ENABLING LANGUAGE HELP: EPISTEMIC MANEUVERING IN EXTENDED INFORMATION REQUEST SEQUENCES BETWEEN EFL TEACHERS

Son yıllarda etkileşimde bilgiselliğin yeri üzerine olan ilgide bir artış görülmektedir (örneğin, Heritage, 2012a, 2012b, Stivers, Mondada & Steensig, 2011). Bu araştırmalar son yıllarda ikinci dil edinimi alanındaki araştırmacılar tarafından kullanılmaktadır ve öğretmen-öğrenci (örneğin, Sert, 2013) ve öğrenci-öğrenci (örneğin, Jakonen & Morton, 2013) etkileşimleri üzerine önemli çıkarsamalar sunmaktadır. Bu çalışma öğretmenlerin diğer öğretmenlerden birer dil öğrenme kaynağı olarak nasıl yararlandıkları ile ilgilidir. Japon liselerindeki öğretmenler odalarında İngilizce'yi birinci ve ikinci dil olarak kullanan öğretmenlerin, yani JET Programı Asistan Dil Öğretmenlerinin ve Japon İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin, dil öğrenme dizilerini incelemek için Konuşma Çözümlemesi kullanılmaktadır. Bu araştırma bilgi talebi ile devamındaki yardımın arasındaki ilişkinin direkt olmadığını ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bu çalışmaki bilgi talepleri özellikle çok konuşma sıralı işbirlikçi süreçlerdir ve yardım sunmak için gerekli bilgiyi potansiyel yardımcıya sağlamak adına çeşitli etkileşimsel araçları ve tedbirli bilgisel manevraları içermektedir. Bu süreç, 'jeton düşme anı' ile birlikte, alıcının gerekli bilgiyi sağlamasıyla son bulmaktadır. Bu araştırma ikinci dil edinimindeki bilgisellik anlayışına katkı sağlamaktadır ve etkileşimdeki bilgisellik anlayışımıza bir katman daha karmaşıklık eklemektedir

Recent years have seen an upsurge in interest in epistemics/knowledge in interaction (e.g. Heritage, 2012a, 2012b; Stivers, Mondada & Steensig, 2011). Insights from such research are now being used by Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers yielding valuable insights into teacher-student interaction (e.g. Sert, 2013) and studentstudent interaction (e.g. Jakonen & Morton, 2013). The current study, however, tracks how teachers use other teachers as language learning resources. Conversation Analysis (CA) is used to examine English language learning sequences in Japanese high school staffrooms between English L1 and L2 speaker teachers, namely JET Programme Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) and Japanese teachers of English (JTEs). This study reveals that the relationship between the information request and subsequent provision of help is not a straightforward one. Information requests in this study are particularly lengthy multi-turn collaborative processes that see the use of various interactional tools used and careful epistemic manoeuvring to equip the prospective helper with the knowledge necessary to provide help. This process ends when the recipient is able to provide the necessary information - with a ‘penny-drop moment’ frequently given. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of epistemics in SLA, and adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of epistemics in interaction

___

Beach, W. & Metzger, T. (1997). Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research, 23(4), 562-588.

Brandt, A. (2011). The maintenance of mutual understanding in online second language talk. PhD thesis, Newcastle University, UK. Retrieved from https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/1213/1/Brandt%2011%28note%20to%20be% 20added%20on%20upload%20-%20multimedia...at%20Robinson%20Library%29.pdf

Brouwer, C. (2003). Word Searches in NNS–NS Interaction: Opportunities for Language Learning? The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 534-545.

Butler, C., Potter, J., Danby, S., Emmison, M., & Hepburn, A. (2010). Advice-implicative Interrogatives: Building ''Client-centered'' Support in a Children's Helpline. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 265-287.

Drew, P. (1991). Asymmetries of Knowledge in Conversational Interactions. In I. Markova & K. Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in Dialogue, (pp. 29-48). Hemmel-Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Drew, P. (2012). What drives sequences? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 61- 68.

Ehrlich, S. & Freed, F. (2010). The function of questions in institutional discourse. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse, (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: OUP.

Englert, C. (2010). Questions and responses in Dutch conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2666–2684.

Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & C. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication, (pp. 20-60). London: Longman.

Firth, A. (2009). Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the workplace and (some) implications for SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(1), 127-156.

Gardner, R. (2012). Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 313-319.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity. Hayano, K. (2013). Territories of knowledge in Japanese interaction. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Hayashi, M. (2003). Joint utterance construction in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Heinemann, T. (2010). Questions in Danish. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2703–2725.

Heinemann, T. & Lindström, A., Steensig, J. (2011). Addressing epistemic incongruence in question-answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, (pp. 107-131). Cambridge: CUP.

Hepburn, A. & Potter, J. (2011). Threats: Power, family mealtimes, and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 99-120.

Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334.

Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10-11), 1427-1446.

Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: practice and methods. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research, (pp. 208-230). London: Sage Publications.

Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29.

Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52.

Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38. Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 667-705.

Heritage, J. & Sorjonen, M. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences. Andprefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23, 1-29.

Horii, S. (2012). “Foreign language activities” in Japanese elementary schools: negotiating teacher roles and identities within a new language education policy. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://purl.umn.edu/144134.

Hosoda, Y. and Aline, D. (2012). Doing being interrupted by noise as a resource in second language interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 54-70.

Houtkoop-Stenstra, H. (1994). De interactionele functie van zacht spreken in interviews [The interactional function of low volume in interviews]. Gramma/TTT, 3, 183-202.

Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2013). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics (Advance Access) doi:10.1093/applin/amt031.

Kääntä, L. (2014). From noticing to initiating correction: Students’ epistemic displays in instructional interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 86-105.

Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: a description of its interactional functions with a focus on I think. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In: Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, (pp. 183-219). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kim, Y. (2012). Practices for initial recognitional reference and learning opportunities in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 709–729.

Kim, H. (2013). Reshaping the response space with kulenikka in beginning to respond to questions in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 303-317.

Koshik, I. (2003). Wh-Questions Used as Challenges. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 51–77.

Koshik, I. (2005). Alternative questions used in conversational repair. Discourse studies, 7(2), 193- 211.

Koshik, I., & Seo, Mi-Suk (2012). Word (and other) search sequences initiated by language learners. Text & Talk, 32, 167-189.

Kurhila, S. (2006). Second Language Interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.

Markee, N. & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom Talks: An Introduction. The Modern Languag Journal, 88(4), 491-500.

McConnell, D. L. (2000). Importing diversity. Inside Japan’s JET program. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Mishler, E. G. (1984). The Discourse of Medicine: Dialectics of Medical Interviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1977-1997.

Park, I. (2012). Asking different types of polar questions: The interplay between turn, sequence, and context in writing conferences. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 613-633.

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 conversational analysis, (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: CUP.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.

Raymond, G. (2000). The Voice of Authority: The Local Accomplishment of Authoritative Discourse in Live News Broadcasts. Discourse Studies, 2(3), 54–79.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes / No interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967. ve forms of yes/no-type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.),“Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse, (pp. 87-107). New York: OUP.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: CUP.

Schegloff, E. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4): 289–327.

Sert, O. (2013). ‘Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 13-28.

Sert, O. & Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education. 27(6), 542-565.

Shannon, C. & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Stivers, T. & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39, 1-25.

Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: CUP.

Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.

Stokoe, L., Benwell, B., & Attenborough, F. (2013). University students managing engagement, preparation, knowledge and achievement: Interactional evidence from institutional, domestic and virtual settings. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(2), 75-90.

Wang, J. (2006). Questions and the exercise of power. Discourse and society, 17(4), 529-548.

Weatherall, A. (2011). I don't know as a Prepositioned Epistemic Hedge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(4), 317-337.

Wilkinson, S. (2011). Constructing ethnicity statistics in talk-in-interaction: Producing the 'White European'. Discourse Society, 22(3), 343-361.