MASARYKOVA
U N I V E R Z I T A
F I L O Z O F I C K Á F A K U L T A
Conducting repair in an
advanced EFL secondary
school classroom
Magisterská diplomová práce
Be. Aleksandra Stojanovik
Vedoucí práce: doc. Mgr. František Tůma, Ph.D.
Program Učitelství anglického jazyka a literatury pro
střední školy
Brno 2022
M U N I
A R T S
Bibliografický záznam
Autor: Bc. Aleksandra Stojanovik
Filozofická fakulta
Masarykova univerzita
Název práce:
Studijní program:
Vedoucí práce:
Rok:
Počet stran:
Klíčová slova:
Conducting repair in an advanced EFL secondary school
classroom
Učitelství anglického jazyka a literatury pro střední školy
doc. Mgr. František Tůma, Ph.D.
2022
93
konverzační analýza, oprava, interakce ve třídě, angličtina jako
cizí jazyk, lexikální otázky, učení se v interakcí
2
Bibliographic record
Author: Be. Aleksandra Stojanovik
Faculty of Arts
Masaryk University
Department of English and American Studies
Title of Thesis: Conducting repair in an advanced EFL secondary school
classroom
Degree Programme: Upper Secondary School Teacher Education in English
Language and Literature
Supervisor: doc. Mgr. František Tflma, Ph.D.
Year: 2022
Number of Pages: 93
Keywords: repair, Conversation Analysis, lexical trouble-source, otherinitiated,
learning in interaction, EFL classroom
3
Anotace
Tato diplomová práce zkoumá opravné strategie používané učitelkou a jejími studenty
ve třídě s pokročilou úrovni výuky angličtiny na střední škole v České republice. K
transkripci a detailní analýze souboru dat sestávajícího se ze 180 minut videonahrávek
interakce ve třídě byla použitá metodologie konverzační analýzy. Z těchto dat bylo
vybráno 10 ilustrativních příkladů opravných sekvencí, které jsou v této studii
podrobně představeny. Práce zkoumá případy oprav, kde zdroj problému představuje
význam slov. Učitelka následně tyto opravy přetváří v objekty učení. Ve většině
případů jsou opravné sekvence řešeny pomocí online slovníku, přičemž celý proces je
ovlivněn epistemickým statusem účastníků a institucionální povahou interakce.
4
Abstract
This diploma thesis explores repair strategies used by the teacher and her students in
an advanced EFL secondary school classroom in the Czech Republic. The methodology
of Conversation Analysis was used to transcribe and analyse in detail a dataset
comprising 180 minutes of video recordings of classroom interaction. The thesis
presents 10 illustrative examples. The results show that repair is initiated and
conducted both by the teacher and her students. The trouble-sources are lexical items
which are subsequently turned into objects of learning by the teacher. In most cases,
repair is conducted by the teacher with the help of an online dictionary, while the
whole process is influenced by the participants' epistemic status and the institutional
nature of the interaction.
5
Declaration
I hereby declare that the thesis titled Conducting repair in an advanced EFL
secondary school classroom that I have submitted for assessment is entirely my original
work, and that no part of it has been taken from the work of others unless explicitly cited and
acknowledged within the text of my thesis.
Brno May 3, 2022
Be. Aleksandra Stojanovik
7
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, doc. Mgr. František
Tůma, Ph.D. for his endless patience, professional guidance, support and
encouragement throughout the whole process of writing this diploma thesis.
I would also like to thank my family and friends for their love and support, and
especially my husband Jan Tichý for his constant help and personal sacrifice, without
whom the completion of this work would never have been possible.
9
CONTENTS
Contents
1 Introduction 12
2 Sociocultural theory and learning in interaction 14
2.1 Sociocultural theory: Learning as a cognitive and social activity 14
2.2 Classroom interaction as institutional talk 16
3 Repair 20
3.1 Introduction to repair 20
3.2 Repair in classroom interaction 23
4 Overview of literature 24
5 Research method and data 33
5.1 Conversation Analysis (CA) 33
5.2 Research data 35
5.3 Transcription and analysis 37
6 Data analysis 38
6.1 Student-initiated repair 38
6.1.1 Student-initiated repair completed by the teacher with the help of an online
dictionary 39
6.1.2 Student-initiated repair completed by the teacher without the help of an
online dictionary 52
6.1.3 Student-initiated repair completed by another student 56
6.2 Teacher-initiated repair 61
6.2.1 Teacher-initiated repair resolved by the teacher with a help of an online
dictionary 61
10
CONTENTS
6.2.2 Teacher-initiated repair resolved by a student 67
7 Discussion and conclusion 74
7.1 Limitations, further research and implications for teaching practice 80
Bibliography 81
Appendix A (Transcription symbols) 85
Appendix B (Collection of excerpts) 86
11
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
1 Introduction
The aim of this diploma thesis is to explore other-initiated repair practices employed by
the teacher and her students, non-native speakers of English, in an EFL (English as a
Foreign Language) secondary school classroom in the Czech Republic, and answer the
following questions: how do the teacher and her students conduct repair, i.e., what repair
strategies they use when trouble-sources, or utterances perceived as problematic, arise
in the course of the interaction; in what way their epistemic status and the institutional
character of the interaction play a role in the repair process, and how could repair
management encourage student involvement and learning.
In the context of classroom interaction, learning is seen not only as a cognitive, but also a
social activity which is facilitated through interaction with others. The speakers' ability to
use language in order to communicate effectively in a range of social contexts is part of
their interactional competence, and repairing problems with speaking, hearing and
understanding is one of its key components. Maintaining mutual understanding is a basic
prerequisite of social interaction and there are practical strategies that the speakers use
to deal with communication breakdowns. In the field of Conversation Analysis (CA),
repair is part of the sequence of talk in which meaning is negotiated, and this process of
negotiation of meaning is thought to facilitate the route to language acquisition (Pica,
1988).
The students and the teacher enter the interaction with their knowledge of the world and
their experience and expertise in certain informational domains which they draw upon in
12
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
the course of the interaction. Given the specific character of the interaction which takes
place in an educational institution, they orient to their institutional roles of teachers and
students and perform their institutionally relevant duties of teaching and learning. When
faced with an utterance perceived to be problematic, they aim to fix it by employing
various repair strategies, taking part in negotiation of meaning and thus maintaining
mutual understanding. Focusing on repair is important because it is part of their
interactional competence, and for the speakers and their coparticipants it is also a
resource and an object of learning (Kasper, 1986).
The thesis is divided into two parts: theoretical and empirical. The theoretical part is
covered in chapters 2 and 3, in which the sociocultural theory of learning, the features of
classroom interaction as institutional talk and the phenomenon of repair with focus on
classroom repair are presented. An overview of literature relevant to this study is
presented in chapter 4. The research method, Conversation Analysis, is presented in
chapter 5, along with the details of how the data for the study was collected, transcribed
and analysed. In chapter 6, 10 excerpts featuring repair sequences are presented and
analysed. They are divided into two main categories based on the repair trajectory, i.e.,
whether the repair was student- or teacher-initiated and the way the trouble-source was
dealt with and resolved. The findings from the study are summarized and concluded in
chapter 7, together with an outline of the research limitations and its possible
implications for EFL teachers.
13
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
2 Sociocultural theory and learning in interaction
2.1 Sociocultural theory: Learning as a cognitive and social activity
The sociocultural theory as an interactional approach to second language acquisition (SLA)
developed in the 1990s (Lantolf & Appel, 1994), although the idea that learning is strongly
influenced by and takes place in social interaction had existed even before that. It was
based on Lev Vygotskij's (1962) pioneering work on cognitive and linguistic development
in children which emphasized the socio-cognitive aspect of learning, and stressed that the
cognitive processes underlying language acquisition are profoundly influenced by the
participants' social interactional practices (Pekarek Doehler, 2013).
Sociocultural theories highlight the social aspect of learning which is facilitated through
interaction with others: the participants communicate with one another, participate in
discussions and interact with those who might be more experienced and knowledgeable
than they are, while simultaneously making shared sense of the new knowledge and
constructing their own understanding (Walsh & Li, 2013).
The sociocultural theory laid the foundations for the concept of interactional competence,
which has been increasingly popular since the beginning of the 21s t
century. The term
'competence' in linguistics was first used by Chomsky (1965) and referred to the innate
knowledge of language, as opposed to performance, i.e., the actual use of language in
concrete situations. The idea of competence as a knowledge of language irrespective of its
use was criticized by Hymes (1972) who argued that competence does not only entail
one's knowledge of the structures and forms of the language in an ideal language system,
but also the way language is used to communicate effectively in different social contexts.
14
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
This idea was further developed by Canale and Swain (1980) who proposed four major
components of communicative competence, i.e., grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic
and strategic.
According to the sociocultural theory, learning is seen as a social process and language as
"a complex and dynamic system which is locally managed by the interactants in response
to emergent communicative needs. Instead of analysing processes that take place in the
head, learning should be viewed in terms of the interactions that take place between
learners and other learners, or learners and teachers" (Walsh & Li, 2013, p. 249).
In second language (L2) classroom research, the above-mentioned notion of competence
is called interactional competence (Markee, 2000), and is said to comprise of so-called
interactional practices (IP), which are the systematic verbal and non-verbal methods the
speakers use when they engage in social interaction (Wong & Waring 2010). These
interactional practices, which collectively turn conversation into a system, subsume the
following: turn-taking practices, i.e., the ability of the speakers to take turns when
speaking in an organized manner and to be aware of when one turn finishes and another
one begins; sequencing practices, namely the speakers' ability to understand and produce
speech acts in sequential contexts; repair practices, i.e., the ability to deal with
breakdowns in communication; and the speakers' ability to express their epistemic and
affective stance (Pekarek Doehler, 2013). These interactional practices enable the
learners to participate in the process of negotiation of meaning and co-construction of
mutual understanding, which is key to the process of learning in interaction (Sert, 2015).
15
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
2.2 Classroom interaction as institutional talk
It has been argued that classroom interaction is a form of social interaction taking place
in a classroom as an institutional setting. Its institutional fingerprints (Drew & Heritage,
1992) are found in the exchanges between the teacher and the students, and between the
students themselves. The participants in the interaction orient to their relevant
institutional roles, i.e., the roles of teachers and students, and perform their institutionally
related responsibilities, which in turn strongly influence their behaviour, language use
and the decisions they make on a moment-by-moment basis.
The interaction in language classrooms as educational institutions is understood to arise
from the principal institutional goal which is that the teacher is going to teach the learners
a second language (Seedhouse, 2004). One of the main properties of this goal is that
language is both the vehicle and object of instruction (Long 1983), which means that the
teacher usually manages the interaction in the target language (in which case the language
is the vehicle), while at the same time pursuing her pedagogical goals of the moment.
Moreover, the learners may be aware of what they would like to say but may find it
difficult to express themselves in the target language, or the form and structure of their
utterances may need to be corrected by the teacher, which is something that does not
normally occur in other types of classrooms.
What distinguishes mundane, everyday talk from the one occurring in the classroom is
that, unlike everyday conversation, the organization of turn-taking and the interactants'
participation rights in institutional settings tend to be restricted; the participants do not
share equal responsibility for the management of the interaction and the progress of the
16
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
discourse, and the learners and their teacher in the classroom usually do not have the
same social status (Seedhouse, 2004).
Another difference between everyday conversation and classroom talk lies in the type of
questions asked. When people ask questions in everyday conversations, they usually do
so because of their genuine lack of knowledge of the state of affairs, so they orient to the
recipient as a knowledgeable person who should provide them with the information they
do not have (Heritage & Clayman, 2010). They often confirm that that has happened by
using the acknowledgement token 'oh' (Heritage, 1984). Despite not being completely
absent from classroom talk, this type of questions, i.e., referential questions, tend to be
outnumbered by display questions in the context of the classroom. Display questions,
which are said to occur in most learning and educational contexts, as well as in
interactions between parents and their children in pre-school years, follow the core
institutional goal of teaching and learning in the classroom and mainly depend on the
pedagogical focus of the activity (Seedhouse, 2004). The teachers usually know the
answers to most of the questions they ask, but their aim is to check understanding, elicit
a response, guide learners towards a particular answer or promote student engagement.
This routine emphasizes the institutional nature of the classroom interaction and is one
of the most striking differences between everyday conversation and classroom talk
(Walsh, 2011).
In addition to the difference in the type of questions asked in institutional and mundane
conversations, the practice of turn-taking as an interactional feature is also performed
differently in the aforementioned contexts. According to Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks
(1974), turn-taking in everyday conversation is "locally managed and interactionally
17
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
contingent system" in which only one speaker speaks at a time; there is a minimum of
gaps and overlaps and certain rules apply: 1. the current speaker selects the next speaker,
2. the next speaker self-selects, 3. the current speaker continues. On the other hand, turntaking
in formal settings, e.g., in frontal teaching in the classroom, is less flexible and the
participants' contributions in talk are more limited. It mostly involves question-answer
sequences in which the professional, i.e., the teacher poses a question and the clients, i.e.,
students answer it (Drew & Sorjonen, 2011). Formal classroom talk usually consists of a
three-part sequence: a question, an answer and an evaluation, namely Q-R-E, (Sinclair &
Coulthard, 1974), in which the teacher evaluation of the students' answers asserts the
teacher's epistemic supremacy and emphasizes the pedagogical context of the interaction
(Heritage & Clayman, 2010). Nevertheless, according to Seedhouse (2004), this also
depends on the pedagogical focus which is said to have strong influence on the
organization of the interaction. In form-and-accuracy contexts, turn-taking is tightly
managed; adjacency pairs usually consist of a teacher's prompt leading to learner's
production, followed by an evaluation and a follow-up action. On the other hand, the
interaction in meaning-and-fluency contexts is less rigid. Learners display certain amount
of control over the turn-taking system, may initiate their topics of interaction, and are able
to locally manage the interaction to some extent by being able to nominate themselves
rather than having the teacher allocate them (Seedhouse, 2004).
In this respect recent research has shown a shift in language teaching pedagogy from
more traditional classrooms to rather learner-centred and task-oriented ones, in which
the organization of classroom interaction is more dependent on the pedagogical focus.
Furthermore, in such classrooms students ask more questions, initiate sequences more
18
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
often, self-select, select other speakers and initiate repair more regularly. The roles of
teachers and students continue to reflect the institutional nature of the classroom, but are
not as fixed and invariable as it had been suggested before (Gardner, 2013).
Second language classroom discourse is said to be characterized by four important
features mainly on the part of the teachers, because they are the ones who bear primary
responsibility for the flow of the interaction. Those features are: control of the interaction,
speech modification, elicitation and repair (Walsh, 2011). The organization of repair in
talk-in-interaction as one of the major components of interactional competence and a
resource for learning a new language (Markee, 2000) will be investigated more closely in
the following chapter.
19
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
3 Repair
3.1 Introduction to repair
An in-depth and exhaustive analysis of the phenomenon of repair in everyday
conversation was first conducted by the founders of Conversation Analysis (CA), Schegloff,
Jefferson and Sacks (1977). While in the field of second language acquisition (SLA), repair
is mainly concerned with error correction or misunderstanding caused by linguistic
errors, repair in CA refers to the practices that the speakers adopt when dealing with any
problems in hearing speaking and understanding the talk in conversation and other
forms of talk-in-interaction (Schegloff et al., 1977). It is triggered when a certain element
in a speaker's utterance, referred to as the 'trouble-source', or a 'repairable', is treated as
problematic by the participants. At that moment, the immediately preceding talk is halted
until the repair is completed, although not all repairs lead to a successful completion
(Schegloff et al., 1977). The repair outcome can either mean a resolution of the problem,
or its abandonment. The nature of the trouble-source can by no means constitute only a
mistake that needs to be corrected. Repair initiation can also be triggered in response to
a hearing problem due to background noise interference, hearing and understanding
issues in the search for confirmation, unavailability of a word when it is needed etc.
(Schegloff, 2000).
From the viewpoint of CA, repairs in LI talk are usually indicated by different markers
such as silences, sound stretches, cut-offs and pauses, whereas in classroom settings
repair may come in the form of comprehension and confirmation checks, clarification and
20
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
definition requests, verifications of meaning and expressions of lexical uncertainty
(Markee, 2000, p. 84).
Repair is considered to be a course of action which has its sequential organization, or
trajectory. The organization of repair can be analysed either in terms of who initiates and
who completes the repair, i.e., the producer of the trouble-source or the interlocutor; or
in terms of the position of the repair relative to the initial trouble-source.
If the speaker of the problematic talk identifies the trouble source on their own, the repair
is self-initiated. This stands in opposition to other-initiated repair which is pointed at by
the recipient of the problematic talk, i.e., the listener. Correspondingly, if the repair
outcome is provided by the speaker of the trouble-source, it is self-repaired. If the
repairable is resolved by somebody other than the speaker of the trouble-source, it is
termed other-repair. In summary, repair initiations and completions can either be
conducted by the speaker of the trouble-source or the recipient, and this leads to four
types of repairs: self-initiated self-repair, self-initiated other-repair, other-initiated selfrepair
and other-initiated other-repair.
In terms of the position of the repair, first and third position repairs are usually initiated
by the self, i.e., the speaker of the trouble-source, whereas second and fourth position
repairs tend to be other-initiated. Self-initiated repair is usually dealt with by the speaker
of the trouble-source in the same turn, whereas other-initiated repair triggered by the
recipient leaves the trouble-source to be dealt with by its speaker in the following turn
(Schegloff, 2000). Repairs initiated by other than the speaker of the trouble-source in the
next turn may take multiple turns to get accomplished (Schegloff et al., 1977).
21
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
In everyday conversation, there is a decisive structural preference for self-initiation and
self-repair over other-completed repair (Schegloff et al., 1977). Other-initiations are
usually withheld past the completion of the trouble-source turn in order to provide an
opportunity for the speaker of the trouble-source to self-initiate repair.
Other-initiated self-repairs use special repair initiation techniques which point at the
trouble-source with varying intensity. Those which refer to a problematic talk in the least
specific way are called open class repair initiators (Drew, 1991), and are represented by
words such as: Huh?, Pardon?, Sorry?, What?, or Excuse me?. The second group consists of
wh-interrogatives like: who, when or where. Repair can also be initiated by a partial
repetition of the trouble source sometimes accompanied by a wh-interrogative, and
usually uttered with a rising intonation which implies uncertainly. The strongest repair
initiation technique in terms of its ability to call attention to the trouble-source with high
precision is the understanding check, often prefaced with You mean.
According to Schegloff et al. (1977), all repair initiated by other than the speaker of the
trouble-source is initiated in the turn immediately following the trouble-source turn, and
based on the locations of its occurrence has been termed NTRI - next turn repair initiation
(Schegloff, 2000). However, later research has reported many instances in which otherinitiated
repair happened in turns later than the one immediately following the troublesource
turn, i.e., repair initiation was delayed, especially in interactions between nonnative
speakers of English (Wong, 2000). This has also led to the change in terminology
from NTRI to simply other-initiated repair, or 01, because "the occurrence in the next turn
after the trouble-source is not a pre-condition, or a defining criterion, but rather an
empirical finding" (Schegloff, 2000, p. 211).
22
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
Researchers such as Pica (1988) and Long (1983) theorize that by making a joint effort to
deal with the trouble-source in the discourse and come to a solution, the speakers take
part in the negotiation of meaning, which is subsequently thought to facilitate language
acquisition.
3.2 Repair in classroom interaction
In learning contexts, repair practices used for dealing with problems of comprehension
and production fall under the category of pedagogical repair. This type of repair can be
other-initiated either by the teacher or the students, and its goal is usually to facilitate
learning (Wong & Waring, 2010). Pedagogical repair practices are considered to be
strongly influenced by the context in which they are taking place, i.e., whether it is a formand-accuracy
context aiming at the correct use of language forms, or a meaning-andfluency
context in which the content of what is discussed is given priority over language
forms and grammatical accuracy (Seedhouse, 2004).
Repair is oriented to the achievement of common understanding by the means of the
speakers addressing themselves to the prior talk and revealing aspects of their
understanding of that prior talk (Schegloff, 1992). Repair has been analysed sequentially
in order to demonstrate how speakers make use of it on a moment-by-moment basis as a
conversational resource for learning a new language. Foreign language learners can use
a range of repair strategies in order to obtain clarification from their interlocutors. By
taking part in negotiating meaning, they modify each other's talk, get content words that
they may have missed or have not been familiar with and acquire L2 vocabulary (Markee,
2000, p.84). This repertoire of activities also reflects their interactional competence.
23
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
4 Overview of literature
In this chapter, an overview of research thematically related and relevant to my study will
be provided. It starts with research studies looking at repair practices in classroom
settings, with a special focus on different repair initiators and elicited solutions which are
thought to encourage student participation and increase opportunities for learning. Then,
it proceeds with a review of studies investigating repair strategies in an educational
setting that emphasize the participants' institutional roles and the implications for
language learning and teaching. Finally, it concludes with the notion of epistemics in
conversation and its impact on repair organization sequences and their management in
interaction in both non-educational and educational settings. A summary of the studies
and their implications for this thesis will be provided at the end of the chapter.
In the field of conversation analysis, the organization of repair is considered to be one of
principal organizations of human interaction (Lilja, 2014). While research on repair
originally focused on informal LI discourse in non-educational contexts (Schegloff et al.,
1977), substantial amount of research on repair has also examined interactions between
L2 language speakers in educational settings. Its aim has been to investigate in what way,
if any, repair practices adopted in the classroom are different from those employed in an
everyday conversation.
McHoul (1990) conducted extensive research into the organization of repair in classroom
talk. Despite the strong preference for self-initiation and self-repair documented in
everyday conversation, he found self-repair also to be the case in classroom interaction,
24
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
although only to a certain extent. However, unlike natural conversation, his studies
showed other-(teacher) initiated repair to be the dominant one in classroom interaction
A study by Liebscher and Dailey-O'Cain (2003) aimed to explore the ways in which the
students and their teacher in a content-based German FL class used repair in order to
negotiate meaning and form. Through the means of qualitative and quantitative analysis,
they investigated the differences between repair conducted in the classroom and that in
an everyday conversation, as well as the different ways in which the students and the
teacher used repair. They concluded that the teacher and the students did not use the
same strategies for repair initiation which are commonly used in everyday conversation,
but rather used repair in a way that emphasized their classroom roles as students and
teachers. Their study was based on the supposition that repair strategies are not solely a
tool for dealing with troubles in speaking, hearing and understanding, but also a
technique which helps students learn more effectively.
The data for the study by Liebscher and Dailey-O'Cain (2003) came from eleven 45minute
recordings made during a seminar for advanced speakers of German at the
University of Alberta in Canada. There were 12 participants, and they were all women
between 20-30 years of age. The first stage of the data analysis involved identifying
sequences of other-initiated self-repair and coding them based on whether the repair was
initiated by the teacher or the students, whether the language of the utterance was
German or English, whether the repair included a code-switch from one language into
another, and the different ways in which repair was initiated. The results showed that
unlike everyday conversations in which speakers start from the most non-specific repair
initiation type and proceed with more specific ones only in cases of necessity, the students
25
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
in the classroom interaction used the most specific one, i.e., a direct request for teacher's
definition, translation or explanation, or asked for a specific vocabulary item. On the other
hand, candidate understandings, which are commonly used in mundane talk, were used
almost with the same frequency by the teacher and the students. The results also
confirmed that by initiating repair, both parties engaged in negotiation of meaning.
Unspecified repair initiators were used only by the teacher and never by the students. The
authors believe that these repair initiators might be face-threatening because letting the
teacher know that the student has not heard something might be interpreted as student
inattentiveness, which is not a desirable learner trait.
Partial repetitions as another type of repair initiators used in other-initiated repair
sequences were investigated in a study by Lilja (2014). The dataset for her study came
from 13 hours of everyday conversations between first and second language speakers of
Finnish, out of which 322 other-initiated repair sequences were subjected to closer
analysis. The study set out to discover why first language speakers choose to treat the
repetitions produced by L2 speakers as signals of language-related troubles with
understanding and concluded that their decisions to do so are based on the identification
of the asymmetric linguistic knowledge of the participants and the risk it may pose on
mutual understanding.
The second aim of the study was to find out in what way other-initiated repair sequences
may contribute to language learning and what particular practices the speakers adopt in
order to turn the trouble source items into objects of learning. The analysis showed that
such opportunities arise when the second language speaker asks a question about the
trouble source word explicitly, or tries to incorporate it in his own speech, which
26
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
sometimes may lead to a word search in which the first language speaker is called upon
to help. Incidentally previous research has shown that when learners of English provide
a word solution to the search and conclude it with a rising intonation in order to solicit
confirmation from their native speaker co-participant, they exhibit their status of a
language learner, i.e., they are 'doing being the language learner' (Koshik & Seo, 2012).
The study by Lijla (2014) further illustrates the interconnectedness of language learning
and other ongoing activities, i.e., the way the learning activity is constructed little by little
with other conversation activities happening simultaneously in the background.
Finally, the research results suggest that the speakers mainly engage in learning
vocabulary items. This has been supported by previous research in the field of CA-for-SLA
in which learning opportunities appear to be mostly associated with vocabulary (Brouwer,
2003). The reason for this maybe that for common language learners, words are the most
noticeable and important aspect of language and the easiest to be marked and singled out
as problematic (Lilja, 2014). The study emphasizes the importance of studying repair
practices when looking for evidence of learning (Hellermann, 2009) because the
difference in language knowledge opens up opportunities for engaging in learning
activities even in such interactions which are not explicitly pedagogical in nature (Lilja,
2014).
The role of epistemics of expertise in the organization of conversational repair in multiperson
interaction has been thoroughly investigated in a study by Bolden (2013).
Epistemics refers to the specific knowledge that the speaker and the recipient in an
interaction possess. According to Kamio (1997), they each have their 'territories of
information', or 'epistemic domains', and specific areas of knowledge may fall into each
27
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
person's territory, to the same or a various degree (Heritage, 2012). The interactants have
relative epistemic access to a domain of information and they may hold different positions
on an 'epistemic gradient' (Heritage, 2012), the more knowledgeable interactant being
marked as [K+] and the less knowledgeable as [K-]. The epistemic status of each
interactant "varies from domain to domain, may change over time and on a moment-bymoment
basis owing to particular interactional contributions" (Heritage, 2012, p. 4).
The data for the study by Bolden (2013) came from 60 video recordings of mundane faceto-face
interactions between family members and friends, most of whom were bilingual
Russian American immigrants. It consists of video recordings of between 30- to 90minute
length, which were transcribed and analysed within the Conversation Analysis
framework. The findings are based on about 150 sequences in which other-initiated
repair is completed by a speaker other than the producer of the trouble-source, i.e., the
study focused on examining other-initiated repair sequences, in which repair is
undertaken by the listener. She starts off by stating the well-known structural preference
for self-repair over other-repair, according to which the speaker of the trouble source is
the one who normally completes the repair on his own trouble source (Schegloff et al.,
1977). However, based on the research findings by Bolden (2013), it is also the case that
other speakers may engage in providing a response to a repair initiation which has been
directed (explicitly or implicitly) to the producer of the trouble-source. This is based on
the observation that the right of the producer of the trouble source to repair his own talk
in not automatic, but sometimes has to be asserted, negotiated or contested. Bolden
claims that the interactants who take the initiative to provide a repair solution on
somebody else's behalf, do so on the basis of their epistemic primacy granted by their own
28
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
experience or expertise related to a certain informational territory (Kamio,1997). She
argues that this epistemic authority comes from their specialized, professional or
linguistic subject knowledge which is enacted and becomes relevant in the course of the
interaction (Heritage, 2013). When the repair of the trouble source is undertaken by
somebody other than the trouble source producer, the repair initiator may be orienting
to the asymmetries in the interactants 'expertise. In that case, the trouble source producer
is assigned the role of a novice, whereas the selected speaker assumes the role of an expert.
Consequently, the organization of repair sequences is strongly influenced by the speakers'
orientations to their epistemic knowledge and their territories of information (Kamio,
1997).
A similar study acknowledging the importance of the participants' orientation to
epistemic stance in interaction, yet in an educational context of L2 learners, was
conducted by Reichert and Liebscher (2012). Its aim was to explore learning
opportunities arising from word searches in peer interaction. Within the CA framework,
word searches represent a particular kind of repair (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977),
which is forward oriented and reveals knowledge gaps as trouble sources that the
participants have to deal with in order to maintain intersubjectivity (Tůma & Sherman,
2022). As such they are regarded as learning opportunities, especially when another
interactant is invited to take part in the search and the interactants orient to their
language expertise, in which one of them is considered the expert and the other one the
novice in the interaction (Brouwer, 2003). The data for the study by Reichert and
Liebscher was corpus based and came from beginner and intermediate classes of German
as a foreign language at a Canadian university. The study was based on interactions of
29
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
groups of two to three students who designed a role play and performed it in front of the
class, with one specific group later chosen for closer investigation. The students had to
meet outside of the classroom to compose and practise their role play without the
presence of the teacher. Throughout the interaction, the learners negotiated meaning
expressed disagreement and re-assertion over language expertise and used an online
dictionary as a language authority which helped resolve their word search. The data
showed that even though one of the interactants provided the candidate word, their peers
did not always accept it automatically. On the contrary, they often requested additional,
authoritative source of information. The learning opportunity was created by searching
for the target word while at the same time negotiating positions of expertise and
developing personal stance towards the solution.
Certain problematic aspects of interactional competence specified as claims of insufficient
knowledge, i.e., "I don't knows" (CIK) as another type of repair initiation have been
investigated by Walsh and Sert (2012). Their microanalytic study, which applied a multimodal
methodology for the first time, aimed to describe the sequential unfolding of the
occurrence of CIK, the way it is manifested by the students and tackled by the teacher.
They attempted to pinpoint the interactional strategies used by the teacher when dealing
with CIK, which are considered to be part of the teacher's'L2 interactional competence.
CIKs have been regarded as the most commonly used epistemic stance markers, and in
the above-mentioned study they are interchangeably used with the so-called 'claims of no
knowledge' provided in response to a teacher's question. CIKs can be used to express a
range of underlying meanings such as uncertainty, neutrality or aiming to bring a topic to
a close.
30
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
The data for the study by Walsh and Sert (2012) came from two public school classrooms
in Luxembourg and entailed 16 classroom hours. The transcriptions of sequences were
closely examined, including those with non-verbal features of talk, such as gaze, body
movements, gestures etc. The general finding was that the sequence organization of CIK
remained stable and predictable: when students initiate a CIK, the teacher either allocates
the turn to another/other students or utters a you don't know? epistemic status check
and then proceeds with the turn allocation. The interactional resources that the teacher
uses to deal with CIKs are both verbal and non-verbal: deictic gestures (when the teacher
says 'you don't know?', he reveals the participant who lacks knowledge at that moment),
embodied vocabulary explanations (hand gesture accompanied by a simultaneous verbal
explanation), code switching, and DIUs (Designedly Incomplete Utterances) (Koshik,
2002), which the teacher uses when he elicits an answer from the students. DIUs have
proved successful in triggering student participation and, in some instances, in
demonstrating student understanding. In other words, the student's claim of no
knowledge pushes the teacher to provide an explanation and this, in turn, may lead to a
micro-moment of understanding. Although the authors concede that the strategies used
by the teacher do not lead to demonstrable learning or language acquisition, they do play
a role in pushing the interaction forward and encouraging student participation, and in
certain cases lead to displays of understanding. The study emphasizes that the successful
management of CIKs by the teacher is an important characteristic of L2 interactional
competence.
In summary, the research studies above show that some repair strategies used in
language classrooms are similar to those pursued in everyday conversations, such as
31
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
candidate understandings and unspecified repair initiators used by the teachers. On the
other hand, unlike in everyday conversations, classroom learners clearly orient to their
institutional roles by using the most specific repair initiators like direct requests for
teacher's clarification, explanation or translation and avoiding unspecified repair
initiators which could be interpreted as inattentiveness and possibly loss of face.
Furthermore, other-initiated repair sequences in the form of partial repetitions may
contribute to language learning when the trouble-source is turned into an object of
learning, i.e., a learnable (Majlesi & Broth, 2012). This happens when the language learner
asks a question about a problematic word explicitly, tries to include it in his own speech
and asks the expert, or the more knowledgeable co-participant to help. As far as social
epistemics is concerned, it has shown to play an important role in dealing with troublesources
in interaction because repair solutions are often provided by speakers other than
the trouble-source producer on the basis of their perceived epistemic primacy which is
closely related to their personal experience or expertise. In a non-native peer interaction,
learners re-assert their positions of language expertise and turn to the online dictionary
as an authoritative source of information. Finally, even claims of no knowledge as
epistemic stance markers play a role in the interaction by pushing the teacher to provide
an explanation, which in turn leads to student engagement and reveals micro-moments of
understanding.
32
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
5 Research method and data
5.1 Conversation Analysis (CA)
Conversation Analysis is an empirical research method which emerged in the late 1960s
and early 1970s as a subfield of sociology. It was established in the pioneering work of the
American sociologist Harvey Sacks, and the work of his close collaborators and cofounders
Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. It set out to investigate and describe the
organizational structure of casual, everyday talk, conducted between friends and
acquaintances, either in face-to-face encounters or in telephone conversations. Its main
aim was to describe the organizational structure of sequencing, turn-taking and repair
practices in talk-in-interaction (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1974). However, since the
1970s CA has widened its interest and started to analyse talk in institutional contexts,
such as expert consultations in medical facilities, courtroom hearings, radio and television
interviews and educational contexts (the language classroom). Consequently, CA research
nowadays incorporates both casual conversations and institutional talk (Drew & Heritage,
1992).
As a data-driven, microanalytic and qualitative research method, CA has been used as a
tool for analysing and understanding second language acquisition. Its aim has been to
demonstrate how micro-moments of socially-distributed cognition found in talk-ininteraction
may lead to changes in the speakers' knowledge of the language and its use
(Markee, 2000).
According to CA, social contexts are not static, but are being constructed by the
participants on a moment-by-moment basis through their use of language and the way
33
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
turn-taking, sequences of actions, openings and closings of the interaction are locally
managed. That is why it is said to be context-shaped and context-renewing: each
participant's contribution is dependent on the previous one and creates the context for
the one that follows; each speaker's contribution is inextricably linked to that of another
participant in the interaction (Schegloff et al., 1974).
The participants' behaviours such as turn-taking, sequences and repair practices, which
come under the umbrella term of interactional practices, turn conversation into a highly
structured system (Wong & Waring, 2010). They are the three organizational features of
talk-in-interaction which are used by the interactants to sustain communication and build
common understanding. By engaging in these procedures, the interactants adjust,
maintain and defend their interpretations of the situation and their actions in order to
foster mutual understanding. (Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2014).
Conversation Analysis's main sine qua non is naturally occurring data, which are recorded
and subsequently transcribed, as opposed to artificial conversations in experimental
settings which are not considered appropriate material for analysis. The benefits of the
naturally occurring data being video and audio recorded is that the footage can later be
replayed by the researchers, used to re-examine the data, be reconsidered from a different
point of view, or with a different research question in mind (Wong & Waring, 2010).
The transcription of the data is conducted using a CA transcription system which, apart
from the speakers' words, also indicates their pauses, hesitations, silences, sound
stretches, volume, cut-offs, rising and falling intonation etc.; each with its underlying
interactional meaning (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1977)
34
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
Within the CA framework, data is analysed from an emic perspective, i.e., from the point
of view of the speakers, and the aim is to understand the speakers' motives and reasons
for their behaviour at any given moment. In compliance with its inductive nature, the data
is approached without any presuppositions or a priori formulated hypotheses. The
researchers may have a general idea about their area of interest, but must remain openminded
and alert to possible unforeseen findings (Wong & Waring, 2010).
CA can draw conclusions based on detailed analyses of a particular interaction, so even a
very small number of participants suffices, because the goal is to describe the interaction
between any number of participants in a multi-participant talk. In addition, CA has been
used in many studies whose focus has been on a single teacher or a student (Hellermann,
2009)
5.2 Research data
The purpose of my study is to investigate the strategies that teachers and students employ
when conducting repair on trouble-sources that arise in an everyday teacher-student
classroom interaction.
To that end, the collected data for the study came from four 45-minute-long video and
audio recordings of EFL lessons. They were taught to students in a 6-year public
secondary school in the Czech Republic. The school is selective, reputable and a highly
sought-after in the region.
The recordings were made in November 2021 over a period of two weeks, and the work
was done in tandem with a colleague of mine, who is working on similar research. The
lessons were taught to two groups of learners, aged 15 through 18, who were attending
35
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
their third and fifth year of secondary school respectively. Their language proficiency
ranged between intermediate and advanced level, and the teacher used the same
coursebook for both groups, English File Upper-Intermediate. In terms of gender, there
was a balance, with no distinct male or female dominance. The number of students who
attended the recorded lessons varied between 9 and 12 participants. Both groups were
taught by a fully-qualified non-native secondary school English teacher who had more
than four years of teaching experience, and at the time when the data was collected, she
taught 21 hours per week.
Before we were given permission to come to the school and record the lessons, the teacher
and the students were sent a project description and consent forms. The students who
were already 18-year-old at that time signed the consent forms by themselves, whereas
all the younger students had the forms signed not only by themselves, but by their parents
as well, one week prior to our arrival.
The lessons were recorded using two cameras, one positioned at the front of the
classroom, and the other one at the back, so that the students and the teacher could both
be captured. In addition to the cameras, three voice recorders were placed on different
desks in the classroom, one of which was always near the teacher. The purpose of the
voice recorders was to enhance the quality of sound, because the sound captured only by
the cameras was not always clear, especially in those classrooms that generated echo. The
audio and video recordings were subsequently downloaded into a computer, and the
sound and image were synchronized using Shotcut ©-, a free open source, cross-platform
video editor.
36
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
5.3 Transcription and analysis
The data was analysed using the Conversation Analysis framework, as outlined in 5.1
above, and transcribed following CA conventions by Jefferson (2004) and Hutchby and
Wooffitt (2008). In order to protect the anonymity of the students, all their names were
changed.
The 180-minute-length of video and audio recordings generated transcripts which were
in total 12 500 words long and were written in a MS Word document, because I found that
it suited me more in practical terms than using a transcription software. Therefore, the
process of transcription involved watching and listening to the recordings in Shotcut and
writing the transcript in a Word document simultaneously.
In the collected pool of data, I identified 10 repair sequences, which I analysed turn-byturn
in line with CA (section 5.1) and categorized in two main sections based on the
trajectory of the repair sequence, i.e., whether they were student- or teacher- initiated.
These were further divided into five subsections, depending on how the repair sequence
was completed, whether by the teacher or by a student, and with or without the use of an
online dictionary.
37
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
6 Data analysis
In this chapter, the findings from the data collected for the purposes of this research will
be presented and analysed.
The data (a total of 10 excerpts) is divided into two main sections on the basis of the
trajectory of the repair sequence, i.e., whether it is initiated by a student or by the teacher.
The main sections are further divided into three and two subsections respectively,
depending on the way in which the trouble-source was repaired.
Section 6.1. presents a total of six excerpts of student-initiated repair which are further
divided into three subsections, depending on whether the repair was completed by the
teacher with the help of a dictionary (6.1.1), without the help of a dictionary (6.1.2), or the
repair was completed by a student (6.1.3).
Section 6.2 presents four excerpts of teacher-initiated repair with two subsections:
6.2.1 features two excerpts of teacher-initiated repair resolved with the help of a
dictionary, and 6.2.2 presents two teacher-initiated repair sequences resolved by a
student.
6.1 Student-initiated repair
In the following excerpts, repair was initiated by one of the students in the classroom and
resolved by the teacher with the help of an online dictionary.
38
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
6.1.1 Student-initiated repair completed by the teacher with the help of an online
dictionary
Excerpt 1 (5A811-83-100) comes from a lesson in which the teacher tested the students
on vocabulary items taught in the previous lesson. She read the words to them, one by
one, in Czech, and their task was to write down their English equivalents. After the
students finished writing, the teacher checked answers with the whole class. The
teacher's aim was to elicit and explain the word 'conform to', but its meaning and
translation into Czech became a stumbling block in the interaction. The first otherinitiation
of repair was conducted by a student, Katka (Kat in the transcript) in line 8, and
two more other-initiations by other students follow in lines 14 and 15. The repair was
completed by the teacher in line 16.
Apart from the other-initiation of repair by Katka in line 8 which is the main focus of
analysis in this excerpt, there are other four self-initiated repair sequences by the teacher
in lines 3, 5, 7 and 9, and three other-initiated repairs by other students in lines 8,14 and
15.
Excerpt 1
1 T přizpůsobit se čemu?
2 Ss no ( (some Ss s h a k e t h e i r h e a d s t o show t h a t t h e y d o n ' t
know))
3 T řiká s e v češtině k o n f o r m i t a , že?
4 Ss ( x x ) ( ( t h e r e i s no c l e a r a n s w e r ) )
5 T c o n f o r m t o ?
6 Ss ( t h e s t u d e n t s a r e l o o k i n g a t t h e t e a c h e r , b u t n o b o d y
a n s w e r s ) )
7 T u h - h u : : h , t o s e neřiká?
8 K a t t o j e j a k o (x) k o n f i r m a c e ? =
9 T $jako f a k t ne$?
10 ( 2 . 0 ) ( ( T i s s e a r c h i n g f o r t h e w o r d i n a n o n l i n e d i c t i o n a r y ) )
11 c o n f o r m i t y , y e a h ? ( . ) °whuuh° =
39
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
12 Ss ( ( l a u g h i n g ) )
13 T y o u a r e r i g h t ( . .) při způsobi t s e , konformnost
14 S2 konfor[ranost?]
15 S3 [konformnost? ] =
16 T s o , c o n f o r m t o ( ( T b e n d i n g f o r w a r d ;i ) ( .) s o m e t h i n g
17 J a n a o k a y
18 T zranitelný?
The teacher initiates her turn by asking the students to translate the Czech phrase
'přizpůsobit se čemu' in line 1. This was an answer-check part of the activity, and the
students had had time to think about it. However, they respond negatively in line 2,
claiming insufficient knowledge (CIK). Some of the students shake their heads to manifest
that they cannot provide an answer. The teacher probably interprets their silence and
their CIKs as a display of trouble and initiates a self-repair sequence in the next line with
a question tag ('říká se v češtině konformita, že?') implying a request for information or a
confirmation of her view. She tries to elicit the English word by offering a hint in the form
of the similarly sounding Czech word 'konformita' in line 3. Given that in the next turn the
students do not provide an answer, the teacher reveals the word in line 5 with a rising
intonation, which may signal her persisting uncertainly and a pursue of another
conformation request. In line 6 the students repeatedly fail to respond, and the teacher
initiates a third repair sequence in line 7 by asking a negative question and uttering the
response token uh-hu::h, which in this context, and pronounced with a prolongation,
resembles the change-of-state token 'oh' (Heritage, 1984) implying a change of the
speaker's knowledge - the teacher realized or learned something new that she had not
been aware of before that moment. In this case it is the realisation that contrary to her
belief, the English verb 'conform to' is not commonly known as 'konformita' in Czech.
40
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
A student-initiated repair sequence in launched in line 8 by one of students, Katka, which
is framed as an understanding check with a rising intonation ('to je jako konfirmace?').
However, Katka is latched by the teacher with another attempt at repair, with a smiling
face, implying that the teacher is aware the students do not know the answer, and this had
just been confirmed by Katka's incorrect assumption. At that moment, the teacher starts
looking the word up in an online dictionary. In line 11 she announces the result of her
search: it is the English word 'conformity', and she accompanies it with the
acknowledgment token 'yeah' (Jefferson, 1983). She subsequently produces a non-lexical
vocalisation 'whuuh' in a slightly quieter voice, suggesting surprise, maybe because what
she found in the dictionary was different from what she had expected to find, and that had
made her realize her mistake: that the Czech word 'konformita' is not common and
therefore not listed in the dictionary. She does that while still smiling and the students
start laughing in line 12. In line 13, she acknowledges that the students had been right and
provides a new Czech translation of the English word conformity, 'konformnosť, because
this is what she had found in the dictionary. This new contribution causes two other
students to initiate repair in the form of a repetition of the trouble-source in lines 14 and
15, suggesting that they may not be familiar with the second solution either. However, the
teacher responds by uttering the word 'so' in line 16, and then by repeating the phrase
'conform to something', which sounds like a recapitulation of what was previously said,
brings the sequence to a close. This is followed by the affirmative token 'okay' uttered by
Jana in line 16, which implies that she accepts the teacher's explanation. Given that the
rest of the class is silent and there are no further questions, which implies agreement, the
teacher considers the topic to be closed and moves on to the next vocabulary item on her
listin line 18.
41
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
In this excerpt, the teacher clearly orients to the dictionary as a source of knowledge when
a lexical problem presents itself. The dictionary is considered an authoritative language
source which is rarely doubted, and it plays a role in negotiating epistemic roles in the
course of the interaction (Reichert and Liebscher, 2012). In this particular case, the
dictionary assisted in clearing up the misunderstanding concerning the correct
translation of the English word 'conform to' into Czech. For the teacher and the students
alike, the benefit of its use manifested in the teacher's realization what is and what is not
an acceptable translation of that particular lexical item and it also helped to resolve
confusion.
Excerpt 2 (5A1111-83-97) comes from a lesson with the same class whose aim was to
revise and teach new vocabulary related to clothing. The teacher started the activity by
asking the students to brainstorm all the words related to clothes that people wear on
their body. The trouble source is the meaning and the translation of the Czech word
'potitko' into English. The repair sequence is initiated by Tom in line 7 and it is resolved
by the teacher in line 14.
Excerpt 2
1 T uh-huh, a n y t h i n g e l s e ?
2 S l o n g s l e e v e s ?
3 T yeah yeah, I mean, i t ' s a p a r t o f c l o t h i n g , so (.) yeah
4 San how do you c a l l t h e (..) t h e (..) ((Sandra i s p o i n t i n g a t h e r
5 w r i s t , making c i r c u l a r movements)) potitko?
6 T uh, good q u e s t i o n (.) i t ' s a - i t ' s a=
7 Tom = w r i s t b a n d , w r i s t b a n d j e p o t i t k o , ne? ( ( l o o k i n g a t t h e t e a c h e r ) )
8 J a n headband
9 Tom nebo headband, to j e p o t i t k o na cele=
10 T =headband j e toto ((T p o i n t i n g around h e r h e a d ) ) , r i g h t , b u t I
11 mean i t ' s h o r r i b l e , i n B r i t i s h and A m e r i c a n E n g l i s h i t means
12 d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s , and I n e v e r remember (..) ((The t e a c h e r s i t s
13 down and opens h e r n o t e b o o k ) ) , so t h e r e i s hea-but t h a t ' s head
14 so t h a t l a t e r , b u t w r i s t b a n d - I t h i n k i t ' s w r i s t b a n d
42
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
15 Tom yeah ((two s t u d e n t s s i t t i n g i n f r o n t o f h i m t u r n t o h i m w i t h a
16 s m i l e and a nod as a s i g n o f p r a i s e and acknowledgement t h a t
17 he had been r i g h t ) )
18 ((T i s w r i t i n g t h e word on t h e b o a r d ) )
19 (4.0)
In this excerpt, Sandra (San in the transcript) self-selects in line 4 by asking the teacher
what the English word for 'potitko' is, pointing simultaneously at her wrist to show which
object specifically she has in mind. The teacher acknowledges her question in the
following turn, and after a very short pause starts providing an answer in line 6. She
initiates a self-repair with a cut-off on 'it's' and a repetition, which may have been
interpreted as a trouble-source by another student, Tom, so he offers a solution by
supplying an answer ('wristband') in line 7. At the same time, he initiates a repair
sequence in the form of a confirmation check with a negative question and rising
intonation. Although he is looking at the teacher while doing so, possibly expecting her to
verify what he had said, another student, Jan, self-selects and makes a contribution by
providing another solution ('headband') in line 8. Tom may have interpreted this as a
confirmation of his suggested answer, because by saying 'nebo headband', he clearly
accepts it as another possible solution and goes on to clarify its meaning ('to je potitko na
čele'). He is latched by the teacher in line 10, who provides accompanying visual
clarification of the word 'headband' by pointing at her head. Although at first it sounds as
if the teacher confirms and accepts this word, she goes on to express uncertainly over its
meaning by saying that it has different meanings in British and American English, and she
cannot remember which one is which. So, the teacher does not explicitly and immediately
validate the word 'wristband' offered by Tom, but rather starts to problematise the
meaning of the word 'headband'. The reason for this is the fact that it is translated as
'potitko' in British English, and as 'čelenka' in American English, but this is not explicitly
43
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
said in this part of the lesson. Consequently, the teacher becomes involved in resolving
the uncertainty and providing a solution to two lexical trouble-sources, one of which was
initiated by the students, and the second of which was initiated by herself. The repair
process that follows consists of other-initiated repair of the trouble-source 'wristband'
and a self-initiated repair of the second trouble-source, the word 'headband', and its
correct meaning and translation into Czech.
By openly claiming insufficient knowledge ('I never remember') in line 12, the teacher
initiates self-repair on the trouble-source 'headband' and turns to her notebook to look
up the word in an online dictionary. However, she decides to postpone its resolution to
later by saying so in line 14 ('so that later'), probably because that was not the problematic
item that the students originally pointed at in line 7. In line 14, she confirms 'wristband'
to be the correct answer to the question asked in line 4. Tom, the student who first came
up with it, reacts to the news with the acknowledgment token 'yeah' in line 15, implying
satisfaction with the outcome. Two of his classmates sitting in front of him turn around
and express their praise for his expert knowledge with a smile and an encouraging nod.
Tom had obviously been granted the status of an 'expert' by his classmates in that context
and in that particular learning situation (Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2014). This could
illustrate how the expert-novice roles in their broadest sense are locally constructed and
the participants perceive themselves and others as experts with regard to the context
(Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2014).
Moreover, although the participants' epistemic roles are continually negotiated, the
institutional nature of the classroom interaction and the teacher's role of a primary
knowledge source manifests itself in the way the students behave. Although at the
44
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
beginning of the interactional sequence a direct request for a specific vocabulary item
made by a student (Sandra in line 4 in excerpt 2) is successfully dealt with by other
students (Tom and Jan in lines 7 and 8 respectively), the student who comes up with the
solution (Tom in line 7) nevertheless turns to the teacher for help and expects her to
provide a confirmation and/or clarification, i.e., to validate and confirm their suggested
answers. He is 'doing being the language learner' (Koshik& Seo, 2012), whilst the teacher
is performing her institutional role of a professional by having the last say in the process,
deciding when a trouble-source language item will be dealt with and closing off repair
sequences. This is also in line with previous research by Reichert and Lienscher (2012) in
which although peers provide a word, the others do not accept it automatically, but
request additional, authoritative source of information.
When the teacher is not in a position to resolve a repair sequence instantly and
satisfactorily, she consults an online dictionary to clarify and resolve uncertainties and
provide correct answers. The online dictionary, with its immediate availability and
practicality in terms of use, serves as an indispensable support tool not only because of
its reliability, but also because of its status as an undisputed language source, especially
in an EFL classroom (Reichert & Liebscher, 2012).
Excerpt 3 (5A1111-144-154) comes from the same lesson dealing with clothes
vocabulary. It is another example of a student-initiated repair sequence which gets
resolved by the teacher, again with the help of an online dictionary. In the context
preceding this sequence, the word which the students discussed was 'stilettos', and it was
defined as a specific type of formal footwear for women. Its second meaning, 'dagger',
45
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
becomes a trouble source in this excerpt. The repair sequence is initiated by Jana in line 1
and resolved by the teacher in lines 9 and 10.
Excerpt 3
1 Jana i s - i s s t i l e t t o a dagger too?
2 T I'm n o t sure=
3 Jana ='cause, I t h i n k once I s e a r c h e d i t i n a d i c t i o n a r y and what came
4 up wasn't l i k e h i g h h e e l s b u t l i k e a:: e:eh dýka
5 T yeah, shoe w i t h a v e r y p o i n t e d h e e l ((The t e a c h e r i s r e a d i n g t h e
6 d e f i n i t i o n f o r ^ s t i l e t t o ' i n an o n l i n e d i c t i o n a r y ) ) (..) and
7 t h a t ' s a l l I have here
( (T s t i l l l o o k i n g a t h e r notebook) )
8 Jana okay
9 T ah, b u t i t ' s l e a r n e r ' s d i c t i o n a r y (.) w a i t (2.0) oh yes, a s m a l l
10 k n i f e w i t h a l o n g t h i n b l a d e . Looks l i k e t h i s ((T i s t u r n i n g h e r
11 notebook towards h e r s t u d e n t s , so t h a t t h e y c a n see t h e p i c t u r e ) )
12 Ss oooh
13 T I d i d n ' t know (.) so you c a n l i t e r a l l y k i l l someone w i t h t h a t
14 haha. even, okay, what e l s e ?
This repair sequence is initiated by Jana in line 1, in the form of a confirmation check with
a rising intonation. Her question includes a self-initiated repair with a cut-off on 'is'. The
teacher makes her epistemic stance clear in the next turn by saying that she is not sure,
thus expressing uncertainly. She is latched by Jana in line 3 in which she reveals what she
knows about the word. This suggests that her question in line 2 was not a genuine request
for information that she lacks, but a request for confirmation of something she already
knows. In other words, although her inquiry is framed as a straight interrogative syntax
(Heritage, 2012), her epistemic status can by no means be marked as K-, as it becomes
clear in the following turn. As such, it is definitely not a search for information, but rather
a means of seeking confirmation (Heritage, 2012). She supports her explanation by saying
that she had looked up the word 'stiletto' in a dictionary before (an authoritative source
of information which implies credibility), and had been surprised to find a meaning
46
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
different from the one related to footwear. Jana might have interpreted the teacher's
expression of uncertainty in line 2 as a claim of insufficient knowledge (K-), so that could
be the reason why she doesn't repeat the English word from line 1, but translates it into
Czech in line 4 ('dýka'). By this time, the teacher is already looking up the word in a
dictionary and confirms the meaning of 'stiletto' as a "shoe with a very pointed heel". She
adds that that is the only meaning she could find, which is accepted by Jana in line 8. This
could be another proof that Jana's question in line 1 was actually only informing revealing
what she knows and a possible display of her epistemic superiority, after it became clear
that neither the teacher, not the rest of her classmates shared the same knowledge. The
teacher, however, continues her search, and by saying 'but it's learner's dictionary' in line
9 indicates that that could be the reason why she had not been able to find the requested
meaning. She asks the students to wait, and after a short pause confirms the meaning of
the word stated by Jana in line 1, that it is 'a small knife with a long thin blade'. As in other
instances, she turns her notebook towards her students so that they could see the picture.
The students again respond with a surprise in line 12, with a stretched change-of-state
token 'oh' suggesting that they had learned something new. The teacher shares their
surprise by admitting that she also did not know. She closes the sequence in line 13 and
14 by making a humorous remark about the literal meaning of the word and moves on
with the lesson.
This excerpt could serve as an example of learning in social interaction, by turning a
lexical item initiated by a single student into a 'learnable' (Majlesi & Broth, 2012) for the
whole class. In addition, it could also be used to illustrate how the use of an online
dictionary can foster learning, because by the end of the sequence the whole class
47
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
including the teacher had learned something that they did not know before. Furthermore,
the use of an online dictionary could help bridge the gap between interactants occupying
different positions on an epistemic gradient, thus restoring symmetry and epistemic
balance (Heritage, 2012). It may also foster the teacher's confidence, professionalism and
expertise in her institutional role as well as teach students invaluable learning strategies,
e.g., using a dictionary as a source for learning a second language.
Excerpt 4 (5A1111-179-210) was taken from a vocabulary lesson in which the teacher
and the students were brainstorming vocabulary related to clothes. In this excerpt, the
focus is on shoes, and the teacher is trying to elicit the word 'Wellington boots', which
becomes the main trouble-source in this interaction. The repair sequence is initiated by
Helena (Hel in the transcript) in line 6, and it is resolved by the teacher first in line 9, and
finally in line 26.
Excerpt 4
1 T t h a t t o o (...) and i f i t i s r a i n i n g , and you want t o go f o r a walk
i n t h e f o r e s t j
2 Ss aah
3 T you need t h i s B r i t i s h k i n d o f shoes (2.0) and I t h i n k we had i t
i n B r i t i s h h i s t o r y
4 Ss ( X X )
5 T the famous a d m i r a l , was he? W e l l i n g t o n s , w e l l i e s ?
6 Hel eeh, W e l l i n g t o n i s meat
7 Bet yeah, haha
8 T am I l y i n g t o you? ((T i s l o o k i n g t h e word up i n an o n l i n e
9 d i c t i o n a r y ) ) (3.0) no, t h e s e a r e W e l l i n g t o n s ((She t u r n s h e r
10 notebook towards t h e s t u d e n t s and shows them a p i c t u r e i n t h e
11 d i c t i o n a r y ) )
12 Ss oooh
13 T a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a d m i r a l , was he=
48
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
14 Hel = b u t I ' v e been w a t c h i n g Peppa Pig1
f o r a l o n g [time]
15 T [yeah?]
16 Hel and t h e y never m e n t i o n W e l l i n g t o n s , t h e y always s a y 'we go p l a y
17 i n t h e mud and t h e y never mention=
18 T =and t h e y n e v e r - t h e y never=
19 Hel =1 t h i n k t h e y c a l l i t =
20 T = b u t i n German I t h i n k t h e y do because my f r i e n d s a r e l e a r n i n g
21 German now and t h e y a r e w a t c h i n g - I mean t h e y a r e t h e same age as
22 me and t h e y a r e w a t c h i n g Peppa Pig and I t h i n k t h e y l e a r n e d
23 gummistiefel t h e r e
24 Hel but l i k e W e l l i n g t o n s i =
25 T = and W e l l i n g t o n s , w e l l i e s eeh
26 Hel maybe w e l l i e s
27 T but eh US o r A u s t r a l i a n E n g l i s h have r u b b e r b o o t s (.) ((T i s
28 c h e c k i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o i n a d i c t i o n a r y ) ) b o r i n g , $1
29 mean w e l l i e s much b e t t e r , r i g h t $ ?
30 Ss gumboots, haha
31 T so W e l l i n g t o n s , w e l l i e s o r r u b b e r b o o t s . Okay, eeh on your head?
32 Ss a h a t
The teacher starts eliciting the word 'wellies' by describing the weather conditions in
which such boots are usually worn. The students do not respond, so in line 3 the teacher
gives them more hints ('British kind of shoes'). She reminds them of the context in which
the word was encountered, but neither this attempt achieves the desired outcome.
Therefore, in line 5, she reveals the word. However, Helena immediately initiates a repair
sequence in line 6 by stating that 'Wellington is meat', which is acknowledged with
laughter by her classmate Betty (Bet in the transcript) sitting next to her. Helena's
counter-informing (Heritage, 1984) and her blunt denial of the word may have caused the
teacher to start doubting her knowledge, so she reacts by asking a rhetorical question and
initiating a self-repair sequence in the following turn. The teacher finds the word in an
1
Peppa Pig is a British preschool animated television series by Astley Baker Davies which has been
broadcast since 2004 in over 180 countries. It features an anthropomorphic female piglet called Peppa and
her everyday adventures with her family and friends ("Peppa Pig," 2022)
49
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
online dictionary and turns her notebook in the direction of the students to show them
the picture. The students reply with the prolonged interjection 'oooh' in line 12, which
may indicate surprise, or a change-of-state token (Heritage, 1984) revealing that their
state of knowledge had been altered and they learned something new. The teacher
initiates her next turn by mentioning the admiral with the same name again, possibly in
an attempt to wrap up and close the sequence, but is interrupted by Helena in line 14 who
self-selects and starts to challenge the meaning of the word again by initiating another
repair sequence. The fact that she does not consider the issue to be resolved and pursues
it further indicates that her doubt may be very serious indeed. It looks as if neither the
teacher's expert knowledge nor the authoritative power of the dictionary as a language
resource had been able to dispel it. She offers a personal anecdote (Peppa Pig) in line 14
to prove her point and stress the implausibility of the existence of such a word. She
supports her view by saying that the word had never been used in the Peppa Pig series,
where it is most likely to be used, because the piglets are constantly jumping in mud, but
their shoes have never been called Wellingtons. Helena's reference to Peppa Pig which is
a British series, might suggest that she perceives it to be an equally reliable and authentic
source of knowledge on a par with the dictionary. The teacher replies in line 18 with a
partial repetition and a self-initiated repair with a cut-off, which could indicate surprise,
or a request for more information. Helena probably treats it as a confirmation of her view
because in line 19 she tries to come up with that other word used in the series ('I think
they call it'), suggesting that this is her epistemic domain (Heritage, 2012). However,
before she recalls the word, she is latched by the teacher in line 20, who offers her own
cross-cultural anecdote related to the same source, which could be interpreted as an
epistemic counterbalance ('but in German') and yet another reliable source of
50
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
authoritative knowledge. This could also indicate that the teacher is trying to persuade
Helena that such a word really exists and it is commonly used. In line 23 she provides the
German equivalent of the word Wellingtons, and Helena replies with the words 'but like
Wellingtons' with a falling intonation which may indicate that her negative feeling toward
the word still persists. The teacher reiterates the two words in line 25, and Helena
expresses her willingness to accept the short form 'wellies' in line 26 by saying 'maybe
wellies'. The teacher offers an alternative in the form of the Australian and US equivalent
of the word in line 27 ('rubber boots'). However, she adds with a smile that this word
sounds boring and wellies is a much better one. So, she closes the sequence on a positive
note in line 29, asking for confirmation. The students make up the word 'gumboots' in line
30 and laugh at it, while the teacher moves on to the next word on her list.
In this excerpt, the teacher and the student each occupy the same position on the
epistemic gradient (Heritage, 2012), but inhabit different territories. The teacher orients
to her domain of knowledge (the word Wellingtons with the meaning of boots), while
Helena's domain is a different one, though equally legitimate (the word Wellington with
the meaning of meat).
According to Reichert and Liebscher (2012), the participants enter the interaction with
their real or subjectively perceived knowledge about themselves and the others, their
histories and biographies. Their expertise and knowledge are negotiated and coconstructed
in the learning process, so "they rely on their learning histories and
previously constructed expertise to negotiate new knowledge".
51
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
This interaction may also reveal that apart from the dictionary as an authoritative source
of knowledge that offers support when resolving lexical issues, there could be another one
similarly authentic: reference to linguistic phenomena in British or American pop culture.
6.1.2 Student-initiated repair completed by the teacher without the help of an online
In this subsection, one example of a student-initiated repair resolved by the teacher will
be presented and analysed.
Excerpt 5 (5A811-338-367) is taken from the first 10 minutes of a lesson in which the
teacher is testing the students' knowledge of vocabulary which had been learned and
discussed in the previous lesson. In the part preceding this excerpt, she dictated several
Czech words, and the students were asked to translate them into English. In this
particular example, the trouble-source is the difference in meaning between the phrases
'take into account' and 'take into consideration' and the meaning of their Czech equivalent
'vzit v potaz'. Repair is initiated by the student Michal (Mich in the transcript) in line 10
and it is gradually repaired: the first attempt comes in lines 12-15, then in lines 19-20,
and it is finalized in lines 23 -24, partly with the help of another student, Terka (Ter in the
transcript). Even though the teacher looks up the words in an online dictionary, in this
particular excerpt it does not help resolve the problem.
dictionary
Excerpt 5
l T a::nd t h e l a s t two ((The t e a c h e r i s l o o k i n g a t h e r n o t e s ) ) (2.0)
v z i t něco v potaz
t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n ?2 Mich
3 T yeah, o r ?
(2.0)
(xx)lepši překlad, já jsem řekla t a k e i n t o - p o t a z j e i n t o
c o n s i d e r a t i o n o r t a k e i n t o t
4
5
6
52
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
7 (3.0)
8 S account=
9 T =account, yes
10 M i c h to j e a s i také vzít v potaz, nebo $já nevim$ . není to vzít v potaz?
11 T (T s i t s down a t h e r notebook)) I'm n o t sure w h i c h one i s w h i c h
12 i n Czech. But i t means t a k e - t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n l i k e t h i n
13 about i t ((T i s g e s t u r i n g w i t h h e r hands)) (.) when you a r e making
14 a d e c i s i o n , and t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t I would s a y (.) l i k e r e a l l y
15 f o l l o w - a h I d o n ' t - I c a n ' t e x p l a i n t h i s , i t ' s n o t so easy. Can
16 anyone e x p l a i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e ?
17 (3.0)
18 M i c h i s n ' t i t [ t h e same]
19 S [ I t h i n k ] =
20 T = a-a, i t ' s n o t c o m p l e t e l y t h e same, I remember i n my-in one o f
21 my a r t i c l e s my s u p e r v i s o r c o r r e c t e d i t , because I s a i d t a k e i n t o
22 c o n s i d e r a t i o n and he s a i d t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t
23 T e r neni account jako že se tim budete řidit=
24 T =no no no, tak to myslím, že se tim bude-tady se tim budu řídit
25 a t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n jenom to jako zvažte ((T i s l o o k i n g up
26 t h e p h r a s e s i n an o n l i n e d i c t i o n a r y and s t a r t s r e a d i n g t h e
27 d e f i n i t i o n o u t l o u d ) ) . t a k e something i n t o a c c o u n t i s t o c o n s i d e r
28 something when j u d g i n g a s i t u a t i o n , so i t d i d n ' t h e l p much (.)
29 j o , b u t - b u t t h a t ' s t h e d i f f e r e n c e , y e s . And t h e l a s t one, do you
30 know what c h i n o s are?
This extract starts with the teacher asking the students to come up with the English
translation of the Czech phrase Vzít v potaz'. The answer is immediately provided by the
student Michal (Mich in the transcript) in line 2 in the form of a confirmation request, with
a rising intonation. The teacher expresses agreement in line 3 with the acknowledgement
token 'yeah', but proceeds with the conjunction 'or' with an upward intonation which
suggests that his answer is not complete and that she is expecting something more. Her
elicitation is followed by a two-second pause which might be interpreted as a request for
clarification, so she initiates a self-repair sequence in line 5, with a cut-off on 'take into'
and an insertion of the word 'potaz'. It seems that by doing this, the teacher is explaining
the reason for the possible confusion that might have caused the silence in line 2 - she
claims to have used the word 'potaz', which is the correct translation of the English word
'consideration', but asks the students to come up with another phrase, also starting with
53
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
'take into'. Her explanation implies that the second phrase, which she is trying to elicit, is
not translated as 'potaz', but is slightly different. In line 8 another student provides the
expected answer and it is validated by the teacher in a latch in the following line. However,
the implied difference in meaning in line 5 is now problematized by the same student,
Michal, who self-selects in line 10. First, he states that the phrase 'take into account' also
means 'vzít v potaz', and then he expresses uncertainty by saying 'nebo já nevím' with a
smiley face, followed by a question tag which indicates that he is actually requesting
confirmation. The teacher's reply in line 11 reveals uncertainty because she openly states
that she is not sure about the meaning of the two phrases and the way they are translated
into Czech. At the same time, she sits down at her notebook to look up the phrases in a
dictionary. (This becomes clear later in the sequence, in lines 27 and 28). In line 12 she
starts to explain the difference by saying that to take something into consideration means
to think about it, whereas to take something into account means to 'really follow'. This is
followed by a self-initiated repair whose outcome is a cut-off and an abandonment. It may
indicate that she had given up on her attempt to finish explaining the difference. In line
15 she announces that she is not able to explain, and provides the reason for that ('it is
not easy'). She finishes her turn by delegating the repair (Wong & Waring, 2010) she had
just initiated and seeks its completion from the students by asking if anyone can explain
the difference. This repair initiation is followed by a three-second pause after which the
same student, Michal, self-selects and produces his turn with a negative interrogative
syntax (Heritage, 2012). This indicates his K+ position on the epistemic gradient and
could be interpreted as a request to be agreed with rather than a genuine request for
information. Another student makes an attempt to express his view, but is cut off and
latched by the teacher who rejects Michal's proposition by asserting the students that the
54
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
phrases are certainly not the same. She supports her explanation by providing a personal
anecdote from the time when she was a student and was writing her PhD thesis. She
remembered that the difference in meaning was pointed out to her by her thesis
supervisor. This could be interpreted as an attempt to enhance her epistemic status by
relating it to her academic experience as an authoritative source of knowledge.
Another student, Terka, self-selects in response to the teacher's previous turn and offers
an explanation for the meaning of'take into account' in line 23. This could be interpreted
as a second attempt at clarification. The teacher accepts it, expresses her concurrence and
expands on it in lines 24 and 25. Then she reads out loud the definition for the phrase
'take into account' from an online dictionary, but dismisses it as useless in line 28 ('it
didn't help much'). Given that none of the students make further comments, the teacher
brings the sequence to a close in line 29 by uttering the Czech colloquial affirmative 'jo'
and confirming the validity of the explanation she provided in lines 24 and 25. Then she
moves on to the next vocabulary item on her list.
What characterizes this interactional sequence are the multiple instances of self- and
other-initiated repair. The student launches other-initiated repair, whereas the teacher
engages in both self-initiated and delegated repair. Even though it is the teacher who
confirms and disconfirms students' responses and ensures that the exchange of
information is completed, she is not always in the position of a primary knower, despite
the institutional nature of the interaction (Nassaji & Wells, 2000). Nor is she the one who
always initiates sequences. The participants' epistemic roles are frequently subject to
negotiation and are dependent on the particular context. They have significant freedom
to choose when to participate in talk (Markee, 2000). The participants in this interaction
55
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
are actively involved in the negotiation of meaning and there is a joint effort in trying to
fix the lexical issue.
6.1.3 Student-initiated repair completed by another student
In this subsection, an excerpt in which a student-initiated repair sequence is resolved by
another student is presented. Excerpt 6 (5A1111-268-286) was taken from a vocabulary
lesson whose main focus was on clothes vocabulary, and in particular adjectives used to
describe clothes.
The trouble-source is the meaning and the usage of the word 'immaculate', with respect
to its register. The word is brought up by one of the students, and its meaning and usage
become subject to clarification requests and subsequent repair.
Excerpt 6
1 T smart?
2 Ann dumb
3 T hahaha, b u t when we a r e t a l k i n g about c l o t h e s what does i t mean
4 to-what does i t mean?
5 Jana immaculate
6 T ooh, wow, t h a t ' s a word. Do you know-do t h e o t h e r s know what i t
7
8 Jana
means, i m m a c u l a t e - t h i s i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y =
= i t ' s i n t e r n e t s l a n g
9 T r e a l l y ?
10 Mat no::::, immaculate i s proper=
11 T = i t ' s l i k e p e r f e c t , w i t h o u t =
12 Mat =but i t ' s p r o p e r E n g l i s h , no?
13 T yeah, and t h a t ' s proper=
14 Jana = i t i s , b u t i t ' s a l s o =
15 T = i t used t o be p r o p e r E n g l i s h =
16 Jana =but i t ' s a l s o w i d e l y used on t h e i n t e r n e t I would say
17 T r i g h t , uh-huh
18 Jana l i k e t h e v i b e s a r e immaculate
19 T ooh, okay. A g a i n , I'm l e a r n i n g something h e r e , hahaha, good.
56
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
At the beginning of the sequence, the teacher elicits the meaning of the word 'smart' in the
context of clothes vocabulary. Anna (Ann in the transcript) immediately responds by
providing its antonym 'dumb' in line 2, suggesting that she knows what the meaning of
'smart' is, i.e., a synonym to intelligent. The teacher reacts with laughter implying that
Anna's attempt to describe the meaning of the word was a good try, but not the right one
in the given context. The teacher's immediate reaction in the form of laughter could also
suggest that she might be using it as a substitute for a direct rejection of the answer, or
negative assessment (Petitjean & Martinez, 2000). The teacher proceeds to fish for the
correct answer by reminding the students that she is looking for its meaning in the context
of clothes. Another student, Jana, instantly answers by providing the word 'immaculate'
in line 5. The teacher provides a third-turn evaluation by expressing surprise (ooh, wow,
that's a word) implying that she didn't expect a student to know such advanced piece of
vocabulary. As she probably considers the word to be uncommon, she initiates a
pedagogical, delegated repair (Kasper, 1986), passing its completion onto the other
students in the class. Her repair initiation consists of a self-repair with a cut-off on 'do you
know', probably as a result of her having to deal with a local and immediate contingency
(Lee, 2007) and deciding on a moment-by-moment basis to initiate a delegated repair
instead of providing the answer on her own, so that the rest of the class could be involved
as well.
Jana immediately comes up with an explanation in the following turn, describing it as
'internet slang'. The teacher responds with the exclamation 'really' with a rising
intonation, implying big surprise, and is immediately latched by Mat in line 9 who
expresses a strong rejection of Jana's statement with a prolonged 'no'. His rejection and
57
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
the subsequent exclamation 'immaculate is proper', suggest that he is problematising the
register of the word, which he considers to be standard English, and not slang thus
initiating a repair sequence in line 9. The teacher responds to it with an affirmative 'yeah,
that's proper', implying that she accepts his comment and agrees with him. In the next
turn, Jana also expresses agreement that the word is used in standard English by saying
'it is', but adding 'but it's also' suggests that she wants to argue her point further and
provide more support for her claim. She is latched by the teacher in line 14 who says that
the word used to be proper English. This could be interpreted as a confirmation of Mat's
view and her knowledge of its commonly-known meaning but also as an implication that
she concedes that the meaning and use of the word might have changed over time, thus
expressing acceptance of the proposition made by Jana. In line 15, Jana reiterates her
previous claim, and her adding of 'I would say' implies that she is the role of the knowing
expert in this interaction (Reichert & Liebscher, 2012). The teacher accepts this in the
next turn by saying 'right, uh-huh' and this could have served as an encouragement for
Jana to further support her claim by providing an example of its use in line 17 ('like the
vibes are immaculate'). The teacher closes the sequence with the acknowledgment token
'okay' and a personal remark that she had learned something new.
An interesting aspect in this sequence is the fact that the meaning of the word 'immaculate'
is hardly explained, apart from the single attempt by the teacher in line 10 where she says,
'it's like perfect, without'. The dynamic negotiation is mostly about its register and the
question whether it is part of standard language or slang. Although Jana does not provide
a clear explanation regarding its different meaning as an internet slang, both the teacher
and the students seem to automatically accept her as the knowing expert in this case. The
58
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
question is whether this is not due to the fact that Jana supports her claim by referring to
its use on the internet, which might be perceived as an authentic and authoritative source
of knowledge, especially by EFL learners.
The only issue which arises in this sequence seems to be the insistence to have its
standard English meaning confirmed. It is also surprising that the teacher, except for her
initial surprise with the proposed meaning, seems to take Jana's proposition for granted
and does not challenge it further. This is interesting because this is the same teacher who
relies on her online dictionary quite significantly and uses it every time a lexical issue
comes about, especially with this group of students. On the other hand, foreign language
internet slang is something which is not only language-, but also age-specific, so for a nonnative
teacher of English of a certain age it may be extremely time-consuming, if not
impossible, to search for and confirm the validity in terms of meaning of such and similar
student-presented lexical items. This could be the reason why the only sensible solution
is to accept it and enable the interaction to move forward.
In summary, the repair sequences in section 6.1 are other-initiated by the students and
they are all concerned with the meaning, use or Czech and English equivalents to lexical
trouble-sources. In all of the examples presented above, the students self-select and
initiate repair by asking the teacher directly to provide them with the meaning of the
specific vocabulary item, or by partially repeating the trouble source, by making
clarification and confirmation checks, and in one example by counter-informing. The
repair process which is subsequently triggered turns the trouble-sources into objects of
learning that all the students may benefit from. The students and the teacher perform
their institutional roles: the students by being language learners who turn to the more
59
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
knowledgeable person, the teacher, for help; and the teacher by being the professional
who has the final say in providing solutions to problems, and opening and closing
sequences.
The solutions to the lexical issues raised by the students in the course of the interaction
are often provided by their classmates and subsequently dealt by and/or confirmed by
the teacher. When the teacher expresses uncertainty over the meaning or use of certain
lexical items, she turns to the online dictionary for help, and the results yielded by the
online dictionary word search are accepted by the students. Both the teacher and the
students enter the interaction with their personal knowledge of the world, experience and
expertise and their epistemic knowledge is revealed in the course of the repair.
60
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
6.2 Teacher-initiated repair
This section presents four excerpts with sequences of teacher-initiated repair. In the first
subsection 6.2.1, there are two excerpts in which the repair was initiated and resolved by
the teacher with the help of an online dictionary, and the second subsection, 6.2.2, features
two excerpts with teacher-initiated repair resolved by a student.
6.2.1 Teacher-initiated repair resolved by the teacher with a help of an online
dictionary
The first example in this subsection, excerpt 7 (5A1111-233-243), was taken from a
vocabulary lesson in which the main focus was on items of clothes worn on the head. The
students were engaged in a brainstorming session and they were shouting out their
answers. The trouble-source in this excerpt is the meaning of the word 'balaclava'
provided by one of the students in line 3 and resolved by the teacher with the help of a
dictionary in line 11.
Excerpt 7
1 Tom bandanna?
2 T huh? =
3 Mat = b a l a c l a v a , do you c a l l i t t h a t way?
4 T we a r e - a f t e r t h i s l e s s o n we a r e g o i n g t o be e x p e r t s i n c l o t h i n g
5 ((T w a l k s towards h e r n o t e b o o k ) ) , how-what d i d you say?
6 Mat b a l a c l a v a (..) you [can p u t i t ]
7 T [I always] c o n f u s e i t w i t h eeh, l i k e t h e d e s s e r t ? =
8 Jana b a k l a v a
9 T yeah, haha ((T i s l o o k i n g t h e word up i n h e r notebook))
10 (3.0)
11 yeah b a l a c l a v a , b a l a c l a v a yeah (..) and i t ' s s p e l l e d l i k e t h i s
12 ((T i s w r i t i n g t h e word on t h e b l a c k b o a r d ) )
13 S h i j a b ?
The sequence starts when one of the students, Tom, offers the word bandanna in line 1.
However, at that moment in the video recording the teacher is far from the student and
61
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
the class is quite noisy, so that might be the reason why she only responds with an open
class repair initiator huh? with a rising intonation. This could be interpreted either as a
hearing issue or a lack of understanding and a request for repetition. However, this turn
is immediately latched by Mat who brings forward the word balaclava in line 3, so the
repair initiation by the teacher from line 1 is abandoned. Mat accompanies the suggested
word with a question ('do you call it that way') which, in this case, implies a request for
confirmation. The teacher walks towards her notebook and expresses a personal
comment that they are all going to become experts at clothing after that lesson. This could
imply that she cannot provide a confirmation at that moment and is not sure of the exact
meaning of the word. Then she other-initiates repair with a wh- interrogative in line 5,
which is an embedded self-initiated repair with a cut-off and an abandonment ('how-what
did you say?'). Mat repeats the word 'balaclava' and attempts to explain its meaning
possibly in response to the teacher's-initiated repair in line 6, but is overlapped by the
teacher who says that she always confuses this word with another one, meaning dessert.
The implied word, baklava, is immediately supplied by Jana in line 8, and is acknowledged
and accepted by the teacher in the next turn. There is a three-second pause in which the
teacher is looking at her notebook. Then, she confirms the word 'balaclava' and repeats it
twice, emphasizing the stress on the third syllable after which she points out the spelling
and writes it on the board. The lesson continues when another student self-selects and
offers the word 'hijab'.
This excerpt could serve as an example of learning in social interaction, when a troublesource
lexical item is turned into an object of learning, mainly thanks to the teacher's on-
62
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
the-spot decision to accept it as something worth pedagogically focusing on, similarly to
the situation in excerpt 3.
The teacher's behaviour shows certain consistency in the excerpts analysed so far. When
a lexical item is brought up by a student and the teacher considers it relevant to the
pedagogical task at hand, but is not sure of the meaning or use of the word, she turns to
the dictionary for clarification, as in the case above. However, when a lexical item is
brought up by some of the students whose meaning the teacher is confident about, she
engages in pedagogical repair in the form of a delegated repair, as in excerpts 5 and 6, for
example.
The second example, in excerpt 8 (5A1111-424-458), comes from one of the vocabulary
lessons on clothes and features a very similar case. The repair sequence analysed below
is the only example in this study in which the teacher engages in a self-initiated self-repair
and the resolution is again provided with the help of the dictionary. The teacher's aim is
to elicit the word 'drying rack', but the students take the interaction into a slightly
different direction. The trouble-source is the word 'tumble dryer'. The repair sequence
starts in line 16 and it is self-initiated and self-repaired by the teacher in lines 27 - 30.
Excerpt 8
1 T OK, hang c l o t h e s up, t e l l me q u i c k l y
2 Mon I n e v e r do t h a t
3 T you n e v e r - y o u n e v e r do t h a t j [ y o u use, what do you use] i n s t e a d
4 B e t [ I do t h a t a f t e r i r o n i n g ]
5 Mon a c h a i r , I j u s t t h r e w i t on a c h a i r
6 T oh, okay, I d i d n ' t e x p e c t t h a t , haha
7 Ss hahaha
8 T okay, t h e r e i s a machine, r i g h t ?
9 Anna machine? =
10 Mon = [washing machine]
11 S [ d r y e r ]
63
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
12 T but a f t e r w a r d s when you want i t - w h e n you want [your c l o t h e s t o
d r y you]
13 Bet [ d r y e r ]
14 Ss d r y e r =
15 Mon = d r y i n g machine
16 T (xx) tumble-dr-=
17 Jan =dryer=
18 T =to tumble d r y i s t o - ((T i s t y p i n g on h e r notebook))
19 Ss ( X X )
20 T I've j u s t f o r g o t t e n t h e word
21 (3.0)
22 Ss sušička
23 T t u m b l e - d r y e r , what i s i t ? ((T i s l o o k i n g a t h e r notebook))
24 Jana i s n ' t i t j u s t a d r y e r ?
25 Mon I t h i n k i t ' s a d r y e r
26 Tom jo
27 T i t ' s a tumble d r y e r , I was r i g h t . I j u s t need t o t r u s t m y s e l f ,
28 haha ((The T i s w r i t i n g t h e word on t h e word, w i t h two s p e l l i n g s :
29 d r y e r and d r i e r ) ) so i t ' s a tumble d r y e r l i k e t h i s o r l i k e t h i s ,
30 and i n A m e r i c a n E n g l i s h j u s t d r y e r
31 Ss ah, yes
32 Tom here we go
33 T t o tumble d r y i s l i k e - i t says sometimes on your c l o t h e s do n o t
34 tumble d r y , r i g h t ? But i t ' s n o t v e r y e c o - f r i e n d l y , i s i t ?
35 Mon d o e s n ' t s m e l l good
The aim of this activity is to revise vocabulary learnt in the previous lesson. The students
are expected to supply the vocabulary item for each of the definitions given by the teacher
The teacher starts this sequence by trying to elicit the word 'drying rack' and she provides
a definition for it in line 1. Providing definitions for specific vocabulary and asking the
students to say the word is this teacher's common practice and the students are used to
this way of revising vocabulary. However, Monica (Mon in the transcript) self-selects and
says that she never does that. Her answer reveals that she had misunderstood the
teacher's elicitation by assuming that the requested word is a 'clothes hanger' as it is
confirmed in the following lines. Moreover, she does not answer the question directly by
providing the expected vocabulary item, but rather seems to initiate a topic for
conversation. However, although her response is not exactly what had been expected, the
64
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
teacher reacts to it by changing her pedagogical focus, which is checking the students'
knowledge of the particular vocabulary item, and asking Monica a referential question in
line 3. This obviously encourages participation by another student, Betty (Bet in the
transcript) in line 4, who says that she does that only after ironing, i.e., putting the clothes
on a clothes hanger. This answer confirms that Monica was not the only student to
misunderstand the word elicited by the teacher. In line 5, Monica answers the teacher's
question by saying that she only throws her clothes on a chair. The teacher laughs and
provides third-turn evaluation expressing her personal opinion and using the
acknowledgement token 'okay' (Beach, 1993) which in this case likely signals closing the
preceding sequence and moving on to a new topic. In line 8 the teacher goes back to her
original agenda by continuing to elicit the same vocabulary item. It seems that by saying
'okay, there is a machine, right', she wants to point at the chronological order in which the
activities are performed, where the 'drying rack' comes after the clothes have been
washed. However, to this, the student Anna responds with a repetition of the word in line
9 suggesting uncertainly or a clarification request. Two more students in lines 10 and 11
join in with their contributions which now leads to the assumption that the teacher is
eliciting a word related to a machine used for drying clothes. The teacher steers the
interaction back to the word she has in mind in line 12 by providing another hint
('afterwards, when you want your clothes to dry'). This obviously does not help because
the teacher's turn is followed by Betty in line 13 offering the word 'dryer' and more
students repeating the same word in line 14. Another contribution is provided by Monica
in line 15 in the form of 'drying machine'. There are some overlaps in this part of the lesson
as the students are shouting out their answers. By this time, it may have become clear that
the vocabulary focus had shifted from what the teacher had originally intended, so she
65
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
joins the word search by trying to recall the word the students are obviously aiming at,
which is a 'tumble dryer'. In line 16, she utters the first part of the word but abandons it
with a cut-off implying that she is not sure of its exact form. Another student, Jan, repeats
the word 'dryer' in line 17 while the teacher is already looking the word up in an online
dictionary. In line 18, she is thinking out loud by suggesting that she is aware of the
existence of the verb 'to tumble dry' but may need to check its meaning. While she is doing
that, she says that she 'has forgotten the word' in line 20, which could be interpreted as
an explanation for bringing the interaction to a halt and the three second pause that
follows. Her claim of no knowledge seems to have encouraged the students in line 22 to
take part in the interaction. They may have interpreted the teacher's CIK as an initiation
of repair, so they provide a solution in the form of the Czech translation 'sušička'. The
teacher asks a rhetorical question while looking for the answer online in line 23, and at
the same time more students (Jana, Monika and Tom) self-select to provide a solution in
lines 24,25 and 26 by revealing their epistemic stance. The teacher announces the answer
in lines 27 - 30 by confirming the word 'tumble dryer' and providing more information
related to its spelling and the difference between British and American English. The
students accept it in line 31 and the teacher moves the interaction forward by expanding
on the use of the tumble dryer and expressing environmental concerns.
This repair sequence is another example of a joint effort to deal with a trouble-source in
classroom interaction and another demonstration of the online dictionary being an
indispensable tool for learning in EFL classrooms. The teacher's openness to her students'
contributions and her flexible approach help turn the repairable into an object of learning.
The online dictionary does not only help the teacher satisfy the students' immediate
66
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
learning needs, but also provides additional input which the teacher utilizes and thus
broadens the learning experience.
6.2.2 Teacher-initiated repair resolved by a student
The sequence in excerpt 9 (5A1111-125-136) comes from one of the lessons on clothes
vocabulary in which the students were asked to brainstorm words related to footwear.
The trouble-source is the spelling of the word 'stiletto', which was brought forward by
one of the students. The repair sequence is initiated by the teacher and repaired by a
student, with the teacher's assistance.
Excerpt 9
1 T and on your f e e t ?
2 S socks
3 T yeah
4 Jana s t i l e t t o s =
5 T = s t i l e t t o s ?
6 Jana uh-huh
7 T w i t h d o u b l e / t / l i k e t h i s , r i g h t ? ((T i s w r i t i n g t h e word on t h e
8 board))
9 Jana I t h i n k - i s n ' t i t d o u b l e / l / ? (..) I don't know, l e t me check t h a t ,
10 i t ' s w e i r d
11 T and I'm n o t s u r e about t h i s e i t h e r , hahaha ((T i s p o i n t i n g a t t h e
12 l e t t e r / e / i n t h e w o r d ) ) , so check the p l u r a l , Cambridge o n l i n e
13 d i c t i o n a r y i s b e t t e r f o r t h i s one ((T i s l o o k i n g up t h e word i n
14 the d i c t i o n a r y ) )
15 Jana i t ' s d o u b l e / t / , and o n l y /o/
16 T ah, a-ha, thank you
At the beginning of the sequence the teacher is eliciting examples of footwear by asking a
question in line 1. A student self-selects and offers the word 'socks'. The teacher accepts
it with the acknowledgment token 'yeah' in line 3. Then another student, Jana, comes up
with the word 'stilettos' in line 4. The teacher initiates other-repair by repeating the
67
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
trouble-source in line 5 with a rising intonation, which indicates uncertainty. It seems that
Jana interprets this as a hearing issue or a request for confirmation, so she confirms it by
uttering 'uh-huh' in line 6. In this sequence, the teacher is standing in front of the board,
so she starts writing the word and initiates repair in line 7 by asking Jana to confirm the
correct spelling, i.e., whether the word is spelled with a double /t/. By asking a question,
the teacher is positioning herself in the role of the unknown participant, whereas Jana's
role is that of the knowing expert, because she is the one who is assumed to know the
answer. This is in contrast with the general view of the classroom as an institutional
setting in which the teacher assumes the role of the professional and that of the knowing
expert (Heritage & Clayman, 2010).
Jana makes an attempt at resolving the repair in line 9, in the form of a question tag and
an embedded self-initiated repair with a cut-off. She suggests writing a double / l / , but
then expresses uncertainly by claiming insufficient knowledge ('I don't know') and asks
for permission to check the word. She also expresses uncertainty by saying 'it's weird'.
The teacher admits that she is not sure about the spelling of the word either, not only with
reference to the letters /t/ and / l / in the middle of the word, but also with regard to the
spelling of the plural form, because the teacher points atthe letter /e/ in the plural ending
she had written on the board. The teacher also advises Jana on the source, and
recommends Cambridge dictionary online in line 12, which could be interpreted as
providing expert advice. Jana announces the correct spelling in line 15, which the teacher
acknowledges and goes on to close the sequence.
68
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
In this excerpt, the spelling of the word 'stilettos' becomes a shared pedagogical focus
(Majlesi & Broth, 2012). The epistemic status of the interactants, in this case the teacher
and the student, is being negotiated in the course of the interaction.
Excerpt 10 (3C811-89-124) comes from a lesson in which the students were looking at
personality adjectives in the broader context of the topic on stereotypes, and were asked
to determine which of them are often used to describe teenagers, and which are used
more often in connection to elderly people. The trouble-source is the difference in the
meaning of the words 'narrow-minded' and 'stubborn'. The repair sequence is initiated
by the teacher in line 21, and completed by the student Petr in line 28.
Excerpt 10
1 T yeah (.).h what does i t mean t o be narrow-minded? because i t ' s
2 not an easy word
3 Ss ( X X )
4 T d'you remembert (.) i t ' s t h e o p p o s i t e o f what?
5 Tom uzkoprsy
6 T yeah, and I'm n o t r e a l l y sure $what i t means i n Czech$ ((T s t a r t s
7
8
l a u g h i n g ) ) eeeh, h o - i s anyone a b l e t o e x p l a i n i t i n E n g l i s h (.)
what narrow-minded meansi
9 Tom w e l l l i k e someone who d o e s n ' t r e a l l y change h i s o p i n i o n s
10 T yeah, e x a c t l y ( ( n o d d i n g ) ) , p e o p l e who don't change t h e i r o p i n i o n s
11 who [don't a c c e p t new] o p i n i o n s ,
12 Tom [presne uzkoprsy]
13 T so t h e o p p o s i t e i s |
14 Jan stubborn=
15 T = I mean, i t ' s c o n n e c t e d w i t h [ i t ]
16 SI [open-]minded
17 T yes.hh would we d e s c r i b e as r a t h e r s t u b b o r n i f you don't change
18 your mind? eeh change y o u r o p i n i o n s
19 Tom w e l l maybe s t u b b o r n i s l i k e - s t u b b o r n i s l i k e an argument, I mean
20 (.) more t h a n narrow-minded
21 T ma:ybej. w e l l narrow-minded i s - i s l i k e you a r e u n - w e l l (.) i t ' s
22 s i m i l a r a c t u a l l y ((T l o o k i n g up))
23 Ss mm ( ( t h e y a r e a l l l o o k i n g a t t h e t e a c h e r ) )
24 T hahaha ((T s t a r t s l a u g h i n g ) ) b u t narrow-minded i : : s l i k e you-eeh
25 no, i t i s s i m i l a r
26 P e t r i t ' s t h e way you t h i n k
27 T mhm? ((T t u r n s towards P e t r and p o i n t s a t h i m w i t h h e r hand))
69
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
28 P e t r the way you t h i n k i n g e n e r a l
yes (.)• i n g e n e r a l , t h a t you a r e u n w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t any new
i d e a s , you a r e n o t v e r y l i b e r a l , uh-hu::m. I t h i n k we a l l f e e l
the d i f f e r e n c e , b u t we a r e - e e h i n c l u d i n g me I'm u n a b l e t o e x p l a i n
i t v e r y w e l l ((T s t a r t s l a u g h i n g ) ) . $ I ' l l t h i n k about i t $ andbut
yeah, I would s a y t h a t t h e s t e r e o t y p e i s t h a t o l d p e o p l e - o r
the e l d e r l y a r e u n w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t new i d e a s , so t h e y are narrowminded
(...) eehm b u t i t ' s c o n n e c t e d w i t h b e i n g s t u b b o r n , I t h i n k ,
s e l f - c e n t r e d ?
29 T
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
The teacher starts the sequence by asking the students what the meaning of 'narrowminded'
is. She then adds that it is not an easy word, which could imply justification for
her decision to devote some classroom time on it. The students don't provide an answer,
so she continues with her elicitation effort in line 4 by directing their focus to the antonym
of the word ('it's the opposite of what'?). Tom replies with the Czech word 'uzkoprsy' in
the following turn (line 5), suggesting that he knows what the meaning of'narrow-minded'
is. The teacher replies by expressing uncertainty and saying with a smiley face that she is
not sure what the meaning of 'uzkoprsy' is in Czech. Then she initiates a pedagogical,
delegated repair on Tom's turn in 5, which could indicate that she is not sure whether the
rest of the class knows the meaning of the word, so this could be interpreted as an attempt
at remedy. Tom provides repair outcome in line 9 by explaining that it refers to those who
do not want to change their opinions. The teacher acknowledges and accepts his answer,
and also expands on it in lines 10 and 11. She then continues to pursue the answer to the
question she posed in line 4, i.e., what is the opposite meaning of 'narrow-minded'. To this,
another student, Jan, responds in line 14 by offering the word 'stubborn'. The teacher
rejects it implicitly in line 15 by conceding that that word is somehow connected to the
one she is looking for. The correct answer is finally provided by a student SI in the
following turn. However, it seems that the word 'stubborn' had caught the teacher's
attention because despite receiving the answer she had been originally eliciting ('open-
70
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
minded'), she directs the focus of the interaction back to the word 'stubborn' in line 17
and asks the students whether it could be used to describe someone who is narrowminded.
This is the turn when she starts to problematise the extent to which these two
words are interchangeable in meaning and the beginning of a repair initiation sequence.
Tom again self-selects in line 19 and contributes to the repair outcome by saying that
'stubborn is like an argument more than narrow-minded'. The teacher validates his reply
only partially by saying 'maybe' with a falling intonation, suggesting that there could be
another explanation. She then starts to provide an explanation in line 21, whose second
part is a self-initiated repair with a cut-off on 'is' and a subsequent abandonment. By
saying that the meaning of the two words is similar, the teacher implies that she is not in
a position to explain the meaning, whereas her taking her gaze off the students and
looking up could be interpreted as a display of thinking. The students are looking at the
teacher, but there are no comments or turn initiations. The teacher makes another selfinitiated
repair in line 24, but arrives at the same conclusion in line 21, by repeating that
the meaning of the words is similar. The repair outcome is provided by Petr in line 26 with
the statement 'it's the way you think'. The teacher responds to his answer with the nonverbal
acknowledgement token 'mhm' with a rising intonation, which could be
interpreted as a display of listenership or an invitation to extend his turn. Petr provides a
longer explanation in line 28 by saying that 'it is the way you think in general'. The teacher
accepts his answer in the following turn with a straightforward 'yes', by repeating the
supplement 'in general', which may suggest that this is the exact word which could finally
clarify the definition of 'narrow-minded'. She expands on it in lines 29-30. In line 31, she
expresses her uncertainly again by stressing that she is not able to explain in well, thus
claiming insufficient knowledge. In line 32 she says that she would think about it, which
71
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
suggests that she may be not be entirely satisfied with the explanations provided until
then and she would continue to look for a better one. She summarizes the issue in lines
34 and 35 and mentions again that the word 'narrow-minded' is in a way similar to
'stubborn'. The sequence is finally closed in line 36 when the teacher moves on to the next
word on her agenda.
The interaction taking place in this excerpt could be interpreted as a joined effort by the
teacher and the students to come up with a satisfying explanation of the difference in
meaning between the words 'narrow-minded' and 'stubborn'. The solution is presented
by a student, and the teacher almost accepts it, but she promises the students that she
would think about it and possibly let them know later, which implies that she is not
entirely satisfied with the resolution. By doing that, she is asserting her role of the
language professional as well as her epistemic supremacy in the interaction, deciding on
the appropriacy and acceptability of the answers offered by the students and the amount
of time which she is willing to set aside for their discussion and resolution.
The excerpts presented in 6.2. feature teacher-initiated repair sequences, which are either
resolved by the teacher with the help of an online dictionary or by a student. The teacher
initiates repair by using open-class repair initiators such as huh? as in excerpt 7, by
repetitions and partial repetitions of the trouble source, cut-offs sometimes accompanied
by a wh-interrogative (how-what did you say?), asking the students to provide an
explanation or a definition (as in excerpt 10) and claiming insufficient knowledge (excerpt
8). When that happens, the students get the chance to take on the role of an expert and
provide solutions. At the same time, another source of expert knowledge is taken
advantage of in the process of repair and that is the English online dictionary. However,
72
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
the teacher and the students' institutional roles remain stable and unwavering in that the
students are there to learn the language and are active in their role of language learners
and the teacher is the one who is expected to teach them and the ultimate responsibilty
to achieve that goal rests with her.
73
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
7 Discussion and conclusion
As outlined in the introduction of Chapter 1, the aim of this thesis was to investigate repair
practices employed by the teacher and her students, all of whom are non-native speakers
of English, in an advanced EFL secondary school classroom in the Czech Republic, and pay
special attention to the following: how do the teacher and her students initiate and
conduct repair, i.e., what particular repair strategies they use when trouble-sources, or
utterances perceived as problematic, arise in the course of the interaction; does their
epistemic status and the institutional character of the interaction play a role in the process,
and in what way focus on repair could encourage student involvement and learning.
In the context of classroom interaction, learning is seen as a social process, i.e., a cognitive
and social activity that takes place in interaction with other participants, while language
is a key tool in the learning process which helps in the construction of understanding. In
educational settings the social process of learning is mainly conducted between the
teacher and the student(s) or between the students themselves. This understanding of the
processes of learning based on the sociocultural theory of learning was presented in
Chapter 2.
The concept of repair was presented in Chapter 3 and it was discussed with reference to
the practices that the speakers use when dealing with any problems in hearing, speaking
and understanding the talk in conversation and other forms of talk-in-interaction. In the
context of classroom interaction, repair practices fall under the category of pedagogical
repair, which is usually other-initiated either by the teacher or the students and its main
goal is to facilitate learning. Previous research has shown that by conducting repair, the
74
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
participants take part in the process of negotiation of meaning and co-construction of
mutual understanding which is key to the process of learning in interaction. Repair
practices are considered to be one of the major components of interactional competence
and one of the key resources for learning a new language.
An overview of literature relevant to this thesis was presented in Chapter 4. Some of the
findings of research into repair have shown that the repair strategies the speakers use to
deal with breakdowns in communication depend on the environment in which the
interaction is taking place, i.e., whether it is a mundane conversation between friends and
acquaintances in an informal context, or a more formal interaction taking place in an
institutional setting. In the latter case, the interaction is influenced by the institutional
roles of the participants, e.g., in educational institutions that is the role of teachers and
students in the classroom. Another important factor influencing repair organization and
management has shown to be the epistemic status of the participants and their
orientation to epistemic stance in interaction, i.e., their personal, specialized knowledge
and expertise that is enacted and becomes relevant in the course of the interaction.
For the purposes of this study, 10 illustrative examples featuring student and teacherinitiated
repair sequences were presented and analysed in Chapter 6. They were selected
from 180-minute-long video and audio recordings of EFL lessons made in a 6-year
grammar school in the Czech Republic which were transcribed and analysed using the
methodology of Conversation Analysis. The process of their collection, selection,
transcription and analysis was presented in chapter 5.
75
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
The excerpts were categorized into two main sections based on the trajectory of the repair
sequence, and were further divided into three and two subsections respectively, based on
the way in which the trouble-source was repaired.
Section 6.1. presented a total of six excerpts of student-initiated repair which were further
divided into three subsections, depending on whether the repair was completed by the
teacher with the help of a dictionary (6.1.1), without the help of a dictionary (6.1.2), or the
repair was completed by a student (6.1.3).
Section 6.2 presented four excerpts of teacher-initiated repair with two subsections: 6.2.1
comprises of teacher-initiated repair sequences resolved with the help of a dictionary,
and 6.2.2 teacher-initiated repair sequences resolved by a student.
Based on the data analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:
The repair sequences in 6.1 were all other-initiated by one of the students whereas the
repair sequences in 6.2, except for excerpt 8, were other-initiated by the teacher. In both
sections, the repair was initiated on a trouble-source in the form of a lexical item whose
meaning use, register or translation into Czech or English was problematised in the
course of the interaction. In most of the cases presented in the data, the students selfselected
and initiated repair in the form of an understanding check with a rising
intonation (as in excerpt 1), repetition of the trouble-source (excerpts 1 and 8), a direct
request for a specific vocabulary item (excerpt 2), a confirmation request with a rising
intonation (excerpts 2,3,5) or a clarification request (excerpt 6). These repair initiators
all point to the trouble-source in a very straightforward way, and this is what
distinguishes them from the rather non-specific repair initiators used by LI speakers in
76
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
everyday, mundane conversations. On the other hand, when the teacher engages in otherinitiation
of repair in excerpt 7, she uses an open-class repair initiator (huh?) which is
highly non-specific and is said to be common in repair sequences taking place between LI
speakers in informal, everyday talk. In this respect, the results are in line with the findings
from previous research, particularly the study by Liebscher and Dailey-O'Cain (2003)
outlined in Chapter 4, which states that the teacher and the students in classroom
interaction use different repair initiators, with direct repair initiators being fairly
characteristic of repair conducted by the students in classroom interaction and open-class
repair initiators used mainly by teachers.
The repair strategies employed by the students in the data emphasize their institutional
roles because they are 'doing being the language learner' (Koshik & Seo, 2012) by using
repair as a learning tool, i.e., to resolve uncertainly or confusion and learn new vocabulary.
Another aspect of the interaction that underlines the institutional roles of the students
and the teacher is the fact that the teacher is viewed as the expert participant who is
expected to confirm the validity of an answer and provide solutions to trouble-sources.
Even when another student provides a correct answer or offers a satisfactory solution, as
in excerpt 2, the teacher is the one who not only has the final say in what is and what is
not an acceptable solution, but she also decides how much pedagogical time will be
dedicated to coming up with a resolution, at what point during the interaction the
resolution will be provided and when the repair sequence will be closed down. This is the
case in excerpt 2 in which the teacher decides to postpone the repair of the trouble-source
to a later time so that the interaction does not get side-tracked and can move forward, and
a similar occurrence takes place in excerpt 10.
77
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
When lexical ambiguities as trouble-sources arise in the course of the interaction, both
the teacher and the students reveal their epistemic status by claiming insufficient
knowledge (CIK) or expressing uncertainty, saying 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure' (e.g., in
excerpts 3, 8, 9). In such cases, the teacher usually turns to the online dictionary to look
for the answer and this usually brings results by clearing up uncertainties and learning
something new (excerpts 1,2 and 3). Hence, despite the institutional character of the
interaction, the teacher in her expert role is not always in the position of a primary
knower, as suggested in the study by Nassaji and Wells (2000), nor is she the one who
always initiates repair sequences, as the repair examples in section 6.1 reveal. On the
contrary, the epistemic roles of the teacher and the students are under constant
negotiation and are locally constructed, i.e., they always depend on the specific context
(Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2014).
In addition, although the classroom interaction is characterized by frontal teaching style,
the students often self-select to initiate repair and aim to assert their epistemic status in
the form of confirmation checks and confirmation requests (as in excerpt 3 and 5). These
interactional practices imply self-confidence which may stem from their high L2
proficiency. They also claim their epistemic status by referring to the dictionary (excerpt
3), British pop culture: animated television series (excerpt 4), and internet slang (excerpt
6).
As regards providing repair solutions, it is mainly the teacher who resolves troublesources
by looking up the problematic lexical items in an online dictionary or asking the
students to provide a solution (as in excerpt 5). The teacher orients to the dictionary when
she claims insufficient knowledge or verbally expresses uncertainty by saying 'I'm not
78
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
sure'. However, when the teacher is confident about the correct answer, she engages in
pedagogical, or so-called delegated repair (Kasper, 1986), i.e., turns to the other students
in the class and invites them to provide an answer (excerpt 6).
On the whole, in most of the excerpts presented in this study, the repair processes
triggered by lexical items perceived as problematic are turned into objects of learning by
the teacher. As they mostly occur unplanned during the interaction, the teacher makes onthe-spot
decisions to accept them as learning opportunities worth of shared pedagogical
focus by consciously deciding to spend some time on their clarification, explanation and
definition, which leads to the whole class learning something that they did not know at
the beginning of the interaction. The teacher's claim of insufficient knowledge or
expressions of uncertainly seem to serve as an indirect encouragement for greater
students'involvement (excerpts 5 and 10). Most of the repair solutions are provided with
the support of an online dictionary whose results are accepted by the students. The online
dictionary is not only used as a teaching resource for clearing up misunderstanding,
resolving uncertainties and providing answers, but also as a tool which may help to foster
the teacher's confidence, strengthen her professionalism and indirectly teach the students
learning strategies based on dictionary use. However, only in one instance (excerpt 4), a
reference to British pop culture as authentic source of knowledge was given priority over
the dictionary, although the fact that the lexical item does occur in it and the students
were shown the word together with an image could also have played a role in resolving
the issue.
Finally, the classroom interaction in the data has many features which had previously
been described by Seedhouse (2004) and Gardner (2013): it is the opposite of rigid in the
79
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
sense that the learners have quite a lot of freedom in taking turns (excerpt 8), initiating
topics of interaction by themselves (excerpts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9) and being able to initiate
sequences, i.e., nominating themselves without waiting for the teacher to call them out or
give them permission to speak. In addition, the data from the four lessons also shows that
the students ask a lot of questions and initiate repair very often. In this respect, even
though the teaching style is technically teacher-fronted, the interaction is rather studentcentered
in that it considers the needs and the initiatives of the students.
7.1 Limitations, further research and implications for teaching practice
As far as the limitations of the study are concerned, the data for the analysis came from
only 4 x 45-minute lessons and focused on a total of 10 excerpts with repair sequences.
Most of them occurred during the course of two lessons in which the interaction was
mainly content-based and one of the main pedagogical goals was to teach and revise
vocabulary. The students were all fairly advanced L2 users, and in addition they were
exceptionally extrovert and talkative. The question remains whether a dataset comprising
more hours of recorded interaction, thus potentially leading to a higher number of repair
sequences, would bring additional findings, and whether the same repair strategies would
be used in a form-and-accuracy context with a focus on grammar, for example. Moreover,
it would be interesting to explore what repair strategies are used by less advanced EFL
students and whether the interaction with the same teacher but with a different group of
students would proceed in a similar way and give comparable results.
Finally, the major implication for EFL teachers is the encouragement to use an online
dictionary as an invaluable and authoritative source of knowledge, which not only
80
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
provides reliable solutions, but also fosters the teacher's confidence and promotes
student engagement and learning, especially when it comes to vocabulary. Another
implication arises from the realization that an open-minded, honest and forthcoming
attitude to students' initiatives contributes substantially to satisfying their learning needs,
and makes the time spent in the classroom worthwhile.
Bibliography
Beach, W A . (1993). Transitional regularities for casual 'Okay' usages. Journal of
Pragmatics, 19(4), 325 - 352. https://doi.orq/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4.
Bolden, G. B. (2013). Unpacking "Self": Repair and Epistemics in Conversation. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 76(4), 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272513498398
Brouwer, C.E. (2003). Word Searches in NNS-NS Interaction: Opportunities for Language
Learning? The Modern Language Journal, 87 (4), 534-545. https://doi.org/10.llll/1540-
4781.00206
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1,1-47.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
Drew, P. (1991). Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In I. Markova
& K. Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in Dialogue (pp. 29-48). Barns & Nobles Books.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction. In P. Drew, & J.
Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge
University Press.
Drew, P., & Sorjonen, M, L. (2011). Dialogue in institutional interactions. In T. A. Van Dijk
(Ed.), Second Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction Teun A. van Dijk (2nd ed.).
Sage.
Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation Analysis in the Classroom. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers, The
Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 593 - 611). Blackwell Publishing.
Hellermann, J. (2009) Looking for Evidence of Language Learning in Practices for Repair:
A Case Study of Self-Initiated Self-Repair by an Adult Learner of English. Scandinavian
81
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 113-132.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757550
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.
Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 299 -345).
Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, J. (2012) The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of
Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Polity.
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-285). Penguin Books.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner
(Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studiesfrom the First Generation, (pp. 13-31). John Benjamins.
Kamio, A. (1977). Territory of Information. John Benjamins.
Kasper, G. (1986). Repair in foreign language teaching. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Learning,
teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom (pp.23-41). Aarhus
University Press.
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond Repair: Conversation Analysis as an Approach to SLA. Aila
Review, 19 (1), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.07kas
Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for Eliciting
Knowledge Displays in Error Correction Sequences. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 35(3), 277 - 309. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503 2
Koshik, I., & Seo, M. (2012). Word (and other) search sequences initiated by language
learners. Text& Talk, 32(2), 167-189. https://doi.org/l0.1515/text-2012-0009
Lantolf, J.P., & Appel, G. (eds.) (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Norwood, N. J: Ablex Pub.Corp
Lee, Y.A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching.
Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (6): 1204-1230. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.pragma.2006.02.004
82
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
Liebscher, G., and Dailey O'Cain, J. (2003). Conversational Repair as a Role-Defining
Mechanism in Classroom Interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (3), 375-390.
https://doi.org/10.llll/1540-4781.00196
Lilja, N. (2014). Partial repetitions as other-initiations of repair in second language talk:
Re-establishing understanding and doing learning Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 98-116.
https ://doi.org/10.1016/i .pragma.2014.07.011
Long M.H. (1983). Inside the 'Black box'. In H. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom
oriented research in second language acquisition (pp.3-36). Newbury House.
Majlesi, A.R, & Broth, M. (2012). Emergent learnables in second language classroom
interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, i(3-4), 193-207.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.08.004
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 19(3),
349-377. http://doi:10.1017/S004740450001455X
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Harvard
University Press.
Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second Language Acquisition as Situated
Practice: Task Accomplishment in the French Second Language Classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 88(4), 501-518. https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-15-.x
Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the Use of 'Triadic Dialogue'?:An investigation of
teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 376-406. Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2013). Social-interactional approaches to SLA: A state of the art and
some future perspectives. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 4 (2), 134 - 160.
https://doi.Org/10.1075/lia.4.2.02pek
Peppa Pig. (2022, April 16). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppa_Pig
Petitjean, C, & Gonzalez-Martinez, E. (2015). Laughing and smiling to manage trouble in
French-language classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 6(2), 89-106.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2015.1010556
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage Adjustments as an Outcome of NS-NNS Negotiated
Interaction. Language Learning, 38 (1), 45-73. http://dx.doi.Org/10.l 11 l/j.1467-
1770.1988.tb00401.x
83
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B.J. (1997). Conversation analysis: an approach to the study of
social action as sense making practices. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social
Interaction (pp. 64-91). Sage Publications.
Reichert, T., & Liebscher, G. (2012). Positioning the Expert: Word Searches, Expertise, and
Learning Opportunities in Peer Interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 96 (4), 599-
609. https://doi.Org/10.llll/i.1540-4781.2012.01397.x
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the
Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the
Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.
https ://doi.org/10.2307/413107
Schegloff, EA. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The Omnirelevance
of Action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28 (3), 185-211.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803 2
Schegloff, E.A. (2000). When 'Others' Initiate Repair. Applied Linguistics, 21[2], 205 -
243. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.205
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A
Conversation Analysis Perspective. Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2009). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom.
Bellaterra: Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 1 (1), 1-13.
https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1467-9922.2004.00266.x
Sert, 0. (2015). Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh University Press.
Sinclair, J.M., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used
by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
Tůma, F., & Sherman, T. (2022). Recruiting help in word searches in peer interaction: A
multimodal conversation-analytic study. Linguistics and Education, 67.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.linaed.2021.100999
Vaničková, K. (2014). Transkripce v konverzační analýze. Studie z aplikované lingvistiky/
Studies in applied linguistics, 5(1), 48-64. Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Filozofická fakulta.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge.
84
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
Walsh, S., & Sert, 0. (2012). Interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge
in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 542-565.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.739174
Walsh, S., & Li, L. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), 247-266. https://doi.org/10.llll/iial.12005
Wong L. (2000). Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English
conversation. Applied Linguistics, 21 (2), 244-267. https://doi.Org/l0.1093/applin/21.2.244
Wong J., & Waring H, Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy. A
guidefor ESL/EFL teachers. Routledge.
Appendix A (Transcription symbols)
The transcription conventions were adapted from Jefferson (2004), Hutchby and Wooffitt
(2008) and Vaničková (2014).
T - teacher
S - student
Ss - students
(1.0) - pause length in seconds
[ ] - overlapping talk
talk which starts immediately after the preceding one
(•) a brief interval, micro pause
(...)
a relatively short pause
a longer pause
word the underlined part indicates stress
wo:rd sound stretch, prolonged preceding sound
word pronounced more quietly than the surrounding speech°word°
$word$ word spoken in a smiley voice
a word cut-off
((writing)) - description of a non-verbal activity
(xx) - unclear speech
- a stopping fall in tone
- continuing intonation
85
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
i í - a marked fall or rise in intonation
? - a rising inflection. It does not necessarily indicate a question,
.h - speaker's in-breath
dýka - a code switch from one language into another
e, ee, eee - hesitation sounds
mhm - sound expressing affirmation
uh-huh - sound expressing acknowledgement and agreement
Appendix B (Collection of excerpts)
Excerpt 1
1 T přizpůsobit se čemu?
2 Ss no ((some Ss shake t h e i r heads t o show t h a t t h e y don't know))
3 T říká se v češtině konformita, že?
4 Ss (xx) ( ( t h e r e i s no c l e a r answer))
5 T conform t o ?
6 Ss ( t h e s t u d e n t s a r e l o o k i n g a t t h e t e a c h e r , b u t nobody answers))
7 T uh-hu::h, to se neříká?
8 K a t to j e jako (x) konfirmace? =
9 T $jako fakt ne$?
10 (2.0) ((T i s s e a r c h i n g f o r t h e word i n an o n l i n e d i c t i o n a r y ) )
11 c o n f o r m i t y , yeah? (.) °whuuh°=
12 Ss ( ( l a u g h i n g ) )
13 T you a r e r i g h t (..) přizpůsobit se, konformnost
14 S2 konfor[mnost?]
15 S3 [konformnost?]=
16 T s o , conform t o ((T b e n d i n g f o r w a r d ) ) (.) something
17 Jana okay
18 T zranitelný?
Excerpt 2
1 T uh-huh, a n y t h i n g e l s e ?
2 S l o n g s l e e v e s ?
3 T yeah yeah, I mean, i t ' s a p a r t o f c l o t h i n g , so (.) yeah
4 San how do you c a l l t h e (..) t h e (..) ((Sandra i s p o i n t i n g a t h e r
5 w r i s t , making c i r c u l a r movements)) potitko?
6 T uh, good q u e s t i o n (.) i t ' s a - i t ' s a=
7 Tom = w r i s t b a n d , w r i s t b a n d je p o t i t k o , ne? ( ( l o o k i n g a t t h e t e a c h e r ) )
8 J a n headband
9 Tom nebo headband, to j e p o t i t k o na čele=
10 T =headband j e toto ((T p o i n t i n g around h e r h e a d ) ) , r i g h t , b u t I
86
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
11 mean i t ' s h o r r i b l e , i n B r i t i s h and A m e r i c a n E n g l i s h i t means
12 d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s , and I n e v e r remember (..) ((The t e a c h e r s i t s
13 down and opens h e r n o t e b o o k ) ) , so t h e r e i s hea-but t h a t ' s head
14 so t h a t l a t e r , b u t w r i s t b a n d - I t h i n k i t ' s w r i s t b a n d
15 Tom yeah ((two s t u d e n t s s i t t i n g i n f r o n t o f him t u r n t o him w i t h a
16 s m i l e and a nod as a s i g n o f p r a i s e and acknowledgement t h a t
17 he had been r i g h t ) )
18 ((T i s w r i t i n g t h e word on t h e b o a r d ) )
19 (4.0)
Excerpt 3
1 Jana i s - i s s t i l e t t o a dagger too?
2 T I'm not sure=
3 Jana ='cause, I t h i n k once I s e a r c h e d i t i n a d i c t i o n a r y and what came
4 up wasn't l i k e h i g h h e e l s b u t l i k e a:: e:eh dýka
5 T yeah, shoe w i t h a v e r y p o i n t e d h e e l ((The t e a c h e r i s r e a d i n g the
6 d e f i n i t i o n f o r ' s t i l e t t o ' i n an o n l i n e d i c t i o n a r y ) ) (..) and
7 t h a t ' s a l l I have here
((T s t i l l l o o k i n g a t h e r notebook))
8 Jana okay
9 T ah, b u t i t ' s l e a r n e r ' s d i c t i o n a r y (.) w a i t (2.0) oh yes, a s m a l l
10 k n i f e w i t h a l o n g t h i n b l a d e . Looks l i k e t h i s ((T i s t u r n i n g her
11 notebook towards h e r s t u d e n t s , so t h a t t h e y can see t h e p i c t u r e ) )
12 Ss oooh
13 T I d i d n ' t know (.) so you can l i t e r a l l y k i l l someone w i t h t h a t
14 haha. even, okay, what e l s e ?
Excerpt 4
1 T t h a t t o o (...) and i f i t i s r a i n i n g , and you want t o go f o r a walk
i n t h e f o r e s t t
2 Ss aah
3 T you need t h i s B r i t i s h k i n d o f shoes (2.0) and I t h i n k we had
i n B r i t i s h h i s t o r y
4 Ss ( X X )
5 T the famous a d m i r a l , was he? W e l l i n g t o n s , w e l l i e s ?
6 Hel eeh, W e l l i n g t o n i s meat
7 Bet yeah, haha
8 T am I l y i n g t o you? ((T i s l o o k i n g t h e word up i n an o n l i n e
9 d i c t i o n a r y ) ) (3.0) no, t h e s e a r e W e l l i n g t o n s ((She t u r n s her
10 notebook towards t h e s t u d e n t s and shows them a p i c t u r e i n the
11 d i c t i o n a r y ) )
12 Ss oooh
13 T a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a d m i r a l , was he=
87
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
14 Hel = b u t I've been w a t c h i n g Peppa Pig2
f o r a l o n g [time]
15 T [yeah?]
16 Hel and t h e y never mention W e l l i n g t o n s , t h e y always s a y V e go p l a y
17 i n t h e mud and t h e y never mention=
18 T =and t h e y n e v e r - t h e y never=
19 Hel =1 t h i n k t h e y c a l l i t =
20 T = b u t i n German I t h i n k t h e y do because my f r i e n d s a r e l e a r n i n g
21 German now and t h e y a r e w a t c h i n g - I mean t h e y a r e t h e same age as
22 me and t h e y a r e w a t c h i n g Peppa Pig and I t h i n k t h e y l e a r n e d
23 gummistiefel t h e r e
24 Hel but l i k e W e l l i n g t o n s i =
25 T = and W e l l i n g t o n s , w e l l i e s eeh
26 Hel maybe w e l l i e s
27 T but eh US o r A u s t r a l i a n E n g l i s h have r u b b e r b o o t s ( .) ( ( T i s
28 c h e c k i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o i n a d i c t i o n a r y ) ) b o r i n g , $1
29 mean w e l l i e s much b e t t e r , r i g h t $ ?
30 Ss gumboots, haha
31 T so W e l l i n g t o n s , w e l l i e s o r r u b b e r b o o t s . Okay, eeh on your head?
32 Ss a h a t
Excerpt 5
i T a::nd t h e l a s t two ((The t e a c h e r i s l o o k i n g a t h e r n o t e s ) ) (2.0)
vzít něco v potaz
2 Mich t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n ?
3 T yeah, o r ?
4 (2.0)
5 (xx)lepši překlad, já jsem řekla t a k e i n t o - p o t a z j e i n t o
6 c o n s i d e r a t i o n o r t a k e i n t o t
7 (3.0)
8 S account=
9 T =account, yes
10 Mich to j e a s i také vžit v potaz, nebo $já nevim$ . neni to vžit v potaz?
11 T (T s i t s down a t h e r notebook)) I'm n o t s u r e which one i s which
12 i n Czech. But i t means t a k e - t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n l i k e t h i n
13 about i t ((T i s g e s t u r i n g w i t h h e r hands)) (.) when you a r e making
14 a d e c i s i o n , and t a k e i n t o account I would s a y (.) l i k e r e a l l y
15 f o l l o w - a h I d o n ' t - I c a n ' t e x p l a i n t h i s , i t ' s n o t so easy. Can
16 anyone e x p l a i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e ?
17 (3.0)
18 Mich i s n ' t i t [ t h e same]
19 S [I t h i n k ] =
20 T = a-a, i t ' s n o t c o m p l e t e l y t h e same, I remember i n my-in one o f
21 my a r t i c l e s my s u p e r v i s o r c o r r e c t e d i t , because I s a i d t a k e i n t o
2
Peppa Pig is a British preschool animated television series by Astley Baker Davies which has been
broadcast since 2004 in over 180 countries. It features an anthropomorphic female piglet called Peppa and
her everyday adventures with her family and friends.
88
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
22 c o n s i d e r a t i o n and he s a i d t a k e i n t o account
23 T e r neni account jako že se tim budete řidit=
24 T =no no no, tak to myslím, že se tim bude-tady se tim budu řidit
25 a t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n jenom to jako zvažte ((T i s l o o k i n g up
26 t h e p h r a s e s i n an o n l i n e d i c t i o n a r y and s t a r t s r e a d i n g t h e
27 d e f i n i t i o n o u t l o u d ) ) . t a k e something i n t o a c c o u n t i s t o c o n s i d e r
28 something when j u d g i n g a s i t u a t i o n , so i t d i d n ' t h e l p much (.)
29 jo, b u t - b u t t h a t ' s t h e d i f f e r e n c e , y e s . And t h e l a s t one, do you
30 know what c h i n o s are?
Excerpt 6
1 T smart?
2 Ann dumb
3 T hahaha, b u t when we a r e t a l k i n g about c l o t h e s what does i t mean
4 to-what does i t mean?
5 Jana immaculate
6 T ooh, wow, t h a t ' s a word. Do you know-do t h e o t h e r s know what i t
7
8 Jana
means, i m m a c u l a t e - t h i s i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y =
= i t ' s i n t e r n e t s l a n g
9 T r e a l l y ?
10 Mat no::::, immaculate i s proper=
11 T = i t ' s l i k e p e r f e c t , w i t h o u t =
12 Mat =but i t ' s p r o p e r E n g l i s h , no?
13 T yeah, and t h a t ' s proper=
14 Jana =it i s , b u t i t ' s a l s o =
15 T =it used t o be p r o p e r E n g l i s h =
16 Jana =but i t ' s a l s o w i d e l y used on t h e i n t e r n e t I would say
17 T r i g h t , uh-huh
18 Jana l i k e t h e v i b e s a r e immaculate
19 T ooh, okay. A g a i n , I'm l e a r n i n g something h e r e , hahaha, good.
Excerpt 7
1 Tom bandanna?
2 T huh? =
3 Mat = b a l a c l a v a , do you c a l l i t t h a t way?
4 T we a r e - a f t e r t h i s l e s s o n we a r e g o i n g t o be e x p e r t s i n c l o t h i n g
5 ((T w a l k s towards h e r n o t e b o o k ) ) , how-what d i d you say?
6 Mat b a l a c l a v a (..) you [can p u t i t ]
89
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
7 T [I always] c o n f u s e i t w i t h eeh, l i k e the d e s s e r t ? :
8 Jana b a k l a v a
9 T yeah, haha ((T i s l o o k i n g the word up i n her notebook))
10 (3.0)
11 yeah b a l a c l a v a , b a l a c l a v a yeah (..) and i t ' s s p e l l e d l i k e t h i s
12 ((T i s w r i t i n g the word on the b l a c k b o a r d ) )
13 S h i j a b ?
Excerpt 8
1 T OK, hang c l o t h e s up, t e l l me q u i c k l y
2 Mon I n e v e r do t h a t
3 T you n e v e r - y o u n e v e r do t h a t j [ y o u use, what do you use] i n s t e a d
4 Bet [I do t h a t a f t e r i r o n i n g ]
5 Mon a c h a i r , I j u s t t h r e w i t on a c h a i r
6 T oh, okay, I d i d n ' t e x p e c t t h a t , haha
7 Ss hahaha
8 T okay, t h e r e i s a machine, r i g h t ?
9 Anna machine? =
10 Mon = [washing machine]
11 S [ d r y e r ]
12 T but a f t e r w a r d s when you want i t - w h e n you want [your c l o t h e s t
d r y you]
13 Bet [ d r y e r ]
14 Ss d r y e r =
15 Mon = d r y i n g machine
16 T (xx) tumble-dr-=
17 Jan =dryer=
18 T =to tumble d r y i s t o - ((T i s t y p i n g on her notebook))
19 Ss ( X X )
20 T I've j u s t f o r g o t t e n the word
21 (3.0)
22 Ss sušička
23 T t u m b l e - d r y e r , what i s i t ? ((T i s l o o k i n g a t her notebook))
24 Jana i s n ' t i t j u s t a d r y e r ?
25 Mon I t h i n k i t ' s a d r y e r
26 Tom jo
27 T i t ' s a tumble d r y e r , I was r i g h t . I j u s t need t o t r u s t m y s e l f ,
90
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
28
29
30
31 Ss
32 Tom
33 T
34
35 Mon
Excerpt 9
1 T
2 S
3 T
4 Jana
5 T
6 Jana
7 T
8
9 Jana
10
11 T
12
13
14
15 Jana
16 T
Excerpt 10
1 T
2
3 Ss
4 T
5 Tom
6 T
7
Q
O
9 Tom
10 T
11
12 Tom
13 T
14 Jan
15 T
16 SI
17 T
18
19 Tom
20
21 T
91
haha ((The T i s w r i t i n g t h e word on t h e word, w i t h two s p e l l i n g s :
d r y e r and d r i e r ) ) so i t ' s a tumble d r y e r l i k e t h i s o r l i k e t h i s ,
and i n A m e r i c a n E n g l i s h j u s t d r y e r
ah, yes
here we go
t o tumble d r y i s l i k e - i t says sometimes on your c l o t h e s do not
tumble d r y , r i g h t ? But i t ' s not v e r y e c o - f r i e n d l y , i s i t ?
d o e s n ' t s m e l l good
and on your f e e t ?
socks
yeah
s t i l e t t o s =
= s t i l e t t o s ?
uh-huh
w i t h d o u b l e / t / l i k e t h i s , r i g h t ? ((T i s w r i t i n g t h e word on the
board))
I t h i n k - i s n ' t i t d o u b l e / l / ? (..) I don't know, l e t me check t h a t ,
i t ' s w e i r d
and I'm not s u r e about t h i s e i t h e r , hahaha ((T i s p o i n t i n g a t the
l e t t e r /e/ i n t h e w o r d ) ) , so check t h e p l u r a l , Cambridge o n l i n e
d i c t i o n a r y i s b e t t e r f o r t h i s one ((T i s l o o k i n g up t h e word i n
the d i c t i o n a r y ) )
i t ' s d o u b l e / t / , and o n l y /o/
ah, a-ha, thank you
yeah (.).h what does i t mean t o be narrow-minded? because i t ' s
not an easy word
(xx)
d'you remembert (.) i t ' s the o p p o s i t e o f what?
uzkoprsy
yeah, and I'm not r e a l l y s u r e $what i t means i n Czech$ ( (T s t a r t s
l a u g h i n g ) ) eeeh, h o - i s anyone a b l e t o e x p l a i n i t i n E n g l i s h (.)
what narrow-minded meansi
w e l l l i k e someone who d o e s n ' t r e a l l y change h i s o p i n i o n s
yeah, e x a c t l y ( ( n o d d i n g ) ) , p e o p l e who don't change t h e i r o p i n i o n s
who [don't a c c e p t new] o p i n i o n s ,
[presne uzkoprsy]
so t h e o p p o s i t e i s |
stubborn=
= I mean, i t ' s c o n n e c t e d w i t h [ i t ]
[open-]minded
yes.hh would we d e s c r i b e as r a t h e r s t u b b o r n i f you don't change
your mind? eeh change your o p i n i o n s
w e l l maybe s t u b b o r n i s l i k e - s t u b b o r n i s l i k e an argument, I mean
(.) more t h a n narrow-minded
ma:ybej. w e l l narrow-minded i s - i s l i k e you a r e u n - w e l l (.) i t ' s
CHYBA! POMOCÍ KARTY DOMŮ POUŽIJTE U TEXTU, KTERÝ SE MÁ ZDE ZOBRAZIT, STYL
HEADING 1.
22 s i m i l a r a c t u a l l y ((T l o o k i n g up))
23 Ss mm ( ( t h e y are a l l l o o k i n g a t the t e a c h e r ) )
24 T hahaha ((T s t a r t s l a u g h i n g ) ) but narrow-minded i : : s l i k e you-eeh
25 no, i t i_s s i m i l a r
26 P e t r i t ' s the way you t h i n k
27 T mhm? ((T t u r n s towards P e t r and p o i n t s a t him w i t h her hand))
28 P e t r the way you t h i n k i n g e n e r a l
29 T yes (.). i n g e n e r a l , t h a t you are u n w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t any new
30 i d e a s , you are not v e r y l i b e r a l , uh-hu::m. I t h i n k we a l l f e e l
31 the d i f f e r e n c e , but we a r e - e e h i n c l u d i n g me I'm u n a b l e t o e x p l a i n
32 i t v e r y w e l l ((T s t a r t s l a u g h i n g ) ) . $ I ' l l t h i n k about i t $ and-
33 but yeah, I would say t h a t the s t e r e o t y p e i s t h a t o l d p e o p l e - o r
34 the e l d e r l y are u n w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t new i d e a s , so t h e y are narrow-
35 minded (...) eehm but i t ' s c o n n e c t e d w i t h b e i n g s t u b b o r n , I t h i n k .
36 s e l f - c e n t r e d ?
92