1

THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE L2 WHEN DOING L2 LEARNING: EPISTEMIC STATUS

Fredrik Rusk, Åbo Akademi University, Finland, fredrik.rusk@abo.fi Michaela Pörn, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Fritjof Sahlström, University of Helsinki, Finland

The recent decade has seen a growth in research on the use of the first language (L1) in second language (L2) classrooms and its implications on student’s L2 learning. There has been presented empirical evidence in favour of L1 use as well as against (see Turnbull & Dailey-O'Cain, 2010). The growing body of literature against the exclusive use of the target language, often socioculturally influenced, has contributed to a more nuanced view of the use of L1 in L2 educational settings (e.g. Liebscher & Dailey-O'Cain, 2004; Mori, 2004; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005). These micro-analytical studies have often focused on code switching. Situations in which no code switching is employed and in which the L2 learner has problems understanding the target language are then excluded by definition. These situations still concern the issue of whether or not the principle of exclusively using the target language is warranted. A consequent effect of a lost mutual understanding due to the exclusive use of the target language is that the L2 learning may suffer. A question would then be how the exclusive use of the target language as the language of instruction affects L2 learning in these situations? This paper employs a conversation analytical (CA) perspective on epistemics in social interaction (e.g. Heritage, 2012a; 2012b; Mondada, 2011) and L2 learning (cf. Lee, 2010; Melander, 2012; Sahlström, 2011) in analysing how participants solve problems of understanding the target language and what role participants’ management of epistemic statuses regarding the target language have on doing L2 learning? The data analysed are video recordings from two different L2 educational settings employing the exclusive use of the target language; a content-based Finnish as a L2 program for 7-year-old Swedish-speaking children and a classroom tandem course (Finnish and Swedish as L2) for 16-year-old students in upper secondary school. The possibilities of doing L2 learning in these contexts seem good when the content is familiar and when activities are situated. The complex epistemic context regarding who knows what of the target language and the content come to play e.g. when a discrepancy between participants' oriented-to learning object and current task unfolds in the interaction. The use of the target language in resolving these matters may lead to extended and expanded misunderstandings, rather than contributing to solving the problem. The principle of exclusively using the target language may also restrict the possibilities of doing L2 learning on more in-depth and abstract concepts not tied to situated activities and/or single words or phrases. It seems that participants then put aside the principle for epistemic balance and doing L2 learning in favour of orienting to the principle of (exclusively) using the target language. Keywords: conversation analysis, epistemics in social interaction, second language learning

INTRODUCTION The belief that the most effective way of learning a second language (L2) equals the exclusive use of the target language in the classroom is still strong (cf. Turnbull & Dailey-O'Cain, 2010). One reason for this may be the fact that immersion programs are cited as successful language programs (e.g. Krashen, 1984; McMillan and Turnbull, 2010). There has been empirical evidence presented in both favour of and against first language (L1) use (cf. Turnbull, 2001; Turnbull & Dailey-O'Cain 2010). The growing, socio-culturally influenced, body of literature arguing against the exclusive use of the target language has contributed to a more nuanced view of language use. Participants, both students and teachers, can through code-switching employ different roles and activities in the unfolding interaction (e.g. Liebscher & Dailey-O'Cain, 2004; Mori, 2004; Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005; Turnbull & Dailey-O'Cain, 2010). Mutual understanding is at the heart of human social interaction (e.g. Schegloff, 2007; Kasper, 2009; Goodwin, 2013). To restore lost intersubjectivity participants rely on repair, which is a common set of practices in all social interaction (see e.g. Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977; Schegloff, 2007), including L2 educational settings (e.g. Markee, 2000;

  2

Seedhouse, 2004; Hellermann, 2009). Much conversation analytical (CA) research on L2 educational settings and participants’ L1 use in these settings focus repair practices involving code-switching (see e.g. Firth & Wagner, 1997; Cromdal, 2000; Kurhila, 2001; Üstünel and Seedhouse, 2005; Slotte-Lüttge, 2005). However, trouble(s) in intersubjectivity related to L1/L2 knowledge also occurs in situations where participants rely on the target language to repair the intersubjectivity. These situations differ from situations in which participants rely on code-switching, since the participants have to rely on limited target language knowledge when doing the repair. This brings additional risks for further difficulties in repairing the mutual understanding. These situations, which are the focus of this paper, are still relatively unexplored in research on L2 learning. Problems with the intersubjectivity and sense-making practices of the social interaction may hinder L2 learning (e.g. Markee, 2000; Seedhouse, 2004; Hellermann, 2009; Kasper, 2009; Hall, Hellermann & Pekarek Doehler, 2011). This paper focuses on situations in which participants rely almost exclusively on the target language when repairing the intersubjectivity. The overall aim is to better understand how the exclusive use of the target language by the language teacher/native speaker affects L2 learning in situations where there is a problem of understanding the L2. The data consists of video recordings from two L2 educational settings in which the target language is exclusively used as the language of instruction; a content-based Finnish as a L2 program for 7-year-old Swedish-speaking children (cf. Pörn & Törni, 2010) and a classroom tandem course (Finnish and Swedish as L2) for 16-year-old Finnish- and Swedish-speaking students in upper secondary school (cf. Karjalainen, Pörn, Rusk & Björkskog, 2013). The data construction of both datasets can be considered as content-centred (Rusk, Pörn, Sahlström and Slotte-Lüttge 2014). The focus of the data construction is on specific settings in which the specific content and practice of interest is most likely to be done by participants and available to capture on video. This focus corresponds well with the analytical focus and aim of the article. The content of interest in this article is L2 learning and the practice of interest is the exclusive use of the target language.

EPISTEMICS IN SOCIAL INTERACTION AND DOING L2 LEARNING Research on epistemics in interaction has advanced tremendously in recent years and especially within the CA research community. This is largely because of Heritage’s groundbreaking papers in which he closely defines (among others) the notions of epistemic status and stance and introduces notions such as epistemic discrepancy and epistemic imbalance (Heritage, 2012a; 2012b). Participants acknowledge what co-participants know or do not know regarding a specific epistemic domain by topicalising and displaying their epistemic stance as well as monitoring others (e.g. Heritage, 2012b; Karlsson, 2006; Kärkkäinen, 2006; Sahlström, 2011; Stivers, Mondada & Steensig, 2011). Epistemic status involves a participant’s epistemic access to an epistemic domain. Access is distributed between participants in interaction so that they occupy more knowledgeable (K+) or less knowledgeable (K-) positions in relation to the domain and each other (Heritage, 2012c; 2012b). Persons are generally treated as having more knowledge in relation to others about domains that are in their expertise (e.g. relatives, jobs and hobbies) (Heritage, 2012b). This paper employs a social perspective on learning as a social activity that participants actively do in interaction (e.g. Lee, 2010; Melander, 2012; Sahlström, 2011; Rusk & Pörn 2013; Rusk, Pörn & Sahlström, submitted; Pallotti & Wagner, 2011; Wagner, 2010). The doing of learning is analysed from a CA participant’s perspective and through considering the object of learning as something that participants actively orient to (Lee, 2010; Sahlström, 2011). This research has especially singled out epistemics in social interaction as an integral and important part of activities that can be considered as doing learning (Rusk & Pörn, 2013;

  3

Rusk, Pörn & Sahlström, submitted; Sahlström, 2011; Melander, 2012). Epistemic stance and status, knowing and the dynamic relationships between participants’ knowledge is recognisably a vital part of doing learning and teaching (Melander, 2012; Rusk & Pörn, 2013; Rusk, Pörn & Sahlström, submitted; Tanner, 2014). What one knows and how one knows something are important issues in classrooms and teaching/learning situations. Epistemic status and stance are also integral parts of the so called "proof procedure" (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974), socially shared cognition (Kasper, 2009) and the social organisation of epistemic ecologies (Goodwin, 2013). The topicalisation of epistemic stances in relation to different epistemic domains can be used as a resource for e.g. teachers and students when determining if someone has understood or not and what someone has learned or needs to learn (Melander, 2012; Melander & Sahlström, 2010).

AIM Using a CA perspective on L2 learning as a social activity (cf. Lee, 2010; Sahlström, 2011; Melander, 2012) this study focuses on situations in which a L2 learner has problems understanding the current activity, which involves understanding the target language, and asks for help by a more knowledgeable participant (teacher or native speaker). More specifically the study investigates if, and if so, how the exclusive use of the target language affects L2 learning. The aim is to provide a better understanding of what role the interactional management of participants' epistemic statuses and stance (regarding oriented-to content, the target language and the current task) have on upholding intersubjectivity and doing L2 learning.

RESULTS

Epistemic discrepancy In this category we investigate a situation in which a considerable epistemic discrepancy (Heritage & Raymond, 2005; Mondada, 2011) emerges in the talk-in-interaction regarding knowledge and understanding of the current activity and the target language. This discrepancy in target language knowledge and the mutual understanding of the current activity seem to be further expanded by the fact that the target language is used to try to amend them. Excerpts (1–3) are an example of an epistemic discrepancy from the classroom tandem data (approx. 3 minutes long). There is a trajectory from K- to K+ regarding Aron’s knowledge of the meaning of the word ‘ero’ (difference). Aron is supposed to explain in Finnish (his L2) to Minna what the difference in meaning is between the two sentences: ‘isä on kylässä’ (father is visiting) and ‘isä on kylällä’ (father is at the village). Aron invites Minna to help him (line 1).

Excerpt (1) Aron provides an uncertain answer and asks Minna for confirmation (line 1). Minna repeats the keywords that make the difference in the sentences (kylässä [visiting] and kylällä [at the village]) and repeats the question (line 2). Aron acknowledges and revises his answer to

(6) ero_AM050313-2_8.50-11.41

00 ((both participants look at the paper))

01 A: isä on kylässä (1.8) tai (0.8) onkse? dad is visiting or is it?

02 M: kylässä ja kylällä. (0.5) mikä ero niissä on? visiting and at the village. what’s the difference?

—> 03 A: jåo. nä: kylällä <on> ero. (0.4) tai, yea. no: at the village <is> difference. or,

(7) ero_AM050313-2_8.50-11.41

—> 11 A: =mitä on ero. =what is difference.

  4

‘kylällä’ (at the village), still marking it uncertain (line 3). Then Minna explains in the target language what the difference is between the two sentences (lines 4–10 omitted) and Aron latches on to her turn as he asks ‘mitä on ero’ (what is difference, excerpt 2 line 11).

Excerpt (2) Aron is looking for a right and/or wrong answer, not the difference between the two sentences. His turn on line 11 can be understood as him asking, ‘what is right’. Aron is using the word ‘ero’ (difference) in the wrong way without knowing that he is doing it. Minna launches another explanation, similar as the one before, in which she explains in the target language the difference between the two sentences (lines 12–20 omitted). Aron overlaps (excerpt 3, line 21) as he decides, erroneously, that ‘kylällä’ (at the village) is ‘ero’ (difference).

Excerpt (3) He uses the word ‘ero’ (difference) in the sense of right/wrong. He has now both understood the task incorrectly and answered it incorrectly as he moves to the next question, which is asking for the difference between ‘mökillä’ (at the cabin) and ‘mökissä’ (in the cabin). Aron asks Minna if ‘mökissä’ (in the cabin) is ‘ero’ (difference) (line 22), again using the word ‘ero’ (difference) in the wrong sense of the word. Minna emphasizes the suffixes ‘-ssä’ and ‘-llä’, which make the difference (line 25). Aron then utters a change-of-state token (line 26, Heritage 1984). He now realizes what ‘ero’ (difference) means and that he now knows that he has understood the task incorrectly (lines 26–27). He says that he has ‘tänkt fel’ (thought wrong). There is an epistemic discrepancy (Heritage & Raymond, 2005; Mondada, 2011) in that neither Aron nor Minna know that Aron does not know what the keyword ‘ero’ (difference) means. On lines 26–27 Aron topicalizes a change from K- to K+ (e.g. Melander, 2009; 2012; Rusk & Pörn, 2013) as he realizes that he has incorrectly understood ‘ero’ (difference). The epistemic discrepancy has been identified and epistemic balance (Drew 2012) has thus been achieved. In (1–3) the participants seem to be agreeing on that they are doing L2 learning, but they struggle with the mutual understanding of who has knowledge about what regarding the

(6) ero_AM050313-2_8.50-11.41

00 ((both participants look at the paper))

01 A: isä on kylässä (1.8) tai (0.8) onkse? dad is visiting or is it?

02 M: kylässä ja kylällä. (0.5) mikä ero niissä on? visiting and at the village. what’s the difference?

—> 03 A: jåo. nä: kylällä <on> ero. (0.4) tai, yea. no: at the village <is> difference. or,

(7) ero_AM050313-2_8.50-11.41

—> 11 A: =mitä on ero. =what is difference.

(8) ero_AM050313-2_8.50-11.41

—> 21 A: nå >ky?lällä on ero.< (.) jes, .hh öm:: (2.8) ö: well >at the village is difference.< yes, um:: u:

22 (1.1) pt (0.8) onks mökissä ero. is in the cabin difference.

23 (3.6)

24 A: nå, #m:# well,

25 M: nå (1.5) mökillä. mökissä. well at the cabin. in the cabin.

—> 26 A: .hh alltså se ero o(n)- (.) jaha nå ja ha tänkt so that difference i(s) oh well I have thought

—> 27 <fe:l> (1.0) .h <ero on skillnad> int- okej. <wro:ng> <difference is difference> not- okay.

  5

target language and the current task. When doing tasks, participants agree on understanding the question that the task poses since a precondition to be part of a social activity is to understand what the activity is about (Mondada, 2011). Diverse possible understandings come to play in both situations as the interaction unfolds. Aron does not seem to understand what the word ‘ero’ (difference) means and this leads to him looking for something that is not asked for. The mutual understanding is in fact lost as they agree that they are going to do the task at hand, agreeing upon understanding the task, but because of having different knowledge of the target language they have different understandings of the task. The use of the target language and repeating the task question does not seem to help in solving the situations. Epistemic imbalance In excerpt (4) a child in the Finnish as a L2 program, Ella, asks a question regarding the current content, but gets no answer as the teacher moves on and continues to explain the game. The teacher is explaining the next activity, which is a version of tag. One person is a ‘virus’, which infects the others. If the virus infects everyone it wins.

  6

(9) virus_19_100309_10.51-12.03

01 T: mitä sitten tapahtu

what then happened

02 (1.0)

03 T: se on virus

it is a virus 04 ((shows picture))

05 E: får ja titta

can I see 06 ((rises and goes to T))

07 T: siinä on virus

there is a virus 08 ((points on picture))

09 Ma: får ja (.) titta

can I see 10 ((rises and goes to T))

11 T: virus lentää hu::pp

YLUXV��ÀLHV���RR��SS 12 ((points on picture))

—> 13 E: va e vi:rus.

what is vi:rus.

14 T: tämä on vir- (kun) tämä sanoo atshi? (0.7) niin virus lentää,

WKLV� LV� YLU�� �ZKHQ��WKLV� VD\V�� DWFKR"�������� WKHQ��YLUXV��ÀLHV�

15 (1.1) ja siitä tuli kipeä. (2.0) °se on kipeä°. (.) tässä on (.)

and it became sick. °it is sick°. here is

16 ty ttö,?

JL�UO�"—> 17 E: hu ve- va e vi:r us

how kn- what is vi:r us 18 T: joka (on terve). (.) katsokaa

�ZKLFK� �LV�KHDOWK\�������ORRN —> 19 E: va e vir us

what is vi rus 20 atshi taas virus (1.0) virus lentää. (2.0) ja sitten,

�DWFKR� DJDLQ��YLUXV��������YLUXV��ÀLHV����������� DQG�WKHQ�

21 T: (3.0) miten käy. (3.0) silloin tulee, (1.0) tytöstä kipeä.

������ ZKDW���KDSSHQV��������WKHQ�����EHFRPHV�������WKH�JLUO� VLFN�

22 E: oj

oops

23 T: oj (.) >tyttö sanoo atshi< (.) ja virus lentää, (1.0) ja silloin

RRSV�����!JLUO�� VD\V���DWFKR�������DQG�YLUXV��ÀLHV�����������DQG�WKHQ

24 tulee,? (.) naisesta kipeä. (2.0) mutta nai?nen ottaa lääkettä.

EHFRPHV�"���� ZRPDQ VLFN���������� EXW����WKH�ZR"PDQ�WDNHV��PHGLFLQH�

25 (2.0)

26 Ma: l:e:kke

P�H�GLFLQ

27 T: lä::ke ((gestures the taking of coughing syrup))

PH��GLFLQH

28 ((children talk excitedly, T starts handing out roles to get the game started))

  7

Excerpt (4) As the teacher introduces the ‘virus’ in her instructions the children want to come closer so they can see the pictures the teacher is showing (lines 1–10). Ella asks, with a Swedish pronunciation, what a virus is (line 13). The teacher explains what the virus does in the game (lines 14–16). Ella repeats her question (line 17), but the teacher continues explaining the game (line 18). Ella notices that the teacher did not orient towards her question so she repeats it again (line 19). The teacher still does not orient towards Ella’s topicalized epistemic imbalance (Drew 2012; Heritage 2012a). Instead she continues giving instructions on what the virus does in the game (lines 20–21). On line 22 Ella orients to the instructions and the teacher continues explaining the game (lines 23–24). The fact that something is missing (a second pair part/answer to Ella’s first pair part/question) can seem trivial (Schegloff, 2007). But the fact that the teacher does not answer makes it a noticeable absence. The question-answer adjacency pair is one of the most fundamental units of sequence organization in conversation (e.g. Schegloff, 2007). Participants in social interaction also show a ‘…propensity toward epistemic balance (a flat gradient)—perhaps even a principle of epistemic balance…’ (Drew, 2012: 65). Ella’s question concerns the concept of virus; she wants an explanation of what a virus is. Ella using the Swedish pronunciation of the word indicates this. She has already figured out the translation for the Finnish word and asks for an explanation on the concept. The teacher and Ella have a common language in Swedish (children's L1), but the teacher chooses to uphold the principle of exclusively using the target language in favour of doing learning on a more in-depth concept. The use of the target language seems to restrict L2 learning to a more superficial level concerned with single words and phrases and not more difficult tasks (e.g. Kern, 1994; Behan et al., 1997; Macaro, 1997; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Thoms et al., 2005). The K+ participant (teacher) seems to be treating the information/knowledge sought for as irrelevant and not needed at the current time or for the next activity. In other words does she orient towards her epistemic status as K+ including the right to know what the other participant knows, does not know and what they need to know or not. The principle of exclusively using the target language seems to trump doing learning on these concepts/words.

DISCUSSION The upholding of the principle of exclusively using the target language seems to bring into the situations added epistemic domains that the participants need to be aware of. L2 learners bring in a special set of knowing and not knowing to which all participants need to be sensitive to uphold intersubjectivity (cf. Schegloff, 2000). The more knowledgeable participant plays an important part and seems to have to be especially sensitive to the managing of epistemics in the social interaction and open up the epistemic access for the less knowledgeable to be able to express his/her (un)knowing. The primary goal of any L2 educational setting is to support L2 learners in their doing of L2 learning and practices that compromise this learning should be avoided (Turnbull & Dailey-O'Cain, 2010). Therefore it seems paradoxical that this goal is then approached through employing the principle of exclusively using the L2, thus enforcing, promoting and encouraging monolingualism in the classroom at the expense of doing L2 learning and upholding intersubjectivity. To not use the L1, the participants’ other common language, is to deny the use of another tool for meaning-making, mutual understanding and doing L2 learning.

REFERENCES Behan, L., Turnbull, M., & Spek, J. (1997). The proficiency gap in late French immersion:

Language use in collaborative tasks. Le Journal de l’Immersion, 20, 41–44.

  8

Cromdal, J. (2000). Code-switching for all practical purposes. Bilingual organization of children's play. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Linköping University.

Drew, P. (2012). What Drives Sequences? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 61–68.

Firth, A. & J. Wagner. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300

Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8-23.

Hall, J. K., J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler. (Eds.). (2011). L2 Interactional Competence and Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Hellermann, J. (2009). Looking for Evidence of Language Learning in Practices for Repair: A Case Study of Self-Initiated Self-Repair by an Adult Learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 113–132.

Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of Its sequential placement in J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds): Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1–29.

Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemics in Conversation in J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds): The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage, J. (2012c). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 30–52.

Heritage, J. & G. Raymond. (2005). The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.

Karjalainen, K., M. Pörn, F. Rusk, & L. Björkskog. (2013). Classroom tandem - Outlining a Model for Language Learning and Instruction. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6, 165–184.

Kärkkäinen, E, (2006). Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk, 26, 699–731.

Karlsson, S. (2006). Positioneringsfraser i interaktion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Gothenburg.

Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 11–36.

Kern, R.G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 441–461.

Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, Theory and Applications. Englewood, NJ: Laredo. Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker. Journal of

Pragmatics, 33, 1083–1110. Lee, Y.-A. (2010). Learning in the contingency of talk-in-interaction. Text and Talk, 30, 403–

422. Liebscher, G. & J. Dailey-O'Cain. (2004). Learner code-switching in the content-based

foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 60, 501–525.

Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McMillan, B. & M. Turnbull. (2010). Teachers’ Use of the First Language in French

Immersion: Revisiting a Core Principle in M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O´Cain (Eds): First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Melander, H. (2009). Trajectories of learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Uppsala

  9

University. Melander, H. (2012). Transformations of knowledge within a peer group. Knowing and

learning in interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 232–248. Mondada, L. (2011). The management of knowledge discrepancies and of epistemic changes

in institutional interactions in T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds): The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 536–550.

Pallotti, G & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2011). L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives. Honolulu: NFLRC, The University of Hawai’i.

Pörn, M. & J. Törni. (2010). KUKAKO. Faculty of Education at Åbo Akademi University. Rusk, F. & M. Pörn. (2013). Epistemisk positionering som en del av andraspråkslärande i

social interaktion. VAKKI Publications, 2, 315–326. Rusk, F., M. Pörn, F. Sahlström, & A. Slotte-Lüttge. (2014). Perspectives on using video

recordings in conversation analytical studies on learning in interaction. International Journal of Research and Method in Education.

Rusk, F., Pörn, M., & Sahlström, F. (submitted). Epistemic discrepancies and epistemic imbalance in second language learning in interaction. Applied Linguistics.

Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, & G. Jefferson. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

Sahlström, F. (2011). Learning as social action in J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds): L2 Interactional Competence and Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson, & H. Sacks. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.

Schegloff, E. (2000). When 'others' initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21, 205–243. Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation

analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom. Oxford:

Blackwell Pub. Slotte-Lüttge, A. (2005). Ja vet int va de heter på svenska. Interaktion mellan tvåspråkiga

elever och deras lärare i en enspråkig klassrumsdiskurs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Åbo Akademi University.

Swain, M. & S. Lapkin. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 253–276.

Tanner, M. (2014). Lärarens väg genomklassrummet: Lärande och skriftspråkande i bänkinteraktioner på mellanstadiet. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Karlstad University.

Thoms, J., J. Liao, & A. Szustak. (2005). The use of L1 in an L2 on-line chat activity. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 161–182.

Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but…. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 57, 531–540.

Turnbull, M. & J. Dailey-O'Cain. (2010). First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Üstünel, E. & P. Seedhouse. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code‐switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 302–325.

Wagner, J. (2010). Learning and doing learning in interaction: What do participants do in everyday out-of-school second language talk? In Y. Kite & K. Ikeda (Eds.), Language

  10

learning and socialization through conversations. Osaka: Kansai University, Center for Human Activity Theory.