Skip to main content Accessibility help

Orientations to negotiated language and task rules in online L2 interaction

  • Olcay Sert (a1) and Ufuk Balaman (a2)


Recent research shows that negotiation of meaning in online task-oriented interactions can be a catalyst for L2 (second/foreign/additional language) development. However, how learners undertake such negotiation work and what kind of an impact it has on interactional development in an L2 are still largely unknown mainly due to a lack of focus on task engagement processes. A conversation analytic investigation into negotiation of meaning (NoM) in task-oriented interactions can bring evidence to such development, as conversation analysis (CA), given its analytic tools, allows us to see how participant orientations in interaction evolve over time. Based on an examination of screen-recorded multiparty online task-oriented interactions, this study aimed to describe how users (n=8) of an L2 (1) negotiate and co-construct language and task rules and (2) later show orientations to these rules both in the short term (50 minutes) and in the long term (8 weeks). The findings showed that in addition to negotiating existing rules, the learners co-constructed new rules around an action called policing, which occurred when the learners attended to the breach of language and task rules. Furthermore, even after the negotiation work was completed, they oriented to negotiated rules through policing their own utterances (i.e. self-policing). Overall, this interactional continuum (from other-repairs to self-repairs) brought longitudinal evidence to bear on the role of NoM in the development of L2 interactional competence. These findings bring new insights into NoM, technology-mediated task-based language teaching (TBLT), and CA for second language acquisition (SLA).

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Orientations to negotiated language and task rules in online L2 interaction
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Orientations to negotiated language and task rules in online L2 interaction
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Orientations to negotiated language and task rules in online L2 interaction
      Available formats



Hide All
Amir, A. (2013) Self-policing in the English as a foreign language classroom. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 7(2): 84105.
Amir, A. and Musk, N. (2013) Language policing: Micro-level language policy-in-process in the foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 4(2): 151167.
Auer, P. (1984) Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Balaman, U. (2015) A conversation analytic investigation into the impact of task design on the emergence of information gaps. In Colpaert, J., Aerts, A., Oberhofer, M. & Plana, M. G. C. (eds.), Proceedings of 17th International CALL Conference: Task Design & CALL. Tarragona, Spain: Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 95–104.
Balaman, U. (2016) A conversation analytic study on the development of interactional competence in English in an online task-oriented environment. Hacettepe University, Turkey, unpublished PhD.
Balaman, U. and Sert, O. (2017a) The coordination of online L2 interaction and orientations to task interface for epistemic progression. Journal of Pragmatics, 115: 115129.
Balaman, U. and Sert, O. (2017b) Development of L2 interactional resources for online collaborative task accomplishment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7): 601630.
Belz, J. A. & Thorne, S. L. (eds.) (2006) Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Thomson, Heinle.
Bonacina-Pugh, F. (2012) Researching ‘practiced language policies’: Insights from conversation analysis. Language Policy, 11(3): 213234.
Bower, J. and Kawaguchi, S. (2011) Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1): 4171.
Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3): 5080.
Doughty, C. J. and Pica, T. (1986) “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2): 305325.
Fernández-García, M. and Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002) Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19(2): 279294.
Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (1997) On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3): 285300.
Foster, P. and Ohta, A. S. (2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3): 402430.
Gafaranga, J. (2000) Medium repair vs. other-language repair: Telling the medium of a bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(3): 327350.
Gafaranga, J. (2010) Medium request: Talking language shift into being. Language in Society, 39(2): 241270.
González-Lloret, M. (2015) Conversation analysis in computer-assisted language learning. CALICO Journal, 32(3): 569594.
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014) Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121.
Goodwin, C. (2013) The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1): 823.
Hall, J. K. and Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011) L2 interactional competence and development. In Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (eds.), L2 interactional competence and development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 115.
Hauser, E. (2005) Coding ‘corrective recasts’: The maintenance of meaning and more fundamental problems. Applied Linguistics, 26(3): 293316.
Hazel, S. (2015) Identities at odds: Embedded and implicit language policing in the internationalized workplace. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1): 141160.
Hellermann, J. (2008) Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J. and Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010) On the contingent nature of language-learning tasks. Classroom Discourse, 1(1): 2545.
Heritage, J. (1984) A change-of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Maxwell Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 299345.
Jakonen, T. and Morton, T. (2015) Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1): 7394.
Jefferson, G. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1334.
Jenks, C. J. (2014) Social interaction in second language chat rooms. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Jepson, K. (2005) Conversations – and negotiated interaction – in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3): 7998.
Kasper, G. and Wagner, J. (2011) A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In Atkinson, D. (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 117142.
Kern, R. G. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4): 457476.
Kitade, K. (2000) L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2): 143166.;1-D;FT143
Kitzinger, C. (2013) Repair. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Blackwell, 229256.
Lee, L. (2001) Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2): 232244.
Lee, Y.-A. (2013) Descriptions of second language interaction: Toward descriptive adequacy. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4): 853868.
Lindström, A. (1994) Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings. Language in Society, 23(2): 231252.
Long, M. H. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 413468.
Markee, N. and Kasper, G. (2004) Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4): 491500.
Markee, N. and Kunitz, S. (2013) Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63(4): 629664.
Martin, C. (2004) From other to self: Learning as interactional change. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis.
Martin, C. (2009) Relevance of situational context in studying learning as changing participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2): 133149.
Martin, C. and Sahlström, F. (2010) Learning as longitudinal interactional change: From other-repair to self-repair in physiotherapy treatment. Discourse Processes, 47(8): 668697.
Meunier, L. (1998) Personality and motivational factors in electronic networking. In Muyskens, J. A. (ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education. Boston: Heinle, 63126.
Mondada, L. and Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004) Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88(4): 501518.
Mori, J. (2004) Pursuit of understanding: Rethinking ‘negotiation of meaning’ in view of projected action. In Gardner, R. & Wagner, J. (eds.), Second language conversations. London: Continuum, 157177.
Musk, N. (2016) Correcting spellings in second language learners’ computer-assisted collaborative writing. Classroom Discourse, 7(1): 3657.
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A. and Van Lier, L. (2001) Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3): 377405.
Pekarek Doehler, S. and Berger, E. (2016) L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics.
Pekarek Doehler, S. and Pochon-Berger, E. (2015) The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In Cadierno, T. & Eskildsen, S. W. (eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning . Berlin: De Gruyter, 233268.
Pellettieri, J. (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5986. doi:
Piirainen-Marsh, A. and Tainio, L. (2014) Asymmetries of knowledge and epistemic change in social gaming interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4): 10221038.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000) L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1): 527.;1-K;FT005
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4): 696735.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2): 361382.
Seedhouse, P. (2005) “Task” as research construct. Language Learning, 55(3): 533570.
Sert, O. (2015) Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Shekary, M. and Tahririan, M. H. (2006) Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4): 557573.
Sidnell, J. (2010) Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (eds.) (2013) The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Blackwell.
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 3857.
Smith, B. (2004) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3): 365398.
Smith, B. (2005) The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1): 3358.
Smith, B. (2009) Task-based learning in the computer-mediated communicative ESL/EFL classroom. CALL-EJ Online, 11(1).
Sotillo, S. M. (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1): 77110.
ten Have, P. (2007) Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Tudini, V. (2010) Online second language acquisition: Conversation analysis of online chat. London: Continuum.
Tudini, V. and Liddicoat, A. J. (2017) Computer-mediated communication and conversation analysis. In Thorne, S. L. & May, S. (eds.), Language, education and technology (3rd ed.). Springer International, 112.
van der Zwaard, R. and Bannink, A. (2014) Video call or chat? Negotiation of meaning and issues of face in telecollaboration. System, 44: 137148.
van der Zwaard, R. and Bannink, A. (2016) Nonoccurrence of negotiation of meaning in task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3): 625640.
Varonis, E. M. and Gass, S. (1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1): 7190.
Wang, Y. (2006) Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL, 18(1): 122145.
Watanabe, A. (2017) Developing L2 interactional competence: Increasing participation through self-selection in post-expansion sequences. Classroom Discourse, 8(3): 271293.
Yanguas, Í. (2010) Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3): 7293.
Yanguas, Í. (2012) Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29(3): 507531.
Yüksel, D. and İnan, B. (2014) The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3): 333354.
Zheng, D., Young, M. F., Wagner, M. M. and Brewer, R. A. (2009) Negotiation for action: English language learning in game-based virtual worlds. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4): 489511.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Orientations to negotiated language and task rules in online L2 interaction

  • Olcay Sert (a1) and Ufuk Balaman (a2)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.