GRAMMAR AS A JOINT ACHIEVEMENT: CO-CONSTRUCTIONS IN L2 INTERACTIONS
Bu çalışmada Lüksemburg'ta toplanan ikinci dil olarak İngilizce verisindeki birlikte oluşturulmuş yapıları sunmaktayız ve incelemekteyiz. Birlikte oluşturulmuş yapılar,ikinci konuşmacının birinci konuşmacı tarafından başlatılan bir dilbilgisel yapıyı tamamladığı iki kişi tarafından paylaşılmış biçim-sözdizimsel yapılardır. Bütünce, çokdilli 13-14 yaşlarında İngilizce sınıfında ortak çalışmaya dayalı bir grup yazma görevi üzerindeki dil öğrencilerinin etkileşimlerini içermektedir. Verimizde beş tür birlikte oluşturulmuş yapı ortaya çıkmaktadır: kalma durumundaki ifadeler, istemek/izin vermek, bağlayıcılar, geçişliler, isim kökenli birleşikler. Analiz, birlikte oluşturulmuş yapıların olduğu dizisel çevreleri dikkate alarak, biçim-sözdizimsel yapıları üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Sunulan örnekler birlikte oluşturulmuş yapılar üzerine bildiklerimizi iki şekilde tamamlamaktadır ve genişletmektedir. İlk olarak, veri göstermektedir ki ikinci dil olarak dil öğrenenler, tıpkı anadil konuşucularının yaptığı gibi ikinci dil öğrenme durumlarından bağımsız olarak, birlikte oluşturulmuş yapılarla ilgilenmektedirler. İkinci olarak ise,daha önce sunulan anadil örneklerine benzer şekilde, ortak çalışmaya dayalı bir yazma görevi boyunca ikinci dilde birlikte oluşturulmuş yapılar a)- kullanılan dilin biçimsözdizimsel kısıtlılıklarına, ve b)- üzerinde çalışılan görevi çevreleyen ve yapılandıran sosyo-etkileşimsel bağlama uyum sağlamaktadır
In this study, we present and analyze co-constructions from L2 English data collected at the European School in Luxembourg. Co-constructions are morpho-syntactic structures split across two speakers, in which a second speaker completes a grammatical structure initiated by the first speaker in conversation. The corpus features multilingual 13-14 year old language learners interacting in an English classroom as they work on a collaborative group-writing task. Five types of co-constructions emerge in our data: locative phrases, want/let, copulas, transitives, and nominal compounds. The analysis centers on the morpho-syntactic structures involved, with consideration of the sequential environment where co-constructions occur. The featured examples complement and expand what we know about co-constructions in two ways. First, the data suggest that L2 language learners engage in co-constructions just as native speakers (NS) do, irrespective of their L2 learner status. Second, L2 co-constructions, similar to previously reported NS examples, appear to orient to both a) the morpho-syntactic constraints of the language used, as well as to b) the social-interactional context surrounding and structuring the task-in-progress such as the back and forth of talk during a collaborative writing task
___
Auer, P. (2000). On-line Syntax - oder: was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur, 85, 43-56.Brouwer, C. (2003). Word Searches in NNS: NS Interaction: Opportunities for Language Learning?The Modern Language Journal 87(4), 534-545.
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua Franca English, Multilingual Communities, and Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923-939.
Coates, J. (1991). Women's cooperative talk: A new kind of conversation duet? In C. Uhlig & R. Zimmerman (Eds.) Proceedings of the Anglistentag 1990 Marburg, (pp. 196- 211). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, Verlag.
De RuiterJ. P., Mitterer,H. & Enfield,N. J. (2006). Projecting the End of a Speaker's Turn: A Cognitive Cornerstone of Conversation. Language, 8(3), 515-535.
Díaz, F., Antaki, C. & Collins, A. F. (1996). Using completion to formulate a statement collectively. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 525-542.
Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., Mills,G. J., Cann, R., Meyer-Viol,W. & Healey, P. G. T. (2011). Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue & Discourse 2(1),199-233.
Hayashi, M. &Mori, J.(1998). Co-construction in Japanese revisited: We do finish each other's sentences. In N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S.Iwasaki & S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 7,(pp. 77-93). Stanford: CSLI.
Hayashi, M.(1999). Where Grammar and Interaction Meet: A Study of Co-Participant Completion in Japanese Conversation. Human Studies 22, 475-499.
Helasvuo, M. L. (2004). Shared syntax: the grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1315-1336.
Howes, C.,Healey, P. G. T. & Mills, G. J.(2009). A: An Experimental Investigation into. . . B: . . . Split Utterances. Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2009: the 10th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group in Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 79-86, Queen Mary University of London.
Jefferson, G. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 3(2), 181-199.
Krafft,U.&Dausendschön-Gay,U. (2000). Systèmes écrivants et la répartition des rôles interactionnels.Studia Romanica Posnaniensia, 26,199-212.
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20, 441- 458.
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. CUP.
Lerner, G. H.& Takagi, T. (1999). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: a co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 49-75.
Leudar, I. & Antaki,C. (1988). Completion and dynamics in exlanation seeking. In C. Antaki (Ed.) Analysing Everyday Explanation, (pp. 145-155). London: Sage.
Local, J. (2004). On the interactional and phonetic design of collaborative completions. In W. Hardcastle & J. Beck (Eds.), A Figure of Speech: A Festschrift for John Laver. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Mackey,A. & Philp,J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal8(2),338-356.
Meyer, A. (2010). Expert and novice identities in peer interaction in a Luxembourg fundamental classroom. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Luxembourg.
Olsher D. (2003). Collaborative Group Work in Second and Foreign Language Classrooms: Talk, Embodiment, and Sequential Organization. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Ono,T.& Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interaction and Syntax in the Structure of Conversational Discourse: Collaboration, Overlap, and Syntactic Dissociation. In E. H. Hovy,& D. R. Scott (Eds.), Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues - An Interdisciplinary Account. Springer, Berlin.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D. & Linnel, J.(1995). What Can Second Language Learners Learn from Each Other? Only their Researcher Knows for Sure. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Educational Linguistics,1(1), 1-36.
Pickering, M. J.&Garrod,S.(2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329-347.
Pochon-Berger E. (2011). A participants' perspective on tasks: from task instruction, through pre-task planning, to task accomplishment. Novitas-ROYAL(Research on youth and language), 5(1), 71-90.
Purver, M., Howes, C., Healey, P. G. T. & Gregoromichelaki,E. (2009). Split Utterances in Dialogue: a Corpus Study. Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2009: the 10th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group in Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 262-271, Queen Mary University of London.
Rae, J. P. (1990). Collaborative Completions in Advisory Exchanges. International Pragmatics Association. University of Barcelona.
Sacks, H. (1967). Lectures on Conversation. Wiley-Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. &Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4). 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analyis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E., Ochs, E. & Thompson, S. A.(1996). Introduction. In E: Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. &Lapkin,S.(1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337. Statec. (2013). Population structure. Online. http://www.statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=384
Szczepek,B.(2000). Formal Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English Conversation. InLiSt Interaction and Linguistic Structures, No. 17.
Thompson, S. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005) The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 481-505.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Wootton, A. J. (2005). Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .
Ziegler, G., Sert, O. & Durus,N.(2012). Student-initiated Use of Multilingual Resources in English Language Classroom Interaction: Next-turn Management. Classroom Discourse, 3(2),187-204.
Ziegler, G., Durus, N.& Sert, O. (2013). Plurilingual Repertoires in the ESL Classroom: The Case of the European School. TESOL Quarterly. 47(3), 643-650.
- ISSN: 1307-4733
- Yayın Aralığı: Yıllık
- Başlangıç: 2007
- Yayıncı: -
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
GRAMMAR AS A JOINT ACHIEVEMENT: CO-CONSTRUCTIONS IN L2 INTERACTIONS
Neiloufar FAMILY, Natalia DURUS, Gudrun ZIEGLER
LECTURERS' VIEWS OF CURRICULUM CHANGE AT ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING DEPARTMENTS IN TURKEY
MEHMET SERCAN UZTOSUN, Salah TROUDI
APPEALING TO A BROKER: INITIATING THIRD-PERSON REPAIR IN MUNDANE SECOND LANGUAGE INTERACTION
VALIDATING MYSELF-AS-A-LEARNER SCALE (MALS) IN THE TURKISH CONTEXT