlocutors create and/or transform social order in interaction. In focusing on the application of Interaction Analysis in language learning research, this chapter discusses its utility for examining how language learning is practiced, afforded, and constrained in specific situations and how individuals demonstrate learning through their changing participation in particular discursive practices, as coconstructed activity. It points to continued challenges for Interaction Analysis researchers who seek to better understand how translingual practices and digitally mediated interactions are implicated in language learning processes.


Interaction Transcription Turn-taking Interactional competence 


  1. Bamberg, M. G. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Canagarajah, S. (2014). Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 78–102). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, K., & Zuengler, J. (Eds.). (2008). The research process in classroom discourse analysis: Current perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Erickson, F. (1982). Audiovisual records as a primary data source. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(2), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Erickson, F., & Mohatt, J. (1982). Cultural organization of participant structures in two classrooms of Indian students. In B. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling (pp. 132–174). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  12. Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ford, C. E., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Conversation and phonetics: Essential connections. In E. Couper-Kkuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 3–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford, C. E., & Wagner, J. (1996). Interaction-based studies of language. Pragmatics, 6(3), 277–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcez, P. M. (1997). Microethnography. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 187–196). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. García, O., & Flores, N. (2014). Multilingualism and common core state standards in the United States. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 147–166). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Gass, S. (2004). Conversation analysis and input-interaction. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giles, D., Stommel, W., Paulus, T., Lester, J., & Reed, D. (2015). Microanalysis of online data: The methodological development of “digital CA”. Discourse, Context & Media, 7, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hellermann, J., & Harris, K. A. (2015). Navigating the language-learning classroom without previous schooling. In D. A. Koike & C. S. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communities (pp. 49–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social interaction, 28(3), 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2010). The case for an eclectic approach to discourse-in-interaction. In J. Streeck (Ed.), New adventures in language and interaction (pp. 71–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li, P., Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2014). Tracing an L2 learner’s motion constructions over time: A usage-based classroom investigation. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 612–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, A. (2010). Researching intercultural communication: Discourse tactics in non-egalitarian contexts. In J. Streeck (Ed.), New adventures in language and interaction (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reinventing languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  35. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. May, S. (Ed.). (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Mehan, H. (1981). Ethnography of bilingual education. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 36–55). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  39. Meredith, J., & Potter, J. (2013). Conversation analysis and electronic interactions: Methodological, analytic and technical considerations. In H. L. Lim & F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Innovative methods and technologies for electronic discourse analysis (pp. 370–393). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  40. Messina Dahlberg, G., & Bagga-Gupta, S. (2014). Understanding glocal learning spaces. An empirical study of languaging and transmigrant positions in the virtual classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(4), 468–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Michael-Luna, S., & Canagarajah, S. (2008). Multilingual academic literacies: Pedagogical foundations for code meshing in primary and higher education. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 55–77.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, E. R., & Zuenger, J. (2011). Negotiating access to learning through resistance to classroom practice. Modern Language Journal, 95(S), 130–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mori, J., & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. Developmental pragmatics, 10(1), 43–72.Google Scholar
  45. Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Pérez-Milans, M. (2016). Language and identity in linguistic ethnography. In S. Preece (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and identity (pp. 83–97). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Rampton, B. (2015). Contemporary urban vernaculars. In J. Nortier & B. A. Svendsen (Eds.), Language, youth and identity in the 21st century: Linguistic practices across urban spaces (pp. 24–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rampton, B., Tusting, K., Maybin, J., Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2004). UK linguistic ethnography: A discussion paper. Retrieved from
  50. Rymes, B. (2016). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Seedhouse, P. (2004). Conversation analysis methodology. Language Learning, 54(S1), 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  54. Sert, O., & Seedhouse, P. (2011). Introduction: Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 5(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  55. Sindoni, M. G. (2014). Spoken and written discourse in online interactions: A multimodal approach. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Streeck, J. (Ed.). (2010). New adventures in language and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Streeck, J., & Mehus, S. (2005). Microethnography: The study of practices. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 381–404). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Thorne, S. L., Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2015). Technologies, identities, and expressive activity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Toohey, K., & Dagenais, D. (2015). Videomaking as sociomaterial assemblage. Language and Education, 29(4), 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Trognon, A., & Batt, M. (2010). Interlocutory logic: A unified framework for studying conversational interaction. In J. Streeck (Ed.), New adventures in language and interaction (pp. 9–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zheng, D., Newgarden, K., & Young, M. F. (2012). Multimodal analysis of language learning in s play: Languaging as values-realizing. ReCALL, 24(3), 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North Carolina CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations