Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

Simple language, sophisticated actions

Sequence-initiating actions by novice English users in an educational context

ORCID logo | University of Electro-Communications
ORCID logo | Doshisha University
Drawing on video-recorded data from an educational institution called Tokyo Global Gateway, we investigate how visiting students use English for sequence-initiating actions addressed either to a teacher (called an agent) or other students. As the students usually use Japanese to address another student, we analyze how they accomplish targeting the agent when they use English to address another student. By doing this, the students position the agent as a legitimate overhearer. We also investigate the resources students use to construct sequence-initiating actions and how they recycle resources from the substrate (i.e., local environment of talk, embodied conduct, and other semiotic resources). Students’ sophisticated use of resources, including those recycled from the substrate, demonstrates that their often simple language belies a high degree of displayed interactional competence. This study contributes to research on participation and language choice in educational institutions and the use of recycled resources in the construction of actions-in-interaction.
Keywords: English village, L2 interaction, participation, semiotic resources, substrate
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and analysis
  • 3.Sequence-initiating action addressed to an agent
  • 4.Sequence-initiating action addressed to another student
    • 4.1Redoing an agent’s sequence-initiating action
    • 4.2Redoing another student’s sequence-initiating action
  • 5.Concluding discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 January 2025
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23087.hau
References (31)
References
Bilmes, Jack. 1988. “The Concept of Preference in Conversation Analysis.” Language in Society 17(2): 161–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. “Ethnomethodology, Culture, and Implicature: Toward an Empirical Pragmatics.” Pragmatics 3(4): 387–409.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Preference and the Conversation Analytic Endeavor.” Journal of Pragmatics 641: 52–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonacina-Pugh, Florence. 2013. “Categories and Language in Multilingual Classrooms: The Relevance of ‘Teacher-hood’.” Language and Education 27(4): 298–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2014. “Visible Deflation: Embodiment and Emotion in Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(4): 380–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Soren. W., Teresa Cadierno, and Peiwen Li. 2015. “On the Development of Motion Constructions in Four Learners of L2 English.” In Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, ed. by Teresa Cadierno and Soren W. Eskildsen, 207–232. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Soren W., and Johannes Wagner. 2015. “Embodied L2 Construction Learning.” Language Learning 65(2): 419–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Søren W., and Johannes Wagner. 2018. “From Trouble in the Talk to New Resources: The Interplay of Bodily and Linguistic Resources in the Talk of a Speaker of English as a Second Language.” In Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction, ed. by Simona Pekarek Doehler, Johannes Wagner, and Esther González-Martínez, 143–171. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2018. Co-operative Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greer, Tim. 2019. “Noticing Words in the Wild.” In Conversation Analytic Research on Learning-in-Action: The Complex Ecology of Second Language Interaction ‘in the Wild’, ed. by John Hellermann, Søren W. Eskildsen, Simona Pekarek Doehler, and Arja Piirainen-Marsh, 131–158. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauser, E. 2024. “Audible gestures: Single claps as a resource for managing interaction.” Pragmatics 34(3): 367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacknick, Christine M. 2021. Multimodal Participation and Engagement: Social Interaction in the Classroom. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jakonen, Teppo. 2016. “Managing Multiple Normativities in Classroom Interaction: Student Responses to Teacher Reproaches for Inappropriate Language Choice in a Bilingual Classroom.” Linguistics and Education 331: 14–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1987. “On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button and John R. E. Lee, 86–100. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene. H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation.” In Repairing the Broken Surface of Talk, by Gail Jefferson, 297–312. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Sangki. 2019. “‘We Limit Ten Under Twenty Centu Charge Okay?’: Routinization of an Idiosyncratic Multi-word Expression.” In Conversation Analytic Research on Learning-in-Action: The Complex Ecology of Second Language Interaction ‘in the Wild’, ed. by John Hellermann, Søren W. Eskildsen, Simona Pekarek Doehler, and Arja Piirainen-Marsh, 25–49. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1993. “Collectivities in Action: Establishing the Relevance of Conjoined Participation in Conversation.” Text 13(2): 213–245.Google Scholar
2003. “Selecting Next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation of a Context-Free Organization.” Language in Society 32(2): 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. “Collaborative Turn Sequences.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 225–256. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2018. “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1): 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nanbu, Z. 2020. “‘Do you know banana boat?’: Occasioning overt knowledge negotiations in Japanese EFL conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics 1691: 30–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsher, David. 2004. “Talk and Gesture: The Embodied Completion of Sequential Actions in Spoken Interaction.” In Second Language Conversations, ed. by Rod Gardner and Johannes Wagner, 221–245. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Evelyne Pochon-Berger. 2015. “The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization.” In Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, ed. By Teresa Cadierno and Soren W. Eskildsen, 233–267. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., and Galina B. Bolden. 2010. “Preference Organization of Sequence-Initiating Actions: The Case of Explicit Account Solicitations.” Discourse Studies 12(4): 501–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I & II. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1972. “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8(4): 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko. 1999. Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tholander, Michael, and Karin Aronsson. 2003. “Doing Subteaching in School Group Work: Positionings, Resistance and Participation Frameworks.” Language and Education 17(3): 208–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar