Reglamento de la Plataforma de Atención al Usuario Externo

As Firth and Wagner (ibid.) suggested, an EM approach to identity does not take for granted the relevance of any social categories. With regards to L2 interaction, this means that:

[b]eing a second language speaker is not a paramount identity in itself. It is one identity a speaker can adopt. But on the other hand, non-nativeness can be made relevant at any time, by a speaker or by recipients, as well as by different means… (Gardner and Wagner 2004: 16).

As such, much of the research taking up Firth and Wagner’s (ibid.) call has sought to demonstrate if, how, and when, linguistic identities are relevant to participants in talk, and how this impacts upon the talk in which they are engaged. The primary

observation to have been confirmed empirically by such research is that linguistic identities can come into play at times, but that there are also many occasions on which linguistic identities are irrelevant to the interactional business at hand (e.g. Firth and Wagner 1997, 2007; Hosoda 2006; Ikeda 2005; Kasper 2004; Kurhila 2004, 2005). This is particularly true for L2 use outside of educational settings since, in educational settings, participants come together precisely because of their linguistic statuses. In language learning classrooms, for example, some participants attend because they have been deemed, or deem themselves, not yet proficient enough in their L2, and others (or rather, usually one other) come to the classroom because they have been assigned a position of language ‘expert’ by their employer. In such settings, and shaped to some extent by the institutional and pedagogical goals of the classroom (Seedhouse 2004), L1 and L2 user or learner statuses may be very regularly (although still not always) relevant.

Kasper (2004) made a similar observation in her examination of an informal ‘conversation-for-learning’ activity, in which one novice L2 German speaker is paired with a German speaker considered more proficient (who happens to be an L1 speaker, although this is not necessarily always the case in this setting, Kasper reports) in order to practice. In this setting, speakers come together because of their linguistic statuses (relative to each other), and as such, Kasper describes it as an example of a ‘category- bound event’. Despite this, Kasper’s analysis shows that orientations to differential language statuses are invariably short-lived; the participants orient much more

The setting which Kasper examined is somewhat unique in that the participants come together because of their differential language expertise, in what is a quasi- eduactional setting (at least in terms of its origins, if not how it is played out). In the majority of L2 interaction settings, participants tend to have other business to deal with, and just happen to be using an L2. For example, Hosoda (2006) analysed ‘everyday’ talk between L1 and L2 Japanese speaking friends, and observed that linguistic identities only become relevant when the L2 speakers occasionally stop their turn in progress in order to check the accuracy of the vocabulary item just produced, either in terms of its pragmatic accuracy or pronunciation (a practice Hosoda labelled ‘vocabulary check’).11

In seeking assistance from their L1 speaking interlocutor, the L2 speaker can be seen to invoke the differential linguistic expertise between the two.

Similar findings have been obtained from institutional settings, in which L1 and L2 speakers who come together do so for reasons other than their linguistic statuses. In such settings, Kurhila (2004, 2005) has noted institutional roles – such as secretary and client or administrator and student – are more regularly salient, and linguistic identities only come into play when the L2 speaker seeks helps from their L1 speaking interlocutor.

As can be seen from the research discussed (as well as some of the research outlined in Section 2.2.3), it appears to invariably be L2 speakers who invoke linguistic identities, either through code switching or self-repairing (Kasper 2004), admonishing themselves for forgetting a word (Park 2007), initiating other-correction (Kurhila 2001) or perform a ‘vocabulary check’ (Hosoda 2006). Interestingly, Kurhila (2004) has also noted that, in the settings she examined, these invocations can be resisted by the L1 speaker. That is, while the L2 speaker may, in asking for assistance in their language production, be orienting to both interactants’ linguistic identity statuses, their L1 interlocutor may see more importance in their respective

institutional roles as, for example, student and university service provider. Kurhila describes this as an intersecting of identities.

11 _{Although this practice is not exclusive to L2 talk, and may occur among L1 speakers using}

specialised terminology, Hosoda (2006) argued that ‘everyday’ vocabulary is not checked in this manner outside of L2 interaction.

Possibly even more interesting is the observation by Kurhila (2004) that this intersecting of identities can occur not just across two interactants, but within one interactant. Kurhila notes that:

even if displaying herself [sic] as linguistically incompetent, the SL [second language] speaker can display institutional competence. (ibid.: 71)

In other words, even when demonstrably unable to draw upon the necessary linguistic resources, and requiring assistance, the L2 speakers in her data are able to

demonstrate that they are aware of their institutional role, what is appropriate, and what is required of them – that is, what they ought to be doing, even if they are unable to do so. In so doing, Kurhila argues, the L2 speakers construe themselves as

interactionally, institutionally competent beings, who just happen to be lacking some linguistic resources.

While the studies outlined in this section have, much like those outlined in Section 2.3, helped to reconsider what it means to be an L2 speaker, they are still not without some ideological and empirical shortcomings. In the following section, these shortcomings will be discussed, and a preferred way of considering linguistic

identities in interaction will be presented.

2.3.3 ‘Nativeness’ or expertise in linguistic identity research

As can be seen by the research outlined so far in this section, many of the orientations to linguistic identities are seen to emerge through word search, repair and correction sequences (such as those also discussed in Section 2.2.3). As Mori (2007) argues:

the close examination of repair and word search practices observed in interactions involving L2 speakers presents one way to detect whether or not the participants make identities that correspond to their linguistic

proficiency (native–nonnative or expert–novice) relevant to, and in, the

ongoing interaction…. (pp 853-854, emphasis added)

That is, it is argued that, in seeking help from their interlocutor(s), L2 speakers orient to their own identity as an L2 speaker (or ‘NNS’, or non-expert). Conversely, in offering help, L1 speakers orient to their own status as an L1 speaker (or ‘NS’, or expert). The potential for a circular argument may be apparent here. The above quotation is included, as Mori includes in it two possible descriptors for linguistic identities being oriented to – ‘NS’-‘NNS’ and ‘expert’-‘novice’. Even within this small sub-field of research, approaches to the study of identity in interaction have

varied; some studies have opted to continue with oft-maligned labels of ‘NS’ and ‘NNS’ (e.g. Kurhila 2006; Park 2007), while others have preferred to use the

alternative labels of ‘FL-speaker’-‘SL-speaker’ (e.g. Kurhila 2004). Others still have considered L2 interactions in terms of participants’ asymmetric/differential language expertise (e.g. Hosoda 2006; Kasper 2004; Kurhila 2001).

While it could be argued that the difference between the ‘NS’-’NNS’ and ‘FL’- ’SL’ labels is negligible (although cf. the opening of this section, as well as the studies cited therein), one can argue that it is preferable to avoid using such labels at all.12 One potential problem is that it may be an analytic leap to suggest that a request for assistance in producing a word (for example) is an orientation to NS/FL and NNS/SL identity categories. As has been suggested, such incidences can also occur in L1 interaction, and one would never suggest in those contexts that such incidences are also orientations to nonnativeness. Instead, it may be preferable, for L2 interaction as with L1 interaction, to consider such episodes in terms of temporary, or occasioned, limitations in linguistic repertoires. This then is not an orientation by the speaker to being a 'novice', but just an acknowledgement that the speaker's resources are lacking at that particular moment, and that their interlocutor's linguistic repertoire (for

example) might be able to help. Such an understanding is in line with Rampton’s (1990, 1997) arguments for the use of the notion of ‘expertise’ rather than ‘nativeness’.

Unlike ‘nativeness’, which considers linguistic identities only as two opposing static identities which may or may not come into play, ‘expertise’ is a dynamic notion which can change from moment to moment, and even from participant to participant. For example, Vickers’ (2008, 2010) analysis of L1-L2 interactions in a computer engineering setting has shown how the direction of relative expertise in engineering talk can shift on a moment by moment basis. That is, one some occasions, an L1 speaker can be treated as the relative expert by his L2 interlocutor, while on other occasions, the reverse can be true.

Hosoda (2006) also noted this in her analysis of L1-L2 Japanese talk. Hosoda analysed a sequence in which the Japanese L1 speaker switches to English in order to help their L1 English interlocutor. In the opening moments of this shift into English

12 _{This point refers solely to the problematic nature of talking in such ways about orientations in}

interaction by participants. While the present research project applies the label ‘L2 interactions’, it does so as a consciously external, analyst’s label.

language talk, the (now) L2 English speaker is still orienting to themselves as the relative expert. However, soon after, the same speaker displays some uncertainty regarding an aspect of English, which is aided by the L1 English speaker, and the orientation to relative expertise is duly reversed. Such a complicated, fluid, dynamic orientation to relative expertise cannot be discussed, or even uncovered, when more static identity categories like ‘NNS’ are applied to the orientations of participants at talk.

Talking of expertise rather than nativeness also opens the way for similar

research into L2-L2 interaction. Naturally, notions of nativeness would not be invoked in such settings, but relative expertise can be. To date, little research appears to have examined orientations to relative linguistic expertise in L2-L2 interaction.13

One possible reason for this is that it may be very rare for L2 speakers to orient to their status as expert or novice relative to their L2 interlocutor(s). In talking of the L2-L2 English language workplace settings that he has examined, Firth argues:

that they are communities where L2 proficiency is in essence a private matter in that it is not alluded to or topicalised. (2009b: 136, original emphasis)

That is, Firth sees no evidence of participants orienting explicitly to their own, or their interlocutors, language expertise. However, Firth’s supposition has not been further examined empirically, and the workplaces he examines would appear to be the only settings in which L2-only interaction has been examined for participant orientations to expertise, and their impact (if any) upon the interaction. Research which considers the extent to which this phenomenon exists is surely warranted, and one purpose of the present study is to address this.

Much of the work discussed in this section has contributed to understanding of linguistic identities, and helped to challenge some pre-existing assumptions regarding, for example, the notion of ‘NNS’. Additionally, the work has aided to understanding the role of these identities in interaction, and so has contributed to the larger project of understanding L2 interaction in general. However, it has been argued that many of these studies still adopted potentially problematic identity category labels, such as ‘NNS’. Few have opted to consider orientations to linguistic identities in terms of the more fluid concept of ‘language expertise’. Even fewer studies have examined

13 _{In discussing English as a lingua franca, some research has discussed the (potentially related) notion}

of ‘ownership’ of English (e.g. Haberland 2010; Higgins 2003; Matsuda 2003), although this research is not based upon the actual practices of participants in L2/ELF interaction.

orientations to linguistic expertise in L2-L2 interaction. From here, a gap in the research literature emerges. One of the aims of this study is to address this gap by considering how, if at all, linguistic expertise is oriented to by L2 participants in online chat rooms. In so doing, the study aims to follow Firth’s (2009b) idea of expertise as a ‘private matter’, and examine the extent to which, in moments of threatened mutual understanding, expertise is topicalised.

As has been apparent throughout the duration of this section, the notion of identity, and participant’s orientation to it, is a central aspect of L2 interaction research, and is closely related to the characteristics of L2 interaction as were described in Section 2.2. Another notion which is similarly central to L2 interaction research is that of mutual understanding. This is the focus of the next section.