Conversation Analysis (CA) as a mode of inquiry is addressed to all forms of talk and other conduct in interaction, and, accordingly, touches on the concerns of applied linguists at many points. This review sketches and offers bibliographical guidance on several of the major relevant areas of conversation-analytic work—turn-taking, repair, and word selection—and indicates past or potential points of contact with applied linguistics. After covering these areas, we include a brief discussion of some key themes in CA's treatment of talk in institutional contexts. Finally, we discuss several established areas of applied linguistic work in which conversation analytic work is being explored—native, nonnative, and multilingual talk; talk in educational institutions; grammar and interaction; intercultural communication and comparative CA; and implications for designing language teaching tasks, materials, and assessment tasks. We end with some cautions on applying CA findings to other applied linguistic research contexts.

This chapter summarizes 16 empirical studies that employ quantitative and/or qualitative discourse analytic techniques published in applied linguistics journals over the last five years. These studies tend to analyze spoken discourse in formal contexts, produced by both adults and children who are native and nonnative speakers of English. Unfortunately, all studies focus only on English discourse, which suggests that analyses of discourse in other languages are clearly needed; moreover, it was extremely difficult to find published discourse analytic studies which employ only quantitative research methods. Although each of these discourse analytic studies presents segments of transcribed discourse, researchers collect data of the type and in the amount prescribed by the analytical tradition employed—those working within the conversation analytic tradition collect, transcribe, analyze, and present only recorded social interaction, while researchers who situate themselves in the ethnography of communication framework collect and present various forms of “triangulated” data to support their conclusions. The chapter concludes by mentioning the problem of evaluative criteria for qualitative research, and by suggesting that applied linguists need to address this issue and articulate some reasonable solutions, so that all published research is, in fact, quality research.

This chapter takes note of the longstanding orientation Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) to discourse studies before moving to a more detailed and selective presentation of current developments in SFL with respect to discourse models, developing research methodologies, and applications to different domains. The reinterpretation of cohesion as discourse semantics (identification, negotiation, conjunction, and ideation) is reviewed with respect to metafunctions (textual, interpersonal, and ideational). This work on texture is then related to social context through the register variables tenor, field and mode alongside genre. The chapter then reviews recent SFL-inspired research that applies these models to analysis of discourse across languages, modalities of communication, and domains. Work done on school and workplace discourse has raised new questions about appropriate units of discourse structure and their relationship to register analysis. It is predicted that some of these questions may be answered by the development of improved software for discourse analyses affording greater specificity in mapping the relationships among genres.

This chapter provides an overview of approaches within corpus linguistics that address discourse-level phenomena. The shared characteristics of all corpus-based research are first reviewed. Then four major approaches are covered: (1) investigating characteristics associated with the use of a language feature, for example, analyzing the factors that affect the omission or retention of that in complement clauses; (2) examining the realizations of a particular function of language, such as describing all the constructions used in English to express stance; (3) characterizing a variety of language, for example, conducting a multi-dimensional analysis to investigate relationships among the registers used in different settings at universities; and (4) mapping the occurrences of a feature through entire texts, for example, tracing how writers refer to themselves and their audience as they construct authority in memos. For each approach, a variety of studies are reviewed to illustrate the diverse perspectives that corpus linguistics can bring to our understanding of discourse. The chapter concludes with a brief overview of some other foci in corpus linguistics and suggests that two areas require particular attention for the advancement of discourse-oriented corpus studies: the need for more computer tools and computer programmers for corpus linguistics, and the need for further studies about how best to represent language varieties in a corpus.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an explicitly normative analysis of how texts and discourses work in ideological interests with powerful political consequences. This chapter provides an historical overview of CDA, placing it in the long lineage of attempts to develop a normative political linguistics beginning with Voloshinov. Recent approaches and procedures are discussed. These attempt to bring together text analysis with contemporary social, political, and cultural theory. The case is made that new conditions of economic and cultural globalization have created theoretical and empirical challenges for CDA and, more generally, for a critical applied linguistics. It is argued that these will require that CDA augment its strong focus on ideology critique with the study of texts that model the productive uses of power and discourse in new conditions.

In the last decade genre approaches have had a considerable impact on the ways we understand discourse and in transforming literacy education in different contexts around the world. This chapter reviews the main directions of recent literature in both these areas, showing how the concept of genre is beginning to offer applied linguists a socially informed theory of language and an authoritative pedagogy grounded in research on texts and contexts. In terms of language description, I describe recent studies which seek to elaborate our understanding of generic integrity and variation, the ways that genres are seen as similar and different in terms of their internal structures and as systems of social processes. This research focuses on the contexts, lexico-grammatical features, and rhetorical patterns of genres. In terms of pedagogy, the chapter considers how genre approaches address central issues of language education and critical literacy and the ways that genre is applied in classrooms.

This review focuses on contemporary work in discourse stylistics, defined here as that designated branch of stylistics which draws specifically on the techniques and methods of discourse analysis. The review acknowledges a key assumption in modern discourse stylistic research, namely that the distinction between ‘literary’ and ‘nonliterary’ discourse, if tenable at all, is drawn not on a purely linguistic basis but in terms of multiple intersections among texts, readers, institutions, and sociocultural contexts. In spanning studies of both literary and nonliterary discourse, therefore, the coverage of the present review is intended to reflect this axiom. It also attempts to foreground the diversity of method and approach in contemporary discourse stylistics. Given that the techniques of discourse analysis are themselves many and various, the survey seeks to cover stylistic work that offers productive applications of the many available models in pragmatics, conversation analysis, cognitive linguistics, speech act theory, and discourse psychology. Finally, in covering a selection of important monographs, articles, and book chapters, the review seeks both to highlight some of the critical, cultural, and ideological frameworks currently employed by discourse stylisticians and to demarcate, in more general terms, the current state-of-play in this research tradition.

This chapter focuses on recent research in cross-cultural pragmatics (CCP) as distinct from interlanguage pragmatics (IP). The essential difference between the two lies in the perspective from which each views cross-cultural communication. CCP takes the point of view that individuals from different societies or communities interact according to their own pragmatic norms, often resulting in a clash of expectations and, ultimately, misperceptions about the other group. The misperceptions are typically two-way; that is, each group misperceives the other. In an age in which cross-cultural interaction is the norm not only across societies but also within them, different rules of speaking have the potential to cause stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination against entire groups of people. Research in the area of CCP can greatly aid in ameliorating these consequences. Recent studies that view CCP from this two-way perspective are the focus of this chapter. The overview of this body of research demonstrates the potential contribution of the field of applied linguistics to mutual understanding through the study of discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics.

From the theoretical perspective of a sociocultural theory of mind, cognition and knowledge are dialogically constructed. Embedded in this theoretical framework, this chapter reviews research studies in which peer-peer dialogue is linked to second language learning as students engage in writing, speaking, listening and reading activities. The review takes the stance that the type of dialogue of particular significance in the language learning process is collaborative dialogue, or that which occurs when learners encounter linguistic problems and attempt to solve them together. In such conditions language is used both as a communicative and cognitive tool. From the studies reviewed, we conclude that peer-peer collaborative dialogue mediates second language learning. We also conclude that although the studies reported few adverse effects of peer collaboration, teaching learners how and why to collaborate may be important to enhance peer-mediated learning. The chapter calls for more research which provides clear evidence of the connections between peer-peer dialogue and second language learning and more studies which investigate longer term learning. Such studies linking peer-peer dialogue to language learning can be instructive for teachers, researchers, and learners, and make us all more aware of the process of learning a second language.

This chapter reviews literature on recent developments in teacher-student interaction and language learning. Based on a sociocultural perspective of language and learning, the studies are drawn from three types of classrooms: first language classrooms; second language classrooms, which include contexts in which the language being learned in the classroom is also the language of the community; and foreign language classrooms. Foreign language learning contexts are those in which exposure to and opportunities for target language interaction are restricted for the most part to the language classroom. Across these three areas, attention is given to studies that investigate the specific means used in teacher-student interaction to promote language learning.

This chapter reviews recent theoretical and empirical literature regarding teachers' uses of the target (TL) and first (L1) languages in second (SL) and foreign (FL) language classrooms. Theoretically, the article explores several issues related to teachers' use of the L1 and the TL in the classroom: exposure to TL input, student motivation, cognitive considerations, code-switching, and appropriate teacher use of the L1. A review of recent discourse analysis studies examines how much, when, and why FL and SL teachers use the L1 and TL in their pedagogy. The article also presents findings from studies that have considered teachers' self-reports and teachers' and learners' beliefs and attitudes regarding the use of the L1 and the TL in FL and SL classrooms. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research.

Many contemporary currents in applied linguistics have favored discourse studies within assessment; there have been calls for cross-fertilization with other areas within applied linguistics, critiques of the positivist tradition within language testing research, and the growing impact of Conversation Analysis (CA) and sociocultural theory. This chapter focuses on the resulting increase in discourse-based studies of oral proficiency assessment techniques. These studies initially focused on the traditional oral proficiency interview but have since been extended to new test formats, including paired and group interaction. We discuss the research carried out on a number of factors in the assessment setting, including the roles of interlocutor, candidate, and rater, and the impact of tasks, task performance conditions, and rating criteria. Recent research has also concentrated more specifically on the assessment of pragmatic competence and on the applications of technology within the assessment of spoken language, including the comparability of semidirect and direct methods for such assessment and the use of computer corpora.

This chapter begins with a careful look at a sample conversation and examines the many layers of interpretation that different academic traditions have constructed in order to interpret it. These layers of interpretation include linguistic forms, nonverbal communication, linguistic context, situational context, and the embodied histories that participants bring to interaction. All are incorporated into a rich definition of discourse. The chapter then reviews recent studies that have compared the discourse of oral interaction in assessment with oral discourse in contexts outside assessment to show how different they are. The next section discusses studies that have related ways of speaking to the cultural values of communities of speakers with a view to understanding the cultural miscommunication that occurs in assessment of speaking in a second language community. The review concludes by stressing the wholeness of face-to-face interaction, listing the layers of interpretation of interaction that have not thus far been considered in oral testing, and setting out a potentially fertile area for future research.

At present, mastery of English for educational and professional purposes contributes significantly to expansion of the role of English as a language of world communication. In this context, the teaching—and, consequently, the assessment—of EFL/ESL writing is receiving more attention than ever before. This chapter argues that, although this renewed interest in the evaluation of writing has resulted in advances in the field of language testing, it has by and large failed to incorporate insights gained from recent developments in text analysis. There is a considerable gap between current practices in writing assessment and criteria suggested by advances in knowledge of discourse structure. We illustrate this gap by contrasting current practices in the scoring of two major EFL/ESL writing tests with knowledge of text characteristics generated from recent developments in text analysis. The review concludes by making the case for bridging the gap and by proposing a model of writing assessment that incorporates both linguistic and discoursal features of texts.