Tetyana Reichert
University of Waterloo
Canada
Learner Language Use in Social Interactions
Abstract
Using sociocultural-historical (particularly Bakhtin) and socio-interactionist
perspectives, this paper examines interactions between university students in the situations
when the teacher is not present. Learners are engaged in a speaking task to prepare a role-play
to be presented in front of the class. I have carried out a conversation analysis of speakers’ use
of linguistic repertoires, and more specifically language choice, to address the dialogic and
functional aspects of language use as well as learners’ linguistic development in and through
interactions. I trace addressivity and the influence of the anticipated response paying attention
to dialogical echoes from preceding utterances. Drawing on the notion of voice, I argue that
learners use L1 as a means of identity construction while practicing to speak the target
language. The results suggest that using code-switching as a meaning making strategy
learners negotiate their discursive identities and position themselves in the discourse, already
at the early stages of L2 learning. I suggest that L1 use cannot be simply associated with lack
in L2 proficiency, but serves social functions such as negotiation of discursive identities and
managing in group relationships, which are essential for L2 acquisition to take place.
Researchers who subscribe to a social perspective on language acquisition observed
that learners often adjust the ways of speaking to a particular situation and to the specified
interlocutor, therefore arguing that social context influences the forms learners use in the
second language (Gass & Selinker, 1994). Examining L2 use and language alternation
between two or more languages, i.e. code-switching, in the context of its use can help to
understand ways learners deploy plurilingual resources and orient to social settings as well as
specific interlocutors in pedagogy-related contexts. Studies on language use in the L2
classroom describe code-switching as an important interactional device that learners employ
to manage the task, interpret the situation, and organize and structure the discourse (e.g.
Liebscher & Dailey-O'Cain, 2005). Other studies have more strongly suggested that the use of
L1 can facilitate L2 learning (Swain & Lapkin, 2000). However, the central concern of most
studies on L2 acquisition has been the question of learning. As such, matters like self
expression and identity construction through the medium of language in pedagogy-related
contexts have not received enough attention. Furthermore, much of the existing research on
1
language use is based on data gathered from teacher-managed classroom activities which are
organised around the official timetable and curriculum.
The present article examines similar issues of linguistic practice to understand the use
of language repertoire by learners, but it has a slightly more complex focus, as I firstly, take
into consideration the social aspects of language, and secondly, examine ways learners deploy
plurilingual resources in the situations, where a teacher is not present. In the context of this
study, learners are working together in small groups preparing for the speaking test by
creating a role-play to be presented to other class members. The excerpts from learner-learner
interactions frame my exploration of the relationship between L2 learning and identity
construction as reflected through participation in a speaking activity. In analysing the data for
this paper, I focus on two central questions that seek to address the main issues that motivated
this research. The questions are as follows: How the participants of my study use linguistic
resources in the contexts, where a teacher is not present, to express the self and its emerging
L2 identities in interactions? Does code-switching play a role in L2 development in the
particular situations that I examine?
For the discussion about the social aspects of language, I adopt Bakhtin’s
sociocultural-historical
framework
(1986).
In
particular,
I
draw
on
Bakhtin’s
conceptualisation of social language (1972), which includes the notion of voice to examine
the interactions, texts, and voices of students as they learn to speak German. I focus on
learners’ involvement in processes of L2 use, and examine the ways it contributes to their
construction of knowledge and identity in the interactions. In particular, I investigate codeswitching while learners engage in interactions, and argue that L1 use cannot be simply seen
as the deficit proficiency in L2, but has social functions in the process of L2 acquisition, such
as negotiation of discursive identities and managing interpersonal work relationships.
According to Bakhtin, language is a dynamic constellation of social resources linked
to their social and historical contexts. Following Vitanova’s (2005) interpretation of Bakhtin’s
2
conceptualisation of language, language is constantly renewed through social activity, and
constitutes central forms of life in which it is used to represent our cultural worlds, as well as
being a “central means by which we bring our worlds into existence, maintain them, and
shape them for our own purposes” (p. 2). Voice for Bakhtin is the “speaking personality, the
speaking consciousness” (Holquist & Emerson, 1981, p. 434), and is always reflected in the
utterance (Bakhtin, 1972). For Wertsch (1991) voice represents discursively constructed
accounts that reflect the speaker’s perspective, conceptual horizon, intention, and world view
(p. 51).
To understand L2 development in learner-learner conversations, I apply a sociointeractionist approach (Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004). Socio-interactionists, like
Bakhtin, view language and learning processes as social phenomenon. Their primary concern
is learning in and through interactions. Socio-interactionist approach builds on three areas: the
social view of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Thorne,
2006) and conversation analysis (CA) (Sacks, 1995). Pekarek Doehler and Ziegler (2007),
who work within this approach write: “language learning is understood as learning to deal
with locally organized and sequentially structured discourse activities and hence rooted in the
learner’s participation structures or sequencing activities." (p. 85). Studying language use and
learning involves an analysis of interactive activities in which social situations unfold and
cognitive dimensions take place (Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004).
Since CA of bilingual talk provides situated understanding of bilingual resources and
practices produced by participants in interactions (Mondada, 2007), I employ this analytic
tool to examine language use and learning in the contexts where they take place. My
methodological technique consists of looking at sequential code-switching, as well as
examining external factors found in questionnaires and interviews.
Data and Task
3
The data under analysis were gathered during the Fall 2007 term in classes where
German is taught as a Foreign Language (GFL). All participants, approximately 20 students,
were enrolled into beginner level courses. As a part of the language course requirement
students were asked to do a speaking test during the last two weeks of classes. They were
instructed to carry out a speaking activity, in which they prepare a role-play in German, in
groups of two or three students outside of the classroom. The role-plays were based on
aspects of students’ life and other topics of their choice related to the course. This small group
activity intended to help learners practice and learn speaking German.
The data were collected through questionnaire responses, interviews, video-recordings
of learner interactions and in-class presentations. The interactions from the focus groups were
transcribed and coded using CA procedures. I identified instances of learners’ use of
plurilingual resources, derived them from transcripts and analysed. In the next section, I will
present some extracts, which best illustrate issues raised during the analysis as well as address
some of the problems and possibilities involved in the analytical search of the construction of
voice and of L2 learning.
Analysis
Example 1 shows an exchange between two students: Ira and Amy. Both are first
semester learners of German. Students meet several times. After they created a first draft of
the role-play, they are rehearsing the role-play over and over again, and modifying the text
during each rehearsal. The two students are alone in a room (with the video camera). In the
role-play, learners tell a story about a pot-luck party which they are organizing for exchange
students from Germany. Example 1 consists of 4 episodes a ,b ,c, d selected from a lengthy
stretch of talk. The first episode is a good example to show the way learners construct voice in
interaction drawing on their bilingual resources and how it relates to L2 learning.
Episode 1a (Example 1)
138
Ira:
WAS
what
4
139
Amy:
140
141
Ira:
Amy:
142
jennifer backt* einen kuchen
jennifer is backing a cake
yummy
robert bringt steak will bringt hanchen* und wern bringt
robert is bringing a steak will is bringing chicken and wern
is bringing
nachtisch
dessert
In episode 1(a), line 140, Ira shifts from German to English. This communicative
strategy of switching to L1 is usually associated with limited lexical resources in L2 (e.g.
Lüdi, 2003). While this may be the case here, there are other relevant aspects that need to be
discussed. Excerpts 1 (a) also illustrates the way the other speaker reacts to Ira's switch by not
orienting to it. L1 use seems to be in order for both speakers. Amy takes her turn and delivers
her in-character words in German (141). It shows that both participants orient to the learning
activity and use the role-play to practice their developing L2, but perceive the setting as a
bilingual space. Auer (1995) observes similar cases of bilingual behaviour in a noneducational context and interprets them as a sign of bilingual competence. It indeed stands for
a higher developed level of interlanguage (Lüdi, 2003) and characterizes people with
competences in several languages.
Since Ira is of German-Canadian background (information she expressed in the
interview), bilingual language competence may in fact, be familiar to her. What is interesting
about this switch to L1 is that it occurs while learners are speaking in-character, despite
teacher instruction to speak German. However, this group does not seem to dissociate
themselves from their characters in the role-play. As the transcript shows, they incorporate
their own preferences and desires in each character’s words. Unlike other participants of my
study, who invent names for the characters in the role-play, these learners keep their original
names throughout the dialog. Bakhtin’s concept of voice then offers an alternative
interpretation of this code-switch. The use of adjective “yummy” conveys not only
information, but also tells us something about the speaker as well as the meaning she is
constructing through its use. It represents an evaluative response, in which the learner is re5
accenting the character’s voice with a positive emotional-volitional tone. According to
Bakhtin (1993), the emotional-volitional tone generates feelings, desires and moral
evaluations. Bakhtin views the emotional-volitional tone as a key aspect of authoring voice of
self because speakers use it to individualize their responses to social realities, values and
beliefs (Vitanova, 2005). The learner personalizes the role-play and creates a new meaning by
attaching emotions to the target language. Meaning for Bakhtin is related to the forces of
expressing speakers’ evaluation and expressing themselves through these evaluations. Viewed
from this perspective, this episode is evidence for an act of identity construction in which
interaction plays the role of a socially mediated carrier of personal values. Drawing on
plurilingual resources, language learners choose means to participate in sociocultural practices
from a particular social location and orient to a particular interlocutor. Thus, “yummy”
functions to bring the aspect of authoring self and with it to re-frame the interaction, rather
than for the purpose of filling the lexical gap in L2. This episode thus shows the learners’
orientation to the goal of the ongoing activity. Their perception of the role-play as a language
learning situation as well as the act of individualization of character speech mirror Vygotsky’s
(2008) argument:
For him, speaker’s emotions, personality and language development
represent terms that are directly related to each other.
Episode 1(b) is from the same interaction after a few lines have been omitted. The
students are practicing the same dialogue at a different time. They adopt own ways of making
sense of the reality, their experiences, and their identity construction while practicing to speak
the target language. Such observation of learners’ interactive practices and emerging self
allow seeing how learners make their voices evident.
Episode 1 b (Example 1)
305
Ira:
306
Amy:
307
308
Ira:
Amy:
WAS
what
jennifer backt* einen kuchen
jennifer is backing a cake
ja hm
rob bringt steaks will bringt hanchen* und wern bringt
rob is bringing a steak will is bringing chicken and wern
6
is bringing
nachtisch
dessert
309
Ira tries out a new way of turn taking in a L2 dialog. In line 307, she deploys the
particles “ja hm” in German instead of “yummy” earlier. Since the leaner uses a confirmative
instead of an evaluative response as observed in the previous episode, this area of the roleplay seems to represent a “building site” for her, in which she is still looking for an
appropriate response. Through the use of German, learners display their interpretation of the
task instructions, i.e. monolingual use of the target language in the role-play, which shows
that this time around they characterize the learning situation as a German-only space. Here,
the learner resists the meditational means of L1 and gives up the opportunity to express
herself. In other words, she decides to have a voice of a monolingual speaker, which she is
not.
Episode 1 (c) is from a later point in the same interaction of Example 1. Its purpose
is threefold. Firstly, I use it to strengthen my interpretations of the use of “yummy” from a
Bakhtinian perspective in the section above, in particular that the emerging self includes
complex relations of feeling and valuing reflected in an utterance of the speaker. Secondly, it
illustrates not only whose voices are recognized and valued, but also the importance of
expressing oneself and making the own voice sound, being heard, responded to and valued
from other speakers.
Lastly, I use this episode to witness an instance of learning-in-
interaction.
Episode 1 c (Example 1)
646
Ira:
WAS
what
647 Amy: jennifer backt* einen kucken
jennifer is backing a cake
648 Ira:
yumm
649 Amy:
rob bringt steak will bringt hänchen und wern bringt
rob is bringing a steak will is bringing chicken and wern
is bringing
650
nachtisch
dessert
-----------------------727 Ira:
OH and should I say yummy what else
7
728 Amy:
729 Ira:
730 Amy:
731 Ira:
732 Amy:
733 Ira:
734 Amy:
735 Ira:
736
yeah
i don’t know uhm
was
what
was
what
else haha
was::: hm i don’t know
what
hm lets see it ((checks the book)) OH was noch?
what else
okay was noch ((notes)) okay they will just you know uhm
what else
it sounds a little better then
From here on, in subsequent rehearsals, Ira uses the English form “yummy” to show
her fondness for sweets and speaks a voice of a “sweet-tooth” demonstrating again her
communicative skills as well as the possibility to construct voice with L1 and L2. This
episode illustrates the learner’s emotional experiences and affiliation with the conversation in
the target language emerging in interaction. Both can be viewed as ongoing social events
which seem to be essential for learners. The data contain a number of examples illustrating
learners playfully constructing various voices using both L1 and L2 to express self and not
orienting to the conventions of the task instruction, i.e. construction of the role-play in L2. I
argue that expressing the self is as important for the learner as keeping the role-play in one
language. It is also possible that the learner is not aware of the fact that German speakers
express this kind of emotions in a different ways. However, what this example shows is that
when using utterances in L2, learners demonstrate tendency to make their voices heard.
Learners make evident the relationship between L2 use and one’s own purpose to express
feelings and values even if speaking in character.
At the same time, this extract represents a learning episode in which the search for
words for a character is successfully solved. It reveals ways learning is taking place while
students are making meaning by expanding the dialog. English as the L1 is a mediator for
this search as well as for constructing interpersonal relationships. In this episode from line
727, learners are collaboratively expanding Ira’s in-character words in the role-play by
looking for words that are important to Ira in sequentially connecting her ideas. To see this
8
more clearly, note first that in line 727, the learner opens a new sequence with the particle
“oh”. “Oh” can indicate change of information state (Schiffrin, 1999), namely in this example
previously overlooked information. At the same time speakers draws attention to the
“building site” and gives the prompt for next action “and should I say yummy what else?”
Amy’s response in line 730 stands for her attempt to provide the German equivalent for “what
else”, but it ends up in a code-switch to L1 in line 732. Ira takes up German “was” (730, 733)
but she simultaneously admits her unfamiliarity with the rest of the expression. Amy solves
the ongoing problem by looking into the book (734). Ira repeats the complete expression “was
noch”, and shows her updated knowledge in 735.
In the same line we see a discursively constructed attempt, the assessment “it sounds
a little better then” (736), possibly directed at rescuing her face (Goffman, 1967) after two
face-threatening acts in 729 and 733. When a speaker commits a face-threatening act, s/he
risks losing face, which would impact the efficiency of communication (Su, 2009). In
response to the situation, Ira speaks a voice in L1 which can be seen as a face-saving strategy.
Ira's assessment stands for “I have an ear for German” and is possibly linked to her GermanCanadian background in that she constructs a voice of a person with that background who has
a feeling for German because she is brought up with it. In this episode, the learner is looking
at herself through the eye of her non-German-heritage classmate and her acting forced by
evaluative position reveals her response to the image she sees projected onto herself. In her
eyes, that image possibly reflects a person with German background who does not know a
German word. The transcript contains numerous cases when she uses this strategy to construct
the voice of a knowledgeable learner of German.
Maguire and Grave (2001) argue that ways speakers present themselves to their
interlocutors is embedded in their choices of utterances that emerge from within previous
discourses and communities of practice. In this particular episode, it can be argued that
through such choices, in particular through the evaluative orientation embedded in the verbal
9
exchange and socio-cultural practice, the learner constructs her identity. One can conclude
that, though learners recognize and orient to the activity as a small group learning activity, i.e.
they hear, understand and take up lexical items; this activity provides a context in which they
can negotiate their discursive identities and understand who they are.
Episode 1 (d) comes from the exchange between Ira and Ami which took place in a
follow-up meeting. In this episode learners continue rehearsing the role-play and practicing
the target language. They showed themselves to be skilful communicators, constructors of
knowledge and much more.
Episode 1.d (Example 1)
996 Ira:
997 Amy:
998
yumm was noch
what else
rob bringt steaks will bringt hanchen* und wern bringt
rob is bringing a steak will is bringing chicken and wern
is bringing
nachtisch
dessert
The final practice episode of example 1 illustrates learner using collaboratively constructed
utterance (English yumm coupled with the German was noch) which functions for the
expression of emotions and for the sequential transition. By drawing on the linguistic
resources of both L1 and L2 learners demonstrate their skills to create a new meaning and the
ability to construct an efficient and smooth conversation in L2. It displays ways students
operationalize learning in a separate encounter, i.e. learning is carried out in time and space.
Concluding Remarks
Overall, we observed that small group speaking activities can provide learners at the
beginner level with opportunities to voice their opinions and express themselves to others.
This analysis showed that learners may use both L1 as well as L2 to negotiate their discursive
identities and to position themselves in the discourse using code-switching as a meaning
making strategy, already at the early stages of L2 learning.
Although Bakhtin’s analytical efforts were not directed toward analysis of L2
learning, the concept of voice is a suitable tool for the situated-understanding of specific
10
language use and emerging L2 identities. We have observed that learning activity represents a
complex social arena which requires learners to make resourceful use of their language
competences to allow for learning to occur. L1 may play a supporting role in social routines,
interpersonal relationships and emotional experiences which in turn are fundamentally linked
to learning in interaction. L1 seems to be also an essential tool to voice thoughts and positions
of the learners that this specific context gives rise to. We have observed cases of language
alternation which could not be solely explained through a sequential approach because they
index some details of the wider context in which the given interaction is situated. The results
also suggest that it is necessary to teach learners from the beginning on how to express
emotions in the target language as it is necessary to teach them grammar as doing so may
facilitates development of speaking skills.
Using bilingual data to study L2 learning is a difficult task. To show learning in
interaction requires data from longitudinal corpora or, at least, lengthy stretches of
interactions like the ones used here. This study shows that the contexts of speaking activities
are essential to understanding the use of linguistic repertoires as a resource towards L2
development in interactions. In this respect, learning about the use of L1 and L2 and their
functions in interaction allows us to understand the organisation of learning in-interaction
more deeply.
Scholars studying spoken interactions have yet to reach consensus on the value of
language alternation for L2 proficiency and development. Research findings on written
communication suggest that the more individuals use two or more languages successfully and
simultaneously in one interaction, the greater are their prospects in the L2 developing writing
(Gentil, 2005). Further research is needed on the impact of fair L1 use in oral communication
and whether code-switching practices would decelerate the development of L2.
References
Auer, P. (1995). The pragmatics of code-switching: A sequential approach. In L. Milroy & P.
11
Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on
code-switching. (pp. 115-135). Cambridge: UP.
Bakhtin, M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act. (V. Liapunov, Trans.). Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Literaturno-kriticheskie stat’i [Critical Literary Articles]. Moskva:
Khudozhestvennaia Literatura.
Bakhtin, M. (1972). Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics].
Moskva: Khudozhestvennaia Literatura.
Su, H.-Y. (2009). Code-switching in managing a face-threatening communicative task:
Footing and ambiguity in conversational interaction in Taiwan. Journal of Pragmatics
41, 372–392.
Gass, S.& Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course .
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gentil, G. (2005). Commitments to Academic Biliteracy: Case Studies of Francophone
University Writers. Written Communication 22, 421-471.
Goffman E. (1999). (1967). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.
In A. Jaworski & N. Couplan (Eds.), The discourse reader. (pp. 306-320). Routledge:
London.
Holquist, M. & Emerson, C. (1981). Glossary for The dialogic imagination: Four essays by
M.M. Bakhtin, M. Holquist. (Ed.), (M. Holquist and C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin: U of
Texas Press.
Lantolf J. P. & Thorne S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford: UP.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey-O'Cain, J. (2005). Learner code-switching in the content-based
foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(ii), 234-247.
Maguire, H. M. & Graves, B. (2005). Speaking Personalities in Primary School Children's L2
Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 4, 561-593.
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of
possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9, 2, 195-226.
Mondada L. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice.
The Modern Language Journal. 88, 4, 501-518.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: UP.
Lüdi, G. (2003). Code-switching and unballanced billingualism. In J-M Dewaele, A. Housen
& L. Wie (Eds), Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters LTD.
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 inter-action. Macmillan: Palgrave.
Sacks, Harvey. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell Publishing.
Schiffrin, D. (1999). Oh as a marker of information management. In A. Jaworski & N.
Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first
language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274.
Vitanova, G. (2005). Authoring the self in a non-native language: A dialogic approach to
agency and subjectivity. In J. K. Hall, G. Vitanova & L. Marchenkova (Eds.),
Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning: New perspectives.
Mahwah: LEA.
Vygotsky, L. (2008). Myshlenie I rech: Osnovopolagaiushchie proisvedeniia. Klassika
otechestvennoi psikhologii [Though and language: Main works. Classics of native
land psychology]. Moskva: Khranitel.
12
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Notes:
The following transcription conventions are used in the examples:
Italics translation into English
Bold
talk in German
(1.0)
length of silence in seconds
HI
increased volume in relation to surrounding talk
:
lengthened pronunciation, the more colons the more lengthened
*
error
?
final rising intonation
(( ))
transcriber’s comments
13