Delay in L2 interaction in video-mediated environments in the context of virtual tandem language learning

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

j ou rn a l h om epa g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l i n g e d

Delay in L2 interaction in video-mediated environments in the context of virtual tandem language learning

Fredrik Rusk

^a,∗

, Michaela Pörn

^b

aFacultyofEducationandArts,Norduniversity,Universitetsalléen11,8026Bodø,Norway

bFacultyofEducationandWelfareStudies,ÅboAkademiUniversity,Rantakatu2,65100Vaasa,Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Articlehistory:

Received20June2018

Receivedinrevisedform20February2019 Accepted24February2019

Keywords:

Video-mediatedenvironments Secondlanguagelearning Socialinteraction Conversationanalysis Turnconstruction

a b s t r a c t

Thepurposeofthisarticleistodescribetandemdyads’interactionalresourcesandsocialpracticesfor upholdingintersubjectivityinvideo-mediatedenvironments(VMEs)withinthecontextoftandemlan- guagelearninginavirtuallearningenvironment(eClassroomtandem)arrangedwithinformallanguage educationinuppersecondaryschools.Dataconsistsofvideoandscreenrecordingsofseveraltandem dyads’video-mediatedinteraction.Usingconversationanalysis,thestudyanalyseshow“lag”(adelayin theconnection)affectsparticipants’meaning-makingandwaystomaintainintersubjectivityinVMEs.

Theresultsshowthatparticipantsusedifferentinteractionalresourcesandpracticesregardingturn- taking,turndesign,andturnconstructiontomaintainintersubjectivity.Clearlydeﬁnedconversational rolesintheassignmentsappeartohelpparticipantstocopewithdelays.Additionally,inthecontextof eClassroomtandem,therolesoftheL1speakerandtheL2speakerappeartobeofsituatedimportance forupholdingamutualunderstandinginVMEs.

1. Introduction

Theuseoftechnologyinsecond language(L2)educationfor authenticcommunicationandinteractionextendsL2learningfrom thecontextofthephysicalclassroomtomediatedinteractionin onlineInternetcontextswithauthenticrecipientswhoareinter- estedinlearningeachother’sﬁrstlanguages(L1)(Kern,Ware,&

Warschauer,2004;Thorne,2008; Thorne&Black, 2007;Tudini

&Liddicoat,2017).Thisinteractioncanbeasynchronous(e-mail, forumsorTwitter),quasi-synchronous(instant-messaging[IM]), orsynchronous(real-timevideoand/ortextchats).

Thisarticlefocusesonsynchronousdigitallymediatedinterac- tioninL2education,which,sincethe1990s,hasformedaﬁeldof inquirywithinresearchonL2learning(Chun,1994;Kern,1995;

Warschauer,1996).Thisearlyresearchofteninvolvedexperimen- tal,statistical,and comparativemethodologiesonlanguageuse insynchronoustextchatswithafocus“onthemostquantiﬁable andeasilymeasuredaspectsofonlinecommunication”(Kernetal., 2004,p.243).ThesestudiesfoundthatL2outputisincreasedand thelinguisticqualityoftheoutputismoresophisticatedwiththe helpofmediatedinteractionintheformofsynchronoustextchats.

∗Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](F.Rusk),michaela.poern@abo.ﬁ (M.Pörn).

Asecondwave ofresearchonL2learning indigitallymediated interactionpromoteda viewoncontextandinteractionbeyond thetextualchatsand,thus,movedtowardsmorequalitativemeth- odsandsocioculturallyinﬂuencedtheories(Belz,2002;Darhower, 2002;Thorne,2003).Inotherwords,thisresearchenablesabet- terunderstandingofdigitallymediatedinteractionandauthentic L2interaction(Kernetal.,2004;O’Rourke,2005)anddisplaysthe complexityofthenewtechnologicalcontextswherehumansare actorsandthetechnologicalsettingsare artefacts,ormediators (Arminen, Licoppe,&Spagnolli, 2016).Bothstrands ofresearch usetextualdata(chatandchatlogs)fortheanalysisandtreatthe chatdataasaresource,ratherthanasatopic(Rapley,2001).The datais usedasa “wayof understandingthepeoplebehindthe screen”(Meredith&Potter,2014,p.371),insteadofevidenceof

“socialpracticesintheirownright”(Lamerichs&teMolder,2003, p.461).

Inordertocomprehenddigitallymediatedinteractionforthe largeraimsofL2education,weneedadeeperunderstandingof whatparticipantsdo duringtheinteraction.Thatis, howisthe interactioninthesedigitally mediatedenvironmentsstructured and organized? It is especially important for L2 researchersto understandwhetherthedigitally mediatedenvironments bring inadditional challengestotheinteraction,sinceit mayalready bechallenging for participantsto usetheL2 in theinteraction (Tudini&Liddicoat,2017).Previousresearchondigitallymediated interactionintroduces“lag,”oradelay,inthedigitallymediated

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.02.003

0/).

(2)

interaction(Gutwinetal.,2004)thatinterfereswiththestructure ofconversationonseverallevels(seeOlbertz-Siitonen,2015,fora review).

InthecurrentL2researchondigitallymediatedenvironments, thereseemstobeaneedforanenhancedunderstandingofboth thecontextualandtheinteractionaldimensionsof participants’

languageuseasitistakingplace,andconversationanalysis(CA) seemstobesuitedforthispurpose(Balaman,2015;Nguyen,2017;

Olbertz-Siitonen,2015;Tudini&Liddicoat,2017).Theinteraction analyzedinthisarticleisfromseveraltandemdyads’videochats inaneClassroomtandemcontext.Atandemdyadwithdifferent L1slearneachother’sL1in-and-throughinteractioninreciprocal cooperation.Thevideo-mediatedenvironment(VME)represents a so-called “fractured”environment (Hjulstad, 2016;Luff etal., 2003).Inotherwords,itconstrainssomeaspectsoftheinteraction thatwouldbeavailableinaface-to-faceconversation.Therefore, thedatainclude recordingsfromboth ofthesitestoprovide a moreholisticviewoftheconversations.Participants,themselves, donothaveaccesstotheirco-participant’sperspectiveonthecon- versation.However,fortheanalyst,withapurposetoinvestigate participants’waysofdealingwithdelayinvideochats,theaccess tobothperspectivesonthesamesituationsmayproveinvaluable (Olbertz-Siitonen,2015).

Theanalyzedsituationsarecharacterizedbyproblemsofunder- standingthatemergewhenengagingininteractioninVMEsthat delay the conversation between the participants; that is, the connection is “lagging”. In the data, there appeared to be an omnipresentlag;thatis,delay,tosomedegree,wasomnipresent.

Theaimistoinvestigatethepracticesusedbyparticipantstohan- dlethe consequences caused bydelayed turns attalk in VMEs andhowtheyupheldtheintersubjectivity.Thisarticledescribes tandempartners’socialpracticesforupholdingintersubjectivity duringvideo-mediatedinteractionand,hence,contributesto,what TudiniandLiddicoat(2017)mentionasoneareainwhichthere remainsworktobedone;namely,ourunderstandingoftheaffor- dancesandconstraintscreatedintheinteractioninVMEs inL2 education.

2. ACAperspectiveonsocialinteractionandL2learning

ConversationAnalysis(CA)beganwithaninterestinstudying languageuse,talk-in-interaction,asasociologicalphenomenon;

thatis,howlanguageisusedtoperformdiversesocialactionswhen participantsareengagedinjointactivities(Sacks,1995;Stivers&

Sidnell,2012).CAseekstouncoverthemethods,practices,andpat- ternsthatparticipantsusetoperformandinterpretsocialaction, andexaminestalkinregardtowhatitisdoing,insteadofwhatit isabout(Schegloff,1996,2007).

Duringthelastdecade,therehasbeenagrowthinCA-studies onL2 learning asa response tothe questionof how language useand languagelearning areinterconnected(Firth &Wagner, 1997,2007;Hall etal.,2011;Hall,1997;Kääntä,2010;Kurhila, 2001Markee &Kasper, 2004; Markee, 1994, 1995,2000, 2004;

Seedhouse,2004andmanymore).ThesestudiesarguethatCA’s participant-orientedanalysisofsocialinteractioncanhelptobetter understandhowL2learningininteractionisaccomplished.Sev- eralCAstudiesonL2learninghavefocusedonrepairpractices¹;

1 “Byrepair,werefertopracticesfordealingwithproblemsortroublesinspeak- ing,hearing,andunderstandingthetalkinconversation(andinotherformsof talk-in-interaction,forthatmatter).Iwanttounderscorethephrase‘thetalk’inmy referenceto‘problemsinunderstandingthetalk’;forwedidnotmeantoinclude withinthescopeof‘repair’allpracticesaddressedtoproblemsofunderstanding (likeunderstandingexactlyhowtheInternetworks),onlythenarrowerdomainof

‘understandingwhatsomeonehasjustsaid’-thoughtherecanonoccasionbeonly afuzzyboundarybetweenthese.”(Schegloff,2000,p.207)

thatis,practicesforupholdingandrestoringmutualunderstanding (Firth&Wagner,1997;Hellermann,2009;Kääntä,2010;Kasper, 2009;Kurhila,2001;Macbeth,2004;Markee,2000;McHoul,1990;

Seedhouse,2004;Slotte-Lüttge,2005;Üstünel&Seedhouse,2005;

Wong,2000).Mutualunderstandingisattheheartofhumansocial interaction(Kasper,2009; Schegloff,2007)and,iflost,sotoois thepreconditionformutualsocialactivity(Mondada,2011).One majorreasonforwhysomuchCAresearchonL2learningfocuses onrepairpracticesisthatbreakdownsofintersubjectivity,trou- blesinsense-makingpractices,andalackofmutualunderstanding inthesocialinteractionmayhinderL2learning(Halletal.,2011;

Hellermann,2009;Kasper,2009;Markee,2000;Seedhouse,2004).

Thisarticlefocusesonsituationsinwhichparticipantsappearto orienttoproblemsofunderstandingintheVMEwhenthereisdelay intheconnection.

In thisarticle, however,we arenotfocusing onrepairprac- ticesperse.Instead,thefocusisonthesocialpracticesemployed by participants to cope with delay in the VMEs. Hence, we employanemicapproachtothephenomenonofupholdinginter- subjectivity, which involvesa participant’s perspective onhow participantsorienttoand usediverseinteractionalresourcesto upholdintersubjectivityintheinvestigatedL2 educationalsett- ings(Seedhouse,2007).Partoftheseresourcesisthesystemof turn-taking,which is one ofthe buildingblocksfor how social interactionismadepossible,becauseparticipantsshareaknowl- edgeofthestructuresandnormsthatconcerntheorganization ofsocialaction(Drew,2012;Stivers&Sidnell,2012).Thisknowl- edge issalient toparticipantsas theyestablishand maintaina mutualunderstanding—intersubjectivity—ofwhattheyaresaying anddoingwhenengagedinjointactivities.Partofthisknowledgeis theorientationtoturn-taking(Clayman,2012;Drew,2012;Sacks, Schegloff,&Jefferson,1974).Takingturnsisafamiliarmatterto allparticipantsofanysocialinteractionandcontext.Itconstrains opportunitiesforparticipationinsocialinteractionandshapesthe turndesignandthesocialactions(Drew,2012).Itissigniﬁcantasa basicformofsocialpracticeinitsownright.Arequirementofturn- takingisthatparticipantsmustcoordinate theirsocialpractices withoneanother.Thiscoordinationisﬁnelytunedandorderly, andthetransitionfromonespeakertoanotherismanagedwith minimalsilencebetweenturnsandhardlyanyoverlappingspeech.

Thesespacesbetweenturnsarecalledtransition-relevanceplaces (TRP,Clayman,2012),whichareplacesintheinteractionwherea speakerchangebecomesapossibilitythatmayberealized.TRPsare notonlymarkedwhentheyoccur,theyarealsoprojectedthrough socialpracticesthatindicate,inthecontext,thatthecurrentturn ispossiblycomingtoaclose.LocalizingtheseTRPsinaVMEwhen talkisdelayedmayprovetobemoreofachallengethanitisin face-to-faceinteraction.

SinceTRPsandturn-takingareessentialforupholdinginter- subjectivity,weneedtobetterunderstandhowparticipantscope withdelayinVMEs(Olbertz-Siitonen,2015),especiallyinL2VMEs wheremutualunderstandingmayalreadybestrainedbecauseof theuse ofthe L2 (Tudini &Liddicoat, 2017).Previous research onVMEs,turn-takinganddelayindicatethatmoreorlessdelay leadtomoreorlessoverlap,interruptions,andmismatchbetween contributionsthat disrupttheﬂow ofongoing talk(Ruhleder&

Jordan,2001).Additionally,studiesonaudio-onlyteleconferences havefoundthatthesedisruptions mayleadtoparticipantsper- ceiving theirco-participantsas rude(Ruhleder&Jordan, 2001;

Schoenenberg, Raake,& Koeppe,2014). Otherstudies ﬁndthat participants,althoughnothavingan‘actual’commonframeofref- erenceintheVME,orienttoapresuppositionofacommonframe of reference,and that this presuppositionis what supports the meaning-making(Heath&Luff,2000).Thisissupportedbystudies thatshowhowparticipantsmaycreatetheirownpracticesforturn- taking(Fischer&Tenbrink,2003),adapttheirpracticestothedelay

(3)

(Egger,Schatz,Schoenenberg,Raake,&Kubin,2012),orsimplyhave funwithit(Rintel,2010).

ThereissomeinsightintohowdelayinﬂuencesVMEs.However, thesestudiesaremostlyfromaneticperspective.Althoughoth- ershaveaddressedthequestionofhowparticipantsapproachand handledelayininteraction(Olbertz-Siitonen,2015;Rintel,2010), theemicperspectiveisunderexplored.Therefore,thepurposeof thisarticleistoanalyzehowparticipantscopewiththeproblems relatedto delayedturns attalkin VMEs. In theseanalyses, we strivetounderstandtheinteractionalresourcesthatparticipants employtosolvetheseproblemsofunderstandingandtodiscover thesocialpracticesforupholdingintersubjectivityduringvideo- mediatedinteractioninthecontextofeClassroomtandemwithin L2education.

3. MethodologicalconsiderationswhenstudyingVMEs

TheuseofCAtoanalyzeL2interactioninVMEsplacescertain demands,orrequirements,onthedatacollection(Giles,Stommel, Paulus,Lester,&Reed,2015;Meredith&Potter,2014).CA’saim tostudytheactualorganizationofpracticesinhumaninteraction requiresrecordingsofnaturallyoccurringactivities,includingnat- urallyoccurringdigitallymediatedinteraction(Gilesetal.,2015;

Mondada,2012).Implementing theserequirementsmeans that datashouldbecollected,atleast,asscreenrecordingsofonepar- ticipant’sscreenastheinteractionoccurs.Textandvideochatsare interactionalandscreenrecordingsprovideaccesstothepartici- pants’situatedorientationsandactions.Analysingthesehelpsus tounderstandtheinteractionandmeaning-making,perse(Sacks etal.,1974;Meredith,2015).Therecordingsalsoprovidedataon howthemessagesareconstructed(copy/pastedfromanothersite, partsofthetexterasedonaccountofwhattherecipientwrote whilethemessagewasbeingwritten,andsoon).Theuseofaddi- tionalvideocamerasprovidesaccesstothesemioticresourcesthat individualsuseinfrontof,andaround,thescreen(Aarsand,2007;

Musk,2014;Musk&Cekaite,2017;Thorneetal.,2015).Thispro- videsabetterinsightintoparticipants’situatedactionsandfurthers theanalysisofsituationsinwhichthetechnologyisnotworking.

AnotherconsiderationforthestudyofinteractioninVMEsfrom aparticipant’sperspectiveisthattheparticipantsarelocatedin differentphysicallocationsandareusingtwodifferentcomputer screens(Heath&Luff,2000).Hence,forabetterunderstandingof participants’socialactionsandforanemicanalysisfrombothpar- ticipants’perspectives,bothparticipantswouldneedtobevideo recordedandbothscreenswouldneedtoberecorded.Thisallows fora betterunderstandingof, forexample, whethertroubles of intersubjectivity concerntechnical difﬁculties,language knowl- edge(orlackthereof),orsomethingelse(O’Rourke,2005).Thisarti- cleemploysvideodatarecordedintheeClassroomtandemcontext (intheSpringof2016),wherebothcameraandscreenrecordings wereemployed.However,whenrecordingtwoparticipant’sper- spectives,theissueofanemicperspectivebecomesapparent;that is,whichparticipant’sperspectiveistheonetobeanalyzed.Par- ticipantsreceive(hearandsee)twodifferentversionsofthesame conversationbecauseofthefracturedenvironmentthatVMEsare, includingdifferentdegreesofdelay,whichisinfocusinthepresent study.Theanalyst,then,getstwoperspectives,twocontexts,ofthe samesituation,becauseofthefracturedVMEanditsomnipresent lag,whichaffecttheconnectionsofthetwoperspectivesindiffer- entways.Inthisstudy,wehavestrivedtounderstandbothpartic- ipants’“own”contexts.Inthisway,wecananswertheclassicCA tripartitequestion“Whythat,inthatway,rightnow?”(Seedhouse, 2004,p.16)regardingparticipants’,toeachother,displayedmutual understandingof the interaction and theirorientation to what

HeathandLuff(2000)calla“reciprocityofperspectives”,which theybaseonwhatisavailabletothemattheirendoftheconnection.

4. eClassroomtandemasaresearchcontext

Thedatacorpusinthisarticlestemsfromaresearchproject inFinland,eClassroomTandem(2016),aimedatdevelopingclass- room tandem as a model for language learning and teaching for virtual learning environments, including real-time digitally mediatedinteraction.Finlandisabilingualcountrywithtwoofﬁ- cialnationallanguages:FinnishandSwedish.AllFinnishcitizens havedesignateda linguisticafﬁliation,‘mother tongue’,Finnish, Swedish,orsomeotherlanguage.CitizenswithFinnishorSwedish astheirmothertonguehavelegallyguaranteedequalrightstouse andgetserviceintheirnativelanguage(Boyd&Palviainen,2015).

EventhoughFinnishisthelanguageofthemajority(87.9%ofthe population),andSwedishthatofaminority(5.2%ofthepopulation, StatisticsFinland,2018),bothlanguagegroupsareconstitutionally guaranteedequalrights,eveninregardtoeducation.

The educational system in Finland builds on two parallel monolingual school systems for Finnish and Swedish speakers respectively,wherebothlanguagegroupsstudytheothernational languageas an obligatory school subject:Swedish as a second national language in Finnish-medium schools and Finnish as a second national languagein Swedish-medium schools (Boyd &

Palviainen,2015).Thegoalssetinthecurriculumarecompara- ble,whichmakesthestatusofthetwonationallanguagesquite balanced in theschoolsystem. However,theneed for learning theothernationallanguageisoftenquestionedinsocietaldebate, especiallyamongtheFinnishmajority.Atthesametime,thesec- ondnationallanguageinstructionhasbeencriticizedforbeingtoo grammar-focused(Pörn&Norrman,2011).Thereisademandfora morecommunicativeapproachtolanguageinstructioninthesec- ondnationallanguage(Toropainen,2010;Tuokko,2009),andfor morecontactandcooperationbetweenthelanguagegroupswithin the educational system. Regarding (second national) language instruction,thenationalcorecurriculumemphasizesauthenticlan- guageuseandlanguagelearningincooperationwithstudentsfrom other languagegroups (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2014,2015).Duringthepastfewyears,therehasbeenagrowing interestindevelopingcommunicativemodelsforlanguageinstruc- tion,includingauthenticsituationsforlanguageuseandforums for cooperationbetweenthelanguage groups.One suchmodel istandemlanguagelearning,appliedbothinphysicalandvirtual learningenvironments(Karjalainen,Pörn,Rusk,&Björkskog,2013;

Löfetal.,2016).

In Finland, face-to-face and virtual forms of classroom tandem have been developed as models for curriculum-based languageinstructionwithinsecondnationallanguageeducation (Hansell&Pörn,2016).Duetothegeographicaldistancebetween Finnish-andSwedish-speakingpartnerschools,theappliedvirtual eClassroom tandem model is being used to connect Finnish- speakingandSwedish-speakingstudents.TheeClassroomtandem modelemploysvirtuallearningenvironmentstoestablishcontact betweenlanguagegroupsandtocreateaffordancesforlanguage learningininteraction.eClassroomtandemcoursesapplygeneral tandemlanguagelearningfeatures:twostudentswithdifferentL1s formatandemdyadandlearneachother’sL1in-and-throughinter- action inreciprocal cooperation(Brammerts,2003; Karjalainen, 2011;Karjalainenetal.,2013;Löfetal.,2016).Thepartnersintan- demdyadsfunction,inturns,asanL2learner,andasamodeland resourceintheirL1.Thestudentsinteractboththroughspoken (VME)andwrittenlanguage(shareddocuments,chats),andcan useseveralplatformsandmediasimultaneously.Thechallengesin developingtheeClassroomtandemmodelinvolveissuesdealing

(4)

Fig.1. Imageofthedatafromoneparticipant’sperspective.

withtechnology,taskdesign,andthecooperationbetweentan- dempartnersinvirtualenvironments.Thisarticlecontributesto ourunderstandingofsituatedinteractioninVMEsineClassroom tandem courseswithin L2 educationand, more broadly,tothe understandingofhowthesocialinteractionisorganizedinL2VMEs whereanomnipresentlagappearstobepresent.

5. Datacollectionandselection

Thedatasetofthisarticleincludesrecordingsofﬁvestudents (threedifferentpairconstellations),16and17yearsofage,who participatedinaneClassroomtandemcourse.Thetandemlessons arepartofthecurriculum-basedsecondnationallanguagecourse and tandem lessons comprise between two and six 40-minute classes.Thedataamountstoapproximately10hoursofrecordings.

Thefocusoftherecordingswastocapturethetandemdyads’natu- rallyoccurringvideo-mediatedinteraction.²Thedataforthisarticle comprisesacorpusofbothscreenrecordingsandcamerarecor- dingsofbothpartnersinnon-sharedphysicallocations.However, the data was,in post-production, synchronized into two split- screenvideos;onefromtheperspectiveoftheFinnish-speaking studentand one fromtheperspective of theSwedish-speaking student(seeFigure1).

The video-mediated environment (VME) represents a “fractured”environment(Hjulstad,2016;Luffetal.,2003).Thisarticle investigatesparticipants’socialpracticesforupholdingintersub- jectivityin“fractured”VMEs.Inallthedata,thereseemedtobean omnipresentlag,whichdesynchronizedthevideofromsound,cre- atingadelaystretchingfromonlyacoupleoftenthsofasecondup toseveralseconds.Sometimestherewouldevenbeacompletely frozenconnectionand/orvideoorsound.

Noneofthephenomenaandpracticesanalyzedinthisstudy werepreconceivedpriortodatacollection.Instead,theywere,and became,emergentinthedataasaresultofrepeated“unmotivated looking”(Schegloff,1999;Seedhouse,2004).Throughthisunmoti- vatedlooking,wefoundthattherewasaconstantlagthatseemed tointerferewiththeinteractionandtheturn-taking(asprevious researchhasshown,e.g.Olbertz-Siitonen,2015).Therefore,ourini- tialpointofinterestwastoidentifysituationsinwhichparticipants wereovertlycopingwiththedelay.

Theinitialdataselectionincludedsituationscharacterizedby a participant explicitly displaying a problem in understanding

2TheeClassroomtandemcourseusedSkypeforBusinessandFronterasvirtual platformstoenablethemediatedinteraction.

regarding theconversation,activityorassignment³; thatis,sit- uationsinwhichtherewereproblemsinunderstandingthetalk intheconversation.Withinthisvastbodyofsituations,thedata selectionwasfocusedtoincludesituationsinwhichatleastpart oftheproblemwasduetoalagthatdelayedtheincomingvideo andsound.Thesesituations,15intotal,comprisedthedatausedin theanalysisanddiscoveryofhowparticipantsorganizetheirsocial practicestocopewithadelayinvideoandsoundthatseemedto beomnipresent,albeittodifferentdegrees.Thepracticesappear tobespeciﬁctoVMEs,sincethecontextrequiresthatthepartici- pantsusethemtoupholdintersubjectivityinthatspeciﬁccontext.

Thatis,acontextwhereitisimpossibletonotencounterdelay(to somedegree),whichdifferentiatesitfromface-to-faceconversa- tionsortelephoneconversations.Thepracticescanbedescribedas the“moresubtlewaystodealwithtechnologicaldistortions”men- tionedbyOlbertz-Siitonen(2015,p.227).Additionally,thesesocial practicesbecomeclearlyvisiblewhenemployingthedatacollec- tionmethodthathasbeenusedinthis study;thatis,analysing recordingsfromboth sites.Inotherwords,thefocusis onhow participantsaccommodatefortheVMEasaninteractionalcontext throughtheirsocialpractices.

Therecordingsareanalyzedaccordingtotheaimsofthearticle usingaCAstance(Schegloff, 2007).CAtranscriptsaredesigned toincludedetailsofwhat issaidand howitis said(pitch,vol- ume, speed,and/or prosody,seeHepburn&Bolden,2017).The transcriptioninthisarticlebuildsonthemostcommonmethod oftranscriptioninCA,whichistheJefferson(2004)system.⁴How- ever,allsituationsaretranscribedandanalyzedfrombothstudents’

perspectives.Inotherwords,allsituationsincludetwotranscripts ofthesamesituations.Thisisdonetobetterdisplayandanalyzethe impactofthedelayintheVMEsfrombothstudents’perspectives.

AlthoughbothstudentsarepresentinthesameVME,thisdoesnot meanthatthedelayimpactstheirconnectionsinthesameway.

Onemayexperiencemore(orotherformsof)delaythantheother, withouttheotherbeingawareofit.Hence,tobetterunderstandthe actualeventsandsocialpracticesintheVMEs,weneedtoanalyze andtranscribethesituationsfrombothperspectives.

Areliablehearingofthetalkwasascertainedbyusingthesound thatthePC(theheadphonesandmicrophonesusedintheVME) pickedup.Ifthereweretroubleshearingwhattheyweresaying, theexternalvideorecordingwasusedinconjunctionwiththeVME

3Whenusingthetermassignment,werefertoawrittenassignmentonasheetof paperthattheteacherhandedouttotheparticipantsforthemtocomplete.

4ThetranscriptionsystemusedinthearticleisbasedontheJefferson(2004)

(5)

soundandvideo.AlltranscriptsfromtheFinnish-speaking(L1is Finnish)student’sperspectivearethereforemarkedwith“FIN”and alltranscriptsfromtheSwedish-speaking(L1isSwedish)student’s perspectivearemarkedwith“SWE”.Aftereachturninthetrans- cripts,theturnnumber(T),currentposition/s(1–20)inasequence ofaction(A–Z),andmultimodaland/ornonverbalactionsarepro- videdindoubleparentheses.

6. PracticesforcopingwithlaginL2VMEs

Based on 15 situations in which the students encountered problemsduetodelay,wepresentfourdifferentpracticesthatpar- ticipantsusedtocopeandtorestoreintersubjectivity.Theexcerpts includefourofthefocusstudents.Nevertheless,theselectionofthe fourexcerptsforcloseranalysisarerepresentativeofallﬁvestu- dents.TheexcerptssuggestlagisaninextricableelementinVMEs thataffectsturn-takingandturndesign.Participantsneedtobe attentiveto,andadapt,theirturnconstruction,turn-takingand

system.

(.) amicropauselessthan0.2seconds (0.5) asilenceindicatedintenthsofseconds

[text] overlappingtalkorco-occurringembodiedactions text stressoremphasis

TEXT loudertalkthannormal

◦text^◦ markedlyquiettalk

: prolongation/stretchingofthepriorsound

>text< fastertalkthannormal

<text> slowertalkthannormal text- cut-offorself-interruptedtalk

((text)) non-verbal/embodiedactivity/transcriber’sdescriptionofevents (text) likelyhearingoftalk

(Si)/ X theidentityofspeakerisnotclear

() inaudible

= talk/embodiedactivitylatchesonpreviousturn

? risingintonation . fallingintonation , continuingintonation hh (hh) hearableexhale .hh (.hh) hearableinhale

text EnglishtranslationofFinnishinitalics text EnglishtranslationofSwedishinboldfont

turndesigntotheomnipresentlag;thatis,totheactualcontext ofthenon-sharedspaceintheVME.Participants(inthestudied VMEs)wereabletotakelagintoaccountusingsocialpracticesto upholdorrestoretheintersubjectivity.

6.1. Taking(inpart)controloftheconversation

Excerpt1isasituationthatdisplayshowparticipants’orienta- tiontothecontextandassignmentshapestheirsocialpracticesina waythathelpsparticipantstocopewiththelag.Itisalsoanexam- pleofhowthetandempartnersdonotappeartoorienttohaving avisual(video)connection.Thegazeisoftendown,andtheyare reading,insteadoflookingupandemployingthevisualresource intheirinteraction.Ilona(FinnishL1)andJoel(SwedishL1)are supposedtodoanassignmentthatenabledthemtogettoknow eachotherbyaskingandansweringquestionsregardingtheirski- ingholiday,aswellasotherhobbies.Inthishalfoftheclass,they aresupposedtospeakFinnish.

(6)

IlonaandJoelarehavingtechnicalissuesandhavenotbeenable tostarttheassignment.Thesituationstartswhentheyorienttothe connectionhavingbecomestable. Thesequenceinitiating turns (FINlines1–2&SWElines1)indicatethattheparticipantshave beenwaitingfortheconnectiontobecomestable.Theﬁrstturns indicatehowdifferentlytheturnsarepositionedanddesignedfor thetwostudents(comparetheFINtranscripttotheSWEtranscript, forexampleJoel’sjooonSWEline3[afterIlona’sinitiatingturn]is locatedonFINline5inthemiddleofIlona’sturn).Ilona’sturnonFIN line4andSWElines7and10indicatethatIlonaisorientingtowards beginningtheassignment(sequenceC),whereasJoelisstilltalk- ingabouttheconnectionbeingbad(sequenceA,FINline5&SWE line5).Thisisalsorevealedbytheparticipants’non-verbalpractices.JoeldoesnotacknowledgethatIlonaistryingtoshowhimthe paper.Instead,heisorientingtowardshisownpaperwithassign- ments,whichheisreading.Hence,sequenceBdoesnotreceive uptakefromJoel’spart.Additionally,theshowingofthepaperis indifferentsequentialpositionsinthetwoconnectionsbecauseof thedelay(compareFINline4withSWEline12).

ThenextpartofthesituationinvolvesIlonaorientingtoJoel’s suggestiontogothroughthequestionsbeforetheconnectionislost again(FINline12&SWEline14).Bothreadtheinstructionsonthe assignmentsheet(FINlines14–16&SWElines16–21).Ilonahas readthembeforeJoelandstateswheretheyaresupposedtostart andwhattheyaresupposedtodo(FINlines18–21&SWElines 19–26).IntheFINtranscript,Joel’sokei‘okay’andniin‘yea’appear tobeconﬁrmationstowhatIlonaissaying(FINline19).FromJoel’s perspective(includingthenon-verbalpractices),however,hisokei

‘okay’andniin‘yea’turnswouldbebetterunderstoodasindicating thathehasﬁnishedreadingandthatheisreadytonegotiate(SWE lines18&21).IlonaorientstoJoelbynotaligningwithherproposal assheprovidesfurtherinstructionsonhowtheyaresupposedto dividethelabourbetweenthemselves(FINline21&SWEline26).

Sheemphasizeswithhandgestures(FINline21&SWEline26).Joel alignswiththis(FINline22and24&SWEline24and28)andasks theﬁrstquestionoftheassignmentonFINlines25&SWElines29.

Inthisexcerpt,theparticipantsexplicitlystatethattheywant togetthroughtheassignmentsincetheydonottrustthatthecon- nectionwillbestableforlong.Intheﬁrstpartofthesituation,Ilona istryingtogetthemstarted,butthereisnouptaketoherinitiation fromJoel,whoisproducinghisownsequenceinitiation.Thesec- ondpartofthesituationinvolvesIlonaaligningwithJoel’slineof actionandagaintakingcontroloftheinteractionbyprovidingclear instructionsregardingwhattheyshoulddoandhowtheyshould doit.

In ourdata, theTRPs inquestion-answer dialoguesseem to beclearercutandmoreeasilyrecognizableandtheparticipants waitforalongertime,therebyprovidingtheco-participanttime torespond.Additionally,itisalsoclearerwhohasthe‘control’in question-answersequences:“Aslongasoneisinthepositionof doing thequestions,then inparttheyhavecontrolof theconversation.”(Sacks,1995,p.54)Theproblemsconcerninglagand interactioninVMEsinourdataappeartobemoreusualinsitua- tionswhereparticipantsneedto,inconcert,ﬁgureouthowthey

aresupposedtodothetaskathand;thatis,insituationswhere therolesare notas clearcutas intheclosed dialogues.In the data,participantsappeartobeorientingtotheL1speakerswho are managingtheactivities (seeRusk, Sahlström,&Pörn, 2017 regardingthisorientationinClassroomtandem).InExcerpt1,it isnotIlonawhoisinthepositionofdoingthequestions,butshe isstillorientedtoprovidinginstructionsonhowtodo thetask.

Thisindicatesthatshe,asanL1speaker,appearstobeoriented toas theonemanaging theactivitieswithregard tothesocial organization of thetask. Moreover,she appearsto alsobeori- entedtoasthespeakerwiththegreaterlanguageknowledge.One indicationofthisisthatIlonahasread throughandunderstood theassignmentlongbeforeJoel.Ilona’ssubtleinteractionalmove towardstakingcontroland providingclearinstructionsappears tohelpincopingwiththedelay.Doingassignmentsinwhichthe rolesareclearlydeﬁnedandexplicitlynegotiatingwhodoeswhat

(7)

intheinteractionappearstohelpthestudentstocopewiththe delay.

6.2. Keepingtheconversationalive

Excerpt2showsparticipantsaligningwithandagreeingtoput theassignmentonhold.Buttheykeeptheconversationgoingwith shortturnsthatrelatetotheconnectionbeingbadandhowthey,at theirendoftheconnection,experiencethedelay.Thatis,theydo notcompletelygosilentwhilewaitingfortheconnectiontostart workingagain.Theydisplaytotheirco-participantthattheyarestill thereandavailableforconversation.Theyalso,moreextensively, usethevideofeedasaresourceforcheckingtheconnection.

Saara(FinnishL1)andThomas(SwedishL1)aresupposedtodo anassignmentthatconcernsSaaratranslatingFinnishsentences intoSwedish.TheyaresupposedtospeakFinnishtohelpSaara

translatethesentencesintoSwedish.Beforetheﬁrstturnofthis situation,theyhavecompletedoneassignment.Saarareadsthe nextassignmentandatthesametime,sheindicatesthatshehas troubleknowinghowtotranslatetheﬁrstsentence(FINlines1–9

&SWElines1–9).Alreadyintheseﬁrstturns,thelagisapparent.

Saara’sturnsarecutoffanddelayedinThomas’sconnection(SWE lines1–9),andThomas’ssuggestionabouthowtoapproachthe assignmentisdelayedinSaara’sconnection(FINline11&SWElines 7).Thomas’sturnisinthesequentialpositionB2inhisconnection, whereasinSaara’s,itisinthesequentialpositionB3.BothSaara (FINlines9–10&SWElines8–9)andThomas(FINline11&SWE line7)expressthesameunderstandingoftheassignment.Although turnsaredelayed,theyreachanagreementandmoveon(FINlines

13–15&SWElines10–13).Noneoftheparticipantslifttheirgaze tousethevideofeedasaresourceinthisﬁrstpartofthesituation.

Bothlookdownontheassignmentpaper.

(8)

Saara’snextturnsarecutoffanddelayed(compareFINline17 toSWElines15–17),andThomas’turnsbecomehardtohear.Some turnsarecutout(compareSWEline19toFINline27).Whenread- ingthetranscripts,theyconsistoflongpauses(FINlines18,20,30

&SWElines18,26,28)andﬁrstpairpartsthatarenotresponded toinasequentiallysalientpositionbecauseofdelay(FINline19&

SWEline21isrespondedtoonFINline31&SWEline25).

SaaraappearstonoticethedelayonFINline20asshelooks atthefrozenvideoand,inthenextturn,onFINline21,turnsto apeersittingnexttoher,atanothercomputer,andwhispersthat herconnectionislagging.ThevideoinSaara’sconnectionisfrozen throughouttheentireexcerpt(FIN2-2).Thomasseemstonotice thedelayonSWEline16,ashelooksatthescreenwhenthevideo isfrozen.OnSWEline19heasksSaaraiftheconnectionisbad.The

technicalproblemsarealsoaudibleinthatSaara’svoiceisdistorted inThomas’sconnection.SaaraattemptstoinformThomasthatthe connectionislaggingonFINline25&SWEline27.OnFINline29 Saaraasksateacherwhoischeckingthecablesiftheconnection isfrozen.Saara’squestionregardingämne‘subject’isdelayedand ThomasanswersitonSWEline25.Saarareceivesthisansweron FINline31,towhichsherespondsthatheshouldwait,because thereisdelay(FINline33).Saaraexplicitlyputstheassignmenton hold,becausethereisatechnicalproblemthatmakesitdifﬁcultfor themtointeract.ButthisturniscompletelycutoutfromThomas’s connection.Inthisexcerpt,bothparticipantsareactivelylooking atthescreen,muchmorethaninothersituations.Onereasonmay bethattheyarelookingforwhenthevideostartsworkingagain, andthatthesoundprobablystartsworkingthenaswell.

(9)

(10)

OnFINline35&SWEline33,Saaraorientstotheconnection beingupandrunningagain.Thevideoseemstobeworkingafterher connectionwasdroppedforacoupleofseconds.However,thereis stillsomedelayonThomas’s connection(SWEline39),asSaara picksuptheconversationregardingwhattheSwedishwordämne

‘subject’means(FINlines43–45&SWElines41–47).Bothpartic- ipantsstartlookingatthepaperandlookdown(FINlines39–45

&SWElines35–41),afterSaarahasclaimedthattheconnection seemstobeworkingagain.Theconnectionsarestillnotworking properly,whichisdisplayedbyhowSaara’s turnonFIN line45 isheardinThomas’sconnectiononSWElines43–47.Moreover, Saara’svideofreezesaftershehasaskedthatquestion,whichleads toalongpause(FINline46)beforeThomas’sanswerisdelivered toher(FINlines47–49&SWElines49–51).Thomasrepeatsthe troublewordandprovidestheanswerbytranslatingthewordinto Finnish(FINlines47–49&SWElines49–51).Healsoaddsaturnin whichheemphasizesthatthewordstartswiththeletterä(SWE line53),butthisturnisdelayed(FINline54)inSaara’sconnection anddoesnotgetanyexplicituptake.However,Saaraappearsto haveunderstoodwhatämne‘subject’isassheexpressesachange- of-statetoken(FINline51&SWEline54,Heritage,1984),which displaysthatshenowunderstandsthewordinthespeciﬁccontext andsituation.Shethencontinuestheassignmentbytranslatingthe sentenceintoSwedishandusingthewordämne‘subject’init(FIN line53–56&SWElines56–58).Thomasorientstothisbyproviding ananswer(FINline58&SWEline60).

Thissituationisanexampleofhowparticipants,inourdata, puttheassignmentonholdtowaitouttheworstconnectionprob- lems.However,theykeeptheconversationalivetoindicatethat

theyarestillwaitingfortheconnectiontogetbetterandtotest theconnection.Duringthis, theylookatthescreenoften,com- paredtowhen theyorienttowardstheconnectionbeinggood.

In our data, it seems as if participants mostly look up at the screen when there is trouble with the connection. When they orient towards the connection being good, they look down at the paper withthe assignments. Excerpt 2 is alsoan example of how theyaregoal-oriented, as there is notmuch additional talk,afterthedelay,beforemovingonwiththeassignmentand with the sequence that got disturbed and which theydid not close. This can be related to an orientation to a presupposed commonframeofreferencethatHeathandLuff(2000)mention.

Participants,in ourdata,useinteractionalresourcestoindicate a presence and togetbacktobusiness assoon as theconnection allows it. They do not attemptto do the assignment, nor dotheyopenupnewsequenceswhenthereareproblemsinthe connection.

6.3. Doingseveralrestarts

Excerpt3exempliﬁeshowaparticipantusesseveralrestartsto indicatethattheyhaveself-selectedasnextspeakereventhough thedelaycaused theirturntobetoolatetosmoothlyﬁt inthe turn-takingofthecurrentspeaker.Saara(FinnishL1)andThomas (SwedishL1)aredoinganassignmentinwhichtheyreadquestions orstatementsandprovideananswerorchoosethealternativethat bestrepresentswhattheylikeorwhattheythink.Theyaresup- posedtouseSwedish,butwhentheyarediscussinghowtodothe assignment,theyuseFinnish.

(11)

ThesituationstartswithSaaraaskingThomashowtheyshould organizethetalk(FINline3&SWEline1).Thomasagreeswithher andalignswithSaara’ssuggestion(FINline5&SWEline3).How- ever,assoonasSaarastartshernextturn(intheFINtranscript,but notintheSWEtranscript),aligningwiththesuggestion,Thomas attemptstorepairhispreviousturnandoverlapsSaara’sturn(FIN line8&SWEline5).Thomas’sturniswellwithintheTRPinhisown endoftheconnection(SWEline5).However,inSaara’sendofthe connection,histurnislate(FINlines7–8),soshehasalreadystarted answeringthequestionsintheassignment.Saaracutsoffherturn andinitiatesrepairafterapause(FINlines8–10).InSaara’send, thesequentialorganizationisclear.Thereisacutoff(FINline8), apause(FINline9),andarepairinitiation(FINline10).Similarly, inThomas’sconnection,hispracticesaresequentiallyorganized inanorderlyfashion.Heself-selectsasnextspeakerbeforeSaara hastakentheturn(SWEline5),hecutsoffhisturnwhenheori- entstoSaaraoverlapping(SWEline5),heself-selectsagainasnext speakerduringthepause(SWElines7–8)andrestartshisprevi- ousturn.HecutsofftohearSaara’sturn(SWElines8&9),orients toherrepairinitiation,andrestartsandcompleteshisinitialturn (SWEline8).

Thisisanexampleofhow,inourdata,itseemsthatdelay,which organizestheturnsdifferently inthetwoconnections, requires moreinteractionalworkbytheparticipants.Bothparticipantsact accordingtothesequentialorganizationthatisavailabletothem.

Thomasorientstothesituationasoneinwhichhemustdosev- eralrestartstobeabletotaketheturn(SWElines5–8).Whatis alsoapparent,asinthedata,isthattheparticipantslifttheirgaze whenthesetimingproblemsappear.Theparticipantsseemtobe lookingtothevideoforhelpinmaintainingtheintersubjectivity

andmeaning-makingandtoseeifthevideohasfrozen;thatis,to seeiftheconnectionhasgonecompletelybad.However,theydo notappeartousethevisualresourceasanadditionalresourcefor socialactionsorpractices.

ThedelayisobservableinthepausebetweenThomas’sturnand Saara’sresponse.Thepauseis0.3secondsand1.2secondsrespec- tively(FINline13&SWEline10).AfterhearingThomas’sturn,Saara suggeststhattheytaketurns(FINline14&SWEline11).Thomas alignswiththatresponseandtheycontinuetheassignment.The situationinexcerpt3showshowparticipantscanuseaninterac- tionalresource,suchasrestarts,toanticipatetheTRPonthebasis ofwhatisavailabletothemoftheunfoldinginteractioninthecon- textofaVMEthatdelaystheturns-at-talk.Itseems,inourdata, thattheVMEwouldrequireparticipantstodivertfromtheﬁnely tunedtransitionfromonespeakertoanotherandacceptthatthey needtoclearlyindicateTRPs(uselongerpausesinintendedTRPs) andself-selectionasnextspeaker(severalrestarts).

6.4. Context-speciﬁcL1sensitivitytoturn-taking

Excerpt4isanexampleofhowtheL1speakermayorienttothe situationasoneinwhichthecontextofeClassroomtandemforms thepractices inthattheL1 speakerdisplaysasensitivitytothe L2speaker’sturn-taking(similartohowL1speakersinClassroom tandemdisplayasensitivitytotheL2speakers’epistemicstances, seeRusk,2016;Rusketal.,2017).Theexcerptdisplayshowthe delayintheconnectionmakesithardtoanticipatetheTRPsbased onwhatisavailabletotheparticipantsintheunfoldinginteraction intheVME.

(12)

Saara(FinnishL1)andThomas(SwedishL1)aredoinganassign- mentinwhichtheyreadquestionsorstatementsandchoosethe alternativethatbestrepresentswhattheylike.OnFINlines1–5and SWElines1–5Saarachoosesmusic,andThomasagreesandaligns withthatchoice.Healsoupgradeshisfirstassessment‘myes’to‘yes thissame’onFINline5&SWEline5.Thefollowingturns(FINlines 7–8&SWElines7–8)becomeproblematicbecauseofthedelay intheconnection,whichseemstobeapproximately0.8seconds whenlookingatthepauseonFIN&SWEline6.Inotherwords, thesituationissimilartoExcerpt3.OnSaara’send,shefinishes hercontinuation/thinkingmarkerandutterswhichalternativeshe wouldpick.Thomas,ontheotherhand,launchesaninsertsequence (FINline8&SWEline8)regardinghispreviouschoice.Thisinsert sequence,then,issequentiallypositioneddifferentlyinthetwo connections.Thomashas,asheunderstandsthetimingandsitua- tionathisend,inserteditinamoresuitableTRP;thatis,the0.4 secondpauseonSWEline7.However,inSaara’sconnectionthe insertsequenceoverlapsthefinalturnconstructionalunitsofher answer(FINline7).

ThomasnoticesthatheisoverlappingSaara,assheissayingpop inhisconnection(SWEline7)andcutsoffhisturn.Next,thereisa longpause(differentlengthinthedifferentconnections,FINline9

&SWEline9),afterwhich,Saaradisplayssensitivitytohimtrying totakethenextturnbyinitiatinganother-initiatedrepair(FINline 10&SWEline10).Thomasorientstothisandrepeatswhathewas tryingtosay.Heusesseveralrestarts,becausehestartsconstruc- tinghisturninthemiddleofSaara’sturn(SWEline11).However, inSaara’sconnectionthereisa0.5secondpausebeforeThomas’s answerisheard(FINline12).TheinsertsequenceisclosedasSaara orientsto,andacknowledges,histurnandtreatsitasfunnyand laughable(FINline14&SWEline13).Thedelayisalsoverynotice- ablewhencomparingthepausebetweenThomas’sturnandSaara’s acknowledgement(0.4secondscomparedto1.3secondsonFIN&

SWEline13).

Excerpt4exempliﬁeswhatwehavefoundinourdatacorpus:an increased,explicitlyuttered,sensitivitybytheL1speakertowards the L2 speaker. Saara displays an explicit sensitivity towards Thomaswhenshe,asthecurrentspeaker,allocatestheturntohim witha‘considerate’repairinitiation.Shenoticeshimwantingto saysomething,‘aha’,andinitiatesrepairwithacategory-speciﬁc interrogative. In Saara’sconnection, thesequential organization is‘cleaner’,whereasinThomas’sconnectionheoverlapsSaara’s repair initiationandhe seemstoorienttowardshimhavingto employseveralrestarts(aswasthecaseinexcerpt3).

IneClassroomtandem,theL2speakerissupposedtousehis/her L2which, initself,maybechallenging.However,inadditionto this,thesocialorganizationoftheinteraction(inwhichyoumust useyour L2),theturn-takingand anticipationofTRPs, ismade morechallengingbythedelayintheinteractionwhich,inturn, iscausedbytheinternetconnection.Theoriented-toL1speakers, inourdata,appeartoorienttotheL2speakersasneedingextra attentionandsupport(similarasinClassroomtandem,seeRusk

etal., 2017).Excerpt4is ataskin whichtheyaresupposed to useFinnishandtheassignmenttextisinFinnish.Saara(Finnish L1)istheonewhoiscontrollingtheorganizationofthetask,as sheproducestheﬁrstanswers(FIN&SWElines1&7).Saara(L1 speaker)isorientedtoastheoneallocatingturnsandleadingthe conversation,andshedisplaysexplicitlyasensitivitytoThomas (L2speaker)andgiveshimtheﬂoor(Sacks,1995,p.54recontrol andquestions).Thisorientation,whichisseeninthedatasetandin Excerpt1,helpsthemcopewiththedelaybecausetheparticipants orientto theseroles inthe interaction.This isalso aninterac- tionalpracticethatisfruitfulfortheeClassroomtandemconcept, sincetheideaisthattheL2speakersaresupposedtouseandpro- ducetalk(andtext)intheirL2asmuch aspossibletolearnthe L2.

(13)

Discussion

Inthisarticle,wehaveanalyzedL2interactioninVMEsinan eClassroomtandemcontext.Thepurposehasbeentobridgethe knowledgegapregardinganeedforanenhancedunderstandingof boththecontextualandtheinteractionaldimensionsoflanguage useasitistakingplaceinVMEs(Tudini&Liddicoat,2017).Technol- ogyanddigitalizationareubiquitous,evenintheﬁeldofeducation.

Theuseoftechnologyinvolvestheuseofnon-sharedspacesand contextsthatareconstructedassuch,withtheirownpossibilities andchallenges.Thecontextinwhichpeopleinteracthasahuge impactonwhatinteractionalresourcesareavailable,aswellas howthe“fractured”environmentaffectstheinteraction(Hjulstad, 2016;Luffetal.,2003).Someproblems,suchasintermittentdelays orcutsintheconnection,canbecomparedtoface-to-faceinteraction,wherethereisalotofbackgroundnoiseorotherreasons whichmakepartsofthetalkinaudible.However,thedelaythat appearstobepresentthroughouttheVMEsinthestudieddatais notpresentinface-to-faceinteractions,andthereforeitisimpor- tanttostudyhowparticipantscopewiththis.Wehaverecorded boththescreensandtheactivitiesaroundthescreensfromboth participants’perspectivestobeabletoanalyzetheinteractionin thesenon-sharedspacesfromaCAperspective(Olbertz-Siitonen, 2015).Thus,theunderstandingandmicro-analysisofbothpartici- pants’situatedactionsisgreatlyimproved,andthisiscrucialfor astudythatfocuses ontheimpactthatdelayhasonthesocial interaction.

Theresultsofthisstudydisplayhowparticipantscanuphold intersubjectivity and the meaning-making machinery of turn- takingandsequenceorganizationintheseVMEs,evenwhenthere isanomnipresentlag.Thisseemstobebecauseoftheirorientation toapresupposedcommonframeofreference(Heath&Luff,2000).

RegardingtheeClassroomtandem context,thedetermined and oriented-toroles(L1speakerandL2speaker)oftheparticipants appeartobeofimportanceforupholdingthemutualunderstand- ing,aswellastheinstructionstheyreceiveonhowtocooperate andsupporteachother(Löfetal.,2016).

Additionally, the goalof severalof the tasks in thestudied lessonswasnottoprovideopendiscussions.Thetaskswereclosed dialogueswithonepersonaskingquestionsandtheotherprovid- inganswers.Althoughthesetasksmaynotbeauthentic(Elo&Pörn, 2018)andmayevenhinderparticipantsfromusingtheirrespective L2s,thecloseddialoguesappeartocreateacontextinwhichlagis lessofaproblem.Intaskswheretherolesareclear(seeHansell&

Pörn,2016;Rusketal.,2017),theturn-takingsystemisnotasopen asina‘normal’dialogue.TheTRPsinthequestion-answerdialogues areclearerandmoreeasilyrecognizable.Asaresult,thepartici- pantswaitforalongertimeandgivetheotherparticipanttimeto respond.Thus,doingtasksinwhichtherolesareclearlydeﬁned andexplicitlynegotiatedhelpstheparticipantstocopewiththe delay,andtheL1speakerappearstobeorientedtoastheonewho ismanagingtheperformanceofthetask.

Italsoseemsthatparticipantsscarcelyusethepossibilityof interactingthrough embodied practices. This result contradicts previousstudiesonVMEs(Nguyen,2017)thatindicatethatpartici- pantsusetheaffordancesthatthedifferentmodescreate.However, inourdata,theparticipantsoftenfocusontheassignmentpapers, andiftheylookatthescreen,theyseldomusegesturesasresources.

Thevideofeedseemstobeusedasanindicatorforhowwellthe connectionworks.

Theresultsof this study contributetopractical applications abouttaskdevelopmentwithinL2educationingeneral,andwithin tandempedagogy moreparticularly. Whenplanning theuseof VMEsforL2learning,results,suchastheonesinthisarticle,areuse- fulformakingparticipantsofVMEsawareoftheseissuesandhow delayimpactsthebasicsystematicsofturn-taking.Italsoincludes

ideasonhowtomanagedelaysandstillupholdintersubjectivity.

Forexample,VMEsrequireparticipantstodivertfromtheﬁnely tunedtransitionfromonespeakertoanotherandacceptthatthey needtoclearlyindicatewherethereare TRPs(longerpausesin intendedTRPs)andclearlyindicatewhentheyself-selectasnext speaker(severalrestarts).Thisisespeciallyimportantwhenconsid- eringtheuseofVMEsforL2learningandeducation.

TherapidgrowthofdigitalizationimpliesthatmoreL2learning willprobablybedonein-and-throughVMEs,soweneedtostudy theVMEsascontextsthatarefracturedandascontextsintheir ownright,whichrequireparticipantstoaccommodatetheirsocial practicestoﬁtinthecontextoftheVMEs.VMEsarepartoftheL2 educationandtheclassrooms,andtheL2educationalcommunity putsalotoftrustintechnologyasameanstocreateopportunities forauthenticlanguageuse(Thorne,2008).However,inordertoget adeeperunderstandingoftheopportunitiesofferedbyVMEs,there isneedformoreknowledgeaboutparticipants’actualsocialactions inthevideo-mediatedinteraction.Webelievethatourstudy,which focusesondelayinL2interactioninVMEs,addsanimportantper- spectivetotheon-goingdiscussiononL2pedagogyandtandem pedagogyinthecontextofvirtuallearningenvironments,simulta- neouslypointingtowardsarelevantareaforfutureresearch.

References

Aarsand,P.A.(2007).Aroundthescreen:Computeractivitiesinchildren’severyday lives(Doctoraldissertation).Linköping,Sweden:LinköpingUniversity.

Arminen,I.,Licoppe,C.,&Spagnolli,A.(2016).Respecifyingmediatedinteraction.

ResearchonLanguage&SocialInteraction,49(4),290–309.http://dx.doi.org/10.

1080/08351813.2016.1234614

Balaman,U.(2015).Aconversationanalyticinvestigationintotheimpactoftask designontheemergenceofinformationgaps.InJ.Colpaert,A.Aerts,M.Ober- hofer,&M.G.-C.Plana(Eds.),Taskdesign&call:Proceedings(pp.95–104).

Antwerp:UniversityofAntwerp.

Belz,J.A.(2002).Socialdimensionsoftelecollaborativeforeignlanguagestudy.Lan- guageLearning&Technology,6(1),60–81.https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.

edu/bitstream/10125/25143/1/0601belz.pdf

Boyd,S.,&Palviainen,Å.(2015).Buildingwallsorbridges?Alanguageideologi- caldebateaboutbilingualschoolsinFinland.InM.Halonen,P.Ihalainen,&T.

Saarinen(Eds.),LanguagepoliciesinFinlandandSweden.Interdisciplinaryand multi-sitedcomparisons(pp.57–89).Bristol:MultilingualMatters.

Brammerts,H.(2003).Språkinlärningitandemochinlärarautonomi.Omutveck- lingenavettkoncept.InB.Jonsson(Ed.),Självstyrdspråkinlärningitandem.

Enhandbok(pp.13–22).Härnösand:DepartmentofHumanitiesMidSweden University.

Chun,D.M.(1994).Usingcomputernetworkingtofacilitatetheacquisitionofinter- activecompetence.System,22(1),17–31.

Clayman,S.E.(2012).Turn-constructionalunitsandthetransition-relevanceplace.

InJ.Sidnell,&T.Stivers(Eds.),Thehandbookof conversationanalysis(pp.

150–166).Wiley-Blackwell.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch8 Darhower,M.(2002).Interactionalfeaturesofsynchronouscomputer-mediated

communicationintheintermediateL2class:Asocioculturalcasestudy.CALICO Journal,19(2),249–277.https://www.jstor.org/stable/24149361

Drew,P.(2012).Turndesign.InJ.Sidnell,&T.Stivers(Eds.),Thehandbookofconver- sationanalysis(pp.131–149).Wiley-Blackwell.

Egger,S.,Schatz,R.,Schoenenberg,K.,Raake,A.,&Kubin,G.(2012).Samebutdif- ferent?UsingspeechsignalfeaturesforcomparingconversationalVoIPQuality Studies.InProceedingsoftheinternationalconferenceoncommunicationsIEEEICC, 2012(pp.1320–1324).

Elo,J.,&Pörn,M.(2018).Challengesofimplementingauthenticityoftandemlearn- inginformallanguageeducation.InternationalJournalofBilingualEducationand Bilingualism.

FinnishNationalAgencyforEducation.(2014).Nationalcorecurriculumforbasic education2014.Helsinki:TheFinnishNationalBoardofEducation.

FinnishNationalAgencyforEducation.(2015).Nationalcorecurriculumforprepara- toryeducationforgeneraluppersecondaryeducation2014.Helsinki:TheFinnish NationalBoardofEducation.

Firth,A.,&Wagner,J.(1997).Ondiscourse,communication,and(some)fundamental conceptsinSLAresearch.TheModernLanguageJournal,81,285–300.http://dx.

doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00667.x

Firth,A.,&Wagner,J.(2007).Second/foreignlanguagelearningasasocialaccom- plishment: Elaborations ona reconceptualizedSLA. TheModern Language Journal,91(FocusIssue800–819)http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.

00670.x

Fischer,K.,&Tenbrink,T.(2003).Videoconferencinginatransregionalresearch cooperation: Turn-takingina newmedium. In J. Doring,W.H.Schmitx,

&O.Schulte(Eds.),Connectingperspectives.Videokonferenz:Beitr¨agezuihrer Erforschung(pp.89–104).Aachen:ShakerVerlag.