# A proposal to study the links between the sociocultural and the linguistic dimensions of eTandem interactions

Marco Cappellini

► To cite this version:

Marco Cappellini. A proposal to study the links between the sociocultural and the linguistic dimensions of eTandem interactions. Telecollaboration and virtual exchange across disciplines: in service of social inclusion and global citizenship, 2019, 10.14705/rpnet.2019.35.945. [hal-02171115](https://hal.science/hal-02171115)

HAL Id: hal-02171115

https://hal.science/hal-02171115

Submitted on 2 Jul 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# 12 A proposal to study the links between the sociocultural and the linguistic dimensions of eTandem interactions

Marco Cappellini<fnref n="1" />

## Abstract

After identifying a major limitation of current research on telecollaboration, I propose to develop a methodological framework to empirically study the link between the sociocultural dimension and the linguistic dimension of interaction in eTandem via desktop videoconferencing. For the sociocultural dimension, I study which roles the learners take during the interactions using discourse analysis tools. For the linguistic dimension, I focus mainly on different types of conversational side sequences identified in the francophone interactionist literature. In the end, I discuss the relevance that the methodological framework I propose can have for research on telecollaboration and point to studies that explored this avenue.

**Keywords:** research paradigm, conversation analysis, corpus analysis, eTandem, dynamic complex systems theory.

## 1. Introduction

Studies of telecollaboration almost exclusively focus on only one project, which prevents researchers from comparing projects and establishing

<footnote n="1">1. Aix Marseille University, CNRS, LPL, Aix-en-Provence, France; marco.cappellini@univ-amu.fr</footnote>

<footnote>**How to cite this chapter:** Cappellini, M. (2019). A proposal to study the links between the sociocultural and the linguistic dimensions of eTandem interactions. In A. Turula, M. Kurek & T. Lewis (Eds), *Telecollaboration and virtual exchange across disciplines: in service of social inclusion and global citizenship* (pp. 99-104). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.35.945</footnote>
grounded claims in respect of their impact on the development of language, intercultural, digital, and/or pedagogical skills. This is linked to the fact that on an epistemological and methodological level, research suffers from a dichotomy between cognitive and sociocultural approaches, which has characterised the literature on telecollaboration, and more widely on second language acquisition thus far (Hulstijn, Young, Ortega, & Bigelow, 2014; Zuengler & Miller, 2006).

On the one hand, the so called ‘cognitivist paradigm’ is based on the input-
interaction framework and the interaction hypothesis (Gass, 1997). This
paradigm identified interactional dynamics that are present in any pedagogical
environment. It focussed on categories of analysis to develop quantitative
studies that allow statistical comparisons between environments. However,
this paradigm does not consider the social dimension of learning and it usually
ignores the role of the digital environment and of multimodality. When it does,
it is within an analytical and experimental epistemology, where different factors
are identified as variables and manipulated to study the impact of the presence/
absence of an element on (language) acquisition. Such a procedure does not
consider, as dynamic complex systems theory suggests (Larsen-Freeman &
Cameron, 2008), that the characteristics of an ensemble, a system, are different
from the sum of the characteristics of its elements.

On the other hand, ‘sociocultural approaches’ allow an in-depth view into the
development of language competence within the social environment of learners
(Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) and consider the relationship between learners and
the physical and/or digital environments. However, these studies are almost
exclusively case studies and their results are difficult to generalise. Comparison
of telecollaborative projects is also quite rare within this paradigm, which
hinders the contrastive identification of the outcomes of different models of
telecollaboration (O’Dowd, 2018).

The aim of this paper is to suggest a methodological framework proposing
categories of analysis that are both relevant for quantitative analysis and
anchored to the social and linguistic dimensions of eTandem exchanges.
## 2. The sociocultural dimension

(Applied) linguists have taken concepts and tools from ethnomethodology and conversation analysis to study verbal interaction. For instance, *Mondada* (1999) developed a broad ethnomethodological framework to study how interlocutors categorise themselves as well as the activities they are accomplishing through linguistic and paralinguistic means. Following *Mondada* (1999), an earlier empirical study charted the discursive positionings that eTandem partners adopt during their online conversations (Cappellini & Rivens Mompean, 2013). The main topics of discussion are personal and cultural, defined in an emic perspective. Cultural topics, within this perspective, are usually defined in relation to national cultures<fnref n="2" />, while personal topics refer to socialising, hobbies, and daily life. For cultural topics, the following positionings were found (Cappellini & Rivens Mompean, 2013):

* **expert-novice**: this is the most common positioning. The student who talks about the nation where s/he is born positions as the person who has knowledge about it and the interlocutor as the person who has no knowledge and wants to acquire it;

* **expert-expert agreeing**: both interlocutors contribute some knowledge about the topic discussed and the information provided is not in contradiction;

* **expert-expert disagreeing**: both interlocutors contribute some knowledge about the topic at issue and the information provided is contradictory; and

* **novice-novice**: neither interlocutor has the piece of information needed.

These categories cover the possibilities of co-construction of expertise about sociocultural topics within the conversation from an emic point of view. The

<footnote n="2">2. For the serious issues this raises from an intercultural education perspective, see Dervin (2017) from a general point of view and Cappellini and Rivens Mompean (2013) for eTandem more specifically.</footnote>
model also provides flexibility, since these are open categories in terms of the
ethnomethodological procedures carried out to perform these positionings.
This two-layered approach to the sociocultural dimension makes possible the
openness necessary to describe social practices of co-construction of positioning,
while providing the stability necessary to generalise the categorisation of these,
therefore allowing comparison among pairs within an eTandem project, or
across eTandem projects.

3. The linguistic dimension

To study the linguistic dimension, I drew on the francophone acquisitionist
literature (Pekarek Doehler, 2000), which relates concepts from sociocultural
theory to conversation analysis. More precisely, I adapted four categories of
conversational side sequences from the literature (Cappellini, 2016):

*   **potential acquisition of vocabulary**: the learner has a gap in their vocabulary and asks their interlocutor for assistance;

*   **potential acquisition of syntax**: the learner has a gap in their understanding of morpho-syntactic issues and asks their interlocutor for assistance;

*   **normative evaluation**: the learner produces an utterance containing what the interlocutor considers a mistake, which leads the interlocutor to ‘correct’ the learner, usually interrupting them; and

*   **explicative conversational sequence**: the learner does not understand something the interlocutor says and asks for help.

From the point of view of sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006), side
sequences such as those described above may be a sign of the internalisation of
language. The conversational accomplishment of these categories can vary and
actual ethnomethodological procedures can provide borderline cases. However,
these cases are still categorisable in one of the four broad categories (Cappellini & Pescheux, 2015), therefore allowing statistical analysis.

**4. Building complex configurations**

The elements presented in the two previous sections can be seen as interconnected from a conversational point of view. In other words, to consider the linguistic dimension through the lens of conversational side sequences allows study of where these side sequences appear during broader conversational sequences characterised in terms of conversational positioning related to the sociocultural dimension.

Combining the category sets (personal topics + the four cultural positionings and the four side sequences) and multiplying them for the two languages of an eTandem and for the two parts of the eTandem session results in 80 possible complex categories. An example of a complex category would be a normative evaluative side sequence for French language appearing during an expert-novice exchange about Chinese culture during the French part of the conversation. The number of occurrences of each complex category can be an indicator of the characteristics of an eTandem conversation, of the conversations of an eTandem pair, of an eTandem setting, or to allow comparisons.

**5. Future directions**

This proposal has two major limits. The first is that the framework does not take into account the digital dimension. The second is that it is based on research on eTandem conversations, which means that, in other models, other positioning categories could emerge. This is why one of the future directions I intend to explore is to compare the interactions within different telecollaborative models, as was done for Normative Evaluation side sequences in Cappellini and Azaoui (2017). Another future direction will be to use this framework as a tool to study the effects of task implementation on the eTandem interactions.
References

Cappellini, M. (2016). Roles and scaffolding in teletandem interactions – a study of the relations between the sociocultural and the language learning dimensions in a French-Chinese teletandem. *Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10*(1), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2016.1134859

Cappellini, M., & Azaoui, B. (2017). Sequences of normative evaluation in two telecollaboration projects: a comparative study of multimodal feedback through desktop videoconference. *Language Learning in Higher Education, 7*(1), 55-80. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2017-0002

Cappellini, M., & Pescheux, M. (2015). La gestion des normes langagières dans un tandem franco-chinois par visioconférence. *Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée* *VALS/ASLA, special issue, 3*, 171-187.

Cappellini, M., & Rivens Mompean, A. (2013). Positionnements culturels dans un tandem sino-fançais par visioconférence. *Sinergies Chine, 8*, 137-149.

Dervin, F. (2017). *Compétences interculturelles*. Editions des Archives Contemporains.

Gass, S. M. (1997). *Input, interaction, and the second language learner*. Routledge.

Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., & Bigelow, M. (2014). Bridging the gap: cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. *Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36*(3), 361-421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000035

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). *Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development*. Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). *Complex systems and applied linguistics*. Oxford University Press.

Mondada, L. (1999). L'accomplissement de l'étrangéité dans et par l'interaction : procédures de catégorisation des locuteurs. *Langages, 134*, 20-34. https://doi.org/10.3406/ lgge.1999.2190

O'Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange. *Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1*, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.jve.1

Pekarek Doehler, S. (Ed.). (2000). *Approches interactionnistes de l'acquisition des langues étrangères. Aile, 12*.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: two parallel SLA worlds? *Tesol Quarterly, 40*(1), 35-58. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264510
## Telecollaboration and virtual exchange across disciplines: in service of social inclusion and global citizenship

Edited by Anna Turula, Malgorzata Kurek, and Tim Lewis

**Publication date:** 2019/07/02

**Rights:** the whole volume is published under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives International (CC BY-NC-ND) licence; **individual articles may have a different licence.** Under the CC BY-NC-ND licence, the volume is freely available online (https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.35.9782490057429) for anybody to read, download, copy, and redistribute provided that the author(s), editorial team, and publisher are properly cited. Commercial use and derivative works are, however, not permitted.

**Disclaimer:** Research-publishing.net does not take any responsibility for the content of the pages written by the authors of this book. The authors have recognised that the work described was not published before, or that it was not under consideration for publication elsewhere. While the information in this book is believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the editorial team nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions. The publisher makes no warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. While Research-publishing.net is committed to publishing works of integrity, the words are the authors' alone.

**Trademark notice:** product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

**Copyrighted material:** every effort has been made by the editorial team to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permission for the use of copyrighted material in this book. In the event of errors or omissions, please notify the publisher of any corrections that will need to be incorporated in future editions of this book.

Typeset by Research-publishing.net

Cover illustration by © Julien Eichinger - Adobe Stock.com

Cover design by © Raphaël Savina (raphael@savina.net)

ISBN13: 978-2-490057-42-9 (Ebook, PDF, colour)

ISBN13: 978-2-490057-43-6 (Ebook, EPUB, colour)

ISBN13: 978-2-490057-41-2 (Paperback - Print on demand, black and white)

Print on demand technology is a high-quality, innovative and ecological printing method; with which the book is never 'out of stock' or 'out of print'.