Applied Linguistics 2012 Belhiah 21 41

8/2/2019 Applied Linguistics 2012 Belhiah 21 41

1/21

Applied Linguistics 2012: 33/1: 2141 Oxford University Press 2011

doi:10.1093/applin/amr030 Advance Access published on 10 September 2011

You Know Arnold Schwarzenegger?

On Doing Questioning in Second

Language Dyadic Tutorials

HASSAN BELHIAH

Department of Education, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Al Hosn University,

P.O. Box 38772, Abu Dhabi, UAE

E-mail: [email protected]

This study analyses questionanswer (QA) sequences in second languagetutorial interaction. Using conversation analysis methodology as an analytical

tool, the study demonstrates how the act of questioning is a dominant form of

interaction in tutoring discourse. The doing of questioning is accomplished

through a myriad of forms other than interrogative questions, such as declara-

tively formatted utterances, and-prefacing, b-event questions, and embodied

practices. QA sequences are fundamentally remedial in nature in that they

revolve around tutees linguistic needs. In this regard, questions that do not

address tutees linguistic needs are framed as being somewhat disjunctive or

out of order. Through the fine-grained analysis of the QA sequences in

four videotaped tutoring sessions, this study contributes to the line of scholar-ship that seeks to demonstrate how the investigation of questions as interaction-

al products has a bearing on our understanding of the connection between

grammar and social organization.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, a sizeable body of research has been undertaken into the

nature of questions used by or addressed to second language learners.

These studies have dealt with a variety of issues, including native languageinterference (Lightbown and dAnglejan 1985; Picard 2002), the emergence,

processing, and comprehensibility of wh-questions among second language

learners (Park 2000; Yuan 2007; Jackson and Bobb 2009), and the degree to

which second language learners questions reflect aspects of interlanguage

or native-like competence (Vander Brook et al. 1980; Williams et al. 2001).

These studies and others focused their energies primarily on the cognitive

aspects of acquisition with a view to pinning down the mechanisms or ma-

chinery underlying the process of question formation. As such their approach

to data analysis is etic in nature (i.e. research centric): it is driven by the ana-lysts external interpretation of what an utterance accomplishes (i.e. whether it

is a question, a request, a denial, and so on).

In contrast, other studies (e.g. Markee 1995; Gardner 2004; Koshik 2005a, b)

have embraced an emic approach (i.e. participant centric) to the study of QA

atHacettepeUniversityLibrary(HU

)onJanuary31,2012

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


2/21

sequences. These studies situate themselves in the relatively recent line of

scholarship, which investigates the way second language learners and their

interlocutors come to an understanding of the micro-interactional organiza-

tion of their talk. In this line of scholarship, interactional practices such asturn-taking, repair, and body movements are treated as an integral part of

the participants language behavior. By focusing on the joint deployment of

talk and embodiment, these studies and others (e.g. Markee 2005; Mori and

Hayashi 2006; Belhiah 2009; Hellermann 2009) seek to gain insight into how

second language interaction unfolds in real-time.

This study adopts the second approach (i.e. participant-centric). It provides a

fine-grained analysis of QA sequences in ESL tutorial interaction on the basis

of conversation analysis (CA) methodology. The analysis pays close attention

to how utterances are framed and oriented to by participants as questions.Embodied practicesparticularly gaze and body orientationare also exam-

ined with respect to their relevance to the act of questioning. In this analysis,

participants actions take precedence over the analysts subjective interpretation

of what an utterance accomplishes. As a result, all instances of questioning are

treated as local and sequential accomplishments that . . . [are] grounded in

empirically observable conversational conduct (Markee and Kasper 2004: 495).

A handful of studies have examined questions as interactional products in

L1 interaction (e.g. Clayman and Heritage 2002; Raymond 2003; Clayman

et al. 2006), in L2 (see above), and in L1 and L2 (i.e. contrastive analysis)

(Egbert and Voge 2008). Among these, only two (Fox 1993; Benwell and

Stoke 2002) focused on tutorial interactions. The two studies concur that

QA sequences are a fundamental form of interaction in tutoring discourse.

This is hardly surprising given that tutoring discourse is inherently remedial;

the student and the tutor meet because the former needs assistance to improve

his or her language skills. Because of the research foci of their studies, Benwell

and Stoke (2002) and Fox (1993) do not deal at length with the organization

of questionanswer (QA) sequences. This study thus expands on their findings

by examining turn-by-turn how the act of questioning is accomplished in

real-time, second language tutorial interaction. In addition, the participantsin the aforementioned studies are native speakers of L1, and as such the

focus of the studies was on tutoring on other subjects other than ESL (e.g.

science, mathematics, and psychology). On the other hand, in my study the

tutees are learners of English; therefore, the current study has implications,

not only for tutorial interaction, but also for second language discourse.

The study thus contributes to our understanding of how the investigation of

questions, including their grammar, as interactional products can be a catalyst

to comprehending the connection between grammar and social organization.

DEFINING QA SEQUENCES

In their authoritative book, A Grammar of Contemporary English, Quirk et al.

(1985) identify different types of questions based on their syntactic and

22 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


3/21

intonational properties. For instance, a yesno question is said to involve

subject-verb/auxiliary inversion along with a rising intonation, whereas a

wh-question is marked by subject-verb/auxiliary inversion accompanied by a

falling intonation. While relying on the formal aspects of an utterance suchas syntax can be helpful in identifying a question, this might not be the

case when dealing with questions that emerge in naturally occurring talk.

As Schegloff (1984) eloquently puts it:

Whatever defines the class questions as a linguistic form will notdo for questions as conversational objects, or interactional objects,or social actions. If by question we want to mean anything like asequentially relevant or implicative object, so that in some way itwould adumbrate the notion answer;. . . then it will not do, for a

variety of reasons, to use features of linguistic form as sole, or eveninvariant though not exhaustive, indicators or embodiments of suchobjects. Sequential organization is critical. (4950)

For talk participants, as well as subsequent analysts, determining whether a

certain linguistic form carries out the act of questioning is contingent upon its

sequential placement. An utterance will be qualified as doing questioning if it

is treated by participants as the first-pair part (FPP) of a QA sequence. Some of

the studies that have analyzed the structure of questions from an interactional

perspective lend support to this view since they demonstrated that the act of

questioning can be achieved through a myriad of forms other than questions,such as declaratively formatted utterances (Koshik 2005b), b-event questions

(Labov and Fanshel 1977), and and-prefacing (Heritage and Sorjonen 1994).

Other studies (e.g. Heritage and Roth 1995; Heritage 2001, 2002a, b; Clayman

and Heritage 2002; Raymond 2003; Clayman et al. 2006; Monzoni 2008;

Tracy 2009) have also illustrated how the investigation of questions ought

take into account the sequential context in which the question is embedded,

and how this context plays a crucial role in its treatment as a question by

participants.

Therefore, for us to obtain a thorough understanding of what causes somespecific turn-at-talk to be treated as a question though it masquerades as a

declarative sentence, we have to look not only at its syntactic formatting and

intonation contour, but also at its sequential organization, that is, how it is

constructed and projected, as well as how it is oriented to as a question by

participants. Orienting to an FPP as a question carries with it the expectation

that recipients will either provide an answer to it or in case they do not, their

silence or ensuing turn-at-talk will be somehow represented or treated as a

dispreferred course of action. In this article, a question will be defined as the

FPP of a QA sequence. The form of the answer will somehow be occasioned by the kind of question that is being asked (Koshik 2007). For instance, a

yesno answer is expectable of a yesno question, whereas an answer that

selects one of the alternatives would be projected when an alternative question

is asked.

H. BELHIAH 23


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


4/21

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The methodology employed in this study is based primarily on the tenets of

conversation analysis. CA research seeks to delineate the type of common senseand constitutive practices that the members of a community appear to take for

granted although they make use of these on an ongoing basis. The meaning of a

turn-at-talk is determined by examining the ways that recipients themselves

construct an understanding of it, taking into account the sequential context in

which the turn is embedded. CA researchers first collect spoken data through

audio and video recordings, transcribe it, then start looking for patterns, seg-

ments, constellations, and embodied practices that seem to offer the richest

ground for investigation in relation to their research focus (Markee 2000).

Data for this study come from video-recordings, drawn from tutoring sessions

involving tutors who are native speakers of American English and students who

are in the process of improving their communication skills in English. Eight

subjectsfour American tutors and four Korean studentsall students at the

University of Wisconsin in Madison agreed to let me videotape one or two of

their tutoring sessions between 2003 and 2005, for a total of six sessions. I chose

to focus on one ethnic group of learners in order to be able to come up with

generalizable insights and findings since sociolinguistic research suggests that

ones L1 and culture have an impact on his or her linguistic behavior. I tran-

scribed in detail all the QA sequences in the six sessions (a total of 65), then

analyzed how they are oriented to by participants as QA sequences.

ANALYSIS

Initiating QA sequences

In my data, QA sequences regarding a particular aspect of English (e.g.

vocabulary or pronunciation) are typically preceded by a turn-in-talk that

terminates the ongoing task while simultaneously projecting the upcoming

one. The following excerpt elucidates this point:

24 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


5/21

At the beginning of this excerpt, the tutor is observed dictating words to the

student (i.e. disappear, pushers), who is writing them down on his notepad. In

line 10, the task of copying down vocabulary items and making certain the

students spelling is accurate is brought to a closure when the tutor prefaces his

turn with Okay, which is hearable as making a transition to the new task of

defining words. The tutors turn in lines 1013 consists of a description of

the new task, which involves going over the words that the student has

jotted down on his notepad, then putting them in a sentence or providing a

definition for them, in an apparent bid to verify whether the student under-

stands their correct meaning in English. Note that the tutors turn, by using

we, does not specifically mention how the roles will be allocated. It simply

states that participants will jointly elaborate on the meaning of the words

under scrutiny.

However, once the task has been described and the second participant

has registered orientation to it by passing up an opportunity for a fuller turn

by issuing an acknowledgement token (Schegloff 1982), the QA format be-comes established and the turn-types allocated (Atkinson and Drew 1979).

Consequently, one participant will predominantly initiate the questions,

while the other will provide the answers. In this excerpt, the tutor is the

party launching the questions while the student is the one providing the

H. BELHIAH 25


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


6/21

answers. For instance, in line 15, the tutor launches a display question quiz-

zing the student about the meaning of proposal. The student supplies an

answer in line 18 in the form of a candidate synonym (i.e. suggestion),

which is evaluated by the tutor as being correct. Then he asks the student toprovide a verbal contextualization for proposal apparently to verify the stu-

dents ability to use the word appropriately. The next question is introduced in

lines 2526. Here, the tutor asks the student about the meaning of legislature.

The student displays his understanding by providing a definition (lines 2829),

then supplying a word that belongs to the same semantic field (i.e. legal). It is

primarily the allocation of turn types in this phase and the orientation to this

participation structure that causes several turns to be treated as questions. In

what follows, I provide examples of QA sequences launched by tutors as well

as students to show the various forms that questions take.My analysis starts with a single-case analysis of an episode that can be

viewed as the quintessential exemplar of what is constitutive of tutorial

dialog. The practice of providing a detailed account of a single case is a

well-established tradition among CA researchers. Because face-to-face inter-

action is presumably conducted in an orderly and methodic manner, it is ex-

pected that every case that exemplifies a certain discursive practice will

somehow conform to this social order. As Schegloff (1993) has argued, we

should bear in mind that:

One is also a number, the single case is also a quantity, and statis-tical significance is but one form of significance. Indeed, it is signifi-cance in only the technical sense that a finding in a sample may

be taken as indicating the likely presence of an element of order inthe larger universe being studied . . . And no number of other epi-sodes that developed differently will undo the fact that in thesecases it went the way it did, with that exhibited understanding.(101)

Single-case analysis

1

The majority of what transpires in the ESL tutorial data in this study can be

understood by examining what is called an adjacency pair, a term that

describes two turns that are normatively positioned one after the other in

such a way that if one is uttered, the other will be expected to follow

(Schegloff 2007). The FPP of the adjacency pair that is the locus of my

analysis here is initiated by the student, a native speaker of Korean. In it,

the student seems to be inquiring about the quality of the vowel that fol-

lows word-initial /z/, especially that he cannot use the communicative strat-

egy of avoidance (Schachter 1974), since the word zero is of highfrequency in mathematics, a subject that he tutors.2 He is therefore express-

ing his interest in learning how to pronounce it correctly and accurately.

The adjacency pair under scrutiny occurs in the middle of the following

26 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


7/21

spate of talk (lines 12 through 15):

What is interactionally remarkable about the sequence extending from lines

1215 is that the students turn (lines 1213) is treated as the FPP of a QA

sequence although the tutor does not seem to have understood it as such

immediately after it has been completed. To be more specific, at the end of

the students turn (line 13), there is a (0.8) second pause before the tutor offers

her assessment of the students pronunciation (line 14). This pause is not

accompanied by any body language, such as a thinking face (Goodwin and

Goodwin 1986), to communicate that the tutor has immediately perceived the

students turn as a question and that she is engaged in the action of ponderingabout how to answer the students question.

One possible reason behind the tutors delayed orientation to the students

turn as a question is that although his turn is syntactically hearable as com-

plete, it is not in conformity with the interrogative syntax of wh-questions in

English (i.e. insertion of a wh-pronoun and/or subject-verb inversion what is

the pronunciation of zero?). This gives it the facade of a declarative statement

rather than an interrogative sentence, and therefore the possibility of it being

treated as a declaration rather than a query. As a matter of fact, the students

turn seems to be hearable as a preface or a pre-expansion to a question(Schegloff 1980). And had the student initiated more talk during the pause

(e.g. do we say zero or zi:ro?), it would have been an obvious preamble to the

subsequent question.

H. BELHIAH 27


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


8/21

This leads to the following question: what prompts the tutor to ultimately

treat and understand the students turn as a question? Apparently, this

understanding has been occasioned by a combination of factors including

the sequential environment surrounding this adjacency pair, the studentsgaze and body comportment, and the participants shared orientation

to the business of tutoring as being fundamentally remedial in that the stu-

dents turns will be attended to as requests for assistance with his linguistic

needs.

Beginning with the sequential environment, at the beginning of this

session, the student gets down to the business of tutoring by glancing at

his sheet and asking his first question what is the pronunciation of water.

After spending some time discussing the appropriate or correct way to

pronounce it in American English, the student gazes down at his sheet andstarts the turn in line 12. What is striking here is that unlike the first question,

which meets one of the formal descriptions for defining a question (i.e.

interrogative syntax), the second one does not. Yet, it is ultimately treated

as a question regarding the appropriate pronunciation of zero. This stems

from the fact the second action clearly piggy-backs on the structure of the

first. In other words, line 12 is presented as a second-in-series question by

clearly labeling it a second question and by prefacing the turn with and.

Apparently, the framing of the second question takes account of the first

question, which motivates the tutor to respond to the students turn asa question.

Second, considering gaze and body orientation (Figure 1), in line 12 as the

student starts launching his turn, he withdraws his gaze and subsequently

performs a series of actions with his body as he moves toward the end of his

turn. To be more specific, he leans forward, gazes down at the paper, tilts it

slightly outward in the direction of his tutor, and points to the word zero with

his pen. By performing this amalgamation of body movements, the student

seems to extend an invitation to the tutor to join him in attending to the item

on the sheet, which is about the pronunciation of zero.This, then, raises the following question: what evidence exists to demon-

strate that the student has been successful in coordinating talk, gaze, and body

comportment to secure the tutors orientation to this task, thereby presenting

his turn as a referential question that is awaiting an answer?3 There are at least

three pieces of evidence, two of which are germane to the deployment of gaze

by the student.

First, in line 12, the student prefaces his turn with the connective and.

Heritage and Sorjonen (1994) explain that and-prefacing is a characteristic of

question design that invokes a sense of the questions it prefaces as routine, asa part of a line or agenda of questions, and as a component of a course of action

that is being implemented in and through them (22). The students deploy-

ment of and-prefacing could thus be a precursor that what will follow is

28 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


9/21

(another) question. It can also project that such question design has a routine

character in that it will sustain orientation to the tutoring activity as beingcomposed primarily of QA sequences.

Secondly, in line 12 (see also Figure 1a), there is a notable convergence of

the participants gaze in the direction of the sheet. Once the student has with-

drawn his gaze from the tutor, and shifted it to the sheet held in his hand, the

tutor follows suit. Change in gaze orientation has occurred almost in tandem,

with the student being the one initiating this shift: about (1.3) seconds before

asking his question, the student switches his gaze to the sheet, and even before

he utters the conjunction and, the tutor exhibits alignment with this activity

by directing her gaze to the students sheet, which is, so to speak, the locus ofthe current activity.5

Thirdly, as Figure 1 b clearly illustrates, toward the end of the students

turn in line 13, precisely on the preposition of, the student starts shifting

(a)

(b)

Figure 1: Participants gaze and body orientation during the productionof the students turn in lines 12 and 13.4

H. BELHIAH 29


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


10/21

his gaze back to the direction of his tutor. His right hand is also returned to

its initial position prior to starting the new turn, which results in him

holding the sheet of paper with both hands instead of just one. This may

be an indication that his turn has come to completion and so has his orien-tation to the sheet. Indeed, the tutor aligns herself with this orientation by

gazing back at the student on the word zero, therefore, exhibiting not only

her attendance to the students gaze work, but also her availability to

supply an answer to his question. It is interesting to note here that the

tutor briefly (0.8 s) gazes down at the students sheet of paper before

providing her feedback in line 15.

So far, I have argued that what may not be initially hearable as a complete

turn constructional unit (TCU) in the form of a question is treated as

such thanks to its framing as a second-in-a-series question, and to partici-pants attendance to each others gaze and orientation to the students sheet of

paper as a primary site for launching questions. Apparently, once the stu-

dent has launched what is hearable as a first-in-a-series question and

the tutor orients herself to the role of expert, she treats the students subse-

quent turns as questions because they are always launched after gazing down

at the shared artifact of the sheet first. Such orientation, it will further be

shown below, accounts for how a wide range of turn types that do not con-

form with the syntax of interrogative questions are still understood as

questions.

QA sequences

In what follows I provide examples of QA sequences launched by tutors as well

as students to show the various forms that questions take. The questions in my

data can be grouped into three categories: (i) questions formed on the basis

of interrogative syntax; (ii) questions formed on the basis of intonation; and

(iii) b-event questions.

Interrogatively formed questions

Several of the QA sequences in my data are initiated on the basis of

questions that are in compliance with the syntax of interrogatives. These fall

under three major categories: Yesno questions, wh-questions, and polar

alternatives.

a. Yesno questions: When using these questions, speakers expect either con-

firmation or negation from the part of the addressee. According to Schegloff

(2007), confirmation is conveyed through yes or synonymous tokens such as

yeah and uh huh, whereas negation is expressed through no or similar

tokens such as nuh-uh and nope (7879). In the example that follows,

30 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


11/21

the student initiates (and repairs) a yesno question on line 4, and the tutor

responds in line 5 with the affirmative token aham, implying that there

is a difference in meaning between solving an equation and simplifying an

equation.

b. Wh-questions: They are headed by a wh-pronoun (e.g. how and what) and

they usually end with a falling intonation.

c. Alternative questions: This type of questions involves a choice between two or

more alternatives. Each alternative receives a rising intonation, with the ex-

ception of the last one which is characterized by a falling intonation.

Questions accomplished on the basis of intonation

Sometimes questions are realized through rising intonation, even when

the turn through which this is accomplished does not make use of

interrogative syntax. These turns are sometimes phrasal questions,

whereas in other cases they are fully fledged sentences with a subject

and predicate. Line 8 in Excerpt 6 provides an exemplar of this kind of

questions, which are often referred to in the literature as declarative

H. BELHIAH 31


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


12/21

questions.

In this excerpt, the student begins in lines 1 and 2 by putting the word

dilemma in a sentence to display his understanding of its meaning. In line

3, the tutor corrects the students use of come back instead of go back. After

that, the student initiates his declarative statement, which is hearable as an

alternative, referential question regarding which phrase (go back or come

back) would be suitable in the context he has provided. This discussion leads

to another declarative question (line 8), this time initiated by the tutor.

Although the tutors turn is not formally in conformity with the syntax

of any of the major question types discussed above (e.g. yesno question

or wh-question), it is still oriented to as a question by the student, partially

because it is marked with a rising intonation at the end.

B-event questionsdeviant cases

The practice of asking questions that revolve around students linguistic needs

becomes so routinized or normative within these tutoring sessions that thevery fact of introducing questions that are not directly relevant to the current

task is oriented to as being in violation of this discursive practice. In what

follows, I provide a detailed analysis of two exemplars to illustrate this obser-

vation.

32 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


13/21

This excerpt is drawn from a session in which the student is the party

launching the questions, while the tutor supplies the answers. So far in the

encounter, the student has asked two pronunciations questions (i.e. water and

zero). In line 1, the student is in the middle of practicing his pronunciation of

the vowel that follows word-initial /z/. He is also initiating some prefatory talk

regarding the reason why he is or will be asking several questions regarding

the pronunciation of certain words; this he attributes to the fact that he is

tutoring some students in math. It follows that since certain words on his

list such as zero, equation, and definition are of high frequency in math,

he needs to learn how to pronounce them accurately.

What transpires between lines 6 and 7 is interactionally interesting since it is

in violation of our earlier observation that recipients refrain from initiating

new turns during the speakers prefatory talk. To be more specific, the tutor is

deviating from the turn-taking system that has been agreed upon so far, in

which the student launches courses of action and solicits responses, whereas

the tutors turns form second pair parts of sequences, in which she provides

responses. Note that the students turn in line 5 is neither syntactically nor

pragmatically complete. Rather it projects more prefatory talk or a transition to

the question regarding the pronunciation of definition. The tutors turn is

anything but in keeping with the turn-types that have been allocated to each

one of them thus far.

The tutors turn can be viewed as an example of a b-event question. This

term refers to a turn-at-talk launched by a speaker regarding events to which

the recipient has privileged or exclusive access (Labov and Fanshel 1977).These events can be related to the recipients feelings, attitudes, or personal

life. In this excerpt, the tutor is asking the student about his feelings regarding

tutoring in math. The tutor can commensensically be assumed to be

H. BELHIAH 33


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


14/21

legitimately ignorant about the students feelings since he was not present

during the tutoring sessions in question.

There are two features in the tutors talk and body movements that show

how she treats her b-event question as somehow infringing upon the studentsturn. First the tutor ends her turn with what is hearable as a misplacement

marker (Schegloff and Sacks 1973). Misplacement markers such as by the

way have been demonstrated by Schegloff and Sacks to be deployed by

participants to mark their turns as being disjunctive or out order. By insert-

ing anyway at the end of her unit, the tutor is somehow communicating to

her student that she is detouring from tutoring business to a social footing

(Goffman 1981).

Secondly, after 2.5 min of conversation regarding the students tutoring

experience and as the social footing is starting to wind down, the tutor utilizesa single-word turn (line 18) in a display of re-entry into tutoring business.

Prior to her turn, the tutors hands were positioned in front of her lap.

However, immediately after uttering the word Okay, she uses a manual ges-

ture to signal a return to the initial pre-allocated turn-types, in which the

studentrather than the tutoris the one who will be the chief initiator of

questions. This gesture consists of a quick left-hand jerk in the direction of the

students sheet, which is the site from which his questions are launched. By

performing such a gesture, the tutor marks the preceding talk as somehow

being outside the boundaries of the ongoing task, and the students upcomingtalk as the one that is aligned with their previously but temporarily suspended

agenda and turn-taking system.

The Second excerpt follows:

34 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


15/21

This excerpt is extracted from a tutoring session, in which a tutor is quizzing

the student on the meaning of several words associated with the semantic

field of government. So far in the encounter, seven words have been defined,

namely proposal, legislature, obsessions, bill, penalty, mandatory, andcast. At the beginning of this excerpt, the participants are still negotiating the

meaning of the word cast when it is used with vote as in to cast a vote.

Up to his point in the task of defining terms, no non-task talk has been in-

jected into the conversation. Participants are, so to speak, sticking strictly to the

agenda of defining words.

However, the tutors turns in lines 9, 10; 1416; and 24 through 25 are

designed in such as way as to register that the upcoming question is not

naturally or properly positioned (Schegloff and Sacks 1973). To be more

specific, before soliciting the students opinion about Californians electionof Arnold Schwarzenegger as their Governor (lines 2730), the tutor first

tries to obtain the go-ahead from the student by initiating the FPP of a

preliminary to a preliminary or a pre-sequence to a pre-sequence

(Schegloff 1980). According to Schegloff, although FPPs such as can I ask

you a question and let me ask you a question have the guise of initiating

a pre-asking sequence, they are actually utilized and attended to as

launching pre-pre-asking pairs.

This, then, raises the following question: how does the initiation of a

pre-pre sequence by the tutor mark his imminent talk as being out ofplace? To answer this question, it is vital to analyze the formatting of the

seven questions pertaining to the vocabulary items that have been dis-

cussed so far in the session. The tutors questions have been formulated

H. BELHIAH 35


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


16/21

as follows:

In launching the seven questions, not once has the tutor prefaced his query

with what can be considered as the FPP of a pre-pre sequence. All these

questions have been initiated without any bid at securing the students con-

sent first. The launching is carried out using the resources and practices that

have been discussed above (e.g. interrogative syntax, intonation, gaze direc-

tion, and so forth). Therefore, by opting to initiate a pre-pre sequence as a

preamble to his loaded question (lines 27, 28, and 30), the tutor marks this

question as being in a different league in comparison with its predecessors.6

Had the tutor treated this question as being in place, one would expect him to

say something along the line of next one, do you think Americans in

California are crazy to elect him to be a governor, therefore, cutting down

on the amount of prefatory talk that has been occasioned in anticipation of his

question. By seeking to obtain the go-ahead first, the tutor is communicating

that the incipient question is not in sync with the business of tutoring (i.e.defining words in these data) and as such will not be designed in the same

fashion as its predecessors.

To summarize, tutors and students make extensive use of QA sequences to

attend to the students linguistic needs. These sequences are oriented to as

the preferred turn-taking mechanism after the participants reach a consensus

with regard to which participant will be in charge of managing the initiation

of these sequences. Once this orientation has been established and a sequence

of questions is projected, several utterances become treated as questions re-

gardless of their syntactic conformation. Though not frequently, participantscan detour from the pre-established format by initiating questions that do not

address students linguistics concerns. These questions are designed in such a

way as to make them hearable as being somehow out of keeping with the

business of tutoring.

36 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


17/21

CONCLUSION

This article has demonstrated how QA sequences are a crucial device in con-

ducting tutoring business. The single-case analysis of a quantitatively tiny butqualitatively rich adjacency pair demonstrates how an ESL student can manage

the sequential development of the tutoring session with aplomb, by guiding his

tutors gaze and orientation to the sheet of the paper, therefore securing his

tutors alignment with, attendance to, and responsiveness to his linguistic con-

cerns. He manages to accomplish this successfully and artfully by communicat-

ing that a shift in gaze direction indicates the projection of a new question, and

that his tutor is expected to provide the second part of this adjacency pair by

either joining him in gazing down at the paper when he wants to initiate a

question or returning his gaze when he is expecting an answer. In this way, he

manages to connect that act of questioning with the shared artifact of the sheet,

which in turn is woven into the agenda for this tutorial activity.

By and large, students bids for assistance are treated unequivocally by tutors

as bona fide questions regardless of their composition and even in the absence

of interrogative syntax. By the same token, tutors questions are understood

unmistakably by students as queries for which they should provide an answer.

These findings are in synch with those of Jackson and Bobb (2009: 631) since

they highlight the ability of L2 speakers to make sophisticated use of the

linguistic and cognitive processes they have at their disposal to successfully

process and comprehend L2 input.Typically, once tutors and tutees display their attendance to the business of

tutoring (e.g. QA format) by adhering to the pre-allocated turn-types and to the

agenda that has been established at the outset of the session, participants orien-

tation to their agreed-upon format is such that it becomes a normative matter.

As a result, the first party will consistently initiate questions pertaining to the

task at hand, while the second will consistently provide answers. This can be

indicative of the participants interactional competence (He and Young 1998;

Markee 2000; Cekaite 2007). Both participants display a keen understanding of

the sequential organization surrounding their talk, and a shared orientation tothe ongoing task as being principally remedial in nature in that the students

turns will be attended to as bids for assistance with his linguistic needs.

Sometimes, tutors will initiate QA sequences that do not address students

linguistic concerns. In these cases, tutors will mark their upcoming question as

being disjunctive, and subsequently go ahead with their projected talk, but

with little or no sanction on the part of students. Unlike other institutional

encounters (e.g. doctorpatient; for review, see Maynard, 1991), where dis-

junctive talk is often rejected or forcefully resisted, the representative cases

analyzed in this study show that resisting or declining departure from thepre-established tasks or agenda is not vigorously pursued by students. This,

I believe, is indicative of the flexible nature of tutoring agenda, as opposed

to the kind of discourse used in courts (Atkinson and Drew 1979) or news

interviews (Clayman and Heritage 2002), for instance. Therefore, while the

H. BELHIAH 37


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


18/21

sequential organization of ESL tutorial dialogs is such that the students lin-

guistic concerns are first and foremost what gets attended to by deploying QA

sequences, deviation from an exclusive attendance to these concerns is treated

as an alternative agenda rather than inappropriate or parasitic talk that needsto be sanctioned or terminated. It often generates a great amount of talk along

with some exchange of laughter.

From a methodological perspective, this study provides some insights into

the benefits that can be derived from adopting an emicapproach to the study of

verbal and nonverbal behavior in second language interactions. Similar to its

predecessors (e.g. Sacks et al. 1974; Pomerantz 1984; Seedhouse 1999; Carroll

2000; Gardner and Wagner 2004; Seedhouse 2004; Markee 2008), it provides

ample evidence to suggest that the amount of information that could be gained

through CA transcription and analysis is so robust that we can no longer affordto rely primarily on the structural aspects of language analysiseven if our

central interest lies in the cognitive aspects of language. As Markee (2005)

claims, it is perfectly possible that crucial microanalytic information about

human cognition and second language learning may be embedded in tran-

scripts that include this type of information (367).

Future studies should explore in more detail whether different question

formats are linked with or preferred in certain interactional practices. For in-

stance, one may examine if the sequential context surrounding a statement

about a b-event is qualitatively different from that associated with a referential

question. Future research should also consider how interaction might be im-

pacted by participants introducing a new question format or structure, as well

as whether the QA sequences launched by tutors are distinguishable from QA

sequences initiated by tutees, and how ones L1 may impact question design

and participation structure in ESL conversations.

TRANSCRIPTION GLOSSARY

(Adapted from Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998)

38 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


19/21


20/21

Ford, C., B. Fox, and S. A. Thompson. 1996.

Practices in the construction of turns: The

TCU revisited, Pragmatics 6/3: 42754.

Fox, B. 1993. Human Tutorial Dialogue. Lawrence

Erlbaum. Gardner, R. 2004. On delaying the

answer: Question sequences extended after the

question in R. Gardner and J. Wagner (eds):

Second Language Conversations. Continuum,

pp. 24666.

Gardner, R. and J. Wagner. 2004. Second

Language Conversations. Continuum.

Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Basil Blackwell.

Goodwin, C. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the

achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-

beginning, Sociological Inquiry 50/3(4): 272302.

Goodwin, M. and C. Goodwin. 1986. Gesture

and coparticipation in the activity of searching

for a word, Semiotica 62/1(2): 5175.

He, A. and R. Young. 1998. Language profi-

ciency interviews: A discourse approach

in R. Young and A. He (eds): Talking and

Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of

Oral Proficiency. Benjamins, pp. 124.

Hellermann, J. 2009. Looking for evidence of

language learning in practices for repair: A

case study of self-initiated self-repair by an

adult learner of English, Scandinavian Journal

of Educational Research 53/2: 11332.

Heritage, J. 2001. Ad hoc inquiries: Two pref-

erences in the design of routine questions in

an open context in D. Maynard, H. Steenstra,

N. Schaeffer, and H. van der Zouwen (eds):

Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction

and Practice in the Survey Interview. Wiley

Interscience, pp. 31333.

Heritage, J. 2002a. Designing questions and

setting agendas in the news interview

in P. Glenn, C. Lebaron, and J. Mandelbaum

(eds): Studies in Language and Social Interaction.

Erlbaum, pp. 5790.

Heritage, J. 2002b. The limits of questioning:

Negative interrogatives and hostile question

content, Journal of Pragmatics 34/10(11):

142746.

Heritage, J. and A. Roth. 1995. Grammar

and institution: Questions and questioning in

the broadcast news interview, Research on

Language and Social Interaction 28/1: 160.Heritage, J. and M. Sorjonen. 1994. Consti-

tuting and maintaining activities across se-

quences: and-prefacing as a feature of question

design, Language in Society 23/1: 129.

Howard, A. 2010. Is there such a thing as a

typical language lesson?, Classroom Discourse

1/1: 82100.

Hutchby, I. and R. Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation

Analysis. Polity Press.

Jackson, C. N. and S. C. Bobb. 2009. The pro-

cessing and comprehension of wh-questions

among second language speakers of German,

Applied Psycholinguistics 30: 60336.

Koshik, I. 2002a. A conversation analytic study

of yes/no questions which convey reversed po-

larity assertions, Journal of Pragmatics 34/12:

185177.

Koshik, I. 2002b. Designedly incomplete utter-

ances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting

knowledge displays in error correction se-quences, Research on Language and Social

Interaction 35/3: 277309.

Koshik, I. 2005a. Alternative questions used

in conversational repair, Discourse Studies 7/2:

193211.

Koshik, I. 2005b. Beyond Rhetorical Questions:

Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. John

Benjamins.

Koshik, I. 2007. Questions and questioning

in W. Donsbach (ed.): International Encyclopedia

of Communication. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 40736.Labov, W. and D. Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic

Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation.

Academic Press.

Lightbown, P. and A. dAnglejan. 1985. Some

input considerations for word order in

French L1 and L2 acquisition in S. Gass and

C. Madden (eds): Input in Second Language

Acquisition. Newbury House, pp. 41530.

Markee, N. 1995. Teachers answers to students

questions: Problematizing the issue of making

meaning, Issues in Applied Linguistics 6/2:6392.

Markee, N. 2000. Conversation Analysis. Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Markee, N. 2005. The organization of off-task talk

in second language classrooms in K. Richards

and P. Seedhouse (eds): Applying Conversation

Analysis. Palgrave-MacMillan, pp. 197213.

Markee, N. 2008. Toward a learning behav-

ior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA,

Applied Linguistics 29/3: 40427.

Markee, N. and G. Kasper. 2004. Classroomtalks: An introduction, The Modern Language

Journal 88/4: 491500.

Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organiza-

tion in the Classroom. Harvard University Press.

40 QA SEQUENCES


)onJanuary31,2012


Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


21/21

Monzoni, C. M. 2008. Introducing direct com-

plaints through questions: The interactional

achievement of pre-sequences, Discourse

Studies 10/1: 7387.

Mori, J. and M. Hayashi. 2006.

Applied Linguistics 2012 Belhiah 21 41

Documents

Transcript of Applied Linguistics 2012 Belhiah 21 41