During the 1980s, seminal studies by Charles Goodwin and Marjorie Goodwin contributed to the great impact of CA in the field of research investigating word search phenomena. Marjorie Goodwin (1981) and Goodwin and Goodwin (1986) identified non-verbal characteristics that are displayed in word search activity. In her study, Goodwin, M. (1981) claimed that searching for words is an interactive activity between speaker and hearer, and she found that there was an integrated use of vocal and
nonvocal behaviours, such as the use of gaze and bodily display in the interactive
organisation of word searches. Following this, Goodwin and Goodwin (1986) expanded the study of word searches to include the analysis of gestures in relation to co-
participation. In their 1986 study on an ordinary conversation between L1 speakers in various natural settings, they found that the employment of non-verbal conduct in word
22
search attained “meaning by virtue of its placement within an activity which is clearly recognisable to the participant to be a meaningful event” (1986, p.52).
Gestures and gaze employed are found to be significant features displayed by the participants in word search activity (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1986). In their data analysis of approximately 50 hours of natural conversation in a various settings, Goodwin and Goodwin indicated that the speaker can convey that he or she is engaged in a word search process by gazing away from other participants and producing a characteristic ‘thinking face’ expression. Furthermore, they also noted that the gaze withdrawal and ‘thinking face’ features can be an indication to other participants that the speaker is undertaking a solitary word search.
They further suggested that while the speaker is in a word search progress, the recipients normally shift their gaze towards the speaker (ibid.). As Goodwin and Goodwin (1986) stated:
…as the thinking face gesture is a visible indication of continued engagement in the word search and is a reason to wait for talk, even though the speaker is silent, such visual phenomena are consequential for recipients, even in cases where entry into the word search is signalled vocally. In essence such visual phenomena make available not simply what happened in the past, but what is happening at the moment; the speaker remains involved in the word search and thus it is relevant for the recipient to continue to attend her. (p. 72) Gaze direction can also demonstrate that the recipients are continuing to show their orientation to the talk. Therefore, the recipients’ gaze behaviour at the speaker can be an indication that recipients are attending to the word search activity and they are also allowing the speaker to produce the word being sought (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1986). In addition, if the speaker re-engages his gaze to the recipients, it is an indication that the speaker has invited the recipients to co-participate in the word search activity. Therefore, the invitation through the speaker’s gaze direction at the recipients allows the recipients to display their co-participation in the talk by producing a possible sought-for word. Thus, Goodwin and Goodwin (1986) stated that the demonstration of word searching is not solely a cognitive process that occurs in the speaker’s mind but rather is a visible activity that other participants not only recognise but can also participate in.
23
In another word search study of L1 interaction, Lerner (2004) noted that the construction of the word searches is designed for recipients to provide a conditional entry to help in the search. In his 2004 study on collaborative turn sequences between two participants, Lerner (2004) pointed that when the speaker’s mid-turn utterance is halted, and thus a word search is indicated through hesitation or stretched sounds, space is provided for the recipients to provide a possible next candidate word item. However, when a recipient has suggested a candidate word completion, the current speaker can either accept or reject it. Moreover, the opportunity for entry in the construction of word search may be offered as ‘immediate’ and ‘delayed’ contributions (ibid.).
Lerner (2004) also stated that if a candidate item by a recipient in a word search is delayed or held off, the current speaker is given an opportunity to produce his
candidate item, or, as Schegloff et al. (1977) called, making a self-repair. Hence, the production of the candidate item can often be as a ‘try-marked’ guess (Sacks and Schegloff, 1979). In most cases, the word search occurrences in L1 ordinary
conversation are usually resolved immediately in the same turn or the following turns. However, word search sequences in aphasic conversation can be lengthy and often engage co-participation in the resolution of the word search (Laakso and Klippi, 1999).
A study by Oelschlaeger’s (1999), who investigated a three-party conversation between clinicians with persons with aphasia and their (non-aphasic) conversation partners, discovered that there is a collaborative solution in the aphasic speaker’s word search. She found that the conversation partner’s participation in word searches of a person with aphasia is determined by interactional techniques and interactional resources. Furthermore, Oelschlaeger (ibid.) pointed out that the aphasic speaker employs direct invitation to determine his partner’s participation through asking an explicit question (e.g., “What is that?”) along with gazing towards his/her partner. In this case, the gaze direction is employed as an indication for the co-participant to join in the word searches (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1986).
Oelschlaeger (1999) also found that when an aphasic speaker shifts his/her gaze downwards with verbalisation of “can’t think of the name of it”, this serves as an
indirect invitation for co-participation. Goodwin and Goodwin (1986) pointed out that a gaze away from the person who is doing a word search can indicate that an intervention in the search is not desired. However, although the person with aphasia does not look at
24
his/her conversational partner, Oelschlaeger (1999) stated that the conversational partner takes this as an indirect invitation for co-participation. In addition,
conversational partners utilise interactional resources such as shared experience to formulate their participation. Therefore, it can be observed from Oelschlaeger’s (1999) study that the conversation partners monitor their partner’s ongoing talk, and can thereby determine their participation to provide the sought candidate item and complete their partner’s ongoing word search (Lerner, 1996).
In another study of conversations of an aphasic speaker, Oelschlaeger and Damico (2000) found that the conversational partner assists the aphasic person’s word search through using communication strategies systematically. Studies by both Oelschlaeger and Damico (2000) and Oelschlaeger (1999) presented that the
conversational partner collaborates in the aphasic speaker’s word search by offering words for resolution. However, Laakso (2015) noted that the collaborative participation shown between persons with aphasia and their conversational partners differs from their therapist in a therapy session. Their findings indicated that when the therapist is invited to join the search verbally and non-verbally, the therapist does not join in searching by offering words. Instead, the therapist encourages the aphasic speaker to continue the search by asking questions or offering their candidate understanding.
Thus, Laakso (2015) suggested that collaborative word searching by using questioning techniques can be a form of therapist’s encouragement to allow persons with aphasia to experience smooth flow conversational communication. Searching for words in L1 interactions is a common phenomenon in most conversational contexts. However, the word search frequency and the search sequences’ length can vary between a conversation with normal speakers and conversation with persons with aphasia in a non-therapy session and therapy session (Helasvuo and Laakso, 2004).
In the context of L2, a word search phenomenon is also common. However, the occurrence is more likely among participants who share a different level of linguistic knowledge or resources (Kurhila, 2006). Moreover, it is also important to emphasise that when an L2 speaker initiates a word search, it does not mean that the speaker does not know the word that is searched for; it could be that the speaker has failed to recall it
25
(Koshik and Seo, 2012; Eskildsen and Wagner, 2013; Greer, 2013, 2016; Hauser, 2013, 2014; Siegel, 2016).