Repair in Japanese request sequences during student – teacher interactions

Abstract

This study examines student and teacher interactions as they engage in role play activity (making a request) in front of other students in a Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) class at an American university. Using a conversation analytic perspective, study examines how interactions unfold sequentially and how repair is initiated and offered when student encounters trouble. The analysis shows three repair patterns: (a) teacher inserts an exposed correction sequence within a larger request sequence; (b) teacher initiates repair and by-standing students complete repair; (c) instead of exposed correction during interaction, teacher offers feedback on trouble source after role play is over. It is argued that context, pedagogical focus, and spatial practices between interlocutors might have led to specific repair trajectories. The analysis also shows that teacher shifts back and forth between two roles - teacher and interlocutor - during role play. This allows teacher to assess student's forms and make corrections as needed, important in achievement of pedagogical goals. Further, it is suggested that by-standing students' embodied actions such as gaze and posture appear to be related to their degree of engagement in offering assistance to focal student.1 IntroductionWith a growing interest in using conversation analysis (CA) as a methodological resource for understanding second language (L2) learning and teaching, studies that examine L2 classroom interactions from a conversation analytic perspective have increased (e.g., Markee, 2000; Seedhouse, 2004; Wong and Waring, 2010; Kasper and Wagner, 2011). As Markee (2000) notes, CA uncovers the details of how learners actually deploy talk to learn on a moment-by-moment basis (p. 3), which has been largely ignored in mainstream second language acquisition research. With its emic, participant-based perspective and focus on talk-in-interaction as an orderly accomplishment, CA provides us with insight into how participants make their orientations, understandings and relevancies available to each other through coordinated actions as they engage in socially situated activities (Kasper, 2004).One of areas where CA researchers have examined is repair. Repair in CA sense refers to mechanisms through which certain 'troubles' or problems in interaction are dealt with (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). Repair organization describes how parties engaged in a talk deal with problems in speaking, listening, and understanding, which includes but is not limited to correction of errors or mistakes, clarification requests, checks of candidate understanding, restatements, and like. Additionally, repair is sometimes found where there is no apparent error or mistake. Thus, repair in CA sense encompasses mechanisms of dealing with a much wider range of actions than what is typically referred to as error correction or negative feedback in L2 learning and teaching.Recognition of a trouble source or repairable and its subsequent repair may be undertaken by either speaker (self) or other participants in talk (other). As a course of action, repair shows a sequential organization or trajectory. Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008) summarize four varieties of repair trajectories depending on who initiates repair and who resolves problem:* Self-initiated self-repair: Repair is both initiated and carried out by speaker of trouble source.* Other-initiated self-repair: Repair is carried out by speaker of trouble source but initiated by recipient.* Self-initiated other-repair: The speaker of a trouble source may try and get recipient to repair trouble - for instance if a name is proving troublesome to remember.* Other-initiated other-repair: The recipient of a trouble-source turn both initiates and carries out repair. This is closest to what is conventionally understood as 'correction', (p. …