CA AppLingBg

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2002) 22, 3-31. Printed in the USA.
©
Copyright 2002 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/01 $9.50
Schegloff's homepage
1. CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS'
Emanuel A. Schegloff, Irene Koshik, Sally Jacoby, and David Olsher
Conversation Analysis (CA) as a mode of inquiry is addressed to all forms

of talk and other conduct in interaction, and, accordingly, touches on the
concerns of applied linguists at many points. This review sketches and
offers bibliographical guidance on several of the major relevant areas of
conversation-analytic work-turn-taking, repair, and word selection-and
indicates past or potential points of contact with applied linguistics. After
covering these areas, we include a brief discussion of some key themes in
CA's treatment of talk in institutional contexts. Finally, we discuss
several established areas of applied linguistic work in which conversation
analytic work is being explored-native, nonnative, and multilingual talk;
talk in educational institutions; graimnar and interaction; intercultural
communication and comparative CA; and implications for designing
language teaching tasks, materials, and assessment tasks. We end with
some cautions on applying CA findings to other applied linguistic research
contexts.
Its name to the contrary notwithstanding, "conversation analysis" (CA) is

not concerned with conversation alone. The term "conversation analysis" as used
here refers specifically to what some have referred to as "ethnomethodological
conversation analysis," a line of work whose earliest contributions are often
identified with authors such as Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson, Pomerantz, and others,
and not to the literatures also sometimes referred to by that name (or by the term
"conversational analysis") associated with such authors as Grice, Gumperz, Hatch,
Tannen, and others-some in the applied linguistics community-whose declared
intnt is to describe conversational uses of language. CA's broader provenance
extends to the study of talk and other forms of conduct (including the disposition of
the body in gesture, posture, facial expression, and ongoing activities in the
setting) in all forms of talk in interaction. To be sure, work so far has suggested
that talk in ordinary conversation is the locus of the basic or default practices of
talk in interaction, and that talk in specific institutional or functionally specified
3
4 EMANUEL A. SCHEGLOFF, IRENE KOSHIK, SALLY JACOBY, AND DAVID OLSHER
contexts is often characterized by describable modifications of those organizations

of practice. But wherever humans engage in talk in interaction, or in interaction in
which talk can spontaneously "break out," there will be an orientation by the
participants to the practices of talking in interaction. Understanding interaction in
such settings can be enhanced by the findings of conversation analysis, and by the
research practices underlying those fmdings. This is to say that "CA" refers to not
only a corpus of findings and accounts of talk-in-interaction, but also-perhaps
preeminently-to a method of inquiry, one addressed to distinctive data and
embodying a distinctive research stance.
A substantial proportion of the research and professional preoccupations of

applied linguists and of applied linguistics falls into the domain for which CA
resources are well-suited. Whether the area is the properties of native and
nonnative language use in a variety of settings and contexts, the organization of
discourse and interaction in the classroom and in other pedagogic settings inwhich
teaching and learning are meant to occur, the assessment of such learning, or the
like, much of what makes up the substance of these professional and research
domains is found in the real world in situations of talk in interaction. Applied
linguists can therefore potentially benefit from bringing the resources and tools of
conversation analysis to bear on those domains which engage their interest and
professional concerns-whether in conversation or in institutionally specific talk.
This chapter offers analytical and bibliographical guidance on a few main areas of
CA work, and examines their past and potential future intersection with
phenomena, problems, and settings of distinctive interest to an applied linguistic
constituency. The sections that follow next begin by sketching areas of
conversation analytic work and some of their prime bibliographical resources and
then suggest areas of potential intersection with applied linguistics. Then we take
up some long-standing areas of interest in applied linguistics and suggest some
ways in which conversation analytic resources might prove fruitful for them, along
with some exemplars of work where this promise may already be bearing fruit.
Some Fundamental Aspects of the Organization of Conversation
Whether speaking their native language or another, whether fluently or

not, whether to another or others doing the same or not, whether in ordinary
conversation or in a classroom or in the work place or in some other institutionally
or functionally specialized situation, there are certain issues all participantsin talk-
in-interaction will fmd themselves dealing with. They will, for example, need
some way of organizing the order of their participation-usually one person
speaking at a time (turn-taking). They will fashion their contributions to be
recognizable as some unit of participation-some "turn-constructional unit" (turn
organization). They will have practices for forming their talk so as to accomplish
one or more recognizable actions (action formation). They will deploy resources
for making the succession of contributions cohere somehow, either topically or by
CONVERSATIONANALYSIS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS 5
contributing to the realization of a trajectory of action or interaction (sequence

organization). They will avail themselves of practices for dealing with problems in
speaking, hearing and/or understanding the talk (the organization of repair). They
will select and deploy and understand the words used to compose the talk, and will
do that in a timely fashion (word/usage selection). They will do all of this with an
eye to their co-participants (recipient design) and to the occasion and context, its
normative parameters or boundaries of duration, appropriate activities and their
order, etc., (overall structural organization of the occasion of interaction). All of
the preceding, and others, compose the preoccupations and major topical areas of
Conversation Analysis. It is the premise of this chapter that many of the topics and
concerns which preoccupy applied linguists intersect these aspects of the
organization of interaction and are shaped by them. The remainder of this section
will sketch several of these areas with bibliographical citations, and suggest their
the
potential bearing on applied linguistic interests. Ensuing sections start from
applied linguistic end and touch on work which has drawn on conversation analytic
resources.
To begin with, however, it will be worthwhile to underscore a single

underlying premise of this work which should be relevant to applied linguists as
well. People use language and concomitant forms of conduct to do things, not
only to transmit information; their talk and other conduct does things, and is taken
as doing things-things such as requesting, offering, complaining, inviting, asking,
telling, correcting, and the myriad other actions which talk in interaction can
accomplish. By "actions" here we are not referring to physical actions but to ones
accomplished through the talk; and we are referring not only to actions with
familiar vernacular names like those just mentioned, but recognizable and
describable actions without such names (such as "confirming allusions," cf.
Schegloff, 1996c). Understanding analytically what action is (or actions are) being
done by some unit of talk is not accessible to casual inspection and labeling; it
requires examination of actual specimens of naturally occurring talk in interaction
and analysis of what they are designed to accomplish by their speakers and
understood to have accomplished by their recipients, and what practices implement
that design. (This stance toward action is, accordingly, quite distinct from that of
speech act theory; cf. Schegloff, 1988a, 1992a, 1992b).
The practices of talking in interaction are grounded jointly in dealing with

~
he ontingencies of managing to sustain talking together as an orderly arena of
t:c
action, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the contingencies of producing
and recognizing determinate actions, combinations of actions and sequences of
actions. For those trying to understand a bit of talk, the key question about any of
its aspects is-why that now (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973)? What is getting done by
virtue of that bit of conduct, done that way, in just that place? This is, in the first
instance, the central issue for the parties to the talk-both for its construction and
for its understanding. And for that reason, it is the central issue for
academic/professional students of the talk. If we are to understand language in its

contexts of deployment, we need in the first instance to understand how and for
what it is deployed by its participants, and how its deployments are understood by
them and reflected in their own responsive conduct. The CA literature to which
we refer the reader should be appreciated and assessed by reference to this
criterion. The examination of empirical materials of interest to applied linguists
should be guided by this question: what interactional project, what action that
composes it, does some bit of talk embody and exemplify? All the organizations of
practice discussed below are meant to provide resources for dealing with this
question.
Turn-Taking
The practices of turn-taking organize distribution of opportunities to talk

among parties to interaction and constrain the size of turns, by making the possible
completion of a turn "transition-relevant." This interactive dimension-in which
possible completion can (but need not always) occasion or trigger the start of a
next turn by another-has consequences for speakers' construction of turns, and
thereby for the form which turns (and their building blocks, "turn-constructional
units") take. The main bibliographical resources inthis area are Sacks, Schegloff,
and Jefferson (1974) on turn-taking and Schegloff (1982, 1996a) on turn
organization, but see also Sacks, 1992, Jefferson (1973, 1984), Lerner (1991,
1996, in press) and Schegloff (1999a, 2000a, 2001a).
Of the many ways turn-taking and turn organization should matter to

applied linguists, we mention only one here. The unmarked value of the transition
space is one beat of silence; that is, after possible completion of a turn, a next
speaker ordinarily allows one beat of silence to pass before starting a next turn
(Jefferson, 1984); departures from that value (shorter or longer) are potentially
marked and import-laden. One place where trouble can become apparent-for
example, trouble in understanding-is in longer silences at the transition space.
Furthermore, depending on the character of the turn which the silence follows,
silence can be taken as incipient rejection of, or disalignment from, what preceded
it (Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987; Schegloff, 1988b, 1995). This can be
problematic for those with delayed understanding or impaired capacity to start a
next turn "on time," and this is one place where orientation to nonnativeness can
be invoked, for example, to discount the rejection-implication of delayed next turn
start (e.g., Carroll, 2000).
Repair
The practices of repair constitute the major (though not the sole) resource
for parties to talk-in-interaction for displaying that they are dealing with trouble or
problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding the talk. The main
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS
bibliographical resources are Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977); Schegloff

(1979, 1987, 1992c, 1997a, 199Th, 2000b); and Jefferson (1974, 1987).
Three points are worth special emphasis in explicating CA's treatment of

this area, so apparently relevant to diverse applied linguistic interests:
1. The practices of repair at issue for CA are discursive and

interactional, not cognitive. Initiating repair is an action or a move
in interaction, one which claims a problem; that is so whatever
may cognitively be the case. Displaying a delay before a next
word is a move in interaction, quite distinct from some delay in
the "speech planning process."
2. The courses of conduct treated as "repair" in CA involve the

parties stopping the course of action otherwise in progress-
whether turn or sequence or activity-to address a trouble/problem
of speaking, hearing or understanding the talk, and resuming that
course of action upon completion of the repair segment (either
with success in dealing with the trouble or with failure).
Undertakings to deal with trouble en passant, without stopping the
ongoing activity to do so, are empirically different in various
respects (cf. Jefferson, 1987), and are distinct from repair
organization.
3. Note in particular the phrase "understanding the talk" which

appears recurrently in accounts of repair. This is meant to
discriminate dealing with problems of understanding the talk
(ordinarily the just-preceding talk) from other problems of
understanding (e.g., understanding the events, conduct, etc.,
being described, as compared to understanding the talk describing
them).
The importance of points (2) and (3) comes to a focus in one area which is
very likely of special interest to applied linguists, and that is talk in pedagogical
contexts-whether in formal classrooms or otherwise organized. In such settings,
explaining and understanding are very likely to constitute the main line of activity
occupying the talk, and problems of understanding and dealing with such problems
are endogenous to the core activities of the setting. In language teaching
classrooms, trouble in speaking and correcting that trouble may similarly constitute
the main line of activity, and not a departure from it. Discriminating the main
trajectory of the interaction from temporary suspension of it for repair can be far
less clear than in other, nonpedagogical settings. Yet this is crucial for the
application of this domain of CA's resources to be warranted. Not every
correction is repair; not every problem in understanding implicates the operations
of repair for its solution (cf. Koshik, 2001a). Classroom and other overtly
pedagogical settings are not necessarily the most inviting settings, or the most
relevant ones, for the application of conversation-analytic work on repair. What
settings might appeal more?
Among several prima facie candidates we may mention here only a few.
What is treated in applied linguistics (as elsewhere) as "fluency/disfluency" refers
in substantial measure to a speaker's same-turn self-repair initiation and other
problems of progressivity-that is, the practice of "progressing" or advancing the
utterance being produced (Schegloff, 1979). What disrupts "fluency" are cut-offs
(or self-interruptions), sound stretches, delay markers (such as "uh") and pauses,
repeats of earlier said items, and the like. Many of these figure in CA treatments
of "same-turn repair," which is not to say that they should all be treated as repair
initiators, but does suggest the possibility of useful interchange. Applied linguists
often have to deal with trouble in understanding a speaker's talk-the sources of
that trouble, ways of displaying that there is trouble, ways of displaying what the
trouble is, and ways of undertaking to resolve it. Here CA work on other-initiated
repair can be a resource (cf. Schegloff, 2000b; Wong, 2000a), as can work on
repair in which already displayed problematic understandings are addressed (cf.
Schegloff, 1992c).
Word Selection
The fmal area of CA work which can be taken up here is that of word
selection by speakers in the course of talk in interaction. There are two main lines
of inquiry in this area. One examines the deployment of words or multiword
usages by reference to other words or usages in the immediate environments of the
talk-for example, for its "punning" relationship to that talk (Sacks, 1973) or its
sound relationship to the surrounding talk, which can, it appears, even induce mis-
speakings (Jefferson, 1996). The other line of work examines the practices for
referring within semantic domains, such as person reference, place reference
(Schegloff, 1972), measurement formulations (Sacks, 1989), etc. The discussion
below is focused on reference to persons; the main bibliographic resources are
Sacks (1972a, 1972b, l992passim);Schegloff(1991, 1996b, 1997c, 1999b,
1999c, 2001a); and Sacks and Schegloff (1979).
Two aspects of the work in CA on word selection, and person reference in

particular, may be of special interest and relevance to applied linguists. First,
work on person reference has brought to explicit notice various practices that
inform fluent, idiomatic, "competent" language use, but which have no established
place in linguistic or pragmatic description, and therefore may easily escape
pedagogical attention. For example, there is a preference for "recognitional"
reference if possible; that is, if a recipient is figured by a speaker to know the
person to be referred to, the speaker should do the reference in a fashion that
invites and enables such recognition (i.e., by personal name or other recogmtional
descriptor fitted to the terms of the recipient's recognition of the referent, e.g.,
"the person sitting next to you;" cf. Sacks & Schegloff, 1979; Schegloff, 1996b).
Failure to do so when the recipient was known to be acquainted with the referent
can be understood as "withholding." Such practices of talk-in-interaction might
well be a proper part of the teaching of a language.
The second point bears on the very conduct of applied linguistic research
and discourse itself. As early as the mid-1960s Sacks pointed out that referring to
persons by category terms-male/female, child/adult, American/Canadian]
Egyptian/Italian] Kenyan/ Korean/Russian..., native/nonnative speaker-can be
profoundly equivocal (Sacks, 1972a, 1972b, 1992; Schegloff, 1991). Since every
person who is a member of some category in one of these sets is also a member of
a category in
each of the other sets, referring to someone as "a woman" is not
warranted simply by being, in fact, a woman; that "someone" is also an adult, a
native speaker, and the like. The issue is not only factuality; it is relevance. (In
fact, factuality turns out not always to be required.) When a speaker in
conversation refers to someone by a category term, we can then cogently ask-we
need to ask-what made that category a relevant one for the speaker to use in that
context? What was being done thereby? The fact that the referent is actually a
member of that category is not sufficient; people are actually members of many
categories.
And the same issue arises for academic or professional researchers;

referring to people being studied by category terms cannot be sufficiently
warranted by their actually being members of those categories; the relevance of the
categories being used has to be warranted. And for many purposes, the pertinent
relevance is not relevance to the investigator, but relevance to the persons being
categorized while engaged in the activities being studied. The emergent issue for
applied linguists, then, is: when is it warranted to characterize the persons being
discussed as "native" or "nonnative" speakers of the language? When do
they-the objects of inquiry-orient to these category memberships? How should
that bear on and constrain the usage by the applied linguistic researcher (cf.
Hosoda, 2001)?
We have omitted from this part of the chapter some of the most central
areas of conversation-analytic inquiry-in particular, sequence organization
(Schegioff, 1990, 1995) and the analysis of the formation or construction of actions
organized into the sequences which are described in sequence organization (on
action formation, cf. inter alia, Drew, 1984; Heritage, 1998; Jefferson, 1993;
Pomerantz, 1980; Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 1988c: 118-31, 1996c, 199Th). These
are no less important to the chapter than the topics which we have addressed, only
less tractable to compressed treatment. Their importance extends the point just
made in the preceding paragraph. What figures most centrally for the persons
whose language use we study and hope to contribute to is what they get done by
talking, and what they understand about what their interlocutors are getting done.
Those actions, organized into interactionally co-produced trajectories of action, are
what talk-in-interaction is all about. Language control is relevant to the
achievement of actions and the understanding of the actions of others-what are
they doing by saying what they're saying and saying it in that way? How can I do
what I want to do? Applied linguists might wish to consider focusing on these
themes to get to the heart of talking in interaction, just as they should consider the
importance of getting at which categories of participation are relevant to the parties
who are participating, not to those who are studying the participation. These are
issues of disciplined inquiry in the human or social sciences more generally, not
limited to applied linguistics. But they apply to applied linguistics as well.
Talk in Institutional Contexts
From the beginning, CA has included in its research data material from so-
called institutional settings, such as a suicide prevention hotline (Sacks, 1972a,
1992), group therapy sessions with adolescents (Sacks, 1992), or calls to the police
(Schegloff, 1967, 1968), though the practices analyzed were, for the most part, not
distinctively institutional ones. Subsequent work has examined talk in a variety of
institutional or functionally specialized settings, such as legal settings (e.g.,
Atkinson & Drew, 1979; Drew, 1992; Manzo, 1993; Maynard, 1984), broadcast
media (e.g., Clayman, 1992; Clayman & Heritage, in press; Greatbatch, 1988,
1992; Heritage, 1985; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1991), business organizations (e.g.,
Atkinson, Cuff, & Lee, 1978; Boden, 1994), pedagogical settings (e.g., Kosbik, in
press a, b; Lerner, 1995; Mori, 2002; Olsher, 2001), research work groups (e.g.,
Jacoby, 1998c, Jacoby & Gonzales, 1991, in press), medical settings (e.g.,
Heritage & Maynard, in press; Heritage & Slivers, 1999; Lutfey & Maynard,
1998; Robinson, 1998), emergency dispatch centers (e.g., Whalen & Zimmerman,
1987; Whalen, Zimmerman & Whalen, 1988; Zimmerman, 1984, 1992), airport
operations rooms (e.g., Goodwin, 1996; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1996), and
counseling sessions (e.g., Peräkyla, 1993, 1995; He, 1995, 1998b), among others.
The key point about talk in such "special" contexts is that one cannot
properly understand how the parties come to talk as they do and to understand one
another as they do without making reference to special features to which they are
oriented-whether legal constraints as, for example, in the case of broadcast news
interviews (cf. Heritage, 1985; or Clayman, 1988, 1992, on "neutralism"), or
organizational and functional ones, as, for example, in some classroom settings,
etc. Institutional talk has often been of special interest to applied linguists because
of the bearing of such special contextual features on the special populations with
which applied linguists are concerned-as, for example, with second language
learners targeted at a special purpose usage, a special purpose which can impinge
and have a bearing on how talk in such settings is organized.
We limit ourselves here to only a few points about CA's treatment of such
specialized environments of talk-in-interaction. (Among the main bibliographic
sources here are Drew and Heritage, 1992b, and Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991.)
First, conversation-analytically speaking, the sheer fact that the physical

environment or social occasion in which talk is conducted can be characterized as a
courtroom, a hospital, or a TV studio does not render that talk "institutional." As
with the earlier mentioned categorization of individuals, it is the relevance and
procedural consequentiality (Schegloff, 1991) of that character (qua courtroom,
hospital, etc.) to the participants, manifested in the talk, which underlies its
potential bearing on their production and understanding of the talk; if they are not
oriented to it, it cannot be shown to be implicated in their construction of the
interactional activity For example, in a famous broadcast interview in the late
1980s, an interviewer's interaction with a presidential candidate turned into a
verbal confrontation mid-course, though the physical setting and public identities
remained constant. But as their practices of talking changed, they progressively
showed that they were no longer treating that physical and social context as
procedurally consequential for their conduct of the talk (Clayman & Whalen,
1988/89; Schegloff, 1988/89). Treating episodes of talk in interaction as
"institutional" involves showing how that institutional character is embodied-is
"done"-in the details of the talk and other conduct. As Heritage and Greatbatch
(1991) suggest, where a distinctive turn-taking organization (or other such
omnipresent organization) is involved, the sheer turn-by-turn development of the
talk displays the parties' orientation to the institutional character of the interaction,
as in news interviews or courtrooms; in its absence, discrete practices of talking
need to be elucidated to warrant the characterization of the interaction as relevantly
institutional.
Second, there is no sharp segregation between the practices of ordinary

talk and interaction and the practices of talk in institutional settings. People engage
in ordinary conversation in institutional settings, e.g., when coworkers chat around
the water cooler or intersperse bits of ordinary conversation in the course of task-
related institutional interaction, talk which commonly has a bearing on the setting's
"business," but which is organized by the practices of ordinary conversation.
Institutional activities which have distinctive "speech exchange systems" (Sacks et
al., 1974) can also transform themselves into everyday activities, as in the case of
the news interview just described or when classroom group work or a business
meeting or group therapy session goes off task and turns into small talk. Likewise,
specific conversational practices, such as the sequential organization of searching
for a word (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986), can emerge in the course of a spate of
institutional talk, such as a teacher's grammar explanation during an ESL writing
conference (Koshik, in press a). General conversational practices can also be
deployed to serve institutionally specific purposes, e.g., when teachers use repair
initiation as a pedagogical prompt to get students to self-correct their own language
errors, even when the teachers experienced no problem in hearing or

understanding the student's talk (Koshik, in press a). And specialized institutional
practices of talk (what Levinson, 1979, terms "activity types") can also be
deployed (and can be topicalized as such) in everyday settings in order to
accomplish specialized tasks. For example, parents can "interrogate" their
teenager when she asks for an increase in allowance or comes home after curfew,
or can make use of "display question" sequences in the course of reading a
storybook to a toddler. Of relevance to applied linguists is the implication that
communicative competence includes knowing, to various degrees, when, how,
with whom, and when not to use both conversational and institutional practices of
talk and interaction in both institutional and noninstitutional settings, and
understanding what is being done by users of these various practices in both kinds
of settings.
As noted, there do appear to be distinctive practices for various aspects of

talk in institutional contexts, which generally involve a reduction and specialization
of practices, fitted to the character and focal activities of the institutional setting
(Drew & Heritage, 1992a). But much of the talk in institutional settings is the
product of the practices of talk in ordinary contexts; resolving overlapping talk, the
practices of repair, word selection by reference to recipient design, the practices of
turn and sequence construction, and many other practices figure in institutional
settings in much the same way as they do in everyday conversation. So the default
analytic orientation needs to be to address "institutional" data in much the same
way as one addresses talk in unspecialized contexts, while being alert to
modifications best understood by reference to participants' orientation to the
particular circumstances and constraints of the occasion, whether institutional or
functional in character. Limiting one's interest and analytic tool kit only to
institutional talk, to a particular domain of institutional talk, or only to practices of
" everyday conversation can result in missing the complexity of all kinds of talk and
interaction and in restricting particular findings to one domain or the other.
CA Research in Areas of Interest to Applied Linguists
This section will focus on specific areas of intersection between applied

linguistics and recent CA and CA-informed research. One type of intersection
concerns CA and CA-informed research on talk-in-interaction in various contexts,
including nonnative talk and talk in educational contexts, which are of special
interest to applied linguists. The second intersection concerns ways in which CA
research on talk-in-interaction has the potential to inform various domains of
interest to applied linguists, such as grammar, intercultural communication, and
language pedagogy.
Native Normative and Multilingual Talk
From the seminal work of Dell Hymes (1972) onward, there has been an
ongoing interest among applied linguists in communicative competence as a
conceptual frame for the range of skills and knowledges involved in understanding
and participating in the use of language to accomplish social actions (e.g.,
Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; Canale and Swain, 1980; and Celce-Murcia,
DOrnyei, & Thurrell, 1995). As a field of sociology, CA has been concerned with
describing the interactional practices that are competences of ordinary conversation
(Heritage, 1984b). From an applied linguistic perspective, Markee (2000) argues
for the importance of interactional competence as a collaborative, socially
constituted domain of communicative competence that includes practices such as
turn-taking and repair. Since CA research is theoretically and methodologically
grounded as a study of publicly observable phenomena, the view of competence it
supports is one of situated practices rather than psycholinguistic models of learning
processes and knowledge structures (Jacoby & McNamara, 1999). CA and CA-
informed studies which investigate the conversational competence of second
language speakers can help us to understand how the categories of native (NS) and
normative (NNS) speaker are understood by participants and what practices are
specific to this talk as it occurs in natural, as opposed to experimental, settings
(Wagner, 1996).
Conversation analytic studies have the potential to bring some clarity to the
problematic categories of "native" and "normative" speaker. Researchers from a
number of different perspectives have either questioned the native-nonnative
speaker distinction or challenged the ways in which these categories have been
interpreted (e.g., Firth & Wagner, 1997; Kachru & Nelson, 1996; Kasper, 1997).
Firth and Wagner's (1997) critique of second language acquisition methodology
sparked a fruitful scholarly debate in the Modern Language Journal (1997, 1998),
centered in part around how these categories are interpreted. Even if it were
possible to objectively define these categories, from a conversation analytic
perspective the relevance of one's normative speaker status may at times be
demonstrably oriented to by the use of special practices of talk on the part of the
"native" or the "nonnative" speakers, and at other times language expertise and
nativeness may be virtually irrelevant (cf. Hosoda, 2001; Jacoby & Gonzales, in
press; Jacoby & McNamara, 1999).
At least to some extent, conversation analytic studies of talk involving

"normative speakers" can reveal that identities related to nativeness and
nonnativeness, such as expert and novice language speakers, are locally constituted
within the ongoing communication. In studying this talk, we can come to
understand how participants themselves understand and express native/nonnative
identities, and what special practices of talk may be involved. Hosoda (2001), for
example, describes various practices of repair (as well as their nondeployment) that
display participants' orientation at that moment to the relevance of relative

competence in the language, and thereby provide a data-internal warrant for the
use of terms such as "native/nonnative speaker" as relevant characterizations of the
parties. Such a demonstration of the possibility of empirically warranting such
characterizations presents an invitation and challenge to others to address the same
or similar issues.
Since the early work by Jordan and Fuller (1975), Gaskill (1980) and
Schwartz (1980), CA and CA-informed studies of naturally-occurring nonnative
talk have more recently begun to expand in focus and number, including an edited
volume of such studies currently in preparation (Gardner & Wagner, 2001).
Researchers have looked at NNS-NNS, or lingua franca, talk (e.g., Carroll, 2000;
Firth, 1996; Wagner 1996) and NS-NNS talk (e.g. Hosoda, 2000; Wong, 2000
a,b) involving both 'native' and 'nonnative' speakers. Two studies which,
together, compared interactional phenomena in 'native' and 'nonnative' discourse
are Wong's (2000a) study of delayed next turn repair-initiations found in the
nonnative English talk of Mandarin speakers, and Schegloff's (2000b) companion
article which investigated occurrences of the practice in ordinary, "native" English
talk.
Talk in Educational Institutions
A small but increasing amount of CA and CA-informed research on talk in

educational institutions directly addresses issues of interest to applied linguists.
Markee (2000) explains how this research "can help refme insights into how the
structure of conversation can be used by learners as a means of getting
comprehended input and producing comprehended output" (p. 44). Markee's
(1994, 1995) and Ohta's (2001) work, informed by both CA and discourse analysis
and, in Ohta's case, set within a sociocogmtive framework, point to possible new
avenues of exploration for SLA research. Wffley (2001) adds to our understanding
of communication strategies by analyzing what researchers have called "appeals
for assistance" as used in naturally-occurring classroom talk. He shows how
"appeals" that occur during word searches embedded within a student's turn at talk
differ from those used to initiate a new sequence.
Even though CA methodology may be appropriate to answer some existing

applied linguistic questions, most CA research, including some research on talk in
educational institutions, is not built to answer theoretically motivated research
questions of the type that applied linguists often ask. However, applied linguists
may also usefully be informed by this research, as it addresses issues of how talk
in educational contexts is organized, how particular goal-oriented actions are
accomplished through this talk, and ways that this talk differs from ordinary
conversation and from talk in other educational contexts. Recent CA research on
L2 pedagogy has explored a variety of practices. Lerner (1995) focuses on the use
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS 15
of incomplete turn-constructional units to structure participation by students in a

bilingual elementary school classroom. Koshik (in press a,b) analyzes the
functions of particular teacher question types in ESL writing conferences. Mon
(2002) studies how instructional design affects ways in which students' talk
develops in a Japanese language classroom. Olsher (2001) describes the uses
language learners make of special practices for combining talk and gesture in order
to facilitate small-group interaction in an EFL class. CA work on other school
contexts encountered by language learners includes physics research team
interactions (Jacoby & Gonzales, in press), language institute front-desk encounters
(Kidwell, 2000), and academic counseling sessions (Guthrie, 1997; He, 1994,
1995, 1998b).
CA research can also illuminate what is going on in particular interactional

L2 assessment encounters, not only so as to monitor interrater reliability and
potential contamination of oral proficiency scores by interaction with the examiner,
but also to discover routine and unique communication practices through which
participants co-construct the assessment format itself as well as the actions these
practices accomplish (Egbert, 1998; He, 1998a; Marlaire & Maynard, 1990;
Lazaraton, 1991, 1997; McNamara, Hill, & May, this volume; Riggenbach, 1998;
Young, this volume).
Grammar and Interaction
Despite its origins in sociology, CA research has always had a keen

interest in the lexical and grammatical details of everyday and institutional talk.
From the syntactic typology of turn-constructional units (Sacks, Schegloff, &
Jefferson, 1974), through discussions of reference terms for persons (Sacks &
Schegloff, 1979; Schegloff, l996b), lexical phenomena such as "and"-prefacing
(Heritage & Sorjonen, 1994), "okay" (Beach, 1993, 1995), "uh-huh" (Schegloff,
1982), "yeah" and "mm hm" (Jefferson, 1984), "oh" (Heritage, 1984a), and
"actually" (Clift, 1999, 2001), reported speech (Golato, 2000, in press, a, b; Holt,
1996), and the collaborative construction of one turn unit by more than one
of
participant (Lerner, 1991, 1996), CA treats grammar and lexical choices as sets
resources which participants deploy, monitor, interpret, and manipulate as they
design turns, sort out turn-taking, co-construct utterances and sequences, manage
intersubjectivity and (dis)agreement, accomplish actions, and negotiate
Ford, 1993;
interpersonal trajectories as real-time talk and interaction unfold (e.g.,
Ford, Fox, & Thompson, in press, Ford & Wagner, 1996; Fox, 1987; Goodwin,
1979, 1986; Hayashi, 1999, in press; He & Tsoneva, 1998; Heritage & Roth,
1995; Ochs, Schegloff, & Thompson, 1996; Schegloff, 1972, 1979, 1990; Selting
& Couper-Kulilen, in press). Recently, the number of studies has begun to expand
and benefit not only from the insights of scholars rooted in CA studies of language
use, but also from scholars rooted in linguistic traditions of analysis who have
embraced a CA perspective, in some instances under the rubric "interactional
linguistics." These scholars discuss not only ways in which 'grammar organizes
social interaction,' but also ways in which 'social interaction organizes grammar'
and how grammar, itself, can be seen as a mode of social interaction (Schegloff,
Ocbs, & Thompson, 1996).
Intercultural Communication and Comparative CA
Another area of research where conversation analysis offers the potential

for a useful contribution is the study of intercultural communication and
interlanguage pragmatics. While much research on interlanguage pragmatics (e.g.,
Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993) has been based on data collected with written
"discourse completion" surveys, there has been a call for increased attention to the
sequential organization (Kasper & Dahi, 1991) of practices with which participants
carry out social action through talk. CA studies of speaking practices across
languages and cultures can provide a basis for comparison of L2, or language
learner, speaking practices with native speaker norms in both Li and L2. There is
an expanding body of research using conversation analysis to study talk-in-
interaction in a variety of languages, including German (Egbert, 1996, 1997a, b;
Golato, 2000, in press a, b, c), Finnish (Sorjonen, 1996, 2001, in press a, b);
Swedish (Lindström, 1994, 1997, 1999); Japanese (Hayashi, 1999, in press;
Hayashi, Mon. & Takagi, in press; Tanaka, 1999), Mandarin (Wu, 1997, 2000);
Korean (Kim, 1999a, 1999b, 2001a, 2001b; Park, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999, in
press; Suh & Kim, 2001); fmdings from such studies may inform our
understanding of the mother-tongue practices of learners of English from various
linguistic backgrounds. Golato (in press c), for example, noted similarities and
differences in responses to compliments in English and German, and there is a
substantial literature on commonalities and differences between societies in the
ways in which conversational openings on the telephone are organized (Godard,
1977; Hopper, 1992; Hopper & Koleilat-Doany, 1989; Hopper & Chen, 1996;
Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991; Lindström, 1994; Park, in press; Schegloff, 1968,
1979, 1986, 1993, 2002a, b, c, in press).
However, a caution remains in considering ways that conversation analysis

might contribute to interlanguage pragmatics research. While CA studies
sequences of actions carried out through naturally-occurring talk based on instances
found in the data, interlanguage pragmatics begins with a linguistic pragmatic
inventory of speech acts, defined according to speakers' intent, and then looks for
the instances of these categories. A strict application of CA to interlanguage
pragmatic research may not be wholly appropriate. On the other hand, CA work
on familiar social actions such as invitations (Davidson, 1984; Drew, 1984),
complaints (Schegloff, 1988a), disputes (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1990), and
assessments (Pomerantz, 1984), or unfamiliar actions such as "confirming
allusions" (Schegloff, 1996c), as well as work on other aspects of social action and
sequential organization of talk-in-interaction such as conversational openings and
closings (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973), story tellings and participation of recipients
(Goodwin, 1984; Jefferson, 1978; Sacks, 1974; Schegloff, 1997d), may offer a
broader construal of mterlanguage pragmatics as a basis for future research in this
field.
Implications of CA Research for Design of Language Teaching Tasks Materials

and Assessment
CA research has obvious implications for the design of tasks and materials
based on "authentic" talk from ordinary conversation and from a wide range of
real-life institutional settings in which L2 learners are likely to be involved, both as
professionals and as clients. Textbooks using invented dialogue based on intuitions
of how certain language functions are accomplished do not always offer students
accurate knowledge of language use. Wong's (1984, 2002) research on phone
conversations in ESL textbooks exemplifies this discrepancy between textbook
language and naturally-occurring talk. She found that most of the ESL text phone
conversations which she studied were inaccurate and misleading, both in terms of
their organization and the preferences which are displayed in the talk. Wong's
research also suggests a fruitful direction for further applied linguistic research.
Especially where learners' languages differ, e.g., not all languages share the
American English preference for recognition over identification in phone
conversations (see citations in the preceding section), it is especially important that
textbooks accurately convey how these practices are done in the L2.
CA research on institutional talk also has implications for the design of

syllabi, tasks, and materials for learning Language for Specific Purposes (Jacoby,
1998a, 1998b, 2001; Koshik, 2000). Competent and successful special purpose
communication is a challenge for anyone, NS or NNS, professional expert or
novice, lay person or client. Since most CA research on institutional discourse is
not explicitly concerned with NNSs or with externally evaluating and isolating
instructable aspects of professional communication, applied linguists and LSP
practitioners may need to create their own thoughtful and specific bridges between
the fmdings of CA research and the content of particular LSP courses and
materials.
CA research can also inform the design of L2 assessment tasks (e.g., role-
plays) as well as clarify the pluses and minuses of particular testing formats (e.g.,
role-play, group discussion, face-to-face interview, or candidate talking to tape-
recorded prompts). CA research also raises fundamental issues regarding the
positing of appropriate assessment criteria and the interactional processes through
which assessment criteria are applied and negotiated not only by insider members
in their own indigenous formal and informal assessment activities but also by
outsider language testing experts when actually engaged in the categorizing,
judging, and rating of particular communication performances in formal assessment

settings (Jacoby, 2001; Jacoby & McNamara, 1999).
Cautions in Applying CA Findings
We end this section with a caution about applying fmdings extracted from
conversation analysis literature to other research contexts. CA analyses are
grounded on recurrent patterns of talk studied with detailed attention to the specific
sequential contexts in which these practices are found. Specific fmdings should not
be used to categorize talk in other settings without investigating whether similar
practices are used to accomplish similar actions in the new setting. This is
especially relevant for those investigating institutional contexts such as classrooms.
As we have seen, CA research on institutional talk, including pedagogical talk, has
shown that, although conversational practices of talk are used in institutional
settings, both for conversational and institutional purposes, many of the practices
of talk in institutional settings have been developed to meet institution-specific
goals and are specific to the settings in which they are used. Even small variations
in the way a particular turn is designed can reflect the actions these turns are being
used to accomplish (Koshik, in press a). Conversely, similarly-formed turns can
accomplish different actions in different contexts and even in different sequential
contexts within one setting (Koshik, 2001b). These actions can only be discovered
by a close, turn-by-turn sequential analysis of the talk. It is therefore especially
important that researchers of talk investigate individual practices for what they are
being used to accomplish in a particular sequence and setting, rather than relying
on categories imported from other, even similar, settings.
Conclusion
Although the areas of intersection between applied linguistics and CA

touched on inthis review have of necessity been limited, there are indications that
the relationship between the two fields is growing. The topics touched on in the
present chapter range from the more theoretical and analytical stance which
examines the nature of language use and of its acquisition to the more practical one
concerned with actual pedagogy, assessment, and the like. One might even
venture the suggestion that exposure to conversation-analytic accounts of
conversational episodes can itself be a powerful resource in advancing the learning
of a language by those with moderate to advanced proficiency in it. This
possibility has just begun to be explored (Barraja-Rohan & Pritchard, 1997).
There is open terrain for inquiry in this whole area for those who will undertake to
bring together the necessary training in CA with engagement with the issues which
applied linguistics brings to the fore.
Notes
1. We would like to thank Marianne Celce-Murcia, Fred Davidson, Malcoto

Hayashi, Numa Markee, and Jane Zuengler for their valuable comments on earlier
drafts of this paper.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal
interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.
Atkinson, J. M., Cuff, M., & Lee, J. (1978). The recommencement of a meeting
as a member's accomplishment. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the
organization of conversational interaction (pp. 133-153). New York:
Academic Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Barraja-Rohan, A., & Pritchard, C. R. (1997). Beyond talk: A course in
communication and conversation for intermediate adult learners of
English. Melbourne: Western Melbourne Institute of TAFE Publishing
Service.
Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for 'casual' "Okay" usages. Journal
ofPragmatics, 19, 325-352.
Beach, W. A. (1995). Preserving and constraining options: "Okays" and 'official'
priorities in medical interviews. In G. H. Morris & R. J. Chenail (Eds.),
The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and
therapeutic discourse (pp. 259-289). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language
pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and
Communication (pp. 2-27). New York: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carroll, D. (2000). Precision timing in novice-to-novice L2 conversations. Issues
in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 67-110.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative
competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications.
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 (2), 5-35.
Clayman, S. E. (1988). Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social
Problems, 35(4), 474-492.
Clayman, S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of
news-interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work:
Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 163-198). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (in press). The news interview: Journalists and public
figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. E., & Whalen, J. (1988/1989). When the medium becomes the
message: The case of the Rather-Bush encounter. Research on Language
and Social interaction, 22, 241-272.
Clift, R. (1999). Grammar in interaction: The case of 'actually' (Essex Research
Reports in Linguistics No. 26). University of Essex.
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of 'actually.' Language, 77,
245-291.
Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and
proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson & J.
Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 102-128). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1984). Speakers' reportings in invitation sequences. In J. M. Atkinson
& J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 152-164).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of
a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction
in institutional settings (pp. 470-520). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992a). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P.
Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional
settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds). (1992b). Talk at work: interaction in institutional
settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Egbert, M. (1996). Context-sensitivity in conversation analysis: Eye gaze and the
German repair initiator 'Bitte.' Language in Society, 25, 587-612.
Egbert, M. (1997a). Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single
conversation to multiple conversations. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 30(1), 1-51.
Egbert, M. (199Th). Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in
multiperson conversation. Journal ofPragmatics, 27, 611-34.
Egbert, M. (1998). Miscommunication in language proficiency interviews of first-
year German students: A comparison with natural conversation. In R.
Young & A. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the
assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 147-169). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On 'lingua franca'
English and conversation analysis. Journal ofPragmatics, 26, 237-260.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some)
fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81,
285-300.
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar and interaction: Adverbial clauses in American

English conversations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) (in press). The language of
turn and sequence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ford, C. E., & Wagner, J. (Eds.) (1996). Interaction-based studies oflanguage.
[Special issue of Pragmatics, 6 (3)].
Fox, B. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gardner, R., & Wagner, J. (Eds.) (2001). Second language talk: Studies of native
and nonnative interaction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gaskill, W. (1980). Correction in NS-NNS conversation. In D. Larsen-Freeman
(Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language acquisition research (pp.
125-137). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Godard, D. (1977). Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France
and the United States. Language in Society, 6, 209-19.
Golato, A. (2000). Und ich so / und er so [and I'm like / and he's like]: An
innovative German quotative for reporting on embodied actions. Journal of
Pragmatics, 32(1), 29-54.
Golato, A. (in press a). Grammar and interaction: reported discourse and
subjunctive in German. Zeitschrtftflr Sprachwissenschaft.
Golato, A. (in press b). Self-quotation in German: Reporting on past decisions. In
T. Güldemann, & M. v. Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting
groundfor different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Golato, A. (in press c). German compliment responses. Journal ofPragmatics.
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural
conversation. In 0. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in
ethnomethodology (pp. 97-12). New York: Irvington.
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation.
In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp.
225-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative treatments of continuers and
assessments. Human Studies, 9, 205-217.
Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A.
Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge:
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Interstitial argument. In A. Grimshaw
(Ed.), Conflict talk (pp. 85-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1996). Formulating planes: Seeing as a situated
activity. In Y. Engstrom & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and
communication at work (pp. 61-95). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and co-participation in the
activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62 (1/2), 51-75.
Greatbatch, D. (1988). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language

in Society, 17, 401-430.
Greatbatch, D. (1992). On the management of disagreement between news
interviewees. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction
in institutional settings (pp. 268-301). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Guthrie, A. (1997). The systematic deployment of "okay" and "mnthmm" in
academic advising sessions. Pragmatics, 7(3), 397-415.
Hayashi, M. (1999). Where grammar and interaction meet: A study of co-
in
participant completion Japanese conversation. Human Studies, 22,
475-499.
Hayashi, M. (in press). Postposition-initiated utterances in Japanese conversation:
An interactional account of a grammatical practice. In M. Selting & E.
Couper-Kuhien (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Hayashi, M., Mori, J., & Takagi, T. (in press). Contingent achievement of co-
tellership in a Japanese conversation: An analysis of talk, gaze, and
gesture. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of
turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
He, A. W. (1994). Withholding academic advice: Institutional context and
discourse practice. Discourse Processes, 18 (3), 297-316.
He, A. W. (1995). Co-constructing institutional identities: The case of student
counselees. Research on Language and Social interaction, 28 (3),
213-231.
He, A. W. (1998a). Answering questions in LPIs: A case study. In R. Young &
A. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment
of oral proficiency (pp. 101-117). Amsterdam: Benjainins.
He, A. W. (1998b). Reconstructing institutions: Language use in academic
counseling encounters. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.
He, A. W., & Tsoneva, S. (1998). The symbiosis of choices and control: Toward
a discourse-based account of CAN. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 615-637.
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, UK:
Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk
for an overhearing audience. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of
discourse analysis, Vol. 3, (pp. 95-119). New York: Academic Press.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27,
291-334.
Heritage, J., & Greatbatch, D. (1991). On the institutional character of
institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D. H.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure (j)p. 93-137). Cambridge:

Polity Press.
Heritage, J. C., & Maynard, D. W. (in press). Practicing medicine: Talk and
action inprimary care encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Heritage, J., & Roth, A. L. (1995). Grammar and institution: Questions and
questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 28 (1), 1-60.
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities
across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language
in Society, 23, 1-29.
Heritage, J., & Stivers, T. (1999). Online commentary in acute medical visits: A
method of shaping patient expectations. Social Science and Medicine, 49,
1501-1517.
Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in
conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 219-245.
Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Hopper, R., & Koleilat-Doany, N. (1989). Telephone openings and conversational
universals: A study in three languages. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Kevizing
(Eds.), Language, Communication and Culture (pp. 157-179). Newbury
Park: Sage.
Hopper, R., & Chen, C. (1996). Languages, cultures, relationships: Telephone
openings in Taiwan. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29,
291-313.
Hosoda, Y. (2000). Other-repair in Japanese conversations between nonnative and
native speakers. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11 (1), 39-63.
Hosoda, Y. (2001). Conditions for other-repair in NSINNS conversation. The
Language Teacher, 25 (11), 29-31.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1991). Opening sequences in Dutch telephone
conversations. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social
structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp.
232-250). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-285). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jacoby, S. (1998a). How can ESP practitioners tap into situated discourse
research-And why should we? (Part 1). English for Specific Purposes
News, 7 (1), 1, 4, 9-10.
Jacoby, S. (1998b). How can ESP practitioners tap into situated discourse
research-And why should we? (Part 2). English for Specific Purposes
News, 7 (2),4-5, 10.
Jacoby, S. (1998c). Science as performance: Socializing scient4fic discourse
through the conference talk rehearsal. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
University of California, Los Angeles.
Jacoby, S. (2001). Rethinking English for Science and Technology (EST): What
can "indigenous assessment" tell us about the communication culture of
science? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific
discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2, 149-181.
Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (in press). Saying what wasn't said: Negative
observation as a linguistic resource for the interactional construction of
performance feedback. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.),
The language of turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacoby, S., & McNamara, T. (1999). Locating competence. English for Specific
Purposes, 18 (3), 213-241.
Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation:
Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica,
9,47-96.
Jefferson, 0. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in
Society, 2, 181-199.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story-telling in conversation. In J.
Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of converational interatction
(pp. 219-248). NY: Academic Press.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In V. D 'Urso
& P. Leonardi (Eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetorics (pp.
11-38). Padova: CLEUP Editore.
Jefferson, 0. (1987). Exposed and embedded corrections. In G. Button & J. R. E.
Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 86-100). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift
implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 1-30.
Jefferson, G. (1996). On the poetics of ordinary conversation. Text and
Performance Quarterly, 16 (1), 1-61
Jordan, B., & Fuller, N. (1975). On the non-fatal nature of trouble: Sense-making
and trouble-managing in lingua franca talk. Semiotica, 13, 11-32.
Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World Englishes. In S.L. McKay & N.
H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp.
Kasper, G. (1997). Beyond reference. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.),
Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociollnguistic
perspectives (pp. 345-359). London: Longman.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.) (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, 0., & Dalil, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215-247.
Kidwell, M. (2000). Common ground in cross-cultural communication: Sequential
and institutional contexts in front desk service encounters. Issues in
Applied Linguistics, 11 (1), 17-37.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS 25
Kim, K. H. (1999a). Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and

sequences in Korean conversation. Human Studies, 22, 425-446.
Kim, K. H. (1999b). Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation:
Types and functions. Discourse and Cognition, 6(2), 141-168.
Kim, K. H. (2001a). The Korean topic marker nun as tying device: Grounding
referents and actions. Discourse and Cognition, 7(1), 155-84.
Kim, K. H. (2001b). Confirming intersubjectivity through retroactive elaboration:
Organization of phrasal units in other-initiated repair sequences in Korean
conversation. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhien (Eds.), Studies in
interactional linguistics (pp. 345-372). Amsterdam: John Benjaniins.
Koshik, I. (2000). Conversation analytic research on institutional talk: Implications
for TESOL teachers and researchers. TESOL Research Interest Section
Newsletter, 7(2), pp. 3, 8-11.
Koshik, I. (in press a). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice
for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research
on Language and Social Interaction.
Koshik, I. (in press b). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which
convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics.
Koshik, I. (2001a). Teacher practices for oral treatment of student errors in second
language writing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Koshik, I. (2001b). Reinvestigating the category of display questions in ESL
pedagogical discourse. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lazaraton, A. (1991). A conversation analysis of structure and interaction in the
language interview. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Lazaraton, A. (1997). Preference organization in oral proficiency interviews: The
case of language ability assessments. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 30 (1), 53-72.
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in
Society, 20, 441-458.
Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organization of participation in
instructional activities. Discourse Processes, 19, 111-131.
Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the 'semi-permeable' character of grammatical units in
conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In
E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and
grammar (pp. 238-276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, G. H. (in press). Turn-sharing: the choral co-production of talk in
interaction. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The
language of turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365-399.
Reprinted in P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in
institutional settings (pp. 66-100). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
26 EMANUEL A. SCHEGLOFF, IRENE KOSHIK, SALLY JACOBY. AND DAVID OLSHER
LindstrOm, A. B. (1994). Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone

conversation openings. Language in Society, 23(2), 231-52.
Lindström, A. B. (1997). Designing social actions: Grammar, prosody, and
interaction in Swedish conversation. PhD dissertation, Department of
Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Lindström, A. B. (1999). Directives and the negotiation of work tasks in the
Swedish home help service. In P. Linell, L. Ahrenberg & L. Jönsson
(Eds.) Samtal och Sprdkanvandning i Profrssionerna [Conversation and
language use in the professions] (pp. 157-168). Uppsala, Sweden:
Association Suedoise de Linguistique Appliquée.
in
Lutfey, K., & Maynard, D. (1998). Bad news oncology: How the physician and
patient talk about death and dying without using those words. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 61, 321-341.
Manzo, J. F. (1993). Jurors' narratives of personal experience in deliberation talk.
Text, 13 (2), 267-290.
Markee, N. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second-
language acquisition studies. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D.
Cohen (Eds.), Research Methodology in second language acquisition (pp.
89-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Markee, N. (1995). Teachers' answers to students' questions: Problematizing the
issue of making meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 63-92.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.
Marlaire, C., & Maynard, D. (1990). Standardized testing as an interactional
phenomenon. Sociology of Education, 63, 83-101.
Maynard, D. (1984). Inside plea bargaining: The language ofnegotiation. New
York: Plenum.
McNamara, T., Hill, K., & May, L. (this volume). Discourse and assessment.
Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An
analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom.
Applied Linguistics 23 (3).
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and
grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.
Olsher, D. in
(2001). Embodied completion of sequential action ESL small group
work. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language talk: Studies of
native and nonnative interaction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Park, Y. Y. (1998a). A discourse analysis of contrastive connectives in English,
Korean, and Japanese conversation: With special reference to the context
of dispreferred responses. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse
markers (pp. 277-300). Amsterdam: John Benjanilns.
Park, Y. Y. (1998b). Interactive grammar: The turn-final use of nuntey in Korean
and kedo in Japanese. In D. Silva (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics,
Vol. 8 (pp. 45-59). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and
Information.
Park, Y. Y. (1998c). A discourse analysis of the Korean connective ketun in
conversation. Crossroads ofLanguage, Interaction, and Culture, 1,
71-79.
Park, Y. Y. (1999). The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse.
Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 191-218.
Park, Y. Y. (in press). Recognition and identification in Japanese and Korean
telephone conversation openings. In K. K. Luke & T. S. Pavlidou (Eds.),
Telephone calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across
languages and cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamin .
Perakyla, A. (1993). Invoking a hostile world: Discussing the patient's future in
AIDS counseling. Text, 13 (2), 291-316.
Perakyla, A. (1995). AIDS counselling: Institutional interaction and clinical
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling my side: 'Limited access' as a 'fishing' device.
Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186-98.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features
of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage
(Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.
Riggenbach, H. (1998). Evaluating learner interactional skills: Conversation at the
micro level. In R. Young & A. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse
approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 53-68). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Robinson, J. D. (1998). Getting down to business: Talk, gaze, and body
orientation during openings of doctor-patient consultations. Human
Communication Research, 25 (1), 97-123.
Sacks, H. (1972a). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational
materials for doing sociology. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social
interaction (pp. 31-74). New York: Free Press.
Sacks, H. (1972b). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz &
D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of
communication (pp. 325-345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sacks, H. (1973). On some puns with some intimations. In R. W. Shuy (Ed.),
Report of the Twenty-Third Annual Georgetown Round Table Meeting on
Linguistics and Language Studies (pp. 135-144). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In
R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of
speaking (pp. 337-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1987 [1973]). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in
sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and
social organisation (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
28 EMANUEL A. SCHEGLOFF, IRENE KOSHIK. SALLY JACOBY, AND DAVID OLSHER
Sacks, H. (1989). On members' measurement systems. Research on Language and

Social Interaction, 22, 45-60.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, (2 vols). (Ed. G. Jefferson, with
Introductions by E. A. Schegloff.) Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of
reference to persons in conversations and their interaction. In G. Psathas
(Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15-21). New
York: Irvington.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for
the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1967). The first five seconds: The order of conversational
openings. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American
Anthropologist, 70, 1075-1095.
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In
D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75-119). New York:
Free Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to a syntax-for-conversation. In
T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics [vol. 12]: Discourse and syntax (pp.
261-286). New York: Academic Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of
"uh huh" and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen
(Ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics.
(pp. 71-93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction.
Linguistics, 25, 201-218.
act
Schegloff, B. A. (1988a). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech
theory to ordinary conversation. Journal ofPragmatics, 12, 55-62.
Schegloff, E. A. (1988b). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad
news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems, 35 (4), 442-457.
In P. Drew &
Schegloff, E. A. (1988c). Goffman and the analysis of conversation.
A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffinan: Exploring the interaction order (pp.
89-135). Cambridge: Polity Press.
on
Schegloff, E. A. (1988/1989). From interview to confrontation: Observations
the Bush/Rather encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction,
22,215-240.
Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of
'coherence'in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational
organization and its development (pp. 51-77). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Boden &
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D.
D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure (pp. 44-70).
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992a). To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In J. R.

Searle et al. (Eds.), (On) Searle on conversation (pp. 113-28).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992b). Introduction, Volume 1. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Harvey
Sacks: Lectures on Conversation (pp. ix-lxii). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992c). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided
place for the defence of intersubjectivity in conversation. American
Journal of Sociology, 95(5), 1295-1345.
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Telephone conversation. In R. E. Asher (Ed.),
Encyclopedia ofLanguage and Linguistics (pp. 4547-4549). Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Sequence organization. Unpublished manuscript.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and
interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.),
Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-
interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies
in anaphora (pp. 437-485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E.A. (1996c). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of
action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161-216.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997a). Third turn repair. In G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D.
Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Towards a social science oflanguage:
Papers in honor of William Labov. Volume 2: Social interaction and
discourse structures (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997b). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated
repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499-545.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997c). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society,
8(2), 165-87.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997d). 'Narrative analysis' thirty years later. Journal of
Narrative and Life History 7(1-4), 97-106.
Schegloff, E. A. (1999a). Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse
Studies, 1(4), 405-35.
Schegloff, E. A. (1999b). 'Schegloff' s texts' as 'Bihig's data:' A critical reply to
Bihig. Discourse and Society, 10, 558-571.
Schegloff, E. A. (1999c). Naivete vs. sophistication or discipline vs. self-
indulgence: A rejoinder to Billig. Discourse and Society, 10, 577-582.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000a). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for
conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1-63.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000b). When 'others' initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21,
205-243.
Schegloff, E. A. (2001). Accounts of conduct in interaction: Interruption, overlap
and turn-taking. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory
(pp. 287-321). New York: Plenum.
Schegloff, E. A. (2002a). Beginning in the telephone. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus

(Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public
performance (pp. 284-299). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2002b). On 'opening sequencing': An introductory note. In J. E.
Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication,
private talk, public performance (pp. 319-324). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2002c). Opening sequencing. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.),
Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public
performance (pp. 326-385). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (in press). Reflections on research on telephone conversation
openings: Issues of cross-cultural scope and scholarly exchange,
interactional import and consequences. In K. K. Luke & T. S. Pavlidou
(Eds.), Telephone calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure
across languages and cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamin .
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1971). The preference for self-
in
correction in the organization of repair conversation. Language, 53,
361-382.
Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Introduction. In E. Ochs,
E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8,
289-327.
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhien, E. (Eds.). (in press). Studies in interactional
linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schwartz, J. (1980). The negotiation for meaning: Repair in conversations between
second language learners of English. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.),
Discourse analysis in second language acquisition research (pp. 138-153).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
In E.
Sorjonen, M. (1996). On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations.
Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and
grammar (pp. 277-327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soijonen, M.(2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in
Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Soijonen, M. (in press a). Recipient activities: The particle "no" as a go-ahead
response in Finnish conversations. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A.
Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sorjonen, M. (in press b). Simple answers to yes-no questions: The case of
Finnish. In B. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Interactional
linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Suh, K. H., & Kim, K. H. (2001). The Korean modal marker keyss revisited: A
marker of achieved state of intersubjectivity. Berkeley Linguistic Society,
26, 271-282.
Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and

interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjanüns.
Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisition through interaction-a critical
review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal ofPragmatics,
26, 215-235.
Whalen, M. R., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Sequential and institutional
contexts in calls for help. Social Psychological Quarterly, 50(2),
172-185.
Whalen, J., Zimmerman, D. H., & Whalen, M. R. (1988). When words fail: A
single case analysis. Social Problems, 35 (4), 335-362.
Wiley, B. (2001). Examining a "communication strategy" from a conversation
analytic perspective: Eliciting help from native speakers inside and outside
word search sequences. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Wong, J. (1984). Using conversational analysis to evaluate telephone conversation
in English as a second language textbooks. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Wong, (2000a). Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/normative speaker
J.
English conversation. Applied Linguistics, 21, 274-297.
Wong, (2000b). The token 'yeah' in normative speaker English conversation.
J.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 39-67.
Wong, (2002). "Applying" conversation analysis in applied linguistics:
J.
Evaluating English as a second language textbook dialogue. International
Review ofApplied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40(2), 37-60.
Wu, R. J. R. (1997). Transforming participation frameworks in multi-party
Mandarin conversation: The use of discourse particles and body behavior.
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 97-118.
Wu, R. J. R. (2000). Final particles in Mandarin Chinese: A conversation analysis
of A and OU. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Applied
Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.
Young, R. F. (this volume). Discourse approaches to oral language assessment.
Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Talk and its occasion: The case of calling the police.
In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic
applications (pp. 210-28). Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Zimmerman, D. H. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency
service. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction In
institutional settings (pp. 418-469). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

CA AppLingBg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CA AppLingBg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CA AppLingBg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2002) 22, 3-31. Printed in the USA.

1. CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS'

Emanuel A. Schegloff, Irene Koshik, Sally Jacoby, and David Olsher

Conversation Analysis (CA) as a mode of inquiry is addressed to all forms

Its name to the contrary notwithstanding, "conversation analysis" (CA) is

contexts is often characterized by describable modifications of those organizations

A substantial proportion of the research and professional preoccupations of

Some Fundamental Aspects of the Organization of Conversation

Whether speaking their native language or another, whether fluently or

contributing to the realization of a trajectory of action or interaction (sequence

To begin with, however, it will be worthwhile to underscore a single

The practices of talking in interaction are grounded jointly in dealing with

academic/professional students of the talk. If we are to understand language in its

The practices of turn-taking organize distribution of opportunities to talk

Of the many ways turn-taking and turn organization should matter to

bibliographical resources are Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977); Schegloff

Three points are worth special emphasis in explicating CA's treatment of

1. The practices of repair at issue for CA are discursive and

2. The courses of conduct treated as "repair" in CA involve the

3. Note in particular the phrase "understanding the talk" which

Two aspects of the work in CA on word selection, and person reference in

And the same issue arises for academic or professional researchers;

Talk in Institutional Contexts

First, conversation-analytically speaking, the sheer fact that the physical

Second, there is no sharp segregation between the practices of ordinary

errors, even when the teachers experienced no problem in hearing or

As noted, there do appear to be distinctive practices for various aspects of

CA Research in Areas of Interest to Applied Linguists

This section will focus on specific areas of intersection between applied

Native Normative and Multilingual Talk

At least to some extent, conversation analytic studies of talk involving

display participants' orientation at that moment to the relevance of relative

Talk in Educational Institutions

A small but increasing amount of CA and CA-informed research on talk in

Even though CA methodology may be appropriate to answer some existing

of incomplete turn-constructional units to structure participation by students in a

CA research can also illuminate what is going on in particular interactional

Grammar and Interaction

Despite its origins in sociology, CA research has always had a keen

Intercultural Communication and Comparative CA

Another area of research where conversation analysis offers the potential

However, a caution remains in considering ways that conversation analysis

Implications of CA Research for Design of Language Teaching Tasks Materials

CA research on institutional talk also has implications for the design of

judging, and rating of particular communication performances in formal assessment

Cautions in Applying CA Findings

Although the areas of intersection between applied linguistics and CA

1. We would like to thank Marianne Celce-Murcia, Fred Davidson, Malcoto

Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 163-198). Cambridge: Cambridge

Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar and interaction: Adverbial clauses in American

Greatbatch, D. (1988). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language

Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure (j)p. 93-137). Cambridge:

Kim, K. H. (1999a). Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and

LindstrOm, A. B. (1994). Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone

Sacks, H. (1989). On members' measurement systems. Research on Language and

Schegloff, E. A. (1992a). To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In J. R.

Schegloff, E. A. (2002a). Beginning in the telephone. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus

Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and

You might also like