Code-switching to Know a TL Equivalent of an L1 Word: Request-Provision-Acknowledgement (RPA) Sequence

Edgar Lucero


This article focuses on the learner’s use of Code-switching to learn the TL (Target Language) equivalent of an L1 word. The interactional pattern that this situation creates defines the Request-Provision-Acknowledgement (RPA) sequence. The article explains each of the turns of the sequence under the combination of the Ethnomethodological Conversation Analysis and the Speech Act Analysis. The RPA sequence emerges from the analysis of a set of observations of EFL learners at university level. The insights of this study suggest that this RPA sequence presents pedagogical implications in the dynamics of classroom interaction and the way language learners and teachers negotiate meaning in class.


Classroom interaction; code-switching; communicative strategies; RPA sequence

Full Text:



Adendorff, R. (1993). Code-switching amongst Zulu-speaking teachers and their pupils: Its functions and implications for teacher education. Language and Education, 7(3), 141-162.

Crane, P. A. (2004). Texture in text: A discourse analysis of a news article using Halliday and Hasan’s model of cohesion [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from

Fernández, A. M. & Palacios, I. M. (2007). Negotiating meaning in interaction between English and Spanish speakers via communicative strategies. Atlantis, 29(1), 87-105.

Hong Han, Z. (2002). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 33(1), 1-34.

Ilatov, Z. Z., Shamai, S., Hertz-Lazarovitz, R., & Mayer-Young, S. (1998). Teacher-student classroom interactions: The influence of gender, academic dominance, and teacher communication style. Adolescence, 33(130), 269-277.

Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Schegloff, E. (1988). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech acts theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 55-62.

Schegloff, E. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165-187.

Schegloff, E. (2000). When others initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205-243.

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Seedhouse, P. (2004a). Conversation analysis methodology. Language Learning, 54(S1), 1-54.

Seedhouse, P. (2004b). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Madison, USA: Language Learning Monograph Series.

Stroud, C. (1998). Perspectives on cultural variability of discourse and some implications for code-switching. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity (pp. 321-349). London: Routledge.

Tarone, E. (2001), Interlanguage. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of sociolinguistics (pp. 475–481). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Ûstûnel, E. & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302-325.

Wong, J. (2005). Sidestepping grammar. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 159–173). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ASOCOPI is a TESOL affiliate and a member of IATEFL
Please send all correspondence to the HOW journal:
Carrera 27 A # 53 – 06 Of. 405, Bogotá, Colombia.
Phone/Fax: 57(1) 2115018
ISSN 0120-5927