Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:11:33.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - From Constructions to Social Action

The Substance of English and Its Learning from an Interactional Usage-Based Perspective

from Part II - English in/for L2 Learning and Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2019

By
Søren Wind Eskildsen
Edited by
Christopher J. Hall  and
Rachel Wicaksono
Christopher J. Hall
Affiliation:
York St John University
Rachel Wicaksono
Affiliation:
York St John University
Get access

Summary

The fundamental question to be explored in this chapter is what people actually learn when they learn ‘English’, and from this empirical basis distil the categories of the English language and the social-interactional roots of its learning. To this end, I draw on usage-based linguistics (UBL) and ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EMCA). The two-pronged approach combines into an interactional usage-based approach and allows me to capture development over time along two dimensions of L2 learning, namely development of L2 constructional inventories as seen through the lens of UBL and development of interactional competence as evidenced through moment-to-moment microanalyses of interactions (EMCA) over time.

Keywords

Second language learningusage-based linguisticsconversation analysisexemplar-based learninginteractional competencelearning as social action
Type
Chapter
Information
Ontologies of English
Conceptualising the Language for Learning, Teaching, and Assessment
 , pp. 59 - 79
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Achard, M. (2007). Usage-based Semantics: Meaning and Distribution of Three French ‘Breaking’ Verbs. In Nenonen, M. and Niemi, S., eds., Collocations and Idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, Joensuu, May 19–2 0, 2007. Studies in Languages, University of Joensuu, Vol. 41. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1988). What is functionalism? Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 27 , 137–152.Google Scholar
Brandt, S., Verhagen, A., Lieven, E., and Tomasello, M. (2011). German children’s productivity with simple transitive and complement-clause constructions: Testing the effects of frequency and variability. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 325–357.Google Scholar
Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language learning? Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 534–545.Google Scholar
Burch, R. A. (2014). Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on communication strategies. Language Learning, 64(3), 651–684.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing – A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2014). Cognitive and social language use. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 397–402. [Special Issue Bridging the Gap. Cognitive and Social Approaches to Research in Second Language Learning and Teaching, J. Hulstijn, R. F. Young, and L. Ortega, eds.]Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In Cadierno, T. and Eskildsen, S. W., eds., Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp. 49–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. and Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. and Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2011). The L2 inventory in action: Conversation analysis and usage-based linguistics in SLA. In Pallotti, G. and Wagner, J., eds., L2 Learning as Social Practice: Conversation-Analytic Perspectives (pp. 337–373). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). Negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning. Language Learning, 65(1), 33–62.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2017). The emergence of creativity in L2 English – A usage-based case-study. In Bell, N., ed., Multiple Perspectives on Language Play (pp. 281–316). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2018a). “We’re learning a lot of new words”: Encountering new L2 vocabulary outside of class. Modern Language Journal, 102(Supplement), 46–63.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2018b). Building a semiotic repertoire for social action: Interactional competence as biographical discovery. Classroom Discourse 9(1), 68–76.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2018c). L2 constructions and interactional competence: Subordination and coordination in English L2 learning. In Tyler, A., Huang, L., and Jan, H., eds., What Is Applied Cognitive Linguistics? Answers from Current SLA Research (pp. 61–96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2019). Learning behaviors in the wild: How people achieve L2 learning outside of class. In Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S., and Piirainen-Marsh, A., eds., Conversation Analytic Research on Learning-in-Action: The Complex Ecology of L2 Interaction in the Wild. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (in press). “Let me help you”: Learning to do and correct public writing in the L2 classroom. In Kunitz, S., Sert, O., and Markee, N., eds., Emerging Issues in Classroom Discourse and Interaction: Theoretical and Applied CA Perspectives on Pedagogy. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. and Cadierno, T. (2015). Advancing usage-based approaches to L2 studies. In Cadierno, T. and Eskildsen, S. W., eds., Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp. 1–18). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. and Kasper, G. (2019). Interactional usage-based L2 pragmatics. From form-meaning pairings to construction-action relations. In Taguchi, N., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics (pp. 176–191). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. and Majlesi, A. R. (2018). Learnables and teachables in second language talk: Advancing a social reconceptualization of central SLA tenets. Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 102(supplement), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. and Markee, N. (2018). L2 talk as social accomplishment. In Alonso, R. A., ed., Learning to Speak in an L2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. and Theodórsdóttir, G. (2017). Constructing L2 learning spaces: Ways to achieve learning inside and outside the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 38, 148–164.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. and Wagner, J. (2015). Emodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65(2), 419–448.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. and Wagner, J. (2018). From trouble in the talk to new resources – The interplay of bodily and linguistic resources in the talk of a novice speaker of English as a second language. In Pekarek Doehler, S., Wagner, J., and González-Martínez, E., eds., Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W., Cadierno, T. and Li, P. (2015). On the development of motion constructions in four learners of L2 English. In Cadierno, T. and Eskildsen, S. W., eds., Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp. 207–232). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (2007). S/FL Learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a ‘reconceptualized’ SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91(focus issue), 800–819.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. and Wagner, J. (2004). Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. and Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and co-participation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51–75.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., Pekarek Doehler, S., and Hellermann, J., eds. (2011). L2 Interactional Competence and Development. Clevedon: Multilngual Matters.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. (2013). Stability and change in one adult’s second language English negation. Language Learning, 6(3), 463–498.Google Scholar
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In Nguyen, H. T. and Kasper, G., eds., Talk-Interaction: Multilingual Perspectives (pp. 351–386). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. and Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In Atkinson, D., ed., Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 117–142). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34 , 171–212.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). Korean discourse markers in L2 Korean speakers’ conversation: An acquisitional perspective. In Nguyen, H. T. and Kasper, G., eds., Talk-in-Interaction: Multilingual Perspectives (pp. 317–350). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309.Google Scholar
Kunitz, S. and Skogmyr Marian, K. (2017). Tracking immanent language learning behavior over time in task-based classroom work. Tesol Quarterly, 51(3), 507–535.Google Scholar
Kurhila, S. (2006). Second Language Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1 of Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as basis for language instruction. In Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. C., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Salomo, D., and Tomasello, M. (2009). Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 481–508.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1975). Pragmatic patterns in child syntax. Stanford Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 10, 153–165.Google Scholar
Majlesi, A. R. and Broth, M. (2012). Emergent learnables in second language classroom interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1 , 193–207.Google Scholar
Markee, N. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second-language acquisition studies. In Tarone, E. E., Gass, S. M., and Cohen, A. D., eds., Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition (pp. 89–116). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427.Google Scholar
Markee, N. (2011). Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 602–615.Google Scholar
Markee, N. and Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491–500.Google Scholar
Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 519–540.Google Scholar
Mellow, J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 645–670.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. and Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 501–518.Google Scholar
Mori, J. (2010). Learning language in real time: A case study of the Japanese demonstrative pronoun “are” in word-search sequences. In Kasper, G., Nguyen, H. T., Yoshimi, D., and Yoshioka, J. K., eds., Pragmatics in Language Learning, Vol. 12 (pp. 15–42). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. and Wagner, J., eds. (2011). L2 Learning as Social Practice: Conversation-Analytic Perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 Interactional Competence: The Development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9 (1).Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. and Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In Cadierno, T. and Eskildsen, S. W., eds., Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp. 233–268). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reder, S. (2005). The “Lab School”. Focus on Basics, 8(A). Available online: www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/fob/2005/fob_8a.pdf.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. C., eds. (2008). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction, and co-participant context. In Hovy, E. H. and Scott, D. R., eds., Conversational and Computational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account (pp. 3–35). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (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. and Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality (pp. 70–96). London: Berg.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., and Thompson, S. A. (1996). Introduction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar (pp. 1–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. and Kalmeyer, W. (2001). Interaction by inscription. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 465–490.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Theodórsdóttir, G. and Eskildsen, S. W. (2011). Achieving intersubjectivity and doing learning: The use of English as a Lingua Franca in Icelandic L2. Nordand, 6(2), 59–85.Google Scholar
Tode, T. and Sakai, H. (2016). Exemplar-based instructed second language development and classroom experience. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 210–234.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. and Bates, E., eds. (2001). Language Development: The Essential Readings. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild. Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In Cadierno, T. and Eskildsen, S. W., eds., Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp. 75–104). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×