Creating Parallel
Translanguaging Side Spaces: Pursuing Meaning-Conveyance and Mutual
Comprehension via Multiple Technology Use in an E-Tandem Program
Junko Takahashi[1]*
Seiko Harumi2
|
*Correspondence: jt2246@tc.columbia.edu |
|
1 Doshisha
University, Japan 2. SOAS,
University of London, UK |
Abstract
The
use of technology-mediated L2 learning programs has steadily increased. The
need for longitudinal research into what transpires during such interactions,
as well as the programs’ effectiveness over time, has become truly significant.
This longitudinal study examines the
naturally occurring phenomenon of multi-layered technological spaces and
sub-spaces in translanguaging practices within e-tandem language learning over
a period of eight weeks. Specifically, it investigates a program involving
one-on-one interactional sessions between a British university student learning
Japanese in the U.K. and a Japanese university student learning English in
Japan. Employing a multimodal conversation analysis (MCA) approach, the study
focuses on how participants achieve meaning-making, meaning-conveyance, and
mutual understanding by employing translanguaging and multimodality as well as
leveraging digital platforms and technological resources. Microanalysis is
performed of their Zoom conversations with available technologies, including
Zoom’s chat box, smartphones, and social media. In
particular, they naturally and exhaustively generated these digital
interactional spaces to convey meaning and ensure mutual comprehension whenever
clarification, visual representation, or repair was needed. This qualitative
study thus illuminates the multi-layered practices through which learners
interact on a primary remote platform using conventional multimodality, while
gradually opening and expanding parallel side spaces via multiple technological
tools to manage their communication. The findings offer theoretical and
practical implications that highlight the study’s significance for L2 educators
and researchers.
Keywords:
Technology-mediated
language learning, translanguaging, multimodality, conversation analysis,
meaning-conveyance
1. Introduction
Digital remote-communication platforms, such as
Zoom, have transformed the ways in which teachers and students interact with
each other and perform collaborative actions (Stefanile, 2020). Online instruction has
increasingly been implemented as an alternative to in-person classes. Educators
today have gained the requisite knowledge and skills to conduct their sessions
from home, regardless of time zone, distance, and location, even from a foreign
country. It has also made it possible for a foreign-language learner to
communicate with L1 speakers of the language they are learning while both are
at home in their own countries; these sessions have been shown to
simultaneously allow language learners to explore both linguistic and cultural
aspects of a native speaker’s lived experience, while also permitting for
authenticity and realistic socialization. Furthermore, Ningsih and
Sari (2021) suggest that educators are continuing to explore
more creative and innovative ways to fully take advantage of the digital
functions of online education platforms. Research has found that these tools
can effectively enhance both students’ learning and their motivation, thus
demonstrating the advantages these new interactional spaces can have for
teachers and students alike (Ho & Tai, 2024).
Considering all of these
positive aspects as advantages, this study implemented an e-tandem
language-exchange program over Zoom involving students from two countries: the
United Kingdom and Japan. The students engaged in one-on-one conversation
practice in each other’s L2, Japanese and English, during their 8-week sessions
(see below for a more detailed program description). We were particularly
interested in how the learners on both sides of Zoom developed their engagement
in translanguaging actions (Tai, 2023) in such an authentic, but
environmentally and physically limited, interactional space. Thus, this study
focuses on the naturally-occurring, multi-layered creation of technological
spaces and sub-spaces. This is a key aspect of translanguaging phenomena in
e-tandem language learning. Employing the method of multimodal conversation
analysis (MCA) (Mondada, 2018, 2019), we uncover the ways in
which students simultaneously create side-interaction spaces, and how these
spaces function to help achieve the goal of meaning-making and mutual
comprehension. This study contributes to an understanding of both students’
agency and in their communication skills over time.
2. Background
2.1
Technology-mediated
language learning
Researchers have widely investigated the efficacy and
challenges of technology-assisted language learning both inside and outside of
the classroom (Chapelle, 2019; Kuure, 2011, Lee & Kim,
2025; Nurmala et al., 2023). According to Nurmala et al.
(2023), the use of these new technologies can enhance language
students’ learning skills, as they effectively offer “personalized and tailored
learning experiences” (p. 2188) that expand the platforms’ potential. Members
of the younger generations use these tools frequently, and that familiarity is
a source of both comfort and motivation when they engage in technology-mediated
language learning (Reinhardt, 2019). Satar et al.
(2023) define online language programs as consisting of
“development and use of multimodal, multicultural, and multilingual skills in a
digitally-mediated environment” (p. 72). With access
to a wide variety of “authentic language materials, interactive activities, and
multimedia resources” (Nurmala et al., 2023, p. 2189), online programs
effectively promote students’ engagement and language acquisition.
A number of scholars have previously examined the use of CMC
(computer-mediated communication) as well, a setting similar
to the one used in our current study, in L2 learning. For instance,
conducting L2 Spanish learning on CMC, Blake (2000) not only found the benefits for interactive
development, but also recognized possible accessibility outside the classroom,
while Sauro (2009) explored the strategic use of modality during
synchronous sessions, examining how L2 speakers tackled task-based interaction.
The findings of Sauro’s study show a series of shifts in interactive dominance
between a learner using voice chat and another using text chat, which resolved
the interactional asymmetry. Knight et
al. (2020) similarly
investigated six dyads of L2 students on a CMC platform as they worked on a
role-play activity, observing their semiotic displays and use of available
resources. Among its insights, the study reveals that the students themselves
mediated their actions by navigating a variety of “visual/textual/navigational
screen-based resources as a multiple ensemble” (p. 39).
Other researchers, however,
have highlighted some of the difficulties that can arise when conducting
technology-mediated language teaching. In a longitudinal study of four decades’ worth of data on CALL
(computer-assisted language learning), Hubbard (2023) detailed some of the conflicts between the
technology’s affordances, including interactivity and personalization; and some
of its challenges, such as access inequities and teacher resistance. Hubbard
also raises concerns about some of the common issues with today’s AI-driven
tools, like virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), and warns about
the possibility of over-dependence on technology without pedagogical grounding.
He reminds educators that, above all, having the basic educational knowledge and
experience needed to create a collaborative environment, where past classroom-
and teacher-based lessons and the incorporation of new technologies join
together, is what will make future language learning more effective, equitable,
and engaging.
2.2
Meaning-conveyance
through translanguaging and multimodality
When L2 learners interact, one of the key resources that
has been shown to emerge during cross-linguistic and socio-cultural
interactions is translanguaging. As defined, translanguaging involves
“using one language to reinforce the other in order to increase understanding
and in order to augment the pupil’s ability in both languages” (Williams, 2002, p. 20). Wei (2018) emphasizes that
translanguaging differs from code-switching or code-mixing. It highlights the
extent to which “plurilingual speakers communicate and make meaning using the
linguistic repertoires they have at their disposal, regardless of whether these
comprise the use of different named languages” (Canals, 2021, p. 649).
Williams (1996)
was the first to introduce the concept of
translanguaging. In his foundational work on Welsh-English
bilingual classrooms, he documented students’ tendency to alternate between
languages to enhance learning and comprehension. Building on the work of
Williams, Baker (2011) highlighted the
meaning-making processes in which bilingual students engaged in educational
settings. More recent studies, however, have shifted their focus: that
translanguaging can involve far more than just languages. According to Tai (2023), it can “transcend the
boundaries” (p. 1) not only between languages, but also between different
multimodalities; namely, elements such as prosodies, gestures, and semiotic
displays. In other words, Tai (2023) argued, translanguaging can
promote “other meaning-making resources” (p. 7), in addition to the use of
multiple languages during interactions. Satar (2016) examined meaning-making and meaning-conveyance
in
learner interactions through physical movements and gestures on
videoconferencing (DVC). Drawing on interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz, 1982, 2003), Satar’s study
analyzed how the interactants employed semiotic resources - five codes of the
body (Andersen, 1998; 2008): physical appearance, body
movement, eye behavior, interpersonal spatial behavior, and tactile
communication. Each of these embodied resources are similarly featured in MCA
today. Satar (2016) further found that these
elements helped the participants exhibit, interpret, and comprehend the
meanings they conveyed to achieve mutual comprehension. The study further
suggested to CALL (computer-assisted
language learning) researchers that, among others, MCA “would be suitable
methods in investigating meaning-making in online multimodal interactions of
language learners” (Satar, 2016, p. 324). In applying translanguaging and
multimodality into popular culture and media, Yang and Aimdilokwong (2026) showed that singers and
listeners strategically value multilingual and regional dialect mixing in
digital pop music to construct local identities and engage wider audiences.
The method of MCA
particularly looks at a participant’s embodied transitions, gestures, gazes, facial expressions, postures, etc. This
is similar to the resources used in Satar (2016), along with linguistic
elements and actions, such as the choice of words and expressions; how grammar
is used; and the ways the person constructs some linguistic occurrences, such
as repetition and repair, and prosodic resources including pauses, silence,
voice tone/quality, pitch, and the speed of utterances. All
of these multimodal elements are considered as constituting signals with
certain meanings that a speaker is aiming to convey to the other interlocutor. Ho and Tai
(2024) analyzed how the instructors employed translanguaging
and multimodality in their YouTube videos to construct meanings with the use of
linguistic, prosodic, and embodied resources, exploring in
particular how the instructors conveyed those meanings to the student
viewers. Extending this line of inquiry into student-generated content, Hua and Liu
(2026) examined how emergent bilinguals utilize translanguaging
across both the process (interactional space) and the product (performative
space) of digital multimodal composing (DMC). Their study demonstrated that
while learners predominantly rely on their native language (Mandarin) during
the collaborative planning process, they strategically shift to the target
language (English) supported by multimodal subtitles and visual cues in the
final artifact to enhance meaning-making for their audience. In doing so, the
researchers demonstrated how significant a part of translanguaging
technological resources can be.
2.3
Technology-mediated
learning as creating translanguaging spaces
Another
intriguing finding that surfaced in the aforementioned study
by Ho and Tai (2024) is their designation of two translanguaging
“sub-spaces” created by the use of technological
functions. One is an “interactional translanguaging space” that developed in
the YouTube video instruction described above. In this space, the online
teachers who made the two videos showed their ability to draw on the multimodal
elements to make meanings and convey them to the student viewers: constructing
imaginary contexts with hypothetical and instructional frames; and using an
array of multimodal resources including gestures, prosodies, styles of
speaking, and registers. In doing so, they created interactional
translanguaging spaces. The other sub-space is what the researchers referred to
as a “performative translanguaging space.” This manifested in a video’s
comments section, where students “performed” interactions by using language;
for instance, by writing down answers, asking questions, or expressing
opinions. In this space, Ho and
Tai (2024)
argue, “the traditional teacher-student expectations are negotiated, contested,
and even reversed, bringing about a transformation of the viewers and
commentators’ identities” (p. 12). Their research is significant because they
identify and conceptualize the construct of translanguaging sub-spaces,
offering insights into how teachers and students’ “full linguistic and
multimodal repertories for enabling meaning-making and expressiveness in the
digital platform” (p. 12) can be applied and promoted in language teaching and
learning.
For
the current study, we draw on two significant studies as its theoretical
frameworks. First, Satar’s
(2016) DVC
study on meaning-making/conveyance by multimodality, which called for further
research via MCA. Since the study was conducted, there have been quite a bit of
technological advances; thus, we are interested in uncovering how the
participants utilize all these side IT devices to achieve meaning-making today.
Second, Ho and
Tai (2024)
also called for future researchers to use longitudinal case studies to examine
how translanguaging sub-spaces are created, and how creativity and criticality
develop there. Although their study was innovative, the current study’s
different context—two students’ one-on-one intercultural L2 interactions over
Zoom, and the other technological mediations involved—has not been examined in
any prior research. Therefore, while we draw on Satar’s framework of multimodal
meaning-making and Ho and Tai’s translanguaging sub-spaces on digital
platforms, our longitudinal investigation is aimed at exploring the array of
these two elements and what more can transpire. We seek to answer the following
research questions in doing so.
3. The Study
3.1
Research context and participants
This
study implemented an e-tandem longitudinal language-exchange project that took
place over eight weeks. We first recruited nine Japanese learners and nine
English learners from universities in the U.K. and Japan, respectively. Based
on the insights we gathered from the pre-project survey into their linguistic
levels and personal interests, we matched students from the two countries,
creating nine dyads. They were asked to engage in one-on-one L2 conversation
practice via Zoom for one hour every week for eight weeks. Prior to the first
session, we conducted an introductory and orientation session with all of the participants. Although we provided them with the
conversation topics each week, the students were free to expand on them as the
talk’s trajectory naturally led them to.
With respect to the students’
backgrounds, all of the Japanese participants were L1 speakers of Japanese and
second-year English majors at the same university; however, many of them
described themselves as poor speakers of English, despite the fact that they
had studied the language as a school subject for at least seven years. The
British Japanese learners in the U.K. had just completed the first year of
their university courses as Japanese majors.
All nine student pairs proceeded with their weekly
sessions over the next eight week. From those nine, we selected one pair of
students to conduct a more focused, qualitative analysis: Amy and Taku. Taku
had previous experience studying English abroad, having spent a month in New
Zealand. On the other hand, Amy had no prior experience being exposed to a
Japanese-speaking environment. We paired these two students up because, on the
pre-project survey we had conducted, both replied that they were interested in
entertainment from each other’s cultures, such as anime and pop music. We
expected that they would each share their knowledge with the other, execute
topic extensions, and improve their communication skills during their L2
interactions in both languages.
3.2
Research Method and Analytical Procedure
To
observe the interactants’ multimodality for meaning-making and
meaning-conveyance, this study employs the method of MCA (Mondada, 2019). MCA is drawn upon conversation analysis (CA)
whose main focus is on the interlocutors’ authentic
utterances including linguistic and prosodic elements. As a research method,
CA’s fundamental principle is to find what social actions take place through
the sequential occurrences and emergent phenomena in the data, as well as to
analyze their underlying machinery (Heritage, 1998; Sacks et
al., 1974). With a strong emphasis on the embodied aspects added
to CA, Waring (2008) argues that in MCA, “every
subtle embodied resource would be relevant” (p. 580) in order
to uncover interlocutors’ orientations toward the interaction. Thus, in this study, the holistic microanalysis of
turn-by-turn utterances entailing linguistic, prosodic, and embodied resources
will be performed. Further adding the observation of the multiple technology
use following a translanguaging framework (Ho & Tai, 2024), our focal analytical point is the interactional
platforms, process, and resources. How the students use all
of these resources to construct meanings, negotiate within their
knowledge, and reach a mutual understanding will be closely investigated.
As
for the analytical procedure, three Zoom sessions—the ones from the first and
fourth week, and the last one from the eighth week—were videotaped and
transcribed following a simplified version of the MCA transcript convention Mondada (2024) suggested. Thus, we analyzed a total of three
hours of paired interactions between Amy and Taku. We picked five transcripts
from which we documented emergent phenomena including translanguaging and
multimodality; following that, we determined the types of translanguaging
sub-spaces that the participants created alongside their main interaction over
Zoom, as they employed various technologies.
For
clarity in reading the multimodal CA extracts (simplified version) below, it
should be noted that the numbered lines show the participants’ utterances or
voice production. The + sign indicates gestures, gazes, and any physical
movement. A * signifies simultaneous occurrence with another utterance or
movement, also marked with *.
4. Analysis and Findings
4.1
Session
1: Explicitness and vividness of gestures for meaning-making
to further the partner’s understanding
We first observe Amy and Taku’s English
interaction from their initial session. Here, it seemed that their goal was to
get to know each other, while also aiming to achieve meaning conveyance in any
way that would allow them to “survive” the conversation. On the Zoom screen,
both participants could see each other’s faces next to one other.
After
offering a greeting in line 1, Amy searches for a topic to discuss with Taku
during the 3.0-second pause, before asking, “What should I say. Ummm” in line 3. She also physically expresses this
searching action by looking away into the space beyond the screen (Bezemer, 2008). When she comes up with a topic, Amy corrects her posture, facing the Zoom
screen and asking, “Do you like any English music?” (line 4). Adjusting posture
is a common sign that a person is ready to speak (Takahashi,
2024). Taku replies, “Ehhh, I
like Ed Sheeran.” Amy shows a very positive response to this (“Uhh yeahhh Ed Sheeran, yeah”);
along with her statement, she makes explicit gestures, opening her eyes and mouth, and nodding a few times in line 6.
Because it is their first session and Taku may be eagerly attempting to make
his English understood, he provides a rather vivid gesture that resembles an
enactment. For instance, when he mentions that he likes to listen to Ed
Sheeran’s songs, he gestures as if wearing headphones, placing both hands over
his ears when simultaneously uttering the word “listen” (line 8). In another
segment on the topic of karaoke, after Amy mentions that she wants to go do
karaoke in Japan, Taku responds, “I’m all with the university students” while
spreading his arms, rounding them, and wrapping them in front of him as can be
seen in Image 1 (line 14)—as if he were holding (securing) a group of friends
to him. Then, in a tone that reflects his excitement, he enacts the scene,
uttering, “Let’s go karaoke, YEAHHH,” pumping his fist over the side of his
head as can be seen in Image 2 (line 15). He seems to be visually re-creating a
scene for Amy in which he and his college friends are having a lot of fun doing
karaoke.
Image 1: Taku spreads his arms, saying, “I’m all with the university
students”
Image 2: “Let’s go karaoke, YEAHHH” while pumping his fist up
This
extract illustrates two phenomena that are common on an intercultural online
platform: exchanging words related to each other’s cultural interests, and
using explicit gestures to vividly visualize the scenes, as prior studies have
also described (Bailenson, 2021; Hills et al., 2022; Zubek et al., 2022). Although Zoom allows the interlocutors to virtually speak
face-to-face, they are still remotely interacting, and there is a physical
distance between them. Thus, the participants’
highlighted gestures and rather exaggerated prosodic expressions can be seen as
ways to make up for the distance and limited visual frame, while also appearing
to play an important role in conveying meaning and aiding their partner’s
comprehension. Their face-to-face interaction in this extract occurs only via
Zoom, which is considered the main interaction space. No sub-spaces—places in
which they could engage in side interaction to further
their comprehension of what is being talked about on Zoom—have been created at
this point. Rather, the students (and Taku in particular) employ a few explicit
gestures and exaggerated enactments to convey meaning in the main interactional
space.
The next
extract illustrates the entire process of resolving a participant’s
incomprehension; first, through the use of a
smartphone, and then of the Zoom chat box. It demonstrates how the use of
digital resources on each side can help to eventually resolve a trouble source.
Taku asks
if there are any “trendy words” among young people in London (lines 1-2). For
some reason, Amy does not understand his question, perhaps because his
pronunciation of “trendy word” sounds unclear. Amy asks, while blinking her
eyes, “Any- what? Sorry?” (line 4). Taku additionally provides the word “slang”
(line 5); however, this sounds like “srang,” as it is
common for L1 Japanese speakers to mispronounce the “L” sound as “R.” He
restarts the question by repeating the same words, but Amy still does not comprehend
it. Taku switches to Japanese as he mumbles to himself, “nan-yaro,” and, “hayari no kotobatte
nan-yaro” (“What is it? What do you call ‘words
in fashion’?”) (lines 9 and 11). Then, he begins to search for a better word on
a dictionary website on his smartphone, for which he spends 15 seconds (lines
12 and 14). It seems that he cannot find the word after all, then he repeats
the same question again: “I want to know about how to- trendy words?” (line
15). Because Amy still does not understand what Taku is asking, she suggests
that he type the word in Zoom’s chat-box function, gesturing with her fingers
for him to type as seen in Image 4 (line 18). After he types his question in
the chat box and Amy has seen it, as Image 5 shows, she opens her eyes and
mouth wide, enunciating, “OHHH, TRENDY WORDS. Like SLANG?” “Ohhhh”
(lines 21 and 23).
Image 3: “Type, type,” Amy tells him, while mimicking the action of typing
Image 4: Amy finally understands what Taku meant, opening her eyes and
mouth as she says, “OHHH”
The focus
of this extract is Amy’s inability to understand Taku’s question and how it is
resolved. Taku’ mispronunciation is considered a “trouble source” in CA (Schegloff et al., 1977), which is the cause of incomprehension or misunderstanding in
interaction. This issue is later resolved, however, with the help of a
technological tool: the chat box. Faced with the trouble source, Amy first
initiates repair (i.e., requesting repair on Taku’s part by clarifying what he
means), uttering, “Any-what? Sorry?” Amy’s incomprehension is blocking further
communication, and Taku appears to be at a loss, not knowing how to solve the
issue. This trouble is finally resolved by Amy’s suggestion to “type the word”
in the chat box in line 18. In this segment, the smartphone functions as an
assisting tool and an information provider, although it was not successful; the
chat box then functions as a sub-platform/device for self-repair when Taku
spells out the word. It is clear that both can be
significant sub-spaces for the e-tandem information provider, as well as
trouble-source solvers to smooth out the interactional flow.
The next
extract is the continuation of Extract 2, in which the two students step up
their use of the chat box to teach words and expressions to each other.
Having
been asked about any trendy words or slang used in London in the previous
extract, Amy offers to teach some words to Taku in line 1. She doesn’t utter
the word she is about to teach, instead spelling it out through the chat box
first. When Taku sees it, Amy pronounces “wagwan” and laughs (line 9); Taku
then repeats the word “wagwan” (line 10). This is followed by Amy replying,
“Yeah” (line 11). Here, their pattern seems to resemble a teacher-student I-R-E
triad sequence (Hellermann, 2003; Mehan, 1987): an initiation by the teacher (“wagwan,” by Amy), a response by the
student (Taku repeats “wagwan” after her), followed by an evaluation (“yeah” by
Amy). In this case, however, the E part (evaluation) may mean “right” or
“correct,” or it could just be an acknowledgement. Right after this, Amy
utters, “It means like, it means like” twice, then provides the definition
(“Hey, what’s up”) as she leans closer to the computer screen in lines 11-12.
Her first repetition could indicate that she is taking time to search for a
good definition, and her subsequent move closer to the screen when uttering the
definition may serve to show that she is now ready to clearly announce the
meaning, resembling a posture change before speaking (Takahashi,
2024). Taku repeats the definition and the word as if
learning the new expression: “Ummm, hey, what’s up-
wagwan” (line 13). Amy responds, “Yeah, wagwan.” This appears to be another
I-R-E sequence, consisting of Amy’s initiation (providing the definition);
Taku’s response (repetition of the definition and the expression); and Amy’s
evaluation that that is correct, as she utters, “Yeah, wagwan.” Thus, in this
segment, the two students from the U.K. and Japan, Amy and Taku, assume the
roles of teacher and student (Brouwer, 2003) when she conveys the meaning. In the second half of the extract, Amy and
Taku switch roles. After Taku asks Amy if she knows any Japanese slang and she
says that she does not, he announces his intention to take on the role of
teacher this time: “OK, I gonna teach you some” (line
21), followed by typing a Japanese slang and using an I-R-E sequence.
What is
interesting in this extract is that the students utilize the chat box as if it
were a blackboard in the classroom, or a shared writing pad, when they assume
the reciprocal teacher-student roles. In Extract 2, they used the chat box to
clarify the words and resolve the trouble source; while in Extract 3, it
functions as a writing board to show the written slang terms and help the
students teach them to each other.
To
summarize the first session, the first key takeaway is the use of exaggerated
gestures with some heightened prosody, as the participants attempt to convey
their meanings and maintain their interaction over the main platform of Zoom
while verbally communicating as they see each other’s faces. Second, a
smartphone emerges as a tool when the students are stuck on a comprehension
problem. Taku attempts to search for a better word on a website using his
smartphone, but the participants ultimately resolve the issue by using the
chat-box function on Zoom. After this, they continue to exchange slang terms by
spelling the words in the chat box while teaching the pronunciation over the
screen. Thus, in this first session, students seem to have created new interactive
spaces at a glance: however, only within their main
interactional zone—because the chat box is a Zoom function, and Taku used a
smartphone only to search for a word on his side. It rather appears that both
participants are treating Zoom and its functions as the main interaction space;
for its part, the smartphone appears to serve as a personal tool, rather than
as an interactive one. Finally, the emergence of IRE demonstrates that even
over the chat box, their meaning-making and meaning-conveyance are humanly
authentic and organic as if they were speaking with each other in person.
4.2
Session
4: The application of more interactive technology increases
What we observed in the extracts from Session 1 seems to constitute a
somewhat conventional, ordinary Zoom conversation. In Session 4, along with the
main Zoom interaction, we will see how a trajectory shift—the simultaneous use
of technology on technology—can help establish direct conveyance of
meaning and mutual understanding, enabling the participants to continue and
complete the conversation. This first extract from Session 4 may show a hint of
such a directional shift. It starts when the participants begin to discuss
their favorite music groups.
Extract 4: I like TWICE the K-pop group (Session 4)
Prior to
this extract, Amy had mentioned that she is a serious fan of the K-pop group
Twice, and the topic turns here to her favorite songs. She grabs her smartphone
and begins to scroll through her music playlist (lines 4-6). After asking if
Taku knows “this Japanese song,” she playfully starts singing to him over the
screen: “Duna, nanana, nanana,
nanana.” She continues doing so until Taku denies
knowing the song (line 12). Amy does not stop her musical interaction here;
however, she instead moves on to the next song, asking, “OK, how about- I
like,” and singing, “Just like tee tee, tee tee.” She moves her fingers downward in a circle,
impersonating the group’s choreography (lines 13-14). Recognizing the song,
Taku utters, “Yeah, yeah” with a smile in line 15. He then utters the name of
the song with a louder voice (“TEE TEE”) while also gesturing with his fingers
circling downward, conveying that he knows the song well, too (line 16).
This
segment shows Amy utilizing her smartphone to choose her favorite of the
group’s songs from a playlist; however, she chooses not to play the songs. She
instead sings or hums the songs herself, adding some choreographic hand
gestures over the Zoom screen for Taku. Amy may be conveying her familiarity
with the K-pop by displaying her capability to sing the tunes without playing
them. Further, by singing with “playfulness” (Waring,
2012), she could be seeking alignment with him. Most of
all, Amy appears to be adhering to the treatment of Zoom as the main space—a
place where face-to-face interaction is still the centered action, especially
at this point in the fourth week. Her music playlist also seems to play an
important part in her music selection. While she supplies her utterances,
sings, and gestures over the main space of Zoom with Taku, she does not hide
her smartphone from the Zoom screen. Thus, her smartphone’s music playlist
functions as the reference point in her main interaction. At the end of this
interaction, Taku reciprocates to Amy’s alignment-seeking action by equally
demonstrating his own alignment; he utters, “Yeah, yeah” before mentioning the
title of the song, “TEE TEE” and making the same
choreographic gesture over the screen to match hers, which also symbolizes
their mutual comprehension.
Image 5: Amy looking at the playlist on her smartphone
Image 6: Amy singing and sharing choreography
Another
example of smartphone usage during Session 3 is depicted in the following
extract. This time, the phone is embedded into the central interaction, as Amy
shows a picture of her favorite YouTuber over the Zoom screen at an interaction
resumption. Amy and Taku had been discussing their favorite YouTubers when
Taku’s Wi-Fi began to weaken and then froze. The extract starts when Taku’s
Wi-Fi has been restored, and the conversation resumes.
Extract 5: Do you know his youtuber? (Session 4)
Image 7: “This guy.” Amy shows the YouTuber’s picture from her smartphone
to Taku via the Zoom screen
After
they resume the interaction, as seen in Image 7, Amy brings her smartphone
closer to the screen to show a photograph of her favorite YouTuber, and asks
Taku if he knows him (line 3). Amy provides his name (line 4) and reveals that
he has 30 million subscribers after Taku asks her (line 5). After the extract,
they continue their interaction about him and their other favorite YouTubers.
Although this is a very short extract, Amy’s visual use of her smartphone over
Zoom to introduce the YouTuber is a very creative topic resumption.
Furthermore, this “digital-on-digital” phenomenon seems to serve as a new
technology-mediated practice to visually and effectively convey a certain
meaning.
Thus, to summarize Session 4, we can see a hint of space development
occurring within the conventional interactional space of Zoom. The playlist on
Amy’s smartphone does not just stay on her side; instead, it is a visible part
of her Zoom-screen interaction. Thus, she turns this smartphone-Zoom
interaction—singing and choreographic gestures—into a packaged, simultaneous
multimodality. Extract 4’s picture-sharing on the smartphone over the Zoom
screen also demonstrates a shift toward multimodal digital-on-digital
interaction, which would execute visible meaning-conveyance and occur more
frequently as the sessions proceeded.
4.3
Session 8: The synchronous use of multimodality and multilayered digital
platforms
This last extract from Session 8, the final session on the eighth week,
shows further development with the students’ utilization of a full range of
resources. In it, we see a combination of multimodality and technology with the
use of social media.
Extract 6: Scary Roller coaster (Session 8)
Prior to
the extract above, Amy had been telling Taku that she loves all things scary.
She talks here about the “horror rollercoaster” (a ride in the UK with a
horror-movie theme; lines 4-6), which she enjoys, and tries to describe how
scary it is. Instead of using words to further depict the rollercoaster, Amy
attempts to send Taku a link to a video of it through the chat box (lines 6-7).
After she tries and fails to send it for a while, she experiences some
technical difficulties with her internet (lines 8-9); then, she decides to send
the video to his Instagram account instead, repeating, “I’ll send it to your
Instagram, I’ll send it to your Instagram” (lines 11-12). Taku receives it,
sees it, and reacts, “WOW,” shaking his head and making a face (line 21). He
follows this by making some gestures mimicking the rollercoaster, moving his
hands vertically upward and uttering, “Ohh, it’s like
that,” as seen in Image 8 (line 22). Amy answers, “Yeah, it’s like THAT,”
emphasizing the repeated “that” with a louder voice and also
moving her hand in a vertical direction (line 23) (Image 9). Here, it is
interesting to observe both participants’ reciprocal and identical gestures, as
they likely reach a complete understanding and agreement on the scariness of
the rollercoaster.
Image 8: After watching the video of the rollercoaster, Taku gestures with
his hand up: “Ohh, it’s like that”
Image 9: Amy responds, repeating Taku’s “Yeah,
it’s like THAT,” reciprocally making the same gesture that he has just made
In this
extract, we can observe the interactional trajectory expansion to multiple
directions. The students multimodally employ several new resources: the
social-media platform, Instagram, alongside Zoom as a tool to send visual
information to further Taku’s comprehension of the topic through each other’s
smartphones. They treat Zoom as the main platform where they can interact face
to face and utilize gestures, while simultaneously using the social media on
their smartphones to exchange more detailed visual information outside of Zoom.
In other words, Amy and Taku expand their discussion space beyond the main
platform to make and convey their meanings, and return
to the main one for confirmation checks of their comprehension. This
accomplishes the co-construction of meaningful interaction through
multi-layered digital platforms: the main one, Zoom; the side platform of the
students’ smartphones; and social media, as another internet platform. They
synchronously utilize these technological resources, which help them pursue the
goal of mutual comprehension through multiple translanguaging spaces.
5. Discussion
This study illustrates the nature of human interaction on a larger digital
platform, Zoom, alongside the parallel use of available side resources and
technological sub-platforms. We have observed the participants effectively
adding visible information, constructing translanguaging actions, and creating
multiple interactional spaces for more efficient meaning-conveyance and a
mutual comprehension confirmation. The more the interactional space develops
and expands as the sessions proceed, the more skillfully the students
incorporate these other tools into their attempts to make meanings and convey
them, and thus, the more communication is facilitated. To answer the first
research question (“In naturally-occurring intercultural interaction
over Zoom between L2 learners, what multimodal and technological resources are
utilized, and do they each achieve meaning-making as part of
translanguaging?”), Amy and Taku seem to engage in plenty of explicit gestures
to demonstrate and negotiate meanings to further each other’s comprehensions
throughout the sessions, perhaps to compensate for the lack of fluency in their
communication. Taku is a L2 speaker of Amy’s L1; thus, each likely has some
trouble understanding what their partner means and we can therefore interpret
some of their exaggerated reciprocal gestures (such as the rollercoaster one)
as ways to demonstrate confirmed comprehension.
In addition, we observed the students
utilizing multiple digital sub-platforms as the sessions proceeded, such as the
chat box, smartphones, and social media. The chat box appears to be a handy
tool for a lexical purpose, mainly used for spelling out words and expressions
to clarify what was said (Extract 2), or to teach new expressions by writing
them (Extract 3). For its part, a smartphone can act as a mini-platform device,
secondary to the main desktop or laptop Zoom screen. It can offer multiple functions,
such as checking the meaning of a word on a website (Extract 2), supplying
references for musical interaction (Extract 4), or visually initiating a new
topic (Extract 5). In data from outside these extracts, we could see the
students using their phones for other purposes, including note-taking,
preparing the topic list, and setting an alarm to time the session. Finally,
the students’ use of social media emerges as a partial departure from the main
Zoom interaction, enabling the more personal action of sharing a video with a
partner to instantly execute ‘seeing is believing’, as we saw with Amy sending
a video to Taku’s Instagram account. This dynamic integration of auxiliary digital tools mirrors findings by Hua and
Liu (2026), who highlighted how L2
learners strategically employ diverse technological tools and semiotic
resources to scaffold communication, share visual information, and facilitate
meaning-making during digital interactions.
With regard to the
second research question (“What types of spaces and sub-spaces develop during
the online interaction, and do these spaces help the learners both reach mutual
comprehension and improve their L2 interaction skills?”), we can obviously identify
that the main interactional space in this study is Zoom. It is
where they undertake all face-to-face communication with the use of linguistic,
prosodic, and embodied resources. In the early sessions, we see the first
emergence of sub-spaces, beginning with the chat box. For instance, in Extract
2, we can observe a repair being successfully executed to resolve a
communication trouble; both students also use the tool to teach new words and
expressions, as they spell out the words for their partner. As one of the handy
functions attached to the main Zoom space, which seems to have served as a problem-solving,
instructional sub-space, this chat-box text interaction may not be
considered as going beyond the main Zoom space, but more as a sub-space within
it.
Second, the
smartphone offered multiple functions, starting with the personal search for
information on one side (Session 1). Later, in Session 4, the students began
using the tool more openly; Amy utilized it as a reference point during the
“singing” interaction, and for showing visual information in further parts of
the discussion. A phone can thus be identified as a sub-space of multiple
searches for and supplying of information that plays a role in the main
interaction. As discussed earlier, it may have indicated a trajectory shift in
communication during Session 4, as Amy’s smartphone took on a more visible and
meaningful part in the main interaction. Finally, in Session 8, the use of
social media emerged; the participants had obviously become familiar with each other, and had developed a genuine relationship beyond
Zoom. Instagram thus functioned as a semi-interactive sub-space
for exchanging more private visual information during and outside of the main
Zoom interactive space.
The participants’ contingent development of
these digital sub-spaces over the course of the sessions served to resolve
their communication difficulty, and also helped
further understanding of the meanings they aimed to convey. On top of the
students’ verbal and embodied communication, the functioning and utilization of
these sub-spaces, and how they went from being embedded in the main space to
expanded outside of the main space, occurred contingently, as the participants
understood what was necessary to reach mutual comprehension. As summarized in Table 2 below, their interactional spaces expanded as the
sessions progressed. In the first session, they mostly attempted to stick to
Zoom and its chat-box function, with a smartphone used on only one side; by
contrast, in the fourth session they stepped up their smartphone use, and it
took part in the interaction. By the eighth session, the two students extended
the use of digital tools to the completely separate
platform of social media, subsequently using identical gestures over the main
Zoom space to confirm their joint comprehension. We identified the development
of the pair’s fluid use of interactional resources and repertories, while their
identical gestures and smooth communication reflected their well-balanced
interaction based on their firm alignment. In these ways, the
students enhanced their overall L2 interaction skills: not only their fluency
from listening and speaking practice, but also their linguistic proficiency and
process of how to move forward the interaction, contingently opening and
utilizing these sub-spaces.
The following diagram depicts the main space and sub-spaces; following
that, the table summarizes the relationship between the generation and
functions of these technological spaces, and how the students’ communication
proficiency developed over time.
Diagram 1: Expansion of digital space and sub-spaces in Zoom communication
Table 1. Summary of digital translanguaging spaces
|
Technological
Platform |
Translanguaging
Spaces |
Functions /
What Participants Can Do |
What is
Achieved |
|
1. Zoom |
Main interactional space |
• Conduct face-to-face conversation • Interact via language use, gestures, and prosodies • Sing • Teach pronunciation |
•Constructing interaction •Conveying meanings •Reaching mutual comprehension |
|
2. Zoom chat box |
Problem-solving, instructional
sub space |
• Spell out words and expressions |
• Repairing • Clarifying •Teaching new words |
|
3. Smartphone |
Sub-space of multiple searches
for and supplying of information |
• Search for words on a website • View music playlist • List topics • Take notes • Time the session • Show a picture on Zoom |
•Providing multiple forms of assistance with main interaction • Initiating a topic •Adding information •Session management (topics and timing) |
|
4. Social media |
Semi-interactive sub-space |
• Show what is posted on your account • Send links, pictures, or videos to each other's accounts |
•Sharing information • Side socialization |
Table 2. Development and changes in sessions 1, 4, and 8
|
Session/Week |
Observed Use of
Translanguaging Resources |
Translanguaging
Spaces Used |
Effectiveness
in Interaction |
|
Session 1 |
• Mostly verbal
interaction over Zoom • Exaggerated
gestures • Side use of
smartphone to search for words • Use of chat box
for repair and spelling new words |
Main interactional
space Problem-solving,
instructional subspace |
• Attempting to
arrive at alignment • Repair exercised
to reach mutual comprehension • Moving on with
new topics • Teaching new
words • IRE verbal format
emerged |
|
Session 4 |
• Smartphone’s
music playlist played a role in selection of songs for discussion • Singing/humming
over Zoom •
Digital-on-digital use of phone to show a picture over Zoom |
Main interactional
space Sub-space of
multiple searches for and supplying of information |
• The smartphone
sub-space begins to become a PART of the interaction • It takes on a
larger and closer role in the communication itself |
|
Session 8 |
• Sending and
showing a video over social media • Main interaction
is over Zoom • Identical
gestures over Zoom |
Main interactional
space Semi-interactive
sub-space |
• As the use of
digital tools extends to social media on smartphones, participants reach
full, mutual comprehension • They exhibit
comprehension confirmation and perfect alignment in their identical gestures • These lead them
to have a balanced, smooth conversation |
6. Conclusion, Implications, and
Suggestions for Future Studies
This qualitative study explored L2 learners’ development of multimodal
resources and technological spaces from a translanguaging perspective during an
eight-week e-tandem conversation program. We found that, as the participants
began exhausting their translanguaging resources, they expanded their
meaning-making and meaning-conveyance methods more efficiently and effectively.
This was executed by simultaneously engaging in the use of multiple platforms:
ongoing talk with each other on the main platform of Zoom; side exchanges via
the chat box; digital-on-digital interaction using their smartphones over the
Zoom screen; and, finally, sending visual information via their social media
accounts (on their smartphones). Their use of these interactive
sub-spaces reflects the ways in which people’s interactions can organically
evolve and become more innovative.
Furthermore,
undertaking the process of meaning conveyance and pursuing the goal of mutual
comprehension, with no one instructing the participants on what to do, they
successfully completed a repair (Schegloff et al., 1977) through the chat box, and performed the dialogic I-R-E sequence (Hellermann, 2003; Mehan, 1987) during the teaching-like segment through the main Zoom space, despite it
being the students’ first session. All of these main
and side social actions were completely self-generated.
The
sessions between Taku in Japan and Amy in the U.K. in this study offer some
significant implications for educators. Theoretically, while there are few
longitudinal studies on the multiple, parallel employment of a technological
main space and sub-spaces, this study uncovered new ways in which these spaces
are utilized for meaning-making and meaning-conveyance, adding to the findings
from Ho and Tai (2024) and Satar (2016) that we
drew on as our frameworks. We observed that the participants appeared to
gradually exhaust all of the resources and platforms
for translanguaging purposes, beyond their L1 and L2 languages, to negotiate
meanings and to achieve mutually comprehensible interaction.
As for
the practical implications and our suggestions for future studies, we
recognized L2 learners’ natural efforts to make sense of what they were
discussing. This project, driven by the students’ creative use of familiar
technologies, successfully demonstrated their skills to negotiate and convey
meaning in intercultural interactions as the sessions progressed. Educators may
therefore consider incorporating similar eTandem
programs into L2 classes while permitting the flexible use of other
technological devices. Such an approach would enable L2 students to develop
more authentic and natural interactive skills. Furthermore, future studies
could expand this work by integrating rapidly advancing AI technologies into L2
programs to examine whether these tools can generate new functional spaces and
foster increasingly unique, inclusive, and engaging technology-mediated
language learning environments.
As Yao and Ling (2020) emphasize, the importance of
computer-mediated/ technology-assisted learning’s “inherently interdisciplinary
and evolving nature” (p.8) should be widely recognized and utilized. This study’s findings reveal how much language learning has progressed,
moving far beyond those traditional confines to embrace more diverse,
technology-mediated intercultural exchanges that prioritize authentic
interaction, meaning construction, and mutual comprehension.
Declaration regarding usage of
generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) tools
The authors declare that no generative AI technologies
were used to draft, edit, or generate any portion of this manuscript.
Conflict
of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest
regarding this manuscript.
References
Andersen, P. A. (1998). Nonverbal communication: forms and functions.
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Bailenson, J. N.
(2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom
fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030
Bezemer, J. (2008). Displaying
orientation in the classroom: Students’ multimodal responses to teacher
instructions. Linguistics and Education, 19(2), 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2008.05.005
Blake, R.
(2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language
Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/25089
Brouwer,
C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS–NS interaction: Opportunities for
language learning?. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4),
534-545. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00206
Canals, L. (2021). Multimodality and translanguaging in negotiation of
meaning. Foreign Language Annals, 54(3), 647-670. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12547
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (2003). Interactional sociolinguistics: a personal perspective. In
D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse
analysis (pp. 215-228). Blackwell.
Hellermann, J.
(2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher
repetition
in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32(1), 79-104. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503321049
Heritage, J.
(1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3),
291-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404598003017
Hills, P. D., Clavin, M. V.,
Tufft, M. R., Gobel, M. S., & Richardson, D. C. (2022). Video meeting
signals: Experimental evidence for a technique to improve the experience of
video conferencing. Plos One, 17(8), e0270399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270399
Ho, W. Y. J., & Tai, K. W.
(2024). Translanguaging in digital learning: The making of translanguaging
spaces in online English teaching videos. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 27(9), 1212-1233. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.2001427
Hua, C., & Liu, Y. (2026).
Process vs. product: Divergent translanguaging practices and perceptions in
emergent bilinguals’ digital multimodal composing. Applied Language
Sciences, 2, 260101. https://doi.org/10.65553/ALS.260101
Hubbard, P. (2023). Emerging technologies
and language learning: Mining the past to transform the future. Journal of
China Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 3(2), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1515/jccall-2023-0003
Knight,
J., Dooly, M., & Barberà, E. (2020). Navigating a multimodal ensemble: Learners mediating verbal
and non-verbal turns in online interaction tasks. ReCALL, 32(1),
25-46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000132
Kohler,
F. S., & Thorne, S. L. (2011). The social life of self-directed talk: A
sequential phenomenon?, In Hall, JK., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek
Doehler, S (Eds.), L2 Interactional Competence and Development (66-92). Multilingual
Matters.
Kuure, L. (2011).
Places for learning: Technology-mediated language learning practices beyond the
classroom. In P. Benson & H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom
(pp. 35–46). Palgrave Macmillan.
Lee, J., & Kim, H. (2025).
Language teachers as pedagogical designers in technology-mediated language education:
An ecological systems perspective. System, 118, 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103662
Mehan, H. (1987). Language and
power in organizational process. Discourse Processes, 10(4),
291-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538709544679
Mondada, L. (2018).
Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for
transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction,
51(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Mondada, L. (2019).
Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality,
multimodality and multisensoriality in social
interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016
Mondada, L. (2024).
Multimodal transcription. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase
Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of terminology for conversation
analysis and interactional linguistics. International Society for
Conversation Analysis (ISCA).
Ningsih, P. E. A., & Sari,
M. N. (2021). Are learning media effective in English online learning?: the students’ and
teachers’ perceptions. Tarbawi: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 17(2),
173-183.
Nurmala, I., Irianto, S.,
Franchisca, S., Amsa, H., & Susanti, R. (2023).
Technology-enhanced language learning: A meta-analysis study on English
language teaching tools. Journal on Education, 6(1), 2188-2195. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v6i1.3221
Reinhardt, J.
(2019). Gameful Second and
Foreign Language Teaching and Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04729-0
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A.,
& Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of
turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Satar, H.
M. (2016). Meaning-making in online language learner interactions via
desktop videoconferencing. ReCALL, 28(3):
305-325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344016000100
Satar, M., Hauck, M., & Bilki, Z. (2023).
Multimodal representation in virtual exchange: A social semiotic approach to
critical digital literacy. Language Learning & Technology, 27(2),
72-96. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/73504
Sauro, S. (2009). Strategic
use of modality during synchronous CMC. CALICO Journal
27(1).
https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.1.101-117
Schegloff, E. A.,
Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in
the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2),
361-382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
Stefanile, A. (2020).
Teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic and outlook for the future.
In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1797
Tai, K. W. (2023). Multimodal
Conversation Analysis and Interpretative
Phenomenological
Analysis: A Methodological Framework for Researching Translanguaging in
Multilingual Classrooms. Routledge.
Takahashi, J. (2024). Doing registering, gearing up, and launching: Understanding
student multimodality and the process of class participation. Multimodality
& Society, 4(2), 197-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349795241251841
Waring,
H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom:
IRF,
feedback,
and learning opportunities. Modern
Language Journal, 92(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.x.
Waring, H. Z. (2012). Doing
being playful in the second language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 34 (2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams047
Wei, L. (2018).
Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1),
9-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx044
Yang, S., & Aimdilokwong, M. (2026). An
analysis of singers’ and fans’ attitudes toward translanguaging in pop songs. Applied
Language Sciences, 2, 260111. https://doi.org/10.65553/ALS.260111
Yao, M. & Ling, R. (2000). What is computer-mediated communication?—An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Learning, 25 (1), 4-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz027
Zubek, J., Nagórska, E.,
Komorowska-Mach, J., Skowrońska, K., Zieliński, K., & Rączaszek-Leonardi,
J. (2022). Dynamics of remote communication: Movement coordination in
video-mediated and face-to-face conversations. Entropy, 24(4),
559. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24040559
APPENDIX
A
Conversation Analysis Transcription (Jefferson, 1983)
(.) Untimed perceptible pauses within turns
words Stress
CAPS Very emphatic stress
↑ High pitch on word
¯ Low pitch on word
. Sentence-final falling intonation
? Yes or no question, rising intonation
Phrase-final intonation (more to
come)
- Glottal stop or abrupt cutoff of
sound
Lengthened vowel sounds (extra
colons indicate greater lengthening)
= Latch (direct onset or no space
between the two units)
→ Highlights point of analysis
[ ] Overlapped talk: extra spacing is sometimes
used to spread out the utterance to reflect the simultaneous beginning and
ending of the overlapped talk
◦soft◦ Spoken softly or at a low volume
>
< Increased speed
( ) (empty parentheses)
(words) Uncertainty transcription
.hhh Inbreath
hhh. Exhalation
$words$ Spoken in smiley voices
APPENDIX
B
Transcription convention for multimodal aspects
Adopted
from Mondada (2024) with some modifications:
++, **, @@, etc. Descriptions of embodied conduct (e.g., gaze and hand
movements)
delimited
between two identical symbols and synchronized with
corresponding
stretches of talk or lapses of time
+---> Action continues across subsequent lines
--->+ Until the same symbol is reached
--->> Action continues after the extract
––– When full extension is maintained
fig Exact moment at which a screenshot is taken
# Symbol showing temporal position within turns or
segments of time
▼ When an annotation does not fit
within the transcription’s specialized
place,
it appears in a subsequent line with this symbol
Author biodata
Junko Takahashi, Ed.D. is a faculty member at Doshisha University
and head researcher at the KOMET Institute of Linguistic Research and Education
in Japan. Her research interests lie in conversation analysis, interactional
sociolinguistics, and intercultural communication, particularly pertaining to
East Asian students’ participation, silence, and self-selection patterns in L2
classrooms. She has taught ESL, pragmatics, and intercultural communication in
both the U.S. and Japan. Her research articles have appeared in journals
including Linguistics and Education and Multimodality and Society, as well as
in the volume Conversation Analysis and Language Teacher Education (Springer,
2025).
Email: jt2246@tc.columbia.edu
ORCID: 0000-0001-7516-0429
Seiko Harumi, Ph.D. is Senior Lecturer in Japanese and Applied
Linguistics (Education) at SOAS, University of London. Her academic interests
lie in classroom silence, classroom discourse, pragmatics, translanguaging,
language socialization, intercultural communication and learner-centred reflective approaches in second language pedagogy.
She has co-edited books, East-Asian Perspectives on Silence in English Language
Education (Multilingual Matters, 2020), Developing Global Competence in World
Language Education: A Four-Step Framework for Success (Routledge, 2025) and
Silence in Language Education: International perspectives on Speech and Quiet
Learning (Bloomsbury, 2026).
E-mail:
sh96@soas.ac.uk
ORCID: 0000-0003-0994-4203