Language Learning Great and Small:

Environmental Support Structures

and Learning Opportunities in a
Sociocognitive Approach to Second
Language Acquisition/Teaching
DWIGHT ATKINSON,1 ETON CHURCHILL,2 TAKAKO NISHINO,3 and HANAKO OKADA4
1
University of Arizona, Department of English, 1423 E. University Blvd, Rm 445, PO Box 210067, Tucson, AZ
85721–0067 Email: dwightatki@email.arizona.edu
2
Kanagawa University, Department of Cross-Cultural Studies, 3–27–1 Rokkakubashi, Kanagawa-ku, Yokohama,
Kanagawa, 221–8686, Japan Email: itonc001@kanagawa-u.ac.jp
3
Kanda University of International Studies, 1–4–1 Wakaba, Mihama-ku, Chiba-shi, Chiba, 261–0014, Japan
Email: nishino-t@kanda.kuis.jp
4
Sophia University, Faculty of Liberal Arts, 7–1 Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102–8554, Japan
Email: h-okada-c5s@sophia.ac.jp

Sociocognitive theory views learning, including second language acquisition, as the progressive alignment
of individuals vis-à-vis their ecosocial environments. In this article we irst update sociocognitive theory
in light of recent evolutionary/ecological research on learning/teaching: (a) Humans are evolutionarily
adapted to adapt to myriad environments, placing a premium on adaptive learning, (b) human adapta-
tion is effected substantially through niche construction—engineering environments to make them more
adaptive, and then transmitting the results culturally, placing a premium on adaptive teaching, (c) both
human learning and teaching are innate/instinctive, and co-evolved, and (d) there are many kinds of
‘teachers’ in the world. Second, we briely review 3 approaches to second language acquisition/teaching
(SLA/T) vis-à-vis sociocognitive theory: van Lier’s ecological-semiotic approach, Schumann’s interac-
tional instinct, and conversation analysis. Third, we apply our theoretical perspective exploratorily to
videotaped data of a Japanese learner/user of English as a lingua franca who is baking pastries with a
Finnish friend. Our analysis includes 5 widely studied ‘units of participation’: activity types, routines,
co-constructed tellings, repetition, and assessments. Analysis suggests that these constitute powerful en-
vironmental support structures yielding rich learning opportunities for SLA/T in moment-to-moment
interaction. Fourth and inally, we discuss our results vis-à-vis our theoretical approach. We conclude
by suggesting how our expanded view of teaching/learning might broaden SLA/T’s ‘pedagogical
imagination.’
Keywords: acquisition/learning/development; sociocognitive approaches; SLA; interaction; embodiment

A SOCIOCOGNITIVE APPROACH TO SECOND in human activity, including learning, so they

language acquisition/teaching (SLA/T) holds
that the social, the cognitive, the embodied,
and the material are fundamentally integrated
The Modern Language Journal, 102, 3, (2018)
DOI: 10.1111/modl.12496
0026-7902/18/471–493 $1.50/0
C National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
!
Associations
must be studied integratively. Bateson (1972) ex-
pressed the core idea: “If you want to ( …) un-
derstand anything in human behavior, you are
always dealing with total circuits, completed cir-
cuits ( …). ‘Mind’ [is] immanent in the large bi-
ological system—the ecosystem” (pp. 465–466).
The rationale for this view is compelling: The hu-
man nervous system, prominently including its
large, complex brain, links its body lexibly to
472
its dynamic environment, enabling that body to
continuously adapt, or align, in order to survive.
It is through such alignment that we also learn to
survive better—that is, learn simpliciter.1
This view has been developed vis-à-vis SLA/T
in a series of publications (e.g., Atkinson, 2002,
2010, 2011b, 2012, 2014, 2017; Atkinson et al.,
2007; Churchill et al., 2010). It can be con-
trasted for introductory purposes with SLA/T
approaches emphasizing the ‘outside-in’ na-
ture of learning. Thus, cognitive interactionism
(e.g., Long, 2015) views learning as the environ-
mental extraction and processing of linguistic
input/intake by a cognitive computer, leading
to development of a mental second language
(L2) competence, while neo-Vygotskian socio-
cultural theory features internalization—“the
processes through which interpersonal and
person–environment interaction forms and
transforms one’s internal mental functions”
(Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 19). The outside-in
nature of these approaches equates learning
with ownership: “Internalization ( …) has to do
with making something one’s own” (Lantolf &
Thorne, 2006, p. 162).
In contrast, a sociocognitive approach empha-
sizes the ‘inside-out’ nature of learning—or, more
accurately, the progressive alignment (i.e., ‘lining
up,’ integration, attunement) of the learner with
the ecosocial world. The adaptive nature of learn-
ing is thus foregrounded. Turning the SLA ap-
proaches just mentioned on their head, instead of
extracting input from the environment, we might say
that learners are themselves input into the environ-
ment (Gee, 1995). Or, instead of acquiring a lan-
guage, learners are themselves acquired by a language
(Sankoff & Laberge, 1974). The resulting pic-
ture is well-captured in Ingold’s (2000) descrip-
tion of apprenticeship among indigenous Arctic
hunters:
The novice hunter learns by accompanying more ex-
perienced hands in the woods. As he goes about, he
is instructed in what to look out for, and his atten-
tion is drawn to subtle clues that he might otherwise
fail to notice: in other words, he is led to develop a so-
phisticated perceptual awareness of the properties of
his surroundings and of the possibilities they afford
for action ( …) What is involved ( …) is not a trans-
mission of representations ( …) but an education of
attention. (p. 37)
A sociocognitive approach to SLA/T is sup-
ported by interdisciplinary research in situated/
distributed/extended cognition (see Atkinson,
2010, 2012, for reviews), multimodal/embodied
interaction (Streeck, 2015), situated learning
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
(Lave & Wenger, 1991), Wittgensteinian and
phenomenological philosophy (Shotter, 1996),
behavioral/emotional synchrony and accommo-
dation (Bargh, 2017), integrational linguistics
(Harris, 1998), and the ecological and evolu-
tionary nature of teaching and learning (see
Atkinson, 2017, and the next section for review).
Although “broadly compatible [with other] al-
ternative [SLA] ontologies” (Douglas Fir Group,
2016, p. 21), it does not reduce to them. This
is indicated next, where we focus on current
developments in sociocognitive theory, and in
subsequent sections, where we turn speciically
to SLA/T. The latter include an empirical sup-
port section, which represents the bulk of the
article.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT: LEARNING,
TEACHING, EVOLUTION
A distinctive trait of our species is that we are
evolutionarily adapted to adapt. That is, rather than
evolving to it a speciic ecological niche, we have
evolved to adapt to myriad niches. As Harari
(2015) put it, “Most mammals emerge from the
womb like glazed earthenware from a kiln—any
attempt at remoulding will only scratch or break
them. Humans emerge ( …) like molten glass
( …). They can be spun, stretched, and shaped
with ( …) surprising ( …) freedom” (p. 10).
Organisms not pre-it to speciic environments
must learn actively/adaptively from day one sim-
ply in order to survive. Learning is thus “as much
a part of ( …) human nature as eating and sleep-
ing. It is life-sustaining and inevitable” (Wenger,
1998, p. 1). Much more than other species, we are
natural-born, life-long learners.
We are also natural-born, life-long teachers, and
adaptive teaching and learning co-evolved. This
distinctive claim is based on three theoretical per-
spectives in the human sciences:
1. Cultural niche construction: Various species
(e.g., spiders) adapt by actively reconstruct-
ing their environments to make them more
adaptive. Such niche construction (Odling–Smee,
Laland, & Feldman, 1996) is innate. As an
evolutionary response to not being innately
preadapted to a speciic environment, how-
ever, humans have taken niche construction
(a) to a different level—we reconstruct our
environments far more pervasively than other
species; and (b) in a different direction—we
transmit our speciic adaptations culturally as
well as genetically.2 Cultural niche construction
(Laland & O’Brien, 2011) is thus the ability
to transmit complex adaptive skills/technologies
Dwight Atkinson et al.
nongenetically, such that they are both preserved
and improved within/across generations. This is
done substantially through teaching.
2. Natural pedagogy: Psychologists frequently
note how quickly and effortlessly children learn.
Csibra and Gergely (2011) traced these breathtak-
ing abilities to proto-human innovation of stone
tool technologies, dating back 1.5–3 million years.
As these technologies developed, they became too
complex to learn through social (observation and
imitation) and/or asocial (trial-and-error) learn-
ing alone. Sociocognitive repertoires thus evolved
in our ancestors whereby otherwise unlearnable
survival skills could be transmitted culturally.
Teaching, like learning, is therefore coded in our
genes—in fact, they co-evolved. This is evidenced
in Csibra and Gergely’s research on pre-linguistic
infants learning via face recognition, gaze di-
rection, referential pointing, and child-directed
speech, all of which caregivers utilize in teaching.
In sum, human teaching is evolved/innate and
co-evolved with learning. Recent research (e.g.,
Scalese Sugiyama, 2017) shows how natural ped-
agogy continues across the lifespan. Likely exam-
ples in SLA include ‘foreigner talk’ and conversa-
tional repair.
3. Distributed teaching and learning systems: Study-
ing learning via video gaming, Holmes, Tran, and
Gee (2017) proposed:
the concept of “distributed teaching and learning
system” [DTAL] as a means of directing attention
more closely to the elements of [a] larger ecosys-
tem that are organized around ( …) teaching and
learning ( …). We wish to focus particularly on un-
derstanding teaching as ( …) manifested and dis-
tributed across a wide range of spaces, resources,
practices, and people. Furthermore, we are inter-
ested in understanding the relationships among
( …) these. (p. 254)
In this view, some DTALs are “intentionally
designed to support teaching and learning”
(p. 255), but others are not: Video games, sewing,
car repair, and cooking exemplify the latter. In
fact, the complex ecological nature of DTALs sug-
gests multiple teaching/learning types and re-
sources, often operating simultaneously. Thus,
a multi-player videogame DTAL might comprise
other players, friends, user groups, blogs, on-
line instructional materials, and the design of
the game itself, each providing different forms of
teaching/learning at different levels of conscious-
ness/intentionality.
The DTAL concept has major implications for
teaching/learning. First, it suggests that, beyond
what formal education conventionally provides,
473
serious “teaching and learning are all around us”
(Holmes et al., 2017, p. 268) and come in many
shapes and sizes. Second, teaching/learning are
lexible and adaptive vis-à-vis the particular en-
vironments wherein they occur—there is no sin-
gle, superior type. Third, things teach as well as
people, and these things can be human-designed,
like road grids and computers, or designed by
nature, like hurricanes and game-trails (Gee,
n.d.). Fourth and inally, conventional notions
of teaching should be broadened radically. In
Gee’s words, “Teaching now becomes anything
that causes a human experience to be designed
or structured in a way that organizes and facili-
tates learning” (n.d., p. 13). Or in our own words,
“Teaching ( …) is shaping situational contexts in
ways that promote durable environmental adapta-
tion” (Atkinson, 2017, p. 530), where the shaping
agent is left unspeciied.
RELATED THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO
SLA/T
SLA studies historically viewed language learn-
ing as psycholinguistic input processing. As SLA’s
sheer complexity became apparent, however,
a “Theory Proliferation Era” (Atkinson, 2011a,
p. xi) ensued. The guiding principle of this
era is that any theoretical approach assisting
fuller/better understanding of SLA has value. It
is therefore imperative that different approaches
(a) develop themselves intensively, and (b) de-
lineate their relationships with other approaches.
Our main aim in this article is the former, but a
brief attempt at the latter motivates this section.3
Ecological–Semiotic Approach
van Lier (1996) critiqued mainstream SLA stud-
ies for treating language learning as cognitive–
computational input processing. As a partial re-
placement, he proposed engagement: Learners are
actively alive/attentive/responsive to the quality
of their linguistic experience, not just its quan-
tity. Thus, Nakahama, Tyler, and van Lier (2001)
found that “mutual[ly] engag[ing] and interac-
tional[ly] symmetr[ical]” (p. 383) classroom con-
versation provides richer learning opportunities
than input-provision/processing tasks. van Lier
(2004) proposed a second alternative to input
processing: Affordances are “what the environment
offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes”
(p. 91, quoting Gibson, 1979) for survival. Affor-
dances are relational and dynamic: They are the
adaptive support structures environments grant
474
to species evolutionarily designed/positioned to
utilize them.
The idea of affordances overlaps signiicantly
with our own concept of alignment. van Lier’s
approach may differ from our own, however,
in that (a) it incorporates sociocultural theory
(SCT)—an ‘outside-in’ SLA/T approach, which
further views learning/teaching as primarily con-
scious and intentional, and (b), although van Lier
(2004) saw affordances as always active in learn-
ing environments, he distinguished them from
more “mediated,” “conscious,” “aware,” and “re-
lexive” (pp. 99–102) processes. We agree that
learning takes place at all levels of intentional-
ity and awareness—such lexibility is central to
humans’ amazing adaptive skills—but we focus
more on the rich contextual “mindbodyworld”
(Atkinson, 2014) matrix, in which and by which
all kinds of learning occur. After all, the more con-
scious, deliberate aspects of SLA have been well
explored in the ield, including by van Lier him-
self. However, with Gadamer (1989), we believe
that “every linguistic experience of the world is
[fundamentally] experience of the world, not ex-
perience of language” (p. 546).
Interactional Instinct
Schumann (2013) proposed that all language
acquisition results from interaction, but certain
enabling conditions are guaranteed only for
irst language acquisition (L1A): (a) neurophys-
iological factors promoting afiliation/bonding,
(b) neurophysiological factors promoting linguis-
tic pattern identiication and memory, and (c)
abundant language exposure/practice. Highly
successful adult SLA, in this view, involves
either atypical carryover of neurophysiologi-
cal factors or exceptional instrumental motiva-
tion, in either case combined with extensive
practice.
We share Schumann’s belief in the centrality
of interaction in language acquisition, and neuro-
physiology doubtless varies with age. Unlike Schu-
mann, however, we view human interaction in-
stincts as fundamentally robust and continuous
across the lifespan: Pro-sociality and learning are
major evolved human survival strategies, and hu-
mans can survive for many years. Indeed, if age
effects were so determinative, few high-level post-
puberty L2 learner/users would exist.
Roehrig (2013) investigated the relation-
ship between the Interactional Instinct (II)
perspective and natural pedagogy, the latter in-
corporated earlier into our own framework. She
concluded that II constitutes a “genotypic
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
analysis”—treating evolutionary adaptation at
the species level—while natural pedagogy is a
“phenotypic analysis”—treating adaptation at the
behavioral level. The sociocognitive approach
seeks to do both by investigating how species-
level evolutionary adaptations support real-time
adaptive behavior eventuating in learning.
Conversation Analysis
Conversation analysis (CA) also puts interac-
tion at the heart of SLA, and C. Goodwin’s dis-
tinctive version of multimodal CA has inspired
our work (e.g., Churchill et al., 2010). But the
sociocognitive framework is an exogenous theory of
SLA, thus immediately running afoul of ‘purist’
CA approaches (Markee & Kunitz, 2015). Nor do
we adhere to CA principles/requirements such as
‘next-turn proof procedure,’ ‘membership knowl-
edge,’ ‘emicity,’ or the ‘doing/being’ performa-
tive interpretation of social action. Additionally,
CA practitioners hold widely varying views on
cognition, including anti-cognitive orientations
(Potter & Edwards, 2013), and may still prioritize
the verbal channel/talk (Levinson, 2013).
What we share with CA is a focus on inely
tuned moment-to-moment interaction. Turn-
coordination, rhythmic synchrony, projectability,
and the tight interlocking of linguistic, facial,
gestural, embodied, and material modalities
point to a partly ethological, highly evolved,
and ancient suite of interactional abilities, to
which language itself is likely a late addition
(Levinson, 2006). Interaction, in other words,
is as much about “metamessages” (Bateson, 1972)
as messages, and they function integratively. In
this view, interactional competence (Hall, 2017)
is both a universal precondition for SLA (i.e., the
universal interaction instinct is a primary basis of
learning) and its outcome (i.e., the ability to use
the L2 better). Likewise, although sequentiality
(Schegloff, 2007) is vital in social action, we
also emphasize simultaneity/synchrony, antic-
ipation, discontinuous action, and the virtual
structuring of activity types and participation
structure/routines, as described in the next
section.
Conversation analyst Stivers (2008) deined
alignment as the signaling of comprehension in
interaction, while afiliation is the signaling of
evaluative stance. In an interesting study of cross-
time L2 development, Dings (2014) seemed to
follow Stivers by deining alignment in terms of
‘understanding’ and ‘information,’ but also in-
cluded assessments, which Stivers categorized as
afiliation. For us, afiliation inheres in all human
Dwight Atkinson et al.
interaction and is thus a fundamental aspect of
alignment (see notes 1 and 7).
EMPIRICAL SUPPORT
In this section, we explore empirically what
we have developed theoretically. In brief, we
seek to understand how the ecosocial environ-
ment actively supports SLA—how it ‘teaches’
by enabling participation. A sociocognitive ap-
proach views SLA as adaptive integration of
person and environment via alignment, so it
is crucial to know both what the environment
affords and how it does so. Yet to speak of ‘per-
son and environment’ suggests a discontinuity,
whereas we seek to highlight integrative relation-
ality and participation: organism-plus-environment
(Bateson, 1972), or mindbodyworld (Atkinson,
2014).
This relationality is highly complex, and
good language/semiosis to describe it is lacking
(Canagarajah, 2018; Streeck, 2015). But some
of its spirit may be found in phenomenolog-
ical concepts like ‘compresence,’ ‘intercor-
poreality,’ and ‘dwelling.’ In Streeck’s (2015)
interpretation, “The human being ( …) is ‘al-
ways already’ immersed in the world through
‘mindless’ (representation-less) absorbed cop-
ing or ‘dwelling.’ We ‘dwell in’ or ‘inhabit’
the places where we, the tools ( …) we use,
and the speaking routines ( …) we use all are”
(p. 423). These people, places, tools, and speak-
ing routines also afford learning and teaching
in the course of adaptive (and in this sense only
‘mindless’—i.e., part of our natural moment-
to-moment environmental alignment) “going
on” (Wittgenstein, 1958, in Shotter, 1996). They
likewise provide a rich contextual matrix for
more mindful acts of teaching and learning—
without them such acts could not occur. In Clark’s
(2016) formulation, we exist in “a complex struc-
tured world apt for engagement and action”
(p. xv).
Our main focus in this section is therefore on
environmental support structures for SLA and how
they support alignment. By environmental sup-
port structures we mean whatever exists in the
environment that can be said to ‘teach,’ where
teaching, as stated previously, is “anything that
causes a human experience to be designed or
structured in a way that organizes and facili-
tates learning” (Gee, n.d., p. 13). Teaching and
learning are fundamentally connected in this
view—we take from the environment what it ac-
tively affords, and build our relations with it on
that basis. Such a reconceptualized teaching can
475
help us look at SLA/T differently, as suggested
later.
Research Approach
Our research approach is discourse-analytic,
context-sensitive, microanalytic, and multimodal
(Erickson, 1992; Goodwin, 2000; Kendon, 1990;
Streeck, 2015). It studies environmental struc-
turing and adaptive action across the multi-
ple modalities wherein learning/teaching oc-
curs in everyday interaction.4 Many of these
modal actions/structures (e.g., facial expressions,
gestures) are ‘actual’: They appear moment-to-
moment in interaction. Others, however (e.g.,
routines), are ‘virtual’: They can be studied only
by extracting larger patterns from moment-to-
moment interaction.
Participants. The focal participant in this study
was Rie, an undergraduate education major at
a Japanese university.5 Rie spent her senior year
abroad in Finland, the irst 5 months studying
furniture design at a rural technical college, the
last 5 interning at an urban primary school and
retirement community. Rie reported learning lit-
tle Finnish in Finland; instead, she was immersed
in a world of English—a tight-knit English-as-a-
lingua-franca (ELF) community of international
and Finnish students.
Although Rie had studied English as a foreign
language (EFL) for 8 years in Japan, her previ-
ous experience in English-speaking environments
was limited to 3 weeks at a U.S. English camp,
two short trips to the United States, and a 10-
lesson TOEFL preparation course with a ‘native
speaker.’ Rie reported producing little English
on these occasions, although a pre-Finland En-
glish interview (see later in this article and the
online supporting information) and her TOEFL
teacher’s account indicated a basic level of com-
prehension.
Rie’s English was basic when she arrived in Fin-
land, but it is important to note that she was al-
ready a skilled cook/baker. Her family business is
a food business, and in their free time Rie, her
mother, and two sisters are serious amateur chefs.
Rie therefore already had an “activity-based iden-
tity” (Gee, 2017) as a cook/baker when she ar-
rived in Finland.
The other participant in this study was Jaakko, a
Finnish student of carving/wood design at the col-
lege, a member of the tight-knit ELF circle, and
Rie’s close friend. We know little about Jaakko’s
previous experience studying and using English,
but his English was considerably more functional
476
and sophisticated than Rie’s. In the U.S. Inten-
sive English Program (IEP) context, Jaakko would
likely have been placed (if at all) in an advanced
speaking class, compared to Rie’s pre-sojourn
high-beginner placement.
Data Collection. We gave Rie a video camera
before her trip and asked her to record social
activities she engaged in abroad. Five videos re-
sulted, one of which is analyzed here: a 93-minute
video of Rie and Jaakko baking cinnamon rolls, an
activity they mentioned (in the video) perform-
ing four times previously. The videotaping took
place in March 2010 in Rie’s apartment, about
8 months after her arrival in Finland. We tran-
scribed the irst 30 minutes of the video, employ-
ing a modiied version of Jefferson’s transcrip-
tion system (Ochs, Schegloff, & Thompson, 1996,
pp. 461–465),6 supplemented with moment-by-
moment description of gaze, gestures, facial ex-
pressions, head and body movements, object use,
and other environmental phenomena. We also in-
terviewed Rie before and after her Finland trip to
ascertain longitudinal language development, as
reported briely in the following and at length in
the online supporting information.
Data Analysis. The analytical categories em-
ployed here have been widely used as analytical
units of participation (Duranti, 1996) in research
on social interaction and learning. They were cho-
sen as follows: We irst engaged with the data in-
tensively while transcribing it, both individually
and collectively. We then examined the transcript
line by line (with frequent reference to the video)
for patterns of alignment found in our past work,
combined with our knowledge of analytical cate-
gories used in past interaction/learning research.
The resulting categories thus (a) igured in our
past research, (b) were prominent in our aca-
demic experience/education, and (c) appeared
to elucidate how alignment was environmentally
supported in our data. We should note immedi-
ately that these categories are not mutually ex-
clusive: They represent different but overlapping
perspectives on a single focal phenomenon—
alignment. We therefore sometimes look at
the same data through different conceptual
lenses.
The ive analytical categories are as follows:
1. Activity types: Levinson (1979) deined ac-
tivity type as “any culturally recognized activ-
ity, ( …) whether or not ( …) talk takes place
in it ( …) [Such activities] are goal-directed,
socially constituted, bounded events with con-
straints on participants, setting, ( …) but above
all on the kinds of allowable contributions”
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
(p. 368) participants can make if an activity is
to fall within a particular type. Examples include
attending church/mosque/temple, playing bas-
ketball, classroom teaching, and baking. Activ-
ity types “reduce entropy (increase predictabil-
ity) at all scales in a cultural cognitive ecosystem”
(Hutchins, 2014, p. 38), or, in the original concep-
tualization of scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross,
1976), greatly reduce “degrees of freedom” in a
problem-solving task. Activity types are a sine qua
non of successful interaction because, by severely
structuring the environment, they answer the fun-
damental social question, “What is it that’s going
on here?” (Goffman, 1974/1986, p. 46).
Gee (2017) described “activity-based
identities"—freely chosen identities that are
based on social practices “done in similar (but
not identical) ways repeatedly and ( …) regulated
( …) by groups and institutions” (p. 73). He
emphasized that activity-based identities “are not
IN a person. They are reciprocal relationship[s]
between a person and a social group and its
( …) [customary] activities” (p. 74). As already
mentioned, our participant Rie had a pre-existing
activity-based identity as a cook/baker.
2. Participation structures and routines: Par-
ticipation structures (Erickson, 2004) are
interactional–linguistic frames or schemas guid-
ing interaction within activity types. They do so
largely by assigning roles and responsibilities
for producing multi-party linguistic formulas,
or routines (Peters & Boggs, 1986). For Peters
and Boggs, such “socializing situations occur
fairly predictably as to time, place, participants,
and desired outcomes,” so they “greatly facilitate
language learning” (p. 80). Examples include
classroom initiation–response–feedback (IRF)
sequences, restaurant ordering schemas, and
service encounter buyer–seller routines. Ohta
(1999) showed how teacher-controlled IRF rou-
tines were gradually integrated and expanded
in student–student interaction, suggesting a
staged process of socialization in classroom
SLA.
3. Co-construction of tellings: Jacoby and Ochs
(1995) deined co-construction as “the joint
creation of a form, interpretation, stance, ac-
tion, activity, identity, institution, skill, ideology,
emotion, or other culturally meaningful reality”
(p. 172), noting its vital role in “accomplish[ing]
( …) mental and social behavior throughout ( …)
life” (pp. 172–173). They also suggested that
co-construction pervades L1A and SLA, with for-
eigner talk exemplifying the latter. Here we ex-
amine how Rie and Jaakko co-constructed a dra-
matized account based on a cartoon appearing
Dwight Atkinson et al.
on an egg carton and a short accompanying text.
Such co-tellings frequently combine high involve-
ment, playfulness, imagination, and rhythmic
alignment, thus providing rich learning opportu-
nities for SLA via engagement (van Lier, 1996).
In more traditional terms, Rie’s grammatical and
discourse competence were actively and richly
scaffolded by Jaakko in a Zone of Proximal
Development, allowing her to ‘outperform her
competence.’ That is, Rie could not have com-
municated as competently or participated as fully
without a willing co-participant wielding a larger
repertoire of linguistic-participatory tools, within
a rich ecosocial matrix enabling high-interest mu-
tual engagement.
4. Repetition: In recent research on human
evolution, unique abilities for exact imitation
contributed signally to our unique evolutionary
trajectory. Such imitation enables high-idelity
transmission of cultural knowledge/skills within
and across generations, which are subsequently
built on/improved, yielding a “cultural ratchet”
effect found in no other species (Lewis &
Laland, 2012). At the same time, various
kinds of imitation occur widely across pri-
mate species, appearing to serve key afiliative
and cooperative functions (Price, Wood, &
Whiten, 2016).
Moore (2011) reviewed studies showing lex-
ible and adaptive use of repetition in lan-
guage learning/teaching/socialization, including
SLA/T. Larsen–Freeman (2012) reviewed the
role of repetition in SLA/T speciically, ind-
ing that it (a) enables conversion of knowl-
edge from short-term memory into long-term
memory, and of linguistic items in long-term
memory into chunks; (b) facilitates automaticity,
enabling luency and thus freeing up precious
cognitive resources; and (c) is never “mere
repetition”—instead, “in every recurrence there
is a compromise of iteration and innovation”
(Brown, 2005, p. 27). Here we deine repeti-
tion primarily as immediate repetition (often
with variation) of own or interlocutor talk, al-
though repetition obviously pervades language
use.
5. Assessments: Evaluation inheres in all animal
interaction: Knowing whether to approach/avoid
potential interactors—and how to align with
them if approached—is fundamentally adaptive;
we are thus highly tuned to evaluation-enabling
multimodal behavior (Kinsbourne & Jordan,
2009). Assessments represent a modest part
of this larger phenomenon: “evaluat[ions] in
some fashion [of] persons and events being
described in ( …) talk” (Goodwin & Goodwin,
477
1992, p. 154).7 A short example from our data
follows (see the Appendix for transcription
conventions):
Example 1:
Jaakko: ((Sniffing just-opened cardamom
package he is holding)) This taste
(.5) smells good
Rie: o
(It) smells goodo . ((Holds out
spoon for cardamom))
Goodwin and Goodwin (1992) noted that as-
sessments provide a structural “place for height-
ened mutual orientation and action” (p. 154),
thus promoting attention, participation, affect,
and engagement, which in turn facilitate learning
(van Lier, 1996). The assessment sequence just
exempliied also includes (as often) repetition,
as well as a “second”—or follow-up—assessment
(Pomerantz, 1984).
Results
We analyzed our data qualitatively, as already
described. Additionally, we analyzed interview
data collected before and after Rie’s sojourn quan-
titatively to ascertain cross-time language devel-
opment. These data are presented in the online
supporting information; they show large increases
in Rie’s linguistic luency and complexity over
10 months, while accuracy remained stable. The
qualitative analysis that follows aims to present
different perspectives on how Rie’s cross-time
development was environmentally supported and
occurred in moment-to-moment interaction.
Activity Type. The activity type studied here is
baking together. Collaborative baking is a form of
triadic interaction, wherein individuals focus shared
attention and action on co-active environmen-
tal affordances in completing a task (van Lier,
2000).8 As seen in Picture 1 (taken after the activ-
ity started), Rie and Jaakko sit side-by-side facing
the video camera, with a cooking pot serving as
mixing bowl centered on the table before them.
Arrayed around the pot left to right are: a coffee
cup (serving as measuring cup); several transpar-
ent bags of dry ingredients; a large wooden spoon
(for stirring); a latware spoon (serving as mea-
suring spoon—both spoons are partly obscured
in the picture); a sake bottle (serving as rolling
pin); a latware knife; a bag of lour; butter; eggs;
and a kitchen towel. The lack of specialized mea-
suring tools is notable—Rie had recently moved
into a furnished apartment with minimal cooking
equipment.
478 The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
PICTURE 1 (P1): Activity Setting

Activities are typically initiated cross-modally.
As the video begins, Rie is positioning the video
camera so it takes in the scene. After about
40 seconds, she steps back fully into the pic-
ture and starts pulling at a band-aid on her right
thumb. At 54 seconds Jaakko enters the pic-
ture (gesturing left hand irst) from right, as
Excerpt 1 begins.
For most of this excerpt, Rie and Jaakko ap-
pear to be in different activity-worlds. Thus, in

EXCERPT 1:
Activity Initiation (Bold print marks activity-initiating elements)
Dwight Atkinson et al. 479
lines 1–2, Jaakko gestures toward the chair to so that by the end of the excerpt Rie and Jaakko
Rie’s left and requests, “Please sit” (Picture 2). occupy the same ‘activity world.’ This total activ-
Still focused intently on her band-aid, Rie queries ity environment plays a constitutive and dynamic
and expands Jaakko’s utterance—“Sit down?” (3– role throughout the baking activity—and it is a
4)—in an “absent-minded” voice. Rie then sits pedagogical role per our deinition of teaching,
down as Jaakko answers, “Yeah” (5), but immedi- since it organizes and enables social action-for-
ately looks off-screen toward the video controller, learning. In Excerpts 2–4, we focus directly on lin-
stands, and begins moving off-screen, uttering, guistic structuring of the environment via partic-
“It started?” (10; Picture 3). Jaakko simultane- ipation structures/routines; as a result, the total
ously sits down and starts to rub his right hand environment, which continues to shape the inter-
across the table, commenting that it needs clean- action, is discussed more selectively.
ing (11–12). Still off-camera, Rie responds with
Participation Structures/Routines. Here, we irst
a quiet “Yeah” (13), 2 seconds elapse, and then
establish the nature of the cooperative baking
Jaakko utters “So” (15)—a discourse marker com-
routine—the primary participation structure ap-
monly signaling a new activity or participation
pearing in the interaction—in Excerpts 2 and 3
structure (Schiffrin, 1987). Rie then comes on-
and Table 1. We then show how it explicitly sup-
screen briely before disappearing again as she
ported SLA in Excerpt 4.10
echoes Jaakko’s “so” quietly, pauses, and contin-
In Excerpt 2, as Jaakko starts to open the lour
ues in measured speech, “Did I start it? No?”
bag (1), Rie attempts to initiate the routine by
Then, following a 3-second pause, she utters a
stating “irst” while picking up the butter (3;
loud and emphatic “Yes!” followed by “ok” (18–
Picture 6); Jaakko simultaneously utters “Let’s
19). As she sits down again, Rie glances briely at
see” (5). Rie then retracts her bid (“Not not this
Jaakko, touches the pot with her left hand, and
irst”—6) and in line 8 Jaakko initiates the routine
looks directly into the camera, smiling (19–21;
with “First thing.” He then repositions the lour
Picture 4). Jaakko then restates his “So,” turns to
bag (Picture 7) in order to read the recipe printed
Rie, and requests an explicit deinition of the ac-
(in Finnish) on its side and continues, “We have
tivity/situation (Goffman, 1964) in a loud, cheer-
the milk?” (10), while tapping his right index in-
ful voice: “What are we doing?” ending in a broad
ger on the pot/mixing bowl (Picture 8), which in-
smile (23–25; Picture 5). Rie laughingly replies,
deed already contains the milk, since they had to
“Making cinnamon rolls,” while gazing at and
warm it earlier. Jaakko next reads the amount of
then leaning toward Jaakko (26–27).
milk required—“Five deciliters” (14)—and moves
Although Rie and Jaakko’s actions mostly di-
to the next ingredient: “Now we put there one
verge in Excerpt 1,9 by the end of the excerpt
egg” (17). As Jaakko produces these initial moves
they are together physically (side-by-side before
in the routine, Rie actively participates by (a) co-
the mixing bowl), affectively (smiling and laugh-
gazing at the recipe,11 (b) performing the role
ing), cognitively (gaze-sharing—a visible sign of
of primary doer versus Jaakko’s role as primary
shared cognition), and linguistically (Jaakko re-
recipe reader/voicer (these roles are somewhat
quests and Rie provides the name of the activ-
ideal initially, since the irst ingredient—warmed
ity being initiated). The social actors are thus
milk—has already been prepared) by tipping the
now environmentally co-organized as an essential
pot/mixing bowl to check the milk (15; Picture 9)
step toward accomplishing a complex cooperative
and later reaching for the egg carton (18), and
activity.
(c) conirming each turn in Jaakko’s recipe read-
There is no magic moment of learning—no
ing with continuers (13, 15, 16, & 18) and
‘aha’ moment—in Excerpt 1. Yet, if activity types
repetition (18).
are without-which-nots for social action, they must
In Excerpt 3, which occurs almost 2 minutes
also be without-which-nots for learning/teaching.
after Excerpt 2 (for intervening material see
Put differently, the environment is undergo-
Excerpt 5), the baking routine continues, but
ing progressive structuring and alignment as
now includes negotiating the measurement of
Excerpt 1 proceeds. By getting seated, conirm-
ingredients.
ing the video camera is running, wiping the ta-
Here, as in Excerpt 2, Jaakko plays the primary
ble (perfunctorily), organizing affect and atten-
role of recipe reader, while Rie adds ingredients
tion as shared affect and attention, and, inally
to the mixing bowl. This is unproblematic in the
(and doubtless partly for the audience’s sake [see
case of the egg (1–2), which is a discrete unit, but
note 9] but still a means of organizing action),
not for the next ingredient: sugar. As already men-
explicitly marking activity initiation linguistically,
tioned, Rie and Jaakko lack a measuring cup and
the ecosocial environment becomes co-organized,
480
EXCERPT 2:
Baking Routine Initiation (Bold print marks routine elements in Excerpts 2–4)
spoons, so correct measurement of ingredients—
as to some degree in all cooperative cooking—is
up for negotiation.
Thus, after Jaakko reads “Sugar? Two deciliters”
(5), Rie asks, “Is that two” while holding up the
coffee cup they are using as a cup measure (8;
Picture 10). After a 2-second pause Jaakko ex-
presses doubt (“I I I hope that it is”—10), and
in line 11 Rie says “a little bit” as she starts to
pour sugar into the cup. Rie’s meaning is not
clear here, but both parties use this expression
repeatedly while measuring ingredients (often in
the collocation “a little bit more?”) to request
sociocognitive co-participation in the measuring
activity. Next, following another 2-second pause,
Jaakko again expresses doubt (“Is two deciliters re-
ally that much?”—14) while Rie continues to pour
sugar, responding initially to Jaakko’s query with
“I don’t know its its,” and then screaming playfully
when the sugar comes out in an unregulated way
(15–17; Picture 11). Jaakko then ventures a guess
that the cup holds about 2.5 deciliters (18). Rie
irst questions Jaakko’s guess (“Really?”), but then
inquires whether to add more sugar (“A little bit
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
more?” Picture 12), after which she recommences
pouring (19, 22; Picture 13). Jaakko’s eyes start to
wander right beyond Rie as he conirms at line
24 and then intones “Hm:” (26).12 Rie then con-
cludes the sugar-adding step in the routine by say-
ing, “And that’s it. That’s enough” (27, 29)—two
expressions they commonly use to bring recipe
steps to completion.
Although we have focused particularly on
linguistic structuring of the sociocognitive en-
vironment in Excerpts 2 and 3, it should be
noted that (a) the material structuring of the
environment, as delineated earlier vis-à-vis activity
type, continues to play a constitutive role in the
action—without the written recipe on the lour
bag, for instance, or the cup, sugar, and mixing
bowl, the whole operation would be signiicantly
less structured and thus less possible, (b) the
linguistic environment is itself material and mul-
timodal, involving, inter alia, intonation, volume,
rhythm, words, clauses, discourse markers, rep-
etition, physical production of speech, and the
tight discursive structuring of the routine itself,
and (c) all the foregoing phenomena, while
Dwight Atkinson et al.
EXCERPT 3:
Baking Routine Negotiation
adding complexity, also add simplicity—they
constitute stable conigurations of affordances
that enable action to go on, affording better
adaptation/alignment where necessary. Once
again, there is no ‘aha’ learning in these data,
yet structuring the environment is a signiicant
ongoing accomplishment that both increases the
likelihood of ‘mindless coping’—itself a form of
learning (compare ‘automaticity’ in cognitivist
SLA approaches)—and constitutes a dynamic
contextual matrix for more mindful learning
(including ‘aha’ moments, see Excerpt 4). As
such, it constitutes a dynamic natural pedagogical
environment.
Table 1 presents the main linguistic elements
in the cooperative baking routine, listed in or-
der of occurrence in the routine. These elements
were determined primarily by counting colloca-
tion frequencies in the irst 30 minutes of video-
tape/1,061 lines of transcript. But frequency is
not the sole indicator of routinization: “First,”
for instance, occurs just three times in these
data, all at the routine’s beginning, yet it has two
important functions: (a) initiating the routine,
and (b) advance organizing the routine’s step-
481
by-step procedural organization (i.e., “irst” an-
ticipates further discrete steps). “Enough” like-
wise plays an important organizational role in this
routine, belying its frequency, as a bid to con-
clude a speciic step in the recipe. Other ele-
ments also occur only at certain points in the
routine, such as bare statements of ingredient
and amount, which all occur before the dough
is formed (i.e., as new ingredients are still being
added).
The schematic structure revealed in Table 1
clearly illustrates the large decrease in “degrees of
freedom” Wood et al. (1976) described as a major
function of scaffolding. The language of baking
was thus in no sense randomly formed or gener-
ated in our data; rather, it fell within well-deined
limits, thereby providing a discourse-level support
structure for learning.
Excerpt 4 shows directly how the cooperative
baking routine occasioned a public ‘aha’ mo-
ment in SLA. It occurred about 2 minutes after
Excerpt 3, as Rie and Jaakko continued measuring
and adding ingredients to the mixing bowl/pot.
In Excerpt 4, lines 1–4, Jaakko and Rie com-
plete the next step in the recipe—measuring
482
TABLE 1
Linguistic Elements of Cooperative Baking Routine (Based on irst 30 minutes of video/1,061 lines of
transcript)
Element
“First”
1st person plu. pers.
PN + verb
Order-marking discourse markers
(except “irst”, & “enough”)
Bare statement of ingredient/amount
“That” + BE form + nominal or adjective
1st/2nd person sing. pers.
PN + verb (often incl. modal)
“A little (bit)”
“Enough”
Note. plu. = plural; pers. = personal; PN = pronoun; sing. = singular
and adding cardamom (Picture 14). Then,
in lines 7–8, Jaakko reviews the ingredients
added thus far and tacks on the next ingredient:
“and then the salt.” Five transcript lines are ex-
cluded at this point; when the excerpt resumes,
they are starting to measure the salt (9–12;
Picture 15). In line 13 Jaakko indicates that the
proper amount of salt has now been added: “Yeah,
suficient amount,” with “suficient amount” play-
ing the same functional role as “enough” (see
Table 1)—announcing the completion of the
current recipe step. But the item “suficient”
appears to be unknown to Rie: She repeats “suf-
icient amount” under her breath, pauses for
.8 seconds, then repeats “suficient?” in a louder
voice with rising intonation as she shifts her gaze
to Jaakko while blinking several times (14; Picture
16). Jaakko responds by shifting his gaze to Rie
and using the linguistic tool they commonly use
for this function—“Enough” (16; Picture 17)—
thereby anchoring the new item directly in the
routine. Rie then repeats “suficient” under her
breath while continuing to gaze at Jaakko (17).
A 2-second pause follows, and Jaakko concludes
this side sequence by plugging the unknown
item directly into a major routine element—the
“that” + BE form + nominal/adjective (see
Table 1): “That’s suficient” (19). A 2.5-second
pause follows as Rie moves on to the next step in
the recipe by opening a yeast packet and uttering,
“Yeast? Not yet?” (21; Picture 18).
Although we do not know whether Rie ever
used or even encountered “suficient” again (it
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
Examples Frequency
“First”; “First thing” 3
“We have the milk?” “Now we 23
put there one egg?”; “Let’s put a
little more sugar”
“And”; “now”; “then” 26
“And sugar? Two deciliters”; 8
“Five deciliters”; “One egg”
“Is that two?”; “That’s two and a half” “And 23
that’s it”; “That’s suficient”
“Can I put in there”; “And you put”; “You 16
should put there”
“Yeah, a little bit”; “A little bit more”; Let’s 26
put a little more sugar”
“Enough? Or?”: “Enough” 6
does not appear elsewhere in the data), this
is a clear instance of “microgenesis” (Lantolf,
2000), as the learner publicly displays the notic-
ing of a new linguistic object. Two points can
be made. First, this learning opportunity actually
provides far more than mere noticing of a new
lexical item: Rie is learning a word that enables
a speciic speech act that marks a boundary in a
speciic routine/participation structure within a
speciic activity type—a sophisticated tool for so-
cial action in its rich, naturally occurring so-
ciocognitive environment. Second, without the
rich contextual matrix within which this ‘aha’
moment occurred, it could not have occurred.
That is, only through the dense structuring of
the participation structure/routine did “sufi-
cient” appear in the irst place—as a synonym for
“enough,” which itself plays a deinite, major role
in the routine, as just noted. The sociocognitive
organization of the environment thus enabled
the learning/pedagogical action van Lier (1996)
called “contingency”: “Elements of predictabil-
ity (known-ness, the familiar)” afford access to
elements of “unpredictability (newness, the unfa-
miliar) (...) [through] joint interpretive work (...)
which simultaneously connects the new to what is
known, and sets up expectations for what is to hap-
pen next” (pp. 170, 172).
Churchill (2007) described in detail how an-
other sociocognitive lexical tool was introduced
and integrated into his linguistic repertoire: He
tracked his own evolving understanding over a
2-month period of a Japanese medical term that
Dwight Atkinson et al.
EXCERPT 4:
Visible Learning in Baking Routine
played an important role in helping him resolve
a medical crisis. In Churchill’s case, a bedside
computer, medical chart, nurse, spouse, friends,
the Chinese/Japanese kanji system, a dictionary,
and his journal were the natural teachers; in the
present case it was Jaakko, the material environ-
ment, the highly structured nature of the rou-
tine, the virtual system of English grammar (e.g.,
the paradigmatic construction system of “That” +
BE form + adjective), intonation, gaze, attention,
and other sociocognitive affordances which were
the teachers, as they all converged to enable this
learning opportunity.
Co-Construction of Accounts/Tellings. While the
cooperative baking routine was the main partic-
ipation structure supporting Rie and Jaakko’s
interaction, they also engaged in teasing, telling
stories, and, as described here, co-constructing
dramatized accounts based on elements in the
ecosocial environment. Such high-involvement,
highly scaffolded activities are likely fertile
ground for participation-based language learn-
ing/teaching, that is, in learning how to produce
483
extended discourse. Excerpt 5 is a highly co-
constructed account based on a cartoon of a
chicken playing tennis on an egg carton and a
short companion text. The excerpt begins where
Excerpt 2 ended (i.e., line 1 repeats the last line
of Excerpt 2).
The set of semantic propositions co-
constructed in Excerpt 5 is substantial and
complex—here is a reconstruction: I bought this
egg package/carton for our friend Hagi because
it’s very cute—it’s a nice color and the chicken
pictured on it is playing tennis. This is because
the chickens producing these eggs are not kept in
big chicken houses with lots of cages but instead
can walk around, playing in the dirt and pecking
freely. This is not especially ecological but it’s
better for the chickens.
Clearly, some of the lexicogrammar in this re-
construction is not in the transcript, yet it is
equally clear that Jaakko’s assistance takes Rie sub-
stantially beyond what she can do alone, thereby
providing highly effective scaffolding. Also no-
table is the complex multimodality of the co-
construction: It involves not just two people
484
EXCERPT 5:
Co-Construction of Dramatized Accounts
using language, but a picture; a written text (in
Finnish); gaze; gesture; other kinds of body move-
ment (e.g., Jaakko imitating a pecking chicken);
and objects like egg cartons, lour bags, tables,
and chairs—all in complex, symbiotic, coordi-
nated interaction. The alignment is therefore
both deep and highly public, providing a rich en-
vironment for learning how to go on by going on.
More speciically, after reaching for the egg car-
ton in line 1 (Picture 19), Rie initiates what looks
like a narrative “pre-telling” (Schegloff, 2007) by
stating that she bought the egg carton because
a mutual friend “want this package she said”
(2–3). As she briely shifts her gaze to Jaakko
(Picture 20), Rie adds what is probably an expla-
nation for their friend’s desire—“In this package
is very cute” (4–5)—but does not link it linguis-
tically to her immediately preceding utterance.
Jaakko then takes Rie’s possible story-telling pref-
ace in a different direction, querying the mean-
ing of “cute”—“Nice color?” (7)—which Rie both
conirms and expands on (“Nice color a- sh- sh-
that bird playing tennis,” 8–9), as she appears to
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
point at the egg carton picture (her ingers are
largely obscured by the cooking pot). Jaakko then
puts his right index inger on the Finnish text
accompanying the picture and begins translating
(12–13).
As Jaakko translates he dramatically enacts
the text with hand gestures (15–16 & 18–19;
Pictures 21, 22, and 25) and head movements
(33–34; Picture 26). He also marks his place
in the text—and publicly displays that he is
reading/translating—by repeatedly putting his
right index inger on it (12, 20, and 32–33;
Pictures 23 & 24). Rie, for her part, contributes
to the co-construction via continuers (17, 28),
expansions/speciications (“walk around?” 23),
summaries (“free to walk and free to,” 35–36),
causal inferences (e.g., “That’s why (...) she play-
ing tennis,” 36–37), and gestures (Picture 24).
She also adds a concluding assessment (“But
good for chicken,” 46), which may partly respond
to Jaakko’s “So” (42) as “a marker of potential
[participation structure] transition” (Schiffrin,
1987, p. 227). Goodwin and Goodwin (1992)
Dwight Atkinson et al.
EXCERPT 5:
(continued)
noted that assessments often conclude particular
talk sequences, and this appears to be the case
here: Following Jaakko’s “So,” Rie offers an ini-
tial assessment of sorts (see note 7; assessments
are described in more detail later)—“It is eco-
logical not ecological?” (43–44)—which Jaakko
then conirms with “Not ecological but” (45), to
which Rie adds a second assessment: “But good
for chicken” (46). In lines 48–49 Jaakko inally
brings the telling to a close with a second, “up-
graded” assessment (Pomerantz, 1984), “Yeah bet-
ter for chicken,” as he shifts his gaze back to
the recipe on the lour bag, which he had al-
ready repositioned in lines 39–40, perhaps as
an embodied ‘pre-closing’ to the account/telling
activity.
In fact, Rie and Jaakko’s discursive dance is
substantially more symbiotic than this rather
dry, sequential description conveys. For exam-
485
ple, mutual gaze is established three times in
Excerpt 5, whereas it occurs only once in
Excerpts 2–4—when Rie noticed the word
“suficient.” One likely explanation is that the
account/telling activity is less grounded in
the sociomaterial environment than the coop-
erative baking routine, therefore requiring a
higher level of shared attention for its accom-
plishment, which in turn requires more gaze-
seeking/monitoring/embodied conirmation.
In any case, the account/telling activity provides
numerous learning opportunities in a high-
involvement setting; we conclude this subsection
by noting four such opportunities: (a) In line 7,
Jaakko’s “nice color” provides Rie with a linguis-
tic base to build on (“Nice color a- sh- sh- that
bird playing tennis,” 8–9), (b) in line 21, Jaakko
produces a fairly vague/generalized description
(“where they [i.e., the chickens] can do stuff”),
486
EXCERPT 6:
Repetition (Partly incorporating elements of Excerpt 2; bold print and lines mark repetitions)
which affords Rie the opportunity to specify: “W-
walk around?” (23), (c) in line 45, in response to
Rie’s “It is ecological. Not ecological?” (43–44),
Jaakko provides a discourse-grammar frame for
Rie to ill in: “Not ecological but” (45), which
Rie then completes with “But good for chicken”
(46), and (d) after Rie produces “But good for
chicken,” Jaakko provides a paradigmatic sub-
stitution by reframing Rie’s utterance: “Yeah, b-
better for chicken” (48–49). We cannot claim that
any of these instances lead to ‘aha’ moments or
cognitive uptake of new language structures,
but if language learning happens moment-by-
moment in the ine structure of interaction, then
these are likely the kinds of instances that matter.
Certainly, the highly co-constructed nature of the
co-telling offers various learning opportunities,
and therefore natural pedagogical-type teaching.
Repetition. Repetition pervades Rie and
Jaakko’s interaction—thus, the cooperative bak-
ing routine analyzed earlier is fundamentally
structured by repetition. We treat repetition
more selectively here, however, as immediate
repetition (often with variation) of own or inter-
locutor talk, with our examples coming largely
from the excerpts already provided.
Thus, in Excerpt 2 (lines 3–6) Rie bids to ini-
tiate the cooperative baking routine by using the
discourse marker “irst.” She does not succeed—
in fact, she undercuts her bid almost immediately
by negativizing it (“Not not this irst”) as she picks
up the butter.13 Rie’s bid nonetheless effectively
moves the action forward, as Jaakko then success-
fully initiates the routine with a partial repeat,
“First thing,” in line 8. In fact, the repetition at this
point is dense and highly co-constructed, possibly
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
relecting the sociocognitive complexity of begin-
ning a new speech action/participation structure
involving a partial reorganization of the environ-
ment. Thus, in Excerpt 6 (partly incorporating el-
ements of Excerpt 2), we get rich and complex
repetition (nonverbal description is minimized to
highlight linguistic patterning).
Despite Rie’s lack of success in initiating the
routine (lines 8–11 in Excerpt 6), it could be ar-
gued that she generates a substantial learning op-
portunity: Her attempt prompts Jaakko to provide
a successful model (12) in a timely, relevant fash-
ion. In any case, repetition is heavily used here
by both parties to sociocognitively bootstrap their
way into a complex speech activity, and thereby to
go on.
A second example of how repetition may pro-
vide speciic learning opportunities occurs at the
start of Excerpt 4, reproduced below as Excerpt 7,
as Rie and Jaakko negotiate the correct amount of
cardamom.
EXCERPT 7:
Repetition Presenting Learning Opportunities
(Partly repeating Excerpt 4; bold print marks
repetition)
1 J: That’s enough? A little bit
more?
2 R: A little bit more? (.5) Enough?
(.4) ↑Yeah
3 J: Yea:h that’s it.
4 (2.0)
5 J: That’s (.) cardamom (.5) sugar
6 egg and then the salt .
[5 lines deleted]
7 J: And that’s on:e teaspoon.
Dwight Atkinson et al.
In line 1 Jaakko queries “That’s enough? A
little bit more?,” which Rie virtually recycles,
with variation: “A little bit more? Enough? Yeah”
(2). Jaakko responds with “Yeah that’s it” (3)
and then basically summarizes the ingredients
they have added so far while tacking on a new
one: “That’s cardamom sugar egg and then the
salt” (5–6). In doing so Jaakko twice reuses
the same “that” + BE form + nominal/adjective
pattern he used in line 1, thereby modeling
varying uses of this pattern in almost a substitu-
tion drill-like way; he adds an additional instance
in line 7.
A third and inal example of repetition oc-
curs in Excerpt 8 (which repeats material from
Excerpt 5), where Jaakko queries what Rie
means by “very cute” (as found in Excerpt 5,
line 5):
EXCERPT 8:
Repetition plus Expansion (Repeats material
from Excerpt 5)
1 J: Nice color?
2 R: Nice color a- (.4) sh- sh- that bird
3 playing tennis . ((gazes at J))
Here, Rie reproduces Jaakko’s utterance ex-
actly but then expands on it substantially, thereby
illustrating (a) the cross-cognitive uptake and
use of publicly displayed social action to build
new/additional social action (Goodwin, 2013;
Moore, 2011), and (b) a possible example of the
emergence of Rie’s ability to use the tool of clausal
coordination to go on. One of the main ind-
ings of our quantitative analysis (see online sup-
porting information) was that clausal coordina-
tion was absent in Rie’s pre-Finland interview data
but prominent post-Finland. Thus, we interpret
the “a-” in line 2 as an incomplete realization of
“and,” the incompleteness of which may be due
to the increased (socio)cognitive effort needed
to determine the correct subject (“sh[e]- sh[e]-”
versus “that bird”) of the ensuing clause (see
Excerpt 5, lines 36–37 for an analogous instance
of processing dificulty). If this interpretation is
correct, what is notable here is that the clausal
coordination is interactively constructed: Jaakko pro-
vides the original material (“Nice color”) to be co-
ordinated, which Rie then adds “a[nd] (...) that
bird playing tennis.” In Goodwin’s (2013) words,
“human beings inhabit each other’s actions”
(p. 8).
Assessments. Evaluation is pervasive in our
data, as in all interactive discourse, but explicit
assessments occur only occasionally. Two exam-
487
ples were already mentioned in describing the co-
constructed account/telling in Excerpt 5 (lines 4–
10 and 43–49, although only the latter was labeled
an assessment there).
In Excerpt 5, lines 4–5 Rie offers a possible
explanation for why their friend Hagi wanted
the egg carton Rie is holding, but it is also
an assessment: “In this package is very cute.”
Jaakko then queries what “cute” means by of-
fering a candidate second/follow-up assessment:
“Nice color?” (7). The inal rising intonation is
important here because (a) assessment activity
is often “fundamentally afiliative” (Heritage &
Raymond, 2005), and (b) “the [original] speaker
has primary rights to evaluate the matter assessed”
(p. 16). As described previously, Rie does not re-
spond to Jaakko’s candidate assessment simply
by saying “yes” or “no,” but rather by repeating
and then building on it: “Nice color a- sh- sh-
that bird playing tennis” (8–9), thus both embrac-
ing and further developing the afiliative valence
of the assessment sequence. As in Ohta’s (1999)
classroom-based research, assessments appear to
be fundamental building blocks of affective align-
ment/shared emotion here: By taking up and
building on Jaakko’s candidate assessment, mu-
tual positive affect is afforded. At the same time,
Jaakko’s assessment provides Rie with material to
build a syntactically more complex/multiclausal
account, and therefore to perform as a compe-
tent participant. Or, to put it more sociocogni-
tively, syntax involves far more than simply arrang-
ing/ordering (“tax[is]”/tactics) linguistic units
together (“syn”) here—it facilitates people ar-
ranging themselves together through language in
order to perform ecosocial action (Ochs et al.,
1996).
A second example of assessments occurs near
the end of Excerpt 9 (repeating material in
Excerpt 5), where Rie and Jaakko are discussing
the picture on the egg carton and its companion
text.
EXCERPT 9:
Assessments Closing Action Sequence (Repeats
material from Except 5)
1 R: It is ecological ((shifts gaze to J;
J briefly returns gaze))
2 not ecological?=
3 J: =U:h not ecological but
4 R: ((Cracks egg on table)) But good (.)
for chicken.
5 [
6 J: Yeah be-(.) better for chicken. (.5)
7 ((Reading recipe))
488
As mentioned previously, assessments fre-
quently function to close action sequences.
Jaakko probably begins to exit the ac-
count/telling at Excerpt 5, lines 39–40, where
he repositions the lour bag. Then, in line 42,
he utters “So”—an activity transition-marking
discourse marker (Schiffrin, 1987). But Rie
continues with what we interpreted earlier as
a noncanonical assessment (see note 7): “It is
ecological. Not ecological?” (lines 1 and 2 in
Excerpt 9), to which Jaakko responds, “U:h not
ecological but.” Rie then takes up Jaakko’s “but”
and adds “but good for chicken,” which Jaakko
overlaps with, “Yeah be- better for chicken.” As
Ohta (1999) argued based on her classroom
data, afiliative “aligning expressions” occur
frequently in assessments, perhaps as a way
of showing interactors that they are on the
same affective page. Simultaneously, interclausal
syntax is afforded here through this rich co-
construction/alignment: Rie uses Jaakko’s “but”
as a jumping-off point in producing “but good
for chicken.”
DISCUSSION
In analyzing our data, we have tried to show how
the rich mindbodyworld matrix of Rie and Jaakko’s
baking activity/interaction supports it at every
turn. Likewise, we have tried to indicate how this
matrix conditions/affords teaching and learning.
This may be most obvious in the microgenetic
‘aha’ moment found in Excerpt 4, but for us this is
just the tip of the iceberg. Context and interaction
cannot be pried apart—the igure emerges only
in relation to the ground: Social action, including
learning and teaching, exists within larger struc-
tures of semiotic modalities, objects, and evolved
skills that afford it—without which it cannot occur
(Canagarajah, 2018; Goodwin, 2003).
Although interaction/language is emergent
and agentively produced in this world, it is emer-
gent and agentive largely on the basis of ecosocial
stabilities, because “objects in the environment
[also] have agency to shape human actors”
(Canagarajah, 2018, p. 272). Something similar
holds for learning and teaching—themselves
basic forms of interaction—in sociocognitive
theory: As a natural function of interaction,
learning opportunities (van Lier’s “newness,
unfamiliarity”) are contingent on the structured
and structuring tools and matrices (van Lier’s
“oldness, familiarity”) of social interaction. These
include socially deined activity types, routines,
co-construction, repetition, and assessment ac-
tion packages (Goodwin, 2003). Being able to
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
“go on” (Shotter, 1996) in a richly structured
sociocognitive world “apt for engagement and
action” (Clark, 2016, p. xv) is thus a vital con-
dition for—and important facet of—adaptive
learning/teaching. Engagement via alignment
with mindbodyword is the main aspect of learn-
ing/teaching we hope to have highlighted here.
Such engagement can be mindful and inten-
tional, or not, or anywhere in between. That
is, if the means of human teaching and learn-
ing have evolved over many millennia, they
need not be consciously activated (i.e., inten-
tionally attended to) to function. Rather, they
are part of our “‘mindless’ (...) absorbed cop-
ing” (Streeck, 2015, p. 423)—our continuous
moment-to-moment alignment in the existential
mode phenomenologists call the ‘natural atti-
tude,’ in which we ‘go on’ unthinkingly while
thinking of other things. This is not to deny the
enormous lexibility of adaptive attention in hu-
mans, or the many gradations between mindless
and mindful activity, but it is to assert the reality of
learning-by-going on. What else could ‘practice ef-
fects’ and ‘incidental learning,’ for example, be?
Turning now to issues of SLA methodology
and epistemology, Boxer and Zhu (2017), among
others, assert that scholars have been unable to
demonstrate SLA in moment-to-moment interac-
tion. This is true, if learning is deined as pri-
vate cognitive development. Long and Doughty
(2003) exemplify this position, criticizing schol-
ars who “persist in seeing external learner behav-
ior, even group behavior, not mental states, as the
proper domain of inquiry” (p. 86). Problems with
this position include (a) crypto-behaviorism—if
development is private and internal then it is de-
tectable only through measuring behavioral re-
sponses (Costall, 2004), (b) neglect of learning
processes—learning artifacts are the main object
of study, and (c) disregard for the deep embed-
dedness of social action in complex mindbodyworld
ecologies. In mainstream SLA research, learning
so deined often leads to studies of (pre- and post)
test-taking behavior.
Based (at least tacitly) on such understandings
of learning, various researchers have attempted
to ind evidence of learning in interactional data
longitudinally (e.g., Dings, 2014; Ohta, 1999).
These are worthy efforts, but they still treat learn-
ing as change between discrete points—the points
are now contextualized and focal, but the learn-
ing process itself is still largely invisible. “Learning
in light” (Atkinson, 2010) is not yet on the table.
An alternative approach highlights moments
of demonstrable uptake of linguistic items, as
we do here in Excerpt 4 and our earlier work.
Dwight Atkinson et al.
Studies of interactional repair have gone farthest
in this direction—uptake of those opportunities
also typically involves focusing of attention, an im-
portant avenue for learning and a major topic in
mainstream SLA studies. But implicitly deining
SLA as the totality of uptake moments seems
as insuficient as viewing it as the totality of ac-
quired forms (Gregg, 1984). In addition, such
‘aha’ moments are almost by deinition excep-
tional, since they require focal awareness—a lim-
ited and expensive (socio)cognitive process. How
can we conceptualize SLA in other—hopefully
complementary—ways?
Our theoretical starting point is that, instead of
being primarily an invisible and exceptional cog-
nitive process, learning is part of everyday life:
What happens when people align with their ecoso-
cial environments while accomplishing daily ac-
tivities. This is not a simple argument, and our
research is highly exploratory, yet something sim-
ilar is widely accepted in learning theory: Human
learning is a natural process, and although age
may affect it, it is life-long. It takes but one small
additional step to place learning in an adaptive,
ecosocial framework, as part of natural, ongoing
worldly alignment. Alignment is basic to human
existence, so treating learning as part of it does
not seem radical at all.
A second step in our argument is that teaching
is also natural. This claim is complex, but can be
presented as a logical sequence: (a) Humans have
evolved into nonpareil environmental adapters,
(b) such radical adapters must structure their
environments radically and complexly to make
them adaptive, (c) these complex structurings far
outstrip what people can learn individually—that
is, without teaching/cultural transmission, and
therefore (d) humans have evolved a ‘pedagog-
ical instinct’—teaching has become an essential
part of our adaptive toolkit. Thus, we learn in our
particular ways through unique evolved sensitivi-
ties to pedagogical action, just as, conversely, our
teaching naturally teaches to those sensitivities.
This is the theory of natural pedagogy, wherein
learning and teaching co-evolved.
A third step in our argument is that, given
our evolved sensitivities to pedagogical action,
we both (a) design human environments to
teach/support learning, and (b) ind teaching
widely in our world. Point (a) is easily demon-
strated: Literacy, for instance, is a form of envi-
ronmental design that enables various types of
learning—it is no exaggeration to say that books
teach. Point (b) is more dificult: It holds that we
are so pedagogically oriented that we ind teach-
ers opportunistically across the environment. Put
489
differently, if teaching is whatever enables us to
learn, as argued by Gee (n.d.) and Atkinson
(2017), it is widely distributed—not limited to hu-
man or human-designed teachers at all.
Whether one accepts this argument or not,
it seems obvious that human teaching extends
well beyond its traditional conceptualization: a
formally designated ‘teacher’ teaching formally
designated ‘students’ in a formally designated,
specialized ‘classroom’ space, following formally
approved methods and approaches to facilitate
the acquisition of learning objects, thereby ful-
illing learning objectives (Atkinson, 2017). This
characterization is in no way intended to diminish
classroom teaching—it may be the most complex,
powerful, adaptive macro-support structure for
teaching in the world today.
Yet such conceptualizations of classroom teach-
ing leave out all kinds of natural pedagogy—
embodied and embedded adaptive aligning
behaviors which are pedagogically oriented
(inasmuch as humans are pedagogically oriented
by nature), but unlikely to be intentional or
part of a plan. Smotrova (2017), taking an SCT
perspective, found that the university English-
as-a-second-language (ESL) teacher she studied
used “pedagogical gestures” in highly intentional
ways—as artiicial mediational means to accom-
plish her pedagogical objectives. From a sociocog-
nitive perspective, however, this teacher—as every
teacher—was doing far more than deploying a
well-planned pedagogical technique: Close ex-
amination of the data/analysis shows that she was
using multiple embodied tools for alignment
(smiling, rhythmic head tilts, rhythmic body
movement, and interactional synchrony) that
were very unlikely to have been intentionally
planned. Rather—or additionally—the teacher
was adaptively aligning and ‘mindlessly’ inter-
acting with her students in the “unio mystico or
socialized trance” (Goffman, 1957, p. 47) of
highly evolved, highly responsive, and at least
partly spontaneous interaction. We believe that
this element of teaching—its basis in evolved
and ancient human abilities to align with our
environment—has been overlooked and could
productively augment how we think about teach-
ing in SLA/T studies (Atkinson, 2017; Gee, n.d.;
Holmes et al., 2017; van Lier, 2004). In this sense,
it can spark our pedagogical imagination by
helping us look at classrooms, teachers, teaching,
and learning in new and different ways.
Our main focus in the empirical part of this ar-
ticle has been the following: Rather than focusing
exclusively on the intimate details of multimodal
interaction, we have tried to indicate how its
490
embedding in a structured sociomaterial ecology
allows it to emerge. Put differently, the cooper-
ative baking activity did not just emerge; rather,
like all social activities, it was aided, abetted,
organized, and enabled by complex environmen-
tal (including linguistic) structuring. This is not to
suggest a binary distinction between interaction
and context (Canagarajah, 2018)—as stated ear-
lier they are fundamentally integrated in our view.
Rather, it is to expand the focus on visible, public
interactivity to include what makes that interac-
tivity possible—the ecosocial structuring of the
environment.
To summarize and conclude, human interac-
tion involving learning/teaching is emergent, but
its very emergence is enabled by dense environ-
mental structuring: It is only by severely limiting
the domain of possible actions—the degrees of
freedom—that we can have social action at all.
And that social action, while not environmentally
determined per se, must accord and align with
the sociomaterial world. Ultimately, this means re-
thinking second language learning/teaching as
part of—not apart from—the rest of the world.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We dedicate this article to the memory of our beloved
colleague, Takako Nishino. To be with Takako was to
experience a life lived full—full of wonder, delight,
strength, intelligence, industry, humor, and, above all
else, an ininite capacity to love. Takako, you are with
us each day in your liveliness and caring. In that sense
nothing has changed.
We would also like to acknowledge the kind support
of April Ginther, Jinju Nishino, and Christine Tardy.
NOTES
1 ited focus and directionality, can record, are missing
Atkinson et al. (2007) deined alignment as “the
complex means by which human beings effect co-
ordinated interaction, and maintain that interaction
in dynamically adaptive ways” (p. 169). Alignment
therefore encompasses (a) the ongoing interactive
processes themselves, (b) the outcome of such pro-
cesses, and (c) the conditions and abilities enabling
such processes. It includes interaction with non-human
phenomena, and fundamentally incorporates affect
(see note 7).
Our understanding of the notion of interaction—
always a work in progress (e.g., Atkinson, 2014)—seems
to diverge substantially from those who focus mainly
on its massive sequentiality (Schegloff, 2007). While se-
quential action is obviously central to interaction, we are
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
equally interested in everything that makes such action
possible and supports it in an ongoing way. This includes
all kinds of embodied and embedded ecosocial pro-
cesses, affordances, and action: scaffolding; behavioral
(including linguistic) synchrony and accommodation;
affect, emotion, and empathy; neural resonance (e.g.,
mirror neuron activity); activity systems, participation
frameworks, and deinitions of the situation; instincts
for high-idelity imitation/repetition; instincts and af-
fordances for teaching and learning; ecological pattern
recognition/response; embodied anticipation; guided
improvisation; tool use; intelligent use of space; iden-
tity; and of course turn-taking, sequential organization,
and repair.
Recent research on embodied cognition indicates
integrated perception—emotion—cognition—motor
action—tool—material environment cognitive ecolo-
gies. Phenomenological and Wittgensteinian philos-
ophy prominently feature “felt senses,” almost by
deinition below the level of consciousness. Non-
Western/nondualist ontologies include concepts
(which we know only in Japanese but believe to be
universal) like omoiyari and ishin-denshin, which might
be described as fundamentally relational rather than
individual (see also Canagarajah, 2018).
2 Certain other primates do this—in a limited way.
That is, they still inhabit the same basic physical envi-
ronments and live much the same as they have for mil-
lions of years, indicating the relatively minor role cul-
tural niche construction has played for them.
The human case, for its part, is quite complex: Be-
cause we are evolutionarily adapted to adapt, most of
the speciic skills and abilities needed to adapt to par-
ticular environments cannot be genetically coded. The
distinctive evolutionary solution to this problem is to
give humans the skills to design their environments in
high-dimensional ways and then to preserve and im-
prove those designs by transmitting them within/across
generations.
3 This section is included at the request of reviewers.
Our coverage is necessarily quite selective/partial.
4 Note that audio–video recording presents only a
thin slice of the rich reality of multimodal, face-to-face
interaction for analysis. Physical proximity, smell, and
touch, for instance, but also sight and sound beyond
what video camera/microphone, with their highly lim-
from our data.
5 Our information about participants and context
comes mainly from informal interactions between Rie
and the third author, including regular Skype conversa-
tions while Rie was abroad, and a site visit made by the
irst author. Informed consent was obtained from Rie
and Jaakko to use information obtained in this way, as
well as to use the video data.
6 Ochs et al. (1996) is a telling if partial indicator of
the broad range of uses Jefferson’s transcription system
has been put to in analyzing interaction over the past
30 years (O’Connell & Kowal, 2009).
7 More precisely, assessments are usually deined as
“evaluative act[s], typically performed by an utterance
Dwight Atkinson et al.
that contains a negative or positive predication of a ref-
erent or (...) state of affairs expressed by the subject
or the object of the sentence” (Sorjonen & Hakulinen,
2009, p. 281)—that is, explicit evaluative lexis. Goodwin
and Goodwin (1992), however, open the door to a much
wider range of assessment tools/behaviors when they
treat intonation as a central resource for assessment.
This accords with our own and others’ (e.g., Kinsbourne
& Jordan, 2009) view that affective evaluation pervades
all social interaction.
8 It thus differs somewhat from canonical face-to-face
conversation.
9 The presence of the video camera obviously exer-
cises great inluence at this point, as it is turned on, ad-
justed, habituated to, and the baking activity is initiated.
Research methodologists Heath, Hindmarch, and Luff
(2010) noted that ixed video cameras are often “made
at home” (p. 49) after a few minutes of videotaping, as
interactors get to work on their social projects, but they
also recommended monitoring signs of attention and
action vis-à-vis the video camera throughout the activity
to understand its possible inluence. We did so, inding
that as soon as Rie and Jaakko became seriously engaged
in baking, they rarely looked at or seemed to perform
for the camera. Still, being observed for research pur-
poses clearly changes the ecology: This is the Observer’s
Paradox, which holds for all nonsurreptitious social
observation.
10 It should be mentioned that almost 4 minutes
elapsed between Excerpt 1 and Excerpt 2 as Rie and
Jaakko recalled a humorous incident, discussed whether
they had suficiently warmed the milk, and went off-
screen to wash their hands.
11 Although Rie cannot read Finnish, she appears to
attend to numerical amounts in the written recipe.
12 As Jaakko explains in the immediate subsequent in-
teraction (not included here), he is gazing at the off-
screen milk carton, considering using it as an effective
measuring tool. They decide against this as they are al-
ready well along in the recipe.
13 Rie does this multiple times in our data—she
states a proposition and immediately negativizes it (e.g.,
Excerpt 4, lines 43–44). We do not know why she does
so.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach
to second language acquisition. Modern Language
Journal, 86, 525–545.
Atkinson, D. (2010). Extended, embodied cognition
and second language acquisition. Applied Linguis-
tics, 31, 599–622.
Atkinson, D. (2011a). Preface. In D. Atkinson (Ed.),
Alternative approaches to second language acquisition
(pp. xi–xii). New York: Routledge.
Atkinson, D. (2011b). A sociocognitive approach to sec-
ond language acquisition: How mind, body, and
world work together in learning additional lan-
guages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches
491
to second language acquisition (pp. 143–166). New
York: Routledge.
Atkinson, D. (2012). Adaptive intelligence and second
language acquisition. Applied Linguistics Review, 2,
211–232.
Atkinson, D. (2014). Language learning in mindbody-
world: A sociocognitive approach to second lan-
guage acquisition. Language Teaching, 47, 467–
483.
Atkinson, D. (2017). Homo pedagogicus: The evolution-
ary nature of second language teaching. Language
Teaching, 50, 527–543.
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H.
(2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocog-
nitive approach to second language acquisition.
Modern Language Journal, 91, 169–188.
Bargh, J. (2017). Before you know it. New York: Touch-
stone.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Boxer, D., & Zhu, W. (2017). Discourse and second
language learning. In S. Wortham, D. Kim, & S.
May (Eds.), Discourse and education (pp. 297–309).
Berlin: Springer.
Brown, J. (2005). Process and the authentic life: Toward a
psychology of value. Heusenstamm, Germany: Ontos
Verlag.
Canagarajah, S. (2018). Materializing ‘competence’:
Perspectives from international STEM scholars.
Modern Language Journal, 102, 268–291.
Churchill, E. (2007). A dynamic systems account of
learning a word: From ecology to form relations.
Applied Linguistics, 29, 339–358.
Churchill, E., Nishino, T., Okada, H., & Atkinson, D.
(2010). Symbiotic gesture and the sociocognitive
visibility of grammar. Modern Language Journal, 94,
234–253.
Clark, A. (2016). Suring uncertainty: Prediction, action,
and the embodied mind. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Costall, A. (2004). From Darwin and Watson (and cogni-
tivism) and back again: The principle of animal–
environment mutuality. Behavior and Philosophy,
32, 179–195.
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2011). Natural pedagogy as
evolutionary adaptation. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B, 366, 1149–1157.
Dings, A. (2014). Interactional competence and the de-
velopment of alignment activity. Modern Language
Journal, 98, 742–756.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary frame-
work for SLA in a multilingual world. Mod-
ern Language Journal, 100 (Supplement 2016),
19–47.
Duranti, A. (1996). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of in-
teraction. In M. Lecompte, W. Millroy, & J. Preissle
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in educa-
tion (pp. 201–225). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
492
Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Gadamer, H.–J. (1989). Truth and method. London:
Bloomsbury.
Gee, J. P. (n.d.). Integrated teaching science: An emerging
ield? Unpublished manuscript.
Gee, J. P. (1995). First language acquisition as a guide
for theories of learning and pedagogy. Linguistics
& Education, 6, 331–354.
Gee, J. P. (2017). Introducing discourse analysis. New York:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Goffman, E. (1957). Alienation from interaction. Hu-
man Relations, 10, 47–60.
Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American
Anthropologist, 66, 133–136.
Goffman, E. (1974/1986). Frame analysis. Boston, MA:
Northeastern University Press.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within sit-
uated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32,
1489–1522.
Goodwin, C. (2003). The body in action. In J. Coupland
& R. Gwin (Eds.), Discourse, the body, and identity
(pp. 19–42). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative
organization of human action and knowledge.
Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1992). Assessments and
the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C.
Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an
interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–190). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s Ra-
zor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.
Hall, J. (2017, January). Interactional competence: Look-
ing back, moving forward. Keynote presenta-
tion at the ICOP 2 Conference, Neufchatel,
Switzerland.
Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind.
New York: Harper.
Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics.
New York: Pergamon.
Heath, C., Hindmarch, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qual-
itative research. London: SAGE.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agree-
ment: Indexing epistemic authority and subordi-
nation in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quar-
terly, 68, 15–38.
Holmes, J., Tran, K., & Gee, E. (2017). Distributed teach-
ing and learning systems in the wild. In M. Young
& S. Slota (Eds.), Exploding the castle: Rethinking how
video games & game mechanics can shape the future of
education (pp. 253–269). Charlotte, NC: Informa-
tion Age Publishing.
Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human
cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 27, 34–49.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An intro-
duction. Research in Language & Social Interaction,
28, 171–183.
The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kinsbourne, M., & Jordan, J. (2009). Embodied antici-
pation: A neurodevelopmental interpretation. Dis-
course Processes, 46, 103–126.
Laland, K., & O’Brien, M. (2011). Cultural niche con-
struction: An introduction. Biological Theory, 6,
191–202.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In
J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second lan-
guage learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and
the genesis of second language development. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Larsen–Freeman, D. (2012). On the roles of repetition
in language teaching and learning. Applied Linguis-
tics Review, 3, 195–210.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Le-
gitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguis-
tics, 17, 365–399.
Levinson, S. (2006). On the human “interaction en-
gine.” In N. Enield & S. Levinson (Eds.),
Roots of human sociality (pp. 39–69). London:
Berg.
Levinson, S. (2013). Action formation and ascription.
In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conver-
sation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley–
Blackwell.
Lewis, H., & Laland, K. (2012). Transmission idelity
is the key to the build-up of cumulative culture.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367,
2171–2180.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-
based teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.
Long, M., & Doughty, C. (2003). SLA and cognitive sci-
ence. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 866–870). Malden,
MA: Wiley–Blackwell.
Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2015). CA-for-SLA studies of
classroom interaction: Quo vadis? In N. Markee
(Ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction
(pp. 425–440). Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.
Moore, L. (2011). Language socialization and repeti-
tion. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), Handbook of language socialization (pp. 209–
226). London: Blackwell.
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negoti-
ation of meaning in conversational and informa-
tion gap activities: A comparative discourse analy-
sis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377–405.
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S. (Eds.). (1996).
Grammar and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
O’Connell, D., & Kowal, S. (2009). Transcription sys-
tems for spoken discourse. In S. D’hondt, J.–O.
Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatics of in-
teraction (pp. 240–254). Philadelphia/Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Dwight Atkinson et al.
Odling–Smee, J., Laland, K., & Feldman, M. (1996).
Niche construction. American Naturalist, 147, 641–
648.
Ohta, A. (1999). Interactional routines and the social-
ization of interactional style in adult learners of
Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1493–1512.
Peters, A., & Boggs, S. (1986). Interactional routines as
cultural inluences upon language acquisition. In
B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language so-
cialization across cultures (pp. 80–96). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with
assessments: Some features of preferred and dis-
preferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson & J. Her-
itage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 152–
164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis
and psychology. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.),
Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 701–725).
Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.
Price, E., Wood, L., & Whiten, A. (2016). Adap-
tive cultural transmission biases in children and
nonhuman primates. Infant Behavior and Develop-
ment, 48, 45–53.
Roehrig, J. (2013). Theories of the interactional instinct
and the pedagogical stance. In A. Joaquin & J.
Schumann (Eds.), Exploring the interactional instinct
(pp. 108–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sankoff, G., & Laberge, S. (1974). On the acquisition
of native speakers by a language. In D. DeKamp &
I. Hancock (Eds.), Pidgins and creoles: Current trends
and prospects (pp. 73–82). Washington DC: George-
town University Press.
Scalese Sugiyama, M. (2017). Oral storytelling as ev-
idence of pedagogy in forager societies. Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.00471
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Schumann, J. (2013). A uniied perspective of irst and
second language acquisition. In A. Joaquin & J.
Schumann (Eds.), Exploring the interactional instinct
(pp. 1–14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shotter, J. (1996). “Now I can go on:” Wittgenstein and
our embodied embeddedness in the “hurly-burly”
of life. Human Studies, 19, 385–407.
Smotrova, T. (2017). Making pronunciation visible: Ges-
ture in teaching pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly,
51, 59–89.
Sorjonen, M.-L., & Hakulinen, A. (2009). Alternative re-
sponses to assessments. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Con-
versation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 281–
303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
493
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and afiliation dur-
ing storytelling. Research in Language & Social Inter-
action, 41, 31–57.
Streeck, J. (2015). Embodiment in human communi-
cation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 419–
438.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curricu-
lum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London:
Longman.
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-
interactive learning from an ecological perspec-
tive. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and sec-
ond language learning (pp. 245–259). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language
learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer
Academic.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tu-
toring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psych-
ology and Psychiatry, 17, 86–100.
APPENDIX: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS
. Final/falling intonation followed by pause
? Rising intonation followed by pause
: Phoneme lengthening
(()) "Stage directions,” i.e., nonlinguistic event
descriptions
() Transcriber doubt (parentheses can be
illed or unilled)
(.6) Pauses timed by 10ths of a second
(.) Short untimed pauses
= ‘Latching,’ i.e., the second speaker’s turn
begins without pause after the irst
speaker’s turn
[ Overlapping of one speaker’s turn by
another’s
>No< Inward angle brackets enclose talk which
is faster than surrounding talk
<No> Outward angle brackets enclose talk
which is slower than surrounding talk
!No! Degree signs enclose talk which is quieter
than surrounding talk
No Underlining marks various kinds of ‘voice
quality,’ such as emphasis and stress
CAPS Notably high volume
↑ Marked rise in intonation
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found
online in the Supporting Information section at
the end of the article.