Carol A. Chapelle - The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

15 Kayi‐Aydar, H. (2015b). Multiple identities, negotiations, and agency across time and space: A narrative inquiry of a foreign language teacher candidate. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12(2), 137–60.

16 Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). Second language activity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–58). Harlow, England: Longman.

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

18 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

19 Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

20 Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39, 427–36.

21 Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

22 Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. New York, NY: Routledge.

23 Ng, P. C. L., & Boucher‐Yip, E. F. (2017). Teacher agency and policy response in English language teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

24 Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. London, England: Longman.

25 Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London, England: Hodder Education.

26 Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 75–91). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

27 Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

28 Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 35–53). Harlow, England: Longman.

29 Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2013). Teachers as agents of change: Teacher agency and emerging models of curriculum. In M. Priestley & G. Biesta (Eds.), Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 187–206). New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

30 Ruohotie‐Lyhty, M. (2011). Constructing practical knowledge of teaching: Eleven newly qualified language teachers' discursive agency. Language Learning Journal, 39(3), 365–79.

31 Smith, P. (2001). Cultural theory: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

32 Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 4: The history of the development of higher mental functions ( R. W. Reiber, Ed.). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

33 Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructural theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

34 Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

35 White, J. C. (2018). Agency and emotion in narrative accounts of emergent conflicts in a L2 classroom. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 579–98.

36 William, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology of language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

1 Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A. M. F., Aro, M., & Ruohotie‐Lyhty, M. (Eds.) Beliefs, agency and identity in foreign language learning and teaching. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

1 Based in part on T. Yashima (2012). Agency in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., with permission.

CHRISTOPHER JENKS

A dialogue is broadly defined as an exchange of spoken or written ideas, thoughts, and opinions between two or more interactants. Dialogues are not monologues in that the former involve reciprocation of communication. For example, if one person speaks, then the other person is expected to respond in turn. Reciprocity within dialogues varies in temporality. A dialogue can take many months or even years to complete, as in the case when one book author responds to another. In other situations—namely face‐to‐face communication—dialogues can end in a matter of seconds. Although, in practice, dialogues occur in a number of different situations and take place over varying degrees of time, the analysis of dialogues within applied linguistics is typically concerned with concurrent spoken interaction. This entry discusses dialogues from this narrower conceptualization.

Most interactants go about their daily lives with little thought of how their dialogues with others are organized, and what role communication plays in organizing the world around them. This is because human encounters are often so mundane and practiced that the complexities of managing a dialogue are taken for granted. The analysis of dialogues is fundamentally concerned with understanding these complexities. Specifically, how do interactants make sense of each other and the context in which they find themselves communicating? Furthermore, how does human behavior define communicative contexts, and how do communicative contexts shape the conduct of people? While such questions have been addressed for many decades by scholars working in a range of disciplines (see Johnstone, 2018), Bakhtin's (1986) notion of an utterance is an excellent starting point in discussing how applied linguistics scholarship approaches the study of dialogues; Bakhtin argues that dialogues are made up of utterances that represent a complex interplay between a history of established rules of behavior and normative expectations co‐constructed in situ as individuals participate in social activities. For example, the way a student responds to a teacher in a classroom not only reflects a history or structure of institutional practices, but it also represents a single moment in the present time where individuals actively reveal their commonsense understanding of the pedagogical event.

The current encyclopedic entry begins with this ostensibly simple understanding of dialogues. As such, the introduction presented below addresses how spoken utterances are organized during human encounters, but the larger discussion of dialogues is not limited to aspects of turn taking and turn organization (cf. conversation analysis). Rather, dialogues are presented in the current entry by looking at three interdependent aspects of spoken communication: organization, intersubjectivity, and social context. Organization encompasses the mechanics of spoken interaction (e.g., turn taking); intersubjectivity is related to how interactants jointly construct meaning; and social context deals with the sociocultural issues, including historical factors, that shape dialogues. Each aspect of a dialogue will be discussed in this order.

Dialogues require all parties involved in communication to account for what has been said and what will be said. For instance, contributing to a dialogue requires taking into consideration previously said words or utterances, while at the same time speaking according to who is listening. When participants of dialogues account for what has been said and what will be said, they do so—for the most part—by taking turns. Researchers who use conversation analysis (CA) to examine dialogues have contributed the most in terms of investigating the organization of turn taking (e.g., Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). CA researchers have demonstrated that turn taking is organized according to an ostensibly basic, but omnipresent interactional feature known as an adjacency pair (Schegloff, 2007). An adjacency pair consists of two parts: a first pair part and a second pair part. Each part represents a turn, spoken by a different speaker. A spoken turn minimally consists of a sound that performs an action (e.g., “oh” and “ah ha”), and maximally comprises many utterances. A classic adjacency pair is a question–answer exchange.