Code-switched repair initiation: The case of Swedish eller in L2 English test interaction

Nyroos, Lina; Sandlund, Erica; Sundqvist, Pia

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.008

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since laughter may be an indicator of the candidates' linguistic proficiency, we may reach a conclusion based on the data of this study that the existence of laughter as initiator mostly happens in the talk-in-interaction of the participants with weak linguistic proficiency, which has been triangulated by Wilkinson's (2007) studies on aphasic patients and Walker's (2017) study on children's talk with their parents. Particularly in this study, the weak performance of the Chinese candidates could be demonstrated in five aspects: 1) as in Extract 2, the repair has been initiated many times and with many means of initiations like cut-off, laugh, or delaying vocalization before it is repaired; 2) the repairing segment for most times are concerned about the syntactic or other grammar problems, as in Extract 1 and 6; 3) the repairing segment after being repaired is still grammatically incorrect, as in Extract 2 and 9; 4) according to Levelt's (1983) classification, the Overt repairs (involving D-repair, E-repair, and A-repair) are greatly more than the Covert repairs, which normally do not include obvious mistakes and among the three types of the Overt repairs, the number of E-repair is the top one; 5) code-switch back into one's mother tongue is also an evidence to display speaker's trouble awareness and their competence in the target language (Nyroos, et al 2017). The second to the fourth aspects are all concerned about the repair content.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laughter as Same-Turn Self-Repair Initiation in L2 Oral Proficiency Interview

Gao¹

2020

JSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repair is the effort that speaker makes to smooth utterances or conversations in order to achieve the ongoing progressivity of the turn. Among the types of repair, self-repair is mostly preferred (Schegloff et al., 1977) in talk-in-interaction, and in self-repair, self-initiated self-repair is mostly preferred, especially when it happens in the same turn. Therefore it has received much attention. In the gate-keeping interviews for Chinese candidates to get access to the target college in Britain, there occurs in L2 a large number of same-turn self-initiated self-repair cases, in which the initiation is no longer the single lexical words, or the non-lexical pauses like cutoff , or sound stretches as has been studied, but the paralinguistic device, laughter. Despite the numerous studies on roles of laughter, there is hardly a mention of laughter employed as a self-repair initiation. Consequently, this study determines on the focus on laughter as a self-repair initiator in L2, and aims to identify its exact shape and positions in self-repair and relevant repairing segment, therefore concluding on its specific functions and its relations with delicacy. This study wishes to contribute to the researches on self-repair initiation in Conversation Analysis and on laughter in particular L2 testing context.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laughter as Same-Turn Self-Repair Initiation in L2 Oral Proficiency Interview

Gao¹

2020

JSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, Unamuno (2008) shows how CS/language alternation between Spanish and Catalan in English and Catalan language classrooms served to address practical and procedural matters in completing tasks. In a study of CS to Swedish in EFL oral proficiency testing interaction, Nyroos et al (2017) show how the deployment of a Swedish repair initiator, eller (or), in an otherwise all-English local context, accomplished interactional work of displaying awareness of a trouble source, and signaling to co-participants that selfinitiated repair was in progress. As these studies show, participants in L2 classrooms can be said to treat language resources shared and present as variably salient to the activity at hand, and since more than one language is shared by participants, it takes less interactional work to establish common ground (Kecskes 2014) than in LF contexts where perhaps only the learning target is a shared resource.…”

Section: Code-switching/language Alternation In Bi/multilingual Class...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the exception of the lexical item call, his turn is produced entirely in Swedish, which is a common way of showing a temporary suspension of a task-at-hand and an orientation to some other aspect of the local context (e.g. Reichert 2009;Nyroos et al 2017). Mohammad, thus, displays an orientation to the two LFs in the classroom -English as the TL and Swedish as the school and society majority languageand places the blame for their failure to guess the word on Malia's alleged misreading of the target word.…”

Section: Vocabulary Trouble Sources and Peer Negotiation And Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…dual language communities(Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz 2005;Musk 2010), international workplaces(Firth 1996), and the L2 classroom (U ¨stu ¨nel and Seedhouse 2005). An instance of code-switching only obtains meaning in interaction in its local sequential context (seeAuer 1992: 30), and interaction-based approaches such as CA set out to uncover the local relevance of such shifts to participants themselves, and the communicative effects of the use of different language resources (seeGumperz and Cook-Gumperz 2005;Nyroos et al 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interaction in the Multilingual Classroom

Källkvist¹,

Sandlund²,

Sundqvist³

et al. 2022

The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classrooms are institutional social spaces where there is microlevel interaction that is embedded in wider sociocultural and sociopolitical institutional contexts in a society. In mainstream schools, they are intended for socialization, curriculum learning, and assessment. As such, they are spaces where students' full range of linguistic and semiotic expression may be leveraged (Cummins 2007) in their interaction with individuals that are often outside students' normal communities (Anderson 2018). Being part of a layered structure of institutions in a nation, the classroom is considered "an immensely rich site for the investigation of the processes of social and cultural (re)production and the relationship between micro classroom and macro institutional processes" (Tsui 2017: 194).Classroom interaction research dates back some seventy years, with early work leading to insights that classroom processes are extremely complex (Tsui 2017: 188). Multilingual classroom research emerged in the 1980s out of a concern for the education of language-minoritized children (Martin-Jones 2015; Aline and Hosoda 2021). Since then, increased mobility across the world has led to today's multilingual classrooms housing individuals with highly diverse translocal linguistic repertoires. This is mirrored by the recent immense increase in scholarly interest in multilingual language use in education, notably in studies of translanguaging pedagogy (

show abstract

“…Despite growing recognition of the facilitative role of L1 in L2 learning (Al Masaeed, 2016Auerbach, 1993;Cheng, 2013;Ferguson, 2003;Kasper, 2004;Lehti-Eklund, 2012;Nyroos et al, 2017;Sert, 2015;Üstϋnel, 2016;Zue & Vanek, 2015), the use of L1, particularly as a form of code switching (CS) has traditionally been seen as contrary to the ultimate goal of oral proficiency in which monolingual, spontaneous and accurate use of language is emphasised and considered as the key to successful oral interaction, as Sampson (2012) observes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The facilitative use of learner-initiated translanguaging in Japanese EFL contexts

Harumi

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the facilitative use of learner-initiated translanguaging and teacher responsiveness to its use in 68 dyads of conversational interaction between a teacher and individual students in tertiary Japanese EFL contexts. Adopting conversation analysis as an analytical framework, it aims to extend our understanding of the use of learner-initiated translanguaging and teacher responsiveness to translanguaging as an important interactional resource for learners to achieve interactional goals. The study identifies eight facilitative uses of L1. On the one hand, these uses contribute to the progressivity of talk as self-addressed translanguaging. On the other, they support intersubjectivity as co-constructed translanguaging in L2 interaction. These uses include (1) connectives for topic management; (2) floor-holding devices; (3) explicit word searches; (4) lexical gap fillers; (5) understanding displays; (6) clarification requests; (7) confirmation checks; and (8) explicit request for assistance. The study also reveals that learners’ self-initiated repair using L1 was frequently observed and that its use was intertwined with translanguaging in its functionality in discourse for meaning-making as a discursive practice. This study suggests that the use of translanguaging in the L2 classroom can be an indispensable tool to optimise learners’ classroom interactional competence.

show abstract

Code-switched repair initiation: The case of Swedish eller in L2 English test interaction

Cited by 9 publications

References 24 publications

Laughter as Same-Turn Self-Repair Initiation in L2 Oral Proficiency Interview

Laughter as Same-Turn Self-Repair Initiation in L2 Oral Proficiency Interview

Interaction in the Multilingual Classroom

The facilitative use of learner-initiated translanguaging in Japanese EFL contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About