Cover not available
Part of
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Tom Morton
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 47] 2017
► pp. 201–220

Multimodal conversation analysis and CLIL classroom practices

| Autonomous University of Madrid
| University of Jyväskylä

This chapter introduces multimodal Conversation Analysis (CA) as a research framework for CLIL classroom interaction. We begin by presenting key methodological principles of CA and discussing how CA has recently broadened its analytical focus to examine how modalities such as gestures and texts are used as resources for interaction. Following this, we review recent (multimodal) CA work that has investigated teaching and learning practices in classrooms involving second language users, such as in CLIL and immersion settings. To illustrate the described methodological orientation, we briefly analyse one video-recorded interaction and conclude by suggesting research areas related to CLIL classrooms that could benefit from a multimodal CA perspective.

Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Key CA principles and topics
  • CA-for-SLA
  • CA and bilingual classrooms
  • Illustrating a multimodal CA approach to CLIL
    • ‘From so much heating, it’s now dead’
  • Discussion and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 16 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.12evn
References
Deppermann, A.
(2013) Multimodal interaction from a conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., & Heritage, J.
(Eds.) (1992) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Urmeneta Escobar, C., & Evnitskaya, N.
(2013) Affording students opportunities for the integrated learning of content and language. A contrastive study on classroom interactional strategies deployed by two CLIL teachers. In J. Arnau (Ed.), Reviving Catalan at school: Challenges and instructional approaches. (pp. 158–182). Bristol: Multilingual Matters & Institut d’Estudis Catalans.Google Scholar
(2014) ‘Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case study. The Language Learning Journal. 42(2), 165–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S.W.
(2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T.
(2011) Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language and Education, 25(2), 109–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J.
(1997) On discourse, communication and some fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal. 81(3), 285–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Second/Foreign Language learning as a social accomplishment: elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal. 91, 800–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R., & Wagner, J.
(2004) Second language conversations. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H.
(1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauser, E.
(2013) Stability and change in one adult’s second language English negation. Language Learning, 63(3), 463–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, J.
(2008) Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(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(2), 113–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(1984a) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
(1984b) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Conversation analysis as social theory. In B. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 300–320). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2012) Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakonen, T.
(2014) Building bridges: How secondary school pupils bring their informal learning experiences into a Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) classroom. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
Jakonen, T., & Morton, T.
(2015) Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kääntä, L.
(2010) Teacher turn-allocation and repair practices in classroom interaction: A multisemiotic perspective. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities, 137.Google Scholar
(2012) Teachers’ embodied allocations in instructional interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(2), 166–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) From noticing to initiating correction: Students’ epistemic displays in instructional interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 86–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kääntä, L., & Piirainen-Marsh, A.
(2013) Manual guiding in peer group interaction: A resource for organizing a practical classroom task. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 322–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G.
(2004) Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J.
(2011) A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C.
(2012) Repair. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 229–256). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T.
(2001) Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Kupetz, M.
(2011) Multimodal resources in students’ explanations in CLIL interaction. Novitas-ROYAL, 5(1), 121–142.Google Scholar
Majlesi, A. R.
(2014) Finger dialogue: The embodied accomplishment of learnables in instructing grammar on a worksheet. Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 35–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markee, N.
(2005) Conversation analysis for second language acquisition. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 355–374). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Markee, N., & Kunitz, S.
(2013) Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63(4), 629–664. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2008) Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: Videotaping institutional telephone calls. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), Art. 39.Google Scholar
Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2004) Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French Second Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 501–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, E., & Dooly, M.
(2010) ‘How do the apples reproduce (themselves)?’ How teacher trainees negotiate language, content, and membership in a CLIL science education classroom at a multilingual university. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 9(1), 58–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, J.
(2004) Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 536–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, J., & Hayashi, M.
(2006) The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 195–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, C., Cienki, A.J., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S.H., McNeill, D., & Tessendorf, S.
(Eds.) (2013) Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Olsher, D.
(2004) Talk and gesture: The embodied completion of sequential actions in spoken interaction. In R. Gardner, & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 221–245). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2010) Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language, learning and documenting learning in conversation analytic SLA research. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126). Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Ziegler, G.
(2007) Doing language, doing science and the sequential organization of the immersion classroom. In Z. Hua, P. Seedhouse, L. Wei & V. Cook (Eds.), Language learning and teaching as social interaction (pp. 72–86). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pike, K.
(1967) Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior (2nd. ed.). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitsch, K.
(2005) Interaction, auto-organization et practiques d’inscription: Approximation lexicale en classes bilingues. AILE, 22, 73–99.Google Scholar
Pochon-Berger, E.
(2011) A participants’ perspective on tasks: From task instruction, through pre-task planning, to task accomplishment. Novitas-ROYAL, 5(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
Psathas, G.
(1995) Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1992) Lectures on conversation. Vol. II. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis. Vol. I. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R.
(2001) Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P.
(2004) The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A Conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
(2005) Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38(4), 165–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) The relationship between pedagogical focus and interaction in L2 lessons. In E. Macaro (Ed.), The continuum companion to second language acquisition (pp. 220–246). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sert, O., & Walsh, S.
(2013) The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 542–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J.
(2005) Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica, 156(1/4), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J.
(2013) Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C.
(2011) Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 1–26). New York: CUP.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R.A.
(2010) Incidental microgenetic development in second-language teacher-learner talk-in-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 66–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walsh, S.
(2011) Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Waring, H.Z.
(2013) Managing competing voices in the second language classroom. Discourse Processes, 50(5), 316–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E.
(1998) Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, R., & Miller, E.
(2004) Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Aldrup, Marit
2019. ‘Well let me put it uhm the other way around maybe’: Managing students’ trouble displays in the CLIL classroom. Classroom Discourse 10:1 ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Costa, Francesca & Olivia Mair
2022. Multimodality and pronunciation in ICLHE (Integration of Content and Language in Higher Education) training. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 16:4-5 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Coyle, Yvette & Julio Roca de Larios
2023. Exploring Children's L2 Disciplinary Literacy Through a Multimodal Science Project in a CLIL Context. TESOL Quarterly DOI logo
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Julia Hüttner & Ana Llinares
2022. CLIL in the 21st Century. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 10:2 ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo
Daniel, Lynn R.
2023. Demystify Teaching Reading to Struggling Adolescent Learners. In Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Language Learning Environments [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Salvador-Garcia, Celina & Oscar Chiva-Bartoll
2022. The Nature of Integration in Physical Education Through CLIL: An Analysis of Cognitive Discourse Functions. Journal of Language, Identity & Education ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Salvador-García, Celina
2023. A Journey Into CLIL-Friendly Pedagogies to Inform Teacher Professional Development. In Handbook of Research on Training Teachers for Bilingual Education in Primary Schools [Advances in Early Childhood and K-12 Education, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.