Language competence and the construction of expert–novice in NS–NNS interaction

Language competence and the construction of expert–novice

in NS–NNS interaction

Caroline H. Vickers *

California State University, English Department, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407, United States

Received 3 August 2005; received in revised form 28 January 2009; accepted 13 May 2009

Abstract

This study explores the interactional achievement of expert–novice in NS–NNS interaction. The analysis identifies interactional

processes that contribute to expert–novice differentiation during team meetings that take place as part of an electrical and computer

engineering course. Through analysis of data from the team interaction, participant perspectives, and ethnographic context, it is

demonstrated that the NS takes on an expert identity, while the NNS takes on a novice identity as the NS and NNS engage in face-to-

face interaction with each other. This expert–novice differentiation specifically occurs through the process of ratification, failure to

ratify, and rejection of contributions. The NS’s ability to gain expert status is linked to prior access to opportunities to participate in

engineering teams and the forms of talk involved therein, which the NNS did not have access to. Conclusions indicate that this

expert–novice relationship is not inherent to the NS–NNS relationship but that novice linguistically based identity has a bearing on

the achievement of an expert non-linguistically based identity.

# 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Discourse; Expert-novice; Identity; Interaction; Second language; Situated learning

1. Introduction

A situated learning framework (Lave and Wenger, 1991) posits that learning occurs not necessarily as a result of

explicit teaching but through a process of learning from a more expert member of a community of practice (Wenger,

1998). The novice participant is dependent in many ways on the expert(s) in order to learn, and it is typically a taken for

granted dependency in which both the expert and the novice accept these positions as natural. The expert and novice

roles are, therefore, quite naturally reproduced in the process of face-to-face interaction. This situated learning model

does not take the position, however, that native speakers (NS) of a language are inherent experts and nonnative

speakers (NNS) of a language are inherent novices when working together in a community of practice. Rather, The

expert–novice relationship is born out of differential experience with and access to community practices.

Scholars who work on intercultural/interlingual communication from a community of practice perspective have

demonstrated that with similar experience and access, NNSs are of course quite capable of garnering expert status in

practices performed in a second language, albeit this expertise is often of a qualitatively different sort than that of

native speaking co-members (e.g., Morita, 2000; Cho, 2004). For instance, Morita (2000) found in graduate seminars

that both NS and NNS graduate students felt insecurities as they traversed on the periphery of the academic community

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 116–138

* Tel.: +1 909 537 5684.

E-mail address: [email protected].

0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.010

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.010

as novices. However, both NS and NNS graduate students also invoked expert identities from other aspects of their life

experience as they gave oral academic presentations so that there were multiplicitous ways of demonstrating academic

expertise, depending on the expert identities that students invoked. Therefore, the achievement of expert and novice

identities was locally situated and tied to life experience, but not necessarily to NS or NNS status. These studies raise

the question about the how linguistically based identities are related to non-linguistically based identities and how

these linguistically and non-linguistically based identities operate in the achievement of expert–novice identities in

locally situated practice.

The present paper examines data from an electrical and computer engineering community of practice in which two

engineering students, a NS and a NNS, jointly work on a project. The paper seeks to demonstrate that linguistically

based expert–novice identities, such as NS–NNS, and non-linguistically based expert–novice identities, such as

engineering identity, are locally constituted in NS–NNS interaction. Moreover, these linguistically and non-

linguistically based identities are interrelated so that a novice linguistically based identity has a bearing on the

achievement of an expert non-linguistically based identity. As the data presented in this paper demonstrates, language

competence can become confounded with other types of competence through the use of specific interactional

strategies, which enable one interactant to take control over the frame for understanding the interaction, the

interactants, and the expert–novice differentiation.

2. Construction of expert–novice

The achievement of expert–novice is a dynamic co-construction (Jacoby and Ochs, 1995) and re-construction

performed by interactants. Jacoby and Gonzalez (1991) argue that the construction of the expert–novice relationship is

not necessarily equated to a priori rank but that this relationship is dynamically constructed in interaction through a

process ratification or rejection of ‘‘achieved identities’’ vis-a-vis the expert identity or the novice identity.

Therefore, it is not rank, but it is some form of impression management (Goffman, 1959) that allows the construction,

co-construction, and re-construction of expert–novice. Jacoby and Gonzalez’s notion of the ‘‘achieved identity’’ is an

important concept in terms of exploring how expertise is constructed in interaction. It is the recurring, turn-by-turn

ratification or rejection of ideas that constructs, co-constructs, and re-constructs the ‘‘achieved identity’’ of expert or

novice. Based on the data presented in the present paper, I would also argue that the construction, re-construction and co-

construction of expert–novice occurs at the micro-interactional level as one individual takes control of the framework for

understanding while engaged in practicewith another person. This control is dependent on the consent (Gramsci, 1971) of

all involved, and this process is possible to locate by conducting a micro-analysis of face-to-face interaction.

Jacoby and Gonzalez’s conceptualization of the construction of expert–novice is helpful in determining how the

participant structure within a community of practice is micro-interactionally achieved. Lave and Wenger (1991) build

into the community of practice framework a participant structure in which there are experts who make up the core and

novices who make up the periphery of the community of practice. However, there is no real mechanism for

understanding the ongoing construction and re-construction of that participant structure. Scholars who study

interlingual communication from a conversation analytic (CA) perspective have demonstrated how CA and situated

learning can compliment each other to understand how language learning takes place within communities of practice.

3. Interactional studies of interlingual communication

In examining talk in interaction among NSs and NNSs, the literature on interlingual communication often challenges

the premise of mainstream SLA literature that the NNS is a priori novice and the NS is a priori expert. These studies,

reflecting their CA framework, instead follow the premise that expert and novice identities are locally constructed and

managed categories and that learning may or may not be oriented to in NS–NNS talk in interaction (Brouwer, 2003;

Gardner and Wagner, 2004; Firth and Wagner, 1997, 1998; Wagner, 1996; Wagner and Gardner, 2004).

In an introduction to the edited volume, Second Language Conversations, Wagner and Gardner (2004) discuss the

need to qualitatively examine naturally occurring conversations that involve NNSs and NSs of languages as they go

about their daily lives. By examining this naturally occurring data, it is possible to understand NNSs as equal partners

in conversation, not as inherently deficient in their conversational attempts. It is possible to see what the NNSs and NSs

orient to as they converse. As Wagner and Gardner argue, these orientations often happen to revolve around the topic of

conversation rather than to the conversants’ status as native or nonnative. For instance, deficiencies on the part of the

C.H. Vickers / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 116–138 117

NNS are not often oriented to. As Mondada (2004) asserts, competence is ‘‘a situated phenomenon locally addressed

by participants’’ (p. 38).

Other such arguments have been made by Brouwer (2004) and Brouwer et al. (2004), focusing on the fact that

other-initiated corrections do not necessarily occur in naturally occurring NS–NNS interaction. When other-initiated

correction does occur, it is the activity at hand, not language learning, that is typically oriented to (Kurhila, 2001). In a

study of NS–NNS interaction in institutional discourse, Kurhila (2004) stated, ‘‘. . .participants need not make the

identities of ‘linguistically competent’ and ‘linguistically incompetent’ interactionally relevant’’ (p. 58). Kurhila

separates the notion of linguistic competence/speaker identity and institutional competence/institutional identity. A

person’s non-nativeness need not be all-defining and in fact may not be an interactional issue at all. This is important

because it is assumed in mainstream SLA research that opportunities for interaction are important in large part because

they offer opportunities for learners to gain implicit or explicit feedback. There seems to be an important question

derived from this CA influenced work on interlingual communication. If special learning oriented conversational

events are not taking place in conversations with NNSs, then how does conversation play a role in language learning?

Several scholars have tackled this question by employing CA and sociocultural theory (Mondada and Doehler, 2004)

as well as situated learning (Brouwer and Wagner, 2004; Skarup, 2004). In a study of an American business located in

Denmark, Skarup (2004) demonstrates how one member of this community of practice, an American business executive

who speaks Danish as a second language, moves between core and peripheral status. As a business person, this executive

is located at the core. However, as a Danish learner, this executive is located on the periphery when conversations

are conducted in Danish. Skarup demonstrates that ‘‘brokering’’ takes place to include the American executive in the talk

in interaction that occurs in Danish. This brokering locates the American on the periphery of the group as a learner, but

also legitimizes him by making him part of the group. Therefore, CA methodology allows a look at the interactional

achievement of legitimate peripheral participation that leads to opportunities for language learning.

While the present paper is not primarily concerned with SLA per se, the content is of interest to the SLA community

because it addresses the power asymmetry often present when NSs of a language interact with NNSs. Certainly, if one

takes a situated learning perspective, such power asymmetries affect the NNS’s ability to engage in the second

language context as a legitimate peripheral participant. If such participation is crucial to learning to become a core

member of a community of practice, then power is an unavoidable component.

4. Constructions of expert–novice in context

Though the present paper is certainly informed by CA, it is also crucially influenced by the Ethnography of

Communication. It seems apparent that social categories are locally constructed and managed as demonstrated in

conversation analytic studies. However, it is also the case that a priori ideological notions are important to what is

performed at the micro-interactional level. As CA asserts, these ideological notions become apparent in the process of

talk in interaction, but what may not be so apparent are those instances when participants opt out of engaging in certain

types of interactions or when they choose particular interactional strategies for reasons that the analyst could not know

except through participant’s informed contextual information provided by the participant. It is also important to gain thick

description (Geertz, 1973) of the context surrounding the interaction in order to most thoroughly understand the ecology

within which transcripts are embedded to conduct an analysis related to this dialectic between the micro and macro levels.

By gaining an understanding of the larger communities that interactants participate in and the ideological notions

that they hold, we can see not only how identities are achieved, rejected, or ratified but also what identities are

purposely not constructed and when interactants intentionally opt out of constructing themselves or others in particular

ways for some social purpose(s). Generally, we can come to understand how interactants accommodate to each other

and to the social situation in the process of face-to-face interaction.

The ability of human beings to establish intersubjectivity, ‘‘the sharing of knowledge or experience’’ (Schiffrin, 1994),

in the process of interaction has been studied in various contexts and through various theoretical approaches to

communication (see Schiffrin, 1994:386–405). Under an interactional view of communication, intersubjectivity between

speaker and recipient is not assumed. Rather, intersubjectivity must be established in the process of face-to-face

interaction. As Goodwin and Heritage (1990) explain, ‘‘intersubjective understandings are actively achieved as the

outcome of concrete interactive processes’’ (286). However, intersubjective understandings are not always achieved

through interactive processes. Rather, it is often the case that particular participants’ subjective understanding more

readily shapes the interactional context than does the subjective understanding of other participants.

C.H. Vickers / Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 116–138118

In a discussion of language in institutional settings, Philips (2004) makes the point that some people’s input

becomes part of the ongoing creation of reality more than others. This process occurs as particular interactants’

contributions tend to gain ratification and thus shape the group’s constructed reality more than do the contributions of

others. Philips uses the term ratification in the sense of Sacks (1967) in that ratification happens when a speaker

incorporates the meaning from a previous turn into the ongoing conversation. Philips asserts that students in

educational contexts ‘‘become differentiated through the process of ratification in which some students’ turns at talk

are validated and incorporated more than others’’ (p. 480). Such a process is an important factor in the construction of

social roles, including expert and novice roles. In the present paper, I will explore how the interactive process of

ratification and rejection of turns at talk contributes to control and expert–novice constructions in language and in

computer engineering, and how these are interrelated.

5. Data collection

5.1. The ECE context

The data presented in this paper comes from a corpus (�150,000 words) of NS–NNS team meeting interaction

associated the senior capstone design course in an Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) department at a major

American university. The corpus contains data from a total of 7 teams and 27 focal participants who were observed,

audio recorded and video recorded through one academic year. There was not a strategy on the part of the instructors of

the ECE design course for grouping students into teams in terms of cultural background, language proficiency or even

engineering proficiency. As such, the teams came together solely on the basis of the team members being interested in

similar types of technical problems. In the present paper, I will look closely at audio-recorded data taken from one

team containing a NS of English, David,1 and a NNS of English, Jun, as shown in Table 1.

Data collection was informed by the Ethnography of Communication (Gumperz and Hymes, 1972; Hymes, 1972;

Philips, 1983; Saville-Troike, 2003). Throughout this study, microethnographic methods were employed. Such

methods included classroom observation in which I took field notes as well as video and audio taping the interaction in

the team meetings. My objective was to gain an understanding of the forms of talk into which the ECE students were

being initiated and the ECE students’ participation within the ECE professional world.

One construct that is typically associated with the Ethnography of Communication is the speech community. This

construct presumes that internal diversity is inherent to any speech community and provides a framework for studying

communicative competence by delineating norms for communication at multiple levels and in various contexts within

the speech community. However, it also presumes that speech community norms are static. Garrett and Baquedano-

Lopez (2002) argued that a focus on community can impose a theoretical lens that privileges the development of

normative language since speech community focuses on the group rather than the individual agent.

However, in the case of this study, speech community seems to be an appropriate construct in gaining an

understanding of communication in the ECE professional world. Although the ECE speech community was certainly

dynamic and in flux, the ECE students that I studied were typically asked to engage in communicative practices that

were defined for them by their instructors and mentors as normative and static. Therefore, understanding the speech

community was important because the achievement of an expert linguistically based identity included in part the

ability to engage in the jargon and other forms of talk of the ECE speech community that were presented to the students

as normative. The forms of talk within the speech community constituted another aspect of the linguistically based

identity for these engineering students.

Additionally, the forms of talk in the ECE speech community were quite foreign to me. Therefore, to understand the

course of the team meetings, I needed to gain an understanding of the forms of talk in the speech community.


Table 1

The team.

Team NS NNS

Team 1 David—Pennsylvania Jun—Mainland China

1 All names used are pseudonyms.

Observing the course lectures allowed me a certain amount of insight into the forms of talk, including the extensive

jargon in the ECE speech community. Observing the course lectures also informed me of the course objectives and the

various tasks that each team needed to complete.

In addition to my observations of the lectures, I participated as a member of the ECE Department’s written portfolio

evaluation committee. Other participants on this committee were faculty from the ECE Department and

representatives from ECE industry. Participation on this committee was instrumental in my gaining an understanding

of the forms of talk in the ECE speech community.

The observations of the course and participation on the portfolio evaluation committee allowed me to gain an

understanding of communicative norms and professionalism in the ECE speech community. These observations were

critical to my ability to understand the purpose of the team meeting in which the focal participants designed their

projects in terms of the nature of the tasks that the teams were working on and the expectations for those tasks.

Additionally, attending the course lectures allowed me to gain an understanding of some of the jargon common to the

ECE speech community as well as typical formalisms for communications in the ECE speech community.

In examining the team interaction, I conceptualized the teams as communities of practice. As Garrett and Baquedano-

Lopez (2002) stated ‘‘there has been increased attention to dialectical tensions between the individual and the group, and

to the situated, dynamic nature of that relationship’’ (p. 347). They argued that a community of practice framework is

better suited to understanding the relationship between the individual and the group because ‘‘it defines community. . .interms of mutual social and interactive engagement’’ (Garrett and Baquedano-Lopez, 2002:347). The team interaction

data allows for an examination of such mutual and social interactive engagement. Additionally, interactive norms on the

teams were dynamic and in flux as the team members accommodated to each other’s identities and ways of engaging in

interaction. Therefore, community of practice provided a viable construct to understand team interaction.

5.2. Team meetings

Jun and David’s team met in various locations, including the ECE student lounge, the library, and my office.

I collected data from them on four separate occasions as shown in Table 2. The first three team meetings were audio

recorded. The fourth team meeting was audio and video recorded. Jun particularly did not feel comfortable being video

recorded in the first three team meetings. In the fourth team meeting, he invited me to video record and gave his

consent. To audio record, I placed the audio recorder in the middle of the table around which the participants were

working. I placed a microphone in the middle of the table in order to catch the speech of both members of the group.

The analysis in this paper utilizes only audio recordings as this data type was consistent across data collection sessions

as shown in Table 2. The team did not meet from November 5, 2002 until February 1, 2003. I did not meet with the

team after November 5, 2002 except to assist them in the development of written work and oral presentations.

5.3. Participant perspectives

Playback sessions were conducted to obtain participant perspectives on the team interactions. These playback

sessions were conducted at the end of the academic year. I conducted playback sessions with both Jun and David for an

hour each. David’s playback session was on 3/11/03 and Jun’s was on 3/4/03.

To conduct the playback sessions, I met with the participants in an instructional technology center on campus where

there was a lounge with sofas and a television. Participants watched videos of their team interactions. I asked them to

stop the video when they saw instances of communication that were particularly successful or unsuccessful. I audio-

recorded the playback sessions, which lasted for one hour each.


Table 2

Data collection schedule.

Date of data collection Method of data collection Duration

10/8/02 Audio recording 1.5 h



11/5/02 Audio and video recording 1.5 h

6. Data analysis

Though I engaged in some analytic work in terms of identifying basic categories in the process of data collection, the

majority of analytic work occurred after all of the data had been collected and transcribed. Transcription conventions

follow Du Bois (2005) transcription delicacy hierarchy. This hierarchy allows for different level of detail in the transcripts

depending on the needs of the analyst. The transcripts that follow are at the level of the basic transcript, in Dubois’s terms.

The transcripts are, therefore, limited in terms of analysis of non-verbals, intonation, and precise timing of pauses.

However, data analysis was a recursive process. I coded transcripts from individual teams at one point in time, but I

recoded the transcripts for each team at least twice. The coding and recoding of the transcripts for each of the teams

occurred at least one month apart. There were few differences in coding choices between coding sessions.

The analysis was conducted incorporating an integrated approach (see Coulson et al., 2007; Waugh et al., 2007, for

a thorough discussion of using multiple empirical methods in discourse analysis) influenced by the Ethnography of

Communication (Gumperz and Hymes, 1972; Hymes, 1972; Saville-Troike, 2003), Conversation Analysis (CA)

(Goodwin and Heritage, 1990; Sudnow, 1972; Sacks, 1972, 1992; Sacks et al., 1974), and Community of Practice

(Lave and Wenger, 1991).

The Ethnography of Communication influences the analysis because of its focus on the speech community context.

Gumperz and Hymes, 1972; Hymes (1972) discusses communication practices within speech communities as

multilayered. Speech acts are uttered within particular speech events, and speech events are unique to particular speech

situations. Therefore, the form or meaning of a speech act may be different depending on the speech event and

situation within which it is uttered. Therefore, in understanding the forms of talk that occur within the transcripts, it is

important to contextualize them in terms of their speech community definitions and in terms of their significance

within the particular speech event and situation that is being studied. It is also important to gain participant

perspectives on the interactions that take place as not to bias the analysis with the analyst’s categories of interpretation.

CA is important to this analysis, especially in its emphasis on the interdependency between utterances as well as the

local construction and management of identities. Though CA typically does not include in its analysis a description of

context outside of that which is oriented to in the conversation under analysis, I do include contextual information in

this analysis. For instance, without some of this contextual information, as a non-engineer, I would have a difficult time

deciphering much of what the participants were talking about. Additionally, as Moerman (1988, 1996) has

demonstrated, contextual information makes an analysis of transcripts richer by understanding how they are embedded

in their world. The sequential organization of the conversations in the team meetings that I analyzed is based within a

particular speech community. It is important, for instance, that both Jun and David are students with equal status,

neither with higher a priori rank, in the engineering speech community as both are undergraduate students with the

same hours remaining before graduation. Therefore, it IS in the process of interaction that their expert–novice

relationship is constructed. Also, it is important in making an argument about social justice to understand

the differential access that these two students had to the practices of the ECE profession.

The Community of Practice framework (Cho, 2004; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Morita, 2000) also contributed to the

analysis as it provides a framework for understanding individual relations to the group. Moreover, this framework

provides for ways of identifying the relationship between participation, expert and novice identities, and legitimization

as these pertain to a locally situated group engaged in practice.

The majority of the analysis was centered around conversation within the team meeting speech event, though the

analyses of the speech community, the team meeting, and the playback sessions were triangulated.

7. The context of the study

The ECE teams are communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991) that engage in high stakes teamwork, which

became clear through my analysis of the team’s interactions. Though team members enter the team as equals (albeit with

differing areas of expertise), expert–novice/core–peripheral relationships quickly develop in the process of interaction.

In industry, electrical and computer engineers often work together on different components of projects. Generally,

electrical and computer engineers have overlapping yet different areas of expertise. Computer engineers are expected

to master areas such as computer hardware, computer architecture, computer-aided digital system design, computer

networks, software engineering, circuits, and basic electronics that incorporate open-ended design and theoretical

experiences and the use of hardware and software systems and tools. Electrical engineers, on the other hand, have


expertise in areas such as analog and digital circuits, microelectronic devices and technologies, signals and systems,

basic computer engineering (including programming), and electromagnetics and optics. Importantly, the electrical and

computer engineers often work together on ECE projects, contributing their specialized areas of expertise. In the case

of Jun and David, Jun was a computer engineer and David was an electrical engineer.

A proficient engineer is not only technically proficient but also proficient in terms of ability to communicate technical

knowledge. Especially because so much of thework that electrical and computer engineers do is for a customer, they must

be in a position to talk to the customer in a convincing way. If one cannot demonstrate technical competence in the process

of interaction, that person is not highly valued in ECE industry. Therefore, part of what students learn in the capstone

design course is the standards for communication and professionalism expected in the profession. Importantly, there are

particular forms of talk and discourse processes that contribute to the construction of a convincing, competent, expert

engineering professional. In constructing this expert identity, several aspects of identity are interrelated, including

technical expertise, expertise in using the forms of talk in the ECE speech community, and expertise in using English.

One important aspect of this ECE context is the fact that NSs have opportunities to participate in internships in ECE

industry for several years. In playback sessions, most of the NNSs, who were also international students, indicated that

they were not allowed the opportunity to participate in these internships. Most of the NSs, who were citizens and

legally able to engage in paid employment in the United States, were allowed access to and did participate in

internships. Therefore, the categories, student visa status and non-citizen became quite relevant in the process of

interaction, especially in the expert–novice differentiation.

These internships are a critical component of ECE education. Not only do they provide a means of socialization to

participate in the forms of talk that these ECE teams engage in, but these internships also often lead to lucrative job offers.

NNSs, who are most typically international students with the category student visa status, almost never have access to

these internships. Their status as international students with student visas does not allow them to participate because their

visas do not allow them paid employment in the United States. The majority of these internships were paid.

Also, many of the internships were available through firms that engaged in United States defense contracting. Non-

citizen became an important category. Non-citizens of the United States are not allowed to enter these firms. I found,

therefore, in the larger ECE context, an important difference that often occurred for NSs and NNSs in access to ECE

team practices based on student visa status and non-citizenship. Lave and Wenger (1991) make it clear that access is a

critical component to establishing expertise within a community of practice, such as the ECE team. In their playback

sessions, many of these international student NNSs certainly did feel that they had a disadvantage in relation to their

NS peers because of their lack of access to professional internships.

However, it was not always the case that NNSs had the category student visa status. Furthermore, of those who

could be categorized as student visa status, there were two cases in which these students were able to gain access to on

campus internships with faculty, a legal type of internship for student visa status students. In one of these cases the

NNS with student visa status took on expert status in interaction with the NS teammate, who took on novice status (see

Vickers, 2008). Therefore, NNSs’ lack of access to internships was a trend in the data, and one that applied to Jun and

David, but it was not a taken for granted a priori difference between NSs and NNSs. Therefore, I would argue that NSs

and NNSs, including David and Jun, came to their teams as equals as the categories student visa status and non-citizen

became interactionally relevant only when they affected the locally constituted expert–novice differentiation.

In the process of interaction in the team meetings, I found that those team members, whether NS or NNS, who

typically provided explanations took on expert status, while those team members, whether NS or NNS, who typically

asked questions took on novice status (Vickers, 2004). In many contexts, such as news interviews, doctor–patient

consultations, and courtrooms, the questioner is typically the one in control of the interaction, driving the topic

of conversation. However, in the ECE context, the topic of conversation is technical content. Therefore, when one is

consistently asking questions regarding technical content, it allows other people to fill in the information.

In the team interaction between David and Jun, it was Jun who typically asked questions and David who typically

answered them. Excerpt 1 exemplifies a typical situation in which the use of a question sets up a next move in which a

team member is able to provide an explanation, contributing to that team member’s construction of expertise and the

questioner’s construction as novice. In Table 3, Excerpt 1, turn 1, M explains that it is possible to download drivers from

the Internet.

After M’s explanation in turn 1, G asks a question regarding what to look for in a microcontroller to drive a motor.

J then responds with an explanation in turn 3. Although this one instance does not necessarily construct G as novice and

M and J as experts, recurring patterns in which G asks questions and M and J provide explanations do allow these



Table 3

Excerpt 1: Sample ECE interaction.

constructions. This is the case because unless someone comes along and rejects those explanations, they are often ratified.

On the other hand, the one asking the question is unable to display any ideas, only to set up situations in which others can

provide explanations. This, of course, would not include indirect explanations that come in the linguistic form of

questions.

The participant structure of these communities of practice develop in the course of talk in interaction as experts and

novices become differentiated through their contributions to the ongoing talk, often even more so than through what

they actually accomplish in the lab. These teams are involved in technical problem solving. Wagner (1995)

conceptualizes technical problem solving as a type of negotiation. Often it is the case that this type of negotiation is a

co-constructed process in which interactants relatively equally contributed to technical problem solving. These ECE

students do co-construct a frame for understanding the technical problems. However, this process is not often equal.

More often, some students’ (and not others’) frame for understanding the technical problems at hand is the one that the

team accepts. This affects the construction of expert–novice relationships on the teams.

The team meeting event represents a type of institutional discourse (e.g., Agar, 1985) as the teams work within the

ECE discourse community. However, the ‘‘study group’’ nature of the team meetings aligns these meetings more with

casual conversation than the prototypical institutional discourse in which there are institutionalized asymmetrical

power relations (e.g., doctor–patient, teacher–student) between the interlocutors, though as mentioned before, status

differences do become apparent.

8. Findings—expert–novice differentiation

8.1. David as expert: Jun as novice

Jun and David’s team project was assigned by an industrial mentor, a major American electronics company. The

project, ‘‘Bench Test Fixture/Solution for the Dual Monolithic,’’ was to devise a test system that was less expensive

than that which was currently being used. As stated in the team’s Design Proposal:

Today’s manufacturing environment requires fast cycle times and reliable means of testing the final products.

One of today’s test systems to accomplish this task has an initial cost of over one million dollars. This becomes a

problem when a product tested on one of these systems has a high yield loss. Test failures will then need to be

verified with possible characterization type analysis to identify the cause of the failures. This type of work can be

lengthy at times and would in turn take up too much time on a test system. The test time on one of these systems

has an associated cost of over 1000 dollars per hour.

Because of the lengthy test times and the high cost of testing products, the team’s project was to devise a device that

could run tests independently to free up time and space on the main system. Jun was trained in computer engineering

and David in electrical engineering. Therefore, the idea was that the teammates could contribute different domains of

expertise to the project.

Though Jun and David had different domains of expertise, David was consistently constructed as the expert

teammate in the process of interaction, even in discussions about computer programming (Jun’s area of expertise). By

looking closely at the interactions between Jun and David, I will demonstrate how David was able to get his

contributions ratified more often than Jun. The data also show that the two team members often had different

orientations during the talk in interaction. David was typically oriented toward engineering technical content. Jun, on

the other hand, was often oriented toward learning the English language.

Both team members had high GPAs in the ECE department and had taken similar levels of coursework as ECE

majors. One major difference in David and Jun’s experience was that David had participated in a professional ECE

internship during his undergraduate career, while Jun had not because of his student visa status.

Jun indicated in his playback session that he was confident about his knowledge of the project. He felt that he had

expertise in software and that David had expertise in hardware, which he indicated made their collaboration fruitful.

Jun stated in his playback session, ‘‘. . .and I also think that David can do hardware and I do software.’’ Jun indicated

that both partners had some knowledge of each other’s areas of expertise. However, Jun also said that communication

was difficult for him. In his playback session, he stated, ‘‘at the beginning I listened. . .but I couldn’t catch anything.’’

He said that communication became better as the two worked together more, but Jun also said that he often needed to

clarify David’s utterances to ensure full understanding. In his playback session, Jun stated, ‘‘it’s just the two of


us. . .and if I don’t understand something. . .I just ask him. Therefore, Jun perceived himself competent as a software

engineer but perhaps not so competent as an English user. Nowhere in his playback session did Jun mention how he

ensured that David understood his contributions, only how he ensured that he understood David’s contributions. It seems

that Jun opted out of clarifying his own ideas perhaps because he was not confident in his English usability. As he said, ‘‘I

don’t speak English with friends. . .I speak Chinese at home. . .that’s the problem.’’ Jun also indicated that working with

David helped him to improve his English, which he saw as a major benefit to engaging in this collaborative project.

David, on the other hand, had a different impression of working with Jun. As David said in his playback session,

‘‘I was the one that was more knowledgeable.’’ In his playback session, David said:

Excerpt 2

well uh. . .it it. . .it’s been a little bit of a struggle at times. . .because of uh. . .you know. . .communication. . .but

you just have to try a little harder. . .s- like I said before. . .he has a little trouble pronunci- pronunciating some

words. . .and can be very misleading. . .so it takes kind of a few iterations to get you know. . .the right ss-

. . .information across and ss-. . .make sure we’re both on the same wavelength I guess.

David indicated that Jun not only lacked technical expertise but that communication with Jun required extra work

on David’s part. Therefore, David considered both Jun’s technical competence and language competence to be

inferior. Jun, on the other hand, indicated that the teammates were of equal status in terms of their specific areas of

engineering competence but not so equal in terms of their language competence.

It is interesting to examine the interactions between Jun and David to understand what actions are carried out by the

two and which are interpreted in the playback sessions by the participants as acts of the expert versus acts of the novice.

David’s contributions were often clarified and ratified through efforts on Jun’s part as well as efforts on David’s part.

Jun’s contributions, on the other hand, were consistently not ratified. As a result, David was able to more fully

contribute intellectually to the team’s technical problem solving.

8.2. Agreement tokens as interactional strategy

In Table 4, Excerpt 3 from the team’s November 5 meeting, the two negotiated tasks that would be assigned to each

team member. Writing the proposal came up in the negotiations. Jun made a suggestion that the two teammates work

together to complete a draft of the team’s proposal in turn 1.

In response to Jun’s suggestion that the two work on the rough draft together, David engaged in a series of

explanations in turns 2, 8–10, 12, and 14, detailing the concept of a rough draft, especially emphasizing the fact that

each team member would draft parts of the proposal individually, which gave Jun access to David’s conceptualization

concerning the writing process. Jun made moves that seem to demonstrate understanding of David’s contributions and

agreement with David’s contributions in turns 7, 11, 13, 15, and 17 saying ‘‘yeah’’ and ‘‘ok.’’ Importantly, in his

playback session, Jun mentioned that he often had difficulty at the beginning of the academic year (when this excerpt

was recorded) understanding what David said. These seeming agreement moves may actually be face-saving strategies

to show understanding even though he did not understand. In any case, David seemed to take these types of responses

as agreement tokens, as he stated in his playback session, ‘‘he does do the oh yeah a lot. . .he’s just in agreement I guess

(laughs).’’

Missing from this exchange is clarification of Jun’s assumption in terms of why he thinks the two should work

together to complete a proposal draft. Not explaining his own assumption (why it would be beneficial to draft the

proposal collaboratively) and not being asked for clarification of the assumption behind the benefit of working

collaboratively, Jun agreed to write parts of the proposal individually rather than writing the entire proposal

collaboratively. However, Jun’s inability to understand David may have contributed to his opting out of challenging

David. Additionally, David stated in his playback session that he knew for a fact that he was more knowledgeable and

that his role was to teach Jun how to engage in project design. As David stated:

‘‘he had very limited knowledge. . .about what we were working on. . .so I had to get that across to him. . .and he

was starting to you know come up with these ideas. . .and some of them were related. . .some of them were off

track. . .so uh. . .I was trying to. . .you know explain more details. . .so he understood exactly what we were working

on.’’



Table 4

Excerpt 3: Jun and David, 11/5/02.

Therefore, in David’s self-appointed role as expert, he opted out of mining Jun’s knowledge base. Instead, he saw

his role as imparting Jun with the right kind of knowledge.

In Excerpt 3, David’s subjective understanding of how to proceed with the rough draft was ratified in the course

of the interaction. David gained control of the flow of ideas. Jun was constructed not only as an inferior technical

writer but also as not willing to do his share (as in turn 16). David stated in his playback session that Jun was

‘‘slow to get off and running’’. Perhaps interactions such as that in Excerpt 3 contributed to this construction

of Jun.

In Table 5, Excerpt 4, David suggested that the team request assistance from a computer engineer who David knew.

After David suggested talking to the computer engineer, Jun engaged in a series of questions clarifying whether the

computer engineer was familiar with the same computer applications that Jun was familiar with, and in particular, the

computer applications with which Jun was working for the senior capstone project. These requests for clarification,

therefore, act as disagreement tokens as David’s responses indicate that the computer engineer does not seem to have

the knowledge base to assist Jun with the project.


Table 5

Excerpt 4: Team 1, 11/9/02.

Jun’s questions in turns 6, 10, 12, 14, and 16 allowed clarification of David’s assumption concerning the type of

knowledge that the computer engineer had. However, even though it seems as if the computer engineer did not

possess the kind of expertise that would be helpful to the project, Jun did not reject David’s idea of eliciting help

from the computer engineer. Instead, Jun said ‘‘oh ok’’ several times, essentially ratifying David’s contributions. David


Table 5 (Continued )

was constructed as the one with the knowledge of the how the computer engineer could be helpful to the team even though

the computer engineering aspect of the project was Jun’s area of expertise. David’s orientation toward teaching Jun

engineering concepts was ratified, as typically occurred in interaction between Jun and David.

8.3. Request for clarification as interactional strategy

Recurring in the data are instances in which David is reconstructed as the one in control. In Table 6, Excerpt 5 from

the November 5 team meeting, David and Jun discussed advice they had received from Mary Olsen (one of the course

instructors) concerning how to word a particular item in their written proposal. They had received written feedback on

the proposal from Mary Olsen before this meeting. In addition to the written feedback, they had talked to her face-to-

face. In the interaction, they also referred to a sample proposal that Mary Olsen had given them. Based on all of these

sources, the two teammates negotiated whether to refer to a list of design criteria by stating ‘‘the design criteria are’’ or

‘‘the design criteria follow.’’


Table 6

Excerpt 5: 11/5/02.

In turn 1, Jun mentioned that Mary Olsen suggested they use ‘‘follow’’ to refer to the list of design criteria. In turn 2,

David asked for clarification of Jun’s contribution. Jun then attempted to clarify in subsequent lines that Mary Olsen

suggested that they state ‘‘follow’’ instead of ‘‘are.’’ In turn 5, Jun said ‘‘I didn’t know that thing.’’ In turn 6, David

asked if Jun was requesting clarification of Mary Olsen’s suggestion. In turn 7, Jun indicated that he was indeed

requesting clarification. Jun was oriented toward learning language, specifically distinguishing the difference in the

use of ‘‘are’’ and ‘‘follow.’’

As the discussion continued in turn 9, Jun tried to clarify Mary Olsen’s suggestion to use ‘‘follow.’’ In turns 10 and

12, David indicated that he did not understand Jun’s contribution. Jun provided clarification in turns 13 and 15. In turn

16, David asked why they should use ‘‘follow,’’ evidently interpreting Jun’s contribution as an assertion rather than a

request for clarification. Jun responded in turn 17 by saying ‘‘there (in the sample proposal) use are.’’ Then in turns 18,

20, and 22, David questioned what he uptook as Jun’s suggestion that they use the term ‘‘follow’’ rather than ‘‘are’’,

and then he proceeded to state his own assumption that they should follow the usage exemplified in the sample

proposal. David was oriented toward teaching Jun the proper way to phrase the proposal in engineering but not toward

helping Jun distinguish between the use of ‘‘are’’ and ‘‘follow’’ in the engineering proposal genre. Their orientations

were different, and miscommunication resulted.

In turn 22, David interjected his own assumption that they should follow the format of the sample proposal, stating,

‘‘I would assume that we should be alright to use it in our paper.’’ In turns 23–33, the two came to an agreement that

they needed to ask Mary Olsen for clarification, but in turn 34, David suggested that the use of ‘‘are’’ was appropriate,

saying ‘‘yeah this is probably ok.’’ Jun, however, was not able to clarify the difference in use between ‘‘are’’ and

‘‘follow’’ as they are used in an engineering proposal, both seemingly being valid options. Instead, David simply took

control and made a decision for the team.



This difference in orientation becomes clear again in Table 7, Excerpt 6 from Jun and David’s November 5 team

meeting, David and Jun negotiated their project schedule when Jun indicated that he needed clarification of one step in

the schedule in turn 2.

Jun’s request for clarification in turn 2 was followed by David’s response in turn 3, ‘‘that means when you actually

cut a board out.’’ Even though Jun said ‘‘yeah’’ in turn 4, David continued to clarify what ‘‘route’’ meant technically in

the subsequent discourse. David’s uptake of Jun’s request for clarification, which could conceivably have been uptaken

as a procedural rather than technical content question, was important in terms of Jun’s construction as lacking

expertise that David had access to.

In turn 8, Jun asked, ‘‘how can I spell that,’’ demonstrating an orientation toward English language learning. David

responded to this; however, he engaged in an explanation that was not solicited by Jun in turns 15, 17, 19, and 21,

demonstrating an orientation toward teaching the engineering concept. David was able to show his technical expertise,

while it was not clear whether or not Jun had such expertise.

As the dialog continued, however, it seems as if Jun did have some knowledge of routing/milling as he stated in turn

22, ‘‘it is hard work.’’ In turn 23, David asked for clarification concerning whether Jun had asked a question or had


Table 7

Excerpt 6: 11/5/02.

made a statement. Then in turn 24, Jun clarified that he had made a statement, but in turn 25, David responded as

though Jun requested clarification. Again, David was constructed as expert, oriented toward teaching engineering

concepts to Jun, the novice, and again in turn 27 when David stated that he would work on routing/milling because it

would be very difficult for a beginner to route/mill.

8.4. Categorizing Jun as non-competent

As indicated in his playback session, Jun considered himself on equal footing with David in terms of expertise. He

considered David to know more about the hardware and himself to know more about the software. In David’s playback

session, he said ‘‘. . . I have a pretty good understanding of the material. . .uh it’s just getting those points across to him



(Jun) so he can work on his part of the project. . ..’’ Clearly, David considered himself to be ‘‘in charge’’ of the project,

though nobody had designated David as the expert in charge. David’s position as the expert in charge was consistently

reproduced in his interactions with Jun, which is interesting considering that Jun thought his level of technical

expertise was on par with David’s. It was the language that Jun needed help with. David not only let the interactional

strategies that Jun employed affect his categorization of Jun as non-competent in David’s area but actually let these

strategies affect his categorization of Jun as non-competent in Jun’s own area.

9. Discussion

David’s contributions were the ones that were ratified. David often rejected Jun’s ideas, and though Jun at times

made moves to reject David’s ideas (as in excerpt 4), he typically ratified those ideas in the end. However, David was

not simply a stampeding elephant crushing Jun’s input; the issue was that Jun’s input became visible only for a moment

and then disappeared in the trail of dust.

Based on their playback sessions, it seems that Jun and David were oriented differently. Jun assessed himself as a less

than competent English user and a highly competent software engineer, more so than David. David, on the other hand,

assessed himself as more competent in all aspects of engineering than Jun. Though he did reference the fact that

communication made working on the project with Jun difficult, he was foremost concerned with the fact that Jun really

did not have the proper engineering knowledge base to work on the project. Therefore, Jun was oriented to learning the

language of engineering teamwork. David, on the other hand, was oriented to teaching Jun relevant engineering concepts.

What resulted was the development of a participant structure within this community of practice in which David

took on core/expert status and Jun took on peripheral/novice status. By David’s own definition, he himself was an a

priori expert and Jun was an a priori novice. As David stated in his playback session, ‘‘I was familiar with these ideas in

the first place. . .so I had a lot of knowledge already about it. . .and he had very limited knowledge in especially. . .indetails about what we were working on. . .so I had to get that across to him.’’ However, by Jun’s definition, he and

David simply had differing areas of expertise, both of which were relevant to the project. As Jun stated in his playback

session, ‘‘in general we both understand. . .we both understand. . .you know he understand the software

generally. . .and what I have done. . .what I’ve been doing. . .but uh. . .how do we solve this problem that we

have. . .and I also think that David can do soft hardware. . .and I do software.’’ Jun’s statement indicates that he

perceived himself as more knowledgeable in computer engineering than David. Jun did not indicate that he learned

from David or that David trained him. Instead, he indicated that he worked on solving problems for the team in the area

of software and that David worked on solving problems in the area of hardware. However, Jun’s computer engineering

expertise was not legitimized by David. Also, Jun seemingly opted out of asserting his engineering competence,

presumably because he perceived himself as lacking the language competence to do it.

Jun’s lack of legitimization sequestered him (i.e., Lave and Wenger, 1991), making it difficult for him to pick up on

the discourse processes that David engaged in. David was not oriented to Jun as a second language user who was

developing language competence. Since David considered Jun to lack engineering competence, I posit that he did not

try to push Jun to engage in the kinds of discourse processes that would make his engineering ideas visible—in a way

that could make their project better. In other words, David did not actively attempt to socialize Jun to talk like an

engineer working in an engineering team. He simply tried to teach Jun engineering concepts (that Jun presumably

already knew), even though Jun did not see a need to be taught.

Jun was, by his own assessment, well versed in engineering concepts. However, the data demonstrate that he was

not familiar with the discourse processes in engineering that allow for constructions of expertise. While it is tempting

to attribute this lack of familiarity to the fact that he was a NNS, I would argue that this explanation would be too

simplistic. Rather, the more relevant differentiation between Jun and David was their experience participating in the

real world of engineering.

NS ECE students typically participate in the professional ECE discourse community in the form of professional

internships, while NNS international ECE students typically do not have this opportunity because of their immigration

status. This difference occurred as a common theme in the playback sessions with ECE students. The NS domestic

students typically participated in professional internships with ECE industrial mentors, and these internships typically

lasted several years. It seems that the internships did not necessarily give NSs more technical knowledge. The NNSs

that participated in this study touted some of the highest GPAs in the ECE department. However, it does seem that the

professional internships gave NSs access to the discourse processes that allow expert constructions in the ECE team


meeting. In other words, NSs who participated in professional internships learned to talk the talk, while NNSs did not

typically have such opportunities.

It is interesting that in many playback sessions with constructed novices in the larger study of these ECE teams, they

often reported feeling less capable of understanding joint project design because they did not participate in

professional internships. However, these same ‘‘novices’’ were often adamant about their high level of expertise in the

technical concepts of engineering. Therefore, it was the practical, real world of engineering and the forms of talk that

went along with it that they were unfamiliar with. Jun similarly expressed his high level of knowledge in the

technicalities of computer engineering, but at the same time, he was clearly less capable of communicating his ideas in

the team meetings.

David recounted that Jun was less knowledgeable, rather than attributing Jun’s novice status to difficulty

understanding communication in the team meeting. Jun’s lack of understanding about communication in the team

meeting was assessed by David as a general lack of engineering competence.

10. Conclusions

In bureaucratic settings, such as schools, courtrooms, and medical encounters, Philips (2004) notes that

‘‘bureaucrats’’ control the turns at talk, and that such control puts these bureaucrats in ‘‘a position to ratify or fail to

ratify what others say’’ (p. 478). In the case of the ECE team meeting, all team members come in as equals, but over

time, and through the process of interaction, some team members take on higher status roles, putting them in a position

to ratify for fail to ratify what other people say, as in the case of David.

I argue that the ability to gain expert status in the ECE team is dependent on access to high status forms of talk that

allow a team member to participate in the kind of impression management (Goffman, 1959) that portrays expertise.

In the ECE context, NNSs do not typically have access to such forms of talk as readily as do NSs, which clearly affects

their ability to gain expert status. It the case of Jun and David, it is a matter of David having access to the forms

of talk that allowed him to consistently get his ideas ratified because he had participated in the real world of

engineering. Jun, on the other hand, had participated as an engineering student.

Jacoby and Gonzalez’s (1991) notion of the ‘‘achieved identity’’ seems relevant to how expert status is achieved

in the ECE team. In line with Jacoby and Gonzalez, I argue that it is the recurring, turn-by-turn ratification or

rejection of contributions that constructs, co-constructs, and re-constructs the ‘‘achieved identity’’ of expert and

novice. Based on the data explored here, I agree with Jacoby and Gonzalez (1991) that the construction of the

expert–novice relationship is not necessarily equated to a priori rank but that the expert–novice relationship is

dynamically constructed in interaction through a process ratification or rejection of contributions. The recurrent

ratification of David’s ideas and failure to ratify or flat out rejection of Jun’s ideas contributed to the team’s

participant structure.

However, it is also important to consider the development of the team’s participant structure in terms of control.

David clearly had control over the development of the project, while Jun did not take control. In fact, perhaps partially

due to Jun’s orientation as an English user who was developing language competence, he opted out of seeking control.

Rather, he consented (Gramsci, 1971) to David taking control over the project design. For instance, though Jun did

resist David’s assessment of him as lacking software engineering competence in his playback session, he did not

demonstrate resistance to David taking control over the project design.

This willingness on Jun’s part to consent to David’s control over the project can be explained in part by the different

orientations that these two participants took. Returning to the work of Kurhila (2004), Jun was oriented to his and

David’s speaker identity. Though David did at times orient toward Jun’s speaker identity, his more typical orientation

was toward their institutional identities, electrical and computer engineers. Jun, on the other hand, was often oriented

toward his novice speaker identity. Jun’s orientation toward his speaker identity contributed a sense that he consented

to a novice status when it came to his institutional identity, though his playback session indicates that this is not the

case.

Though the ECE team could have been an opportunity for both Jun and David to truly collaborate and learn from

each other, it was instead a situation in which David took control. David missed an opportunity to learn from Jun about

computer engineering. Jun missed the opportunity to become socialized into the forms of talk in engineering teamwork

that would allow him to get his ideas ratified and construct a competent engineering identity. I argue that these

opportunities were lost because Jun was sequestered, marginalized, and delegitimized (Lave and Wenger, 1991) in the


process of interaction. The delegitimization of Jun as a computer engineering expert removed opportunities for

engineering learning for both participants and language learning for Jun.

Appendix A. Transcription conventions

1. Turn sequence Left to right and top to bottom order marks turn sequence

2. Overlap [ ]

3. Hold (short closure/pause) ..

4. Pause, untimed (. . .)5. Truncated word wor-

6. Laugh @

7. Laugh voice @

8. Exhaled release word(h)

9. Utterance final question ?

10. Question, utterance continues ?,

Adapted from Du Bois (2005).

References

Agar, Michael, 1985. Institutional discourse. Text 5, 147–168.

Brouwer, Catherine E., 2003. Word searches in NNS–NS interaction: opportunities for language learning? The Modern Language Journal 87 (4),

534–545.

Brouwer, Catherine E., 2004. Doing pronunciation: a specific type of repair sequence. In: Gardner, Rod, Wagner, Johannes (Eds.), Second Language

Conversations. Continuum, New York, pp. 93–113.

Brouwer, Catherine E., Rasmussen, Gitte, Wagner, Johannes, 2004. Embedded repair in second language talk. In: Gardner, Rod, Wagner, Johannes

(Eds.), Second Language Conversations. Continuum, New York, pp. 75–92.

Brouwer, Catherine E., Wagner, Johannes, 2004. Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1).

Cho, Seonhee, 2004. Challenges of entering discourse communities by publishing in English: perspectives of non-native speaking doctoral students.

Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 3, 47–72.

Coulson, Seana, Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelberg, Irene, Spivey, Michael, 2007. Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins,

Philadelphia.

Du Bois, John, 2005. Prosody in a delicacy hierarchy for discourse transcription. In: Paper Presented at Transcribing Now: Means and Meanings in

the Transcription of Spoken Interaction, Santa Barbara, California.

Firth, Alan, Wagner, Johannes, 1997. On communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81 (3),

285–300.

Firth, Alan, Wagner, Johannes, 1998. SLA property: no trespassing! The Modern Language Journal 82 (1), 91–104.

Gardner, Rod, Wagner, Johannes (Eds.), 2004. Second Language Conversations. Continuum, New York.

Garrett, Paul, Baquedano-Lopez, Patricia, 2002. Language socialization: reproduction, continuity, transformation, and change. Annual Review of

Anthropology 31, 339–361.

Geertz, Clifford, 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books, New York.

Goffman, Erving, 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books, New York.

Goodwin, Charles, Heritage, John, 1990. Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19, 283–307.

Gramsci, Antonio, 1971. State and civil society. In: Selections from the Prison Notebooks, International Press, New York, p. 276.

Gumperz, John, Hymes, Dell, 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Hymes, Dell, 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In: Gumperz, J., Hymes, D. (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The

Ethnography of Communication. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 35–71.

Jacoby, Sally, Gonzalez, Patrick, 1991. The constitution of the expert–novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics 2 (2), 149–181.

Jacoby, Sally, Ochs, Elinor, 1995. Co-construction: an introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (3), 171–183.

Kurhila, Salla, 2001. Correction in talk between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1083–1110.

Kurhila, Salla, 2004. Clients or language learners—being a second language speaker in institutional interaction. In: Gardner, Rod, Wagner, Johannes

(Eds.), Second Language Conversations. Continuum, New York, pp. 58–74.

Lave, Jean, Wenger, Etienne, 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Moerman, Michael, 1988. Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Moerman, Michael, 1996. The field of analyzing second language conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 147–156.

Mondada, Lorenza, 2004. Ways of ‘Doing Being Plurilingual’ in international work meetings. In: Gardner, Rod, Wagner, Johannes (Eds.), Second

Language Conversations. Continuum, London, pp. 18–39.

Mondada, Lorenza, Doehler, Simona Pekarek, 2004. Second language acquisition as situated practice: task accomplishment in the French second

language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 88 (4), 501–518.


Morita, Naoko, 2000. Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL Graduate Program. TESOL Quarterly 34, 279–310.

Philips, Susan U., 1983. The Invisible Culture: Communication in the Classroom and Community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation.

Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.

Philips, Susan U., 2004. Language and social inequality. In: Duranti, A. (Ed.), Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, London.

Sacks, Harvey, 1967. On Proving Hearership. Lecture 3, Spring Quarter, April 10, 1967; Lecture 4, Spring Quarter, April 12, 1967 (unpublished

mimeograph copy).

Sacks, Harvey, 1972. An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In: Sudnow, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social

Interaction. Free Press, New York, pp. 31–63.

Sacks, Harvey, 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell, Oxford.

Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, Jefferson, Gail, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50,

696–735.

Saville-Troike, Muriel, 2003. The Ethnography of Communication. Blackwell, London.

Schiffrin, Deborah, 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Blackwell, London.

Skarup, Terkel, 2004. Brokering and membership in a multilingual community of practice. In: Gardner, Rod, Wagner, Johannes (Eds.), Second

Language Conversations. Continuum, New York, pp. 40–57.

Sudnow, David (Ed.), 1972. Studies in Social Interaction. Free Press, New York.

Vickers, Caroline, 2004. Interactional accommodation and the construction of social roles among culturally diverse undergraduates. Ph.D.

Dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Vickers, Caroline, 2008. Expertise, language competencies and the L2 user. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18 (3), 237–255.

Wagner, Johannes, 1995. ‘Negotiating activity’ in technical problem solving. In: Firth, A. (Ed.), The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language

in the Workplace. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 223–246.

Wagner, Johannes, 1996. Foreign language acquisition through interaction—a critical review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal of

Pragmatics 23 (8).

Wagner, Johannes, Gardner, Rod, 2004. Introduction. In: Gardner, Rod, Wagner, Johannes (Eds.), Second Language Conversations. Continuum,

New York, pp. 1–17.

Wenger, Etienne, 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Waugh, Linda, Fonseca-Greber, Bonnie, Vickers, Caroline, Eroz, Betil, 2007. Multiple empirical paths to a complex analysis of discourse. In:

Coulson, S., Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Spivey, M. (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Philadelphia.


Language competence and the construction of expert–novice in NS–NNS interaction

Documents

Transcript of Language competence and the construction of expert–novice in NS–NNS interaction