English Language Teaching in its Social Context

CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES I N CLASSROOM TALI< 101repair can be seen in the analysis by Michael Moerman (1988) of interaction among nativespeakers ofThai. He concludes that “repair is of central importance to the organizationof Conversation”. Moerman’s discussion of repair, however, is based on transcripts oftestimony in Thai court cases, where the status of overt repair is probably different fromthat in general conversation. Indeed, ethnomethodological analyses of repair and relatedmatters in conversation (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977; Heritage 1984; Pomerantz1984) indicate a strong preference for self-repair and an avoidance of overt reactive repair,that is, repair that follows communication problems.Third, and related to the second observation, the interactional activity of repairing mustbe placed in its social context. Repairing, an attempt to achieve mutual understanding inthe face of problems, is one set of actions among many that manifest orientation towardmutual engagement (inter-subjectivity) and symmetry. Repairing occurs in response to theperception of those troubles. But since troubles should be avoided in the first place, it makessense to focus attention also on other mechanisms for achieving mutual understanding andintersubjectivity. It makes no sense, from a discourse-analytical or a pedagogical perspective,to assign special status to an activity that is undertaken only when other, more-preferredactivities have been unsuccessful. To use an analogy, ice skaters are judged more on howthey skate than on how they pick themselves up after falling on the ice.Success in interaction ~ that is, the achievement of mutual understanding, contingency,and intersubjectivity ~ is dependent on the skillful use of all relevant social and linguisticresources, including those described by Gumperz as contextualization cues and those thatcreate contingency. These resources can be divided into three categories, as follows (seeAtkinson and Hcritagc 1984; Duncan 1972; Kasper 1989; van Lier and Matsuo 1995 foradditional examples) :Proactive (planning, predicting)Opening sequencesCataphoraGrounders and preparersStrategic moves(By the way; Do you know what?)(Now; Listen to this)(OK, three points 1 wanna make)(Let me give you an example)Concurrent (making signals during one’s own or another person’s turn)Back channelsGazeTurnover signalsEmpathy markers(Uhuh; Hm)(eye contact, looking away)(Let mejnish; What doyou think?)(Oh; Wow; Really?)Reactive (summarizing, rephrasing, wrapping up)Repair and correctionDemonstrations of understandingGists and upshots(Doyou mean x?;Actually it’sy)(Oh; 1 see)(So; In a nutshell; What you’re saying is)The relations between interaction and learning are not explained by this list or, indeed, byany other that might be devised. But at the very least the analysis shows that the concept ofnegotiation may need to be expanded from Pica’s definition: “When a listener signals to aspeaker that the speaker’s message is not clear, and listener and speaker work interactivelyto resolve this impasse” (1 992). Negotiation includes the proactive and concurrent resources