Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T15:09:43.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Why Conversation Analysis Matters to L2 Teaching and Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2026

By
John Hellermann  and
Steven L. Thorne
Edited by
Kathy L. Sands ,
Marnie Jo Petray ,
Gaillynn D. Clements  and
Lynn Santelmann
Marnie Jo Petray
Affiliation:
Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania
Gaillynn D. Clements
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Lynn Santelmann
Affiliation:
Portland State University
Get access

Summary

Research findings in linguistics have contributed to the development of the field of second language acquisition since its inception. However, it is only relatively recently that an interactional linguistics approach, conceptualizing language as a co-constructed semiotic resource and emergent phenomenon, has been utilized for research in the field. Our chapter introduces a rigorous method for the analysis of dialogic interaction (often spoken language data), called Conversation Analysis (CA), originally developed in the field of sociology. We discuss CA’s origins, core principles, and natural fit as a method for linguistic analysis. The chapter then surveys research that has used CA methods for understanding SLA including how CA methods played a role in reconceptualizing what it means to be competent in a language. Lastly, we present a short summary of one research study using CA methods, and two activities grounded in CA principles that language teachers might consider adding to their repertoire.

Keywords

Conversation AnalysisCommunicationFunctionalistInteractionLanguage use

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Linguistic Foundations for Second Language Teaching and Learning
Bridging the Disciplinary Divide
 , pp. 159 - 178
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2026

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Recommended Reading

This book on pragmatics includes five chapters that draw on research findings from Conversation Analysis to develop materials for teachers to use to explicitly teach interactional phenomena such as assessing, using continuers, or rejecting/refusing.

This groundbreaking book oriented to L2 teachers explains the theory and methods of Conversation Analysis, interactional competence, and the role of these concepts in the field of second language acquisition.

The authors draw on concepts from Conversation Analysis to build a model of experiential pedagogy for language teaching. It stresses helping learners become members not just of the language community but of the local community where the language is spoken (for second language, rather than a foreign language environment).

Waring guides the reader through the conversation analysis of a telephone call between friends using the analysis to show language teachers the subtle ways that friends open and close a conversation and make and reject requests in natural language use.

Houck, Noel R., and Tatsuki, Donna H. (eds.). (2011). Pragmatics: Teaching Natural Conversation. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Huth, Thorsten. (2020). Interaction, Language Use, and Second Language Teaching. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilja, Niina, Piirainen-Marsh, Arja, Crk, Brendon, and Torretta, Nicholas B.. (2019). The Rally Course: Learners as co-designers of out-of-classroom language learning tasks. In Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S., and Piirainen-Marsh, A. (eds.), Conversation Analytic Research on Learning-in-Action: The Complex Ecology of L2 Interaction in the Wild. Cham: Springer, pp. 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waring, Hansun Z. (2019). Developing interactional competence with limited linguistic resources. In Salaberry, M. R. and Kunitz, S. (eds.), Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Auer, Peter. (1984). Referential problems in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(5–6), 627–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayaß, Ruth. (2015). Doing data: The status of transcripts in conversation analysis. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 505–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balaman, Ufuk. (2022). Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barraja-Rohan, Anne-Marie. (1997). Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms with conversation analysis. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 14, 71–78Google Scholar
Brouwer, Catherine. E., and Wagner, Johannes. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation’. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Don. (2011). Taking turns and talking naturally: Teaching conversational turn taking. In Noel R. Houck, and Donna Tatsuki, (eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching Natural Conversation. Washington, DC: TESOL, pp. 91–103.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Brendon, Wagner, Johannes, Lindemalm, Karland, and Bendt, Olof. (2011). Språkskap: Supporting second language learning “in the wild.” Paper presented at INCLUDE11, London, April 18–20, 2011.Google Scholar
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3564.8489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Selting, Margret. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (2019). Social dimensions and processes in second language acquisition: Multilingual socialization in transnational contexts. Modern Language Journal, 103, 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Søren W. (2009). Constructing another language: Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Søren W. (2012). Negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipi, Anna, and Barraja-Rohan, Anne-Marie. (2015). An interaction-focused pedagogy based on Conversation Analysis for developing L2 pragmatic competence. In Gesuato, Sara, Bianchi, Francesca, and Cheng, Winne (eds.), Teaching, Learning and Investigating Pragmatics: Principles, Methods and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 231–251.Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod, and Barkhuizen, Gary. (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, A., and Wagner, J.. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Thompson, Sandra A.. (1986). Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English’. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, ter Meulen, Alice, Reilly, Judy Snitzer, and Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.), On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A.. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns: The ‘TCU” revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427–454.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Hayashi, Makoto, and Jasperson, Robert. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183–237.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Thompson, Sandra A., Ford, Cecilia E., and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. (2012). Conversation Analysis and linguistics. In Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya (eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 726–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. (1996). Ethnomethodologys program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. (2009) The Adaptive Approach to grammar. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–49.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guerrettaz, Anne M., Engman, Mel M., and Matsumoto, Yumi. (2021). Empirically defining language learning and teaching materials in use through sociomaterial perspectives. The Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 3–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Joan K., Hellermann, John, and Pekarek Doehler, Simona (eds.). (2011). L2 Interactional Competence and Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. (2007). General linguistics and its application to language teaching (1960). In Webster, Jonathan J. (ed.), Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday, Vol. IX: Language and Education. London: Continuum, pp. 135–173.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. (2009). Framework-free grammatical theory. In Bernd Heine, and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 375–402.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. (1998). Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, Michael. (2015). Content in languaging: Why radical enactivism is incompatible with representational theories of language. Language Sciences, 48 , 90–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Agnes W., and Young, Richard (eds.). (1998). Talking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hellermann, John. (2008). Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hellermann, John. (2009). Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of self-initiated self-repair by an adult learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, John, and Thorne, Steven L.. (2022). Collaborative mobilizations of interbodied communication for cooperative action. Modern Language Journal, 106, 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Bolden, Galina B.. (2017). Transcribing for Social Research. London: Sage Research Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473920460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13 , 139–157.Google Scholar
Houck, Noel R., and Tatsuki, Donna H. (eds.). (2011). Pragmatics: Teaching Natural Conversation. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Hovdhaugen, Even, Karlsson, Fred, Henriksen, Carol, and Sigurd, Bengt. (2000). The History of Linguistics in the Nordic Countries. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Huth, Thorsten. (2020). Interaction, Language Use, and Second Language Teaching. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Thorsten, and Betz, Emma. (2019). Testing interactional competence in second language classrooms: Goals, formats and caveats. In Rafael Salaberry, M. and Kunitz, Silvia (eds.), Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 322–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Thorsten, and Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr184oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B and Holmes, Janet. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. New York: Viking, pp. 269–293.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. (2007). Preliminary notes on abdicated other-correction. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. (1997). ‘A’ stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 81, 307–312.Google Scholar
Kramsch, Claire. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 372–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunitz, Silvia, Markee, Numa, and Sert, Olcay (eds.). (2021). Classroom-Based Conversation Analytic Research: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Pedagogy. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunitz, Silvia, and Yeh, Meng. (2019). Instructed L2 interactional competence in the first year. In Rafael Salaberry, M. and Kunitz, Silvia (eds.), Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 228–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, James, and Thorne, Steven L.. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2004). CA for SLA? It all depends. Modern Language Journal, 88, 603–607.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean, and Wenger, Etienne. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene. H. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene. H. (2004). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 151–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Ken. (2013). More Studies in Ethnomethodology. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lilja, Niina, Piirainen-Marsh, Arja, Clark, Brendon, and Torretta, Nicholas B.. (2019). The Rally Course: Learners as co-designers of out-of-classroom language learning tasks. In Hellermann, John, Eskildsen, Søren W., Doehler, Simona Pekarek, and Piirainen-Marsh, Arja (eds.), Conversation Analytic Research on Learning-in-Action: The Complex Ecology of L2 Interaction in the Wild. Cham: Springer, pp. 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. (2005). The Written Language in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. (2016). Functional linguistics. In Allen, Kevin (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 470–484.Google Scholar
Margutti, Piera, Liisa Tainio, Paul Drew, , and Traverso, Véronique. (2018). Invitations and responses across different languages: Observations on the feasibility and relevance of a cross-linguistic comparative perspective on the study of actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 52–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markee, Numa. (1994). Toward an ethnomedological respecification of SLA studies. In Cohen, Andrew D., Gass, Susan, and Tarone, Elaine (eds.), Research Methodology in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 89–116.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Rosamond, Florence Myles, , and Emma Marsden, . (2013). Second Language Learning Theories. 4th ed. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Hanh, and Taiane Malabarba, (eds). (2019). Conversation Analytic Perspectives on English Language Learning, Teaching and Testing in Global Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Olsher, David. (2011). Responders: Change-of-state tokens, news markers, and assessments. In Houck, Noel R. and Tatsuki, Donna H. (eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching Natural Conversation. Washington, DC: TESOL, pp. 171–192.Google Scholar
Ortega, Lourdes. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. (2021). Toward a coherent understanding of L2 interactional competence: Epistemologies of language learning and teaching. In Kunitz, Sunita, Markee, Numa, and Sert, Olcay (eds.), Classroom-Based Conversation Analytic Research: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Pedagogy. Cham: Springer, pp. 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Evelyne Berger, . (2018). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 555–557. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021.Google Scholar
Piirainen–Marsh, Arja, and Niina Lilja, . (2019). How wild can it get? Managing language learning tasks in real life service encounters. In Hellermann, John, Eskildsen, Søren W., Doehler, Simona Pekarek, and Piirainen-Marsh, Arja (eds.), Conversation Analytic Research on Learning-in-Action: The Complex Ecology of Second Language Interaction in the Wild. Cham: Springer, pp. 161–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, Arja, and Niina Lilja, . (2022). Learning grammar for social action: Implications for research and language teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 106(S1), 141–150. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, Dennis. R. (2000). Mowr and mowr bayud spellin: Confessions of a sociolinguist. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 615–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. (1992). Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I & II. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gail Jefferson, . (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A., Schegloff. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, George (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
Salaberry, M. Rafael, and Silvia Kunitz, (eds.). (2019). Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandlund, Erika, and Pia Sundqvist, . (2019). Doing versus assessing interactional competence. In Rafael Salaberry, M. and Kunitz, Silvia (eds.), Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 357–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1983). Course in General Linguistics. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1992). Introduction. In Jefferson, G. (ed.), Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I & II. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. ix–lii.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2000). Overlapping talk in the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, Nicholas J. and Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality. Oxford: Berg, pp. 70–96.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, , and Harvey Sacks, . (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. www.jstor.org/stable/413107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks, . (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.4.289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, , and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, . (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung Online, 10, 353–402.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack (ed.). (2009). Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, David. (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27, 239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, Nicholas. J., Brown, Penelope, Englert, Christina, Hayashi, Makoto, Heinemann, Trine, Hoymann, Gertie, Rossano, Frederico, de Ruiter, Jan Peter, Yoon, Kyung-Eun, and Levinson, Stephen C.. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 10587–10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanaka, Hiroko. (2015). Action-projection in Japanese conversation: Topic particles wa, mo, and tte for triggering categorization activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1113). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodórsdóttir, Guðrún. (2018). L2 teaching in the wild: A closer look at correction and explanation practices in everyday L2 interaction. Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, Steven L., and James Lantolf, . (2006). A linguistics of communicative activity. In Makoni, Sinfree and Pennycook, Alistair (eds.), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 170–195.Google Scholar
Thorne, Steven L. (2013). Language learning, ecological validity and innovation under conditions of superdiversity. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 6(2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, Steven L., John Hellermann, , and Teppo Jakonen, . (2021). Rewilding language education: Emergent assemblages and entangled actions. Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 106–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, Steven L., Hellermann, John, Jones, Adam & Lester, Daniel. (2015). Interactional practices and artifact orientation in mobile Augmented Reality game play. PsychNology Journal, 13(2–3), 259–286.Google Scholar
Tolman, Jindrich. (1995). The Magic of a Common Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Johannes. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In Cadierno, Teresa and Eskildsen, Søren (eds.), Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waring, Hansun Z. (2019). Developing interactional competence with limited linguistic resources. In Salaberry, M. Rafael and Kunitz, Silvia (eds.), Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, James V., and C. Addison Stone, . (1978). Microgenesis as a tool for developmental analysis. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 1(1), 8–10.Google Scholar
Wong, Jean, and Waring, Hansun Z.. (2021). Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy: A Guide for ESL/EFL Teachers. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, Richard. F. (2002). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 105–132.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×