Download the full version of the textbook now at textbookfull.

com

Conversation Analytic Research on Learning in

Action The Complex Ecology of Second Language
Interaction in the wild John Hellermann

https://textbookfull.com/product/conversation-
analytic-research-on-learning-in-action-the-
complex-ecology-of-second-language-interaction-in-
the-wild-john-hellermann/

Explore and download more textbook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Ecology in Action Fred Singer

https://textbookfull.com/product/ecology-in-action-fred-singer/

textbookfull.com

Autonomy in Second Language Learning Managing the

Resources 1st Edition Miros■aw Pawlak

https://textbookfull.com/product/autonomy-in-second-language-learning-
managing-the-resources-1st-edition-miroslaw-pawlak/

textbookfull.com

Individual Differences in Language Learning: A Complex

Systems Theory Perspective Carol Griffiths

https://textbookfull.com/product/individual-differences-in-language-
learning-a-complex-systems-theory-perspective-carol-griffiths/

textbookfull.com

Deconstructing Developmental Psychology 3rd Edition Erica

Burman

https://textbookfull.com/product/deconstructing-developmental-
psychology-3rd-edition-erica-burman/

textbookfull.com
The Monstrous World Corporeal Discourses in Phlegon of
Tralles Mirabilia Julia Doroszewska

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-monstrous-world-corporeal-
discourses-in-phlegon-of-tralles-mirabilia-julia-doroszewska/

textbookfull.com

China and intervention at the UN Security Council :

reconciling status First Edition. Edition Fung

https://textbookfull.com/product/china-and-intervention-at-the-un-
security-council-reconciling-status-first-edition-edition-fung/

textbookfull.com

Petrogenesis and Exploration of the Earth s Interior

Proceedings of the 1st Springer Conference of the Arabian
Journal of Geosciences CAJG 1 Tunisia 2018 Domenico M.
Doronzo
https://textbookfull.com/product/petrogenesis-and-exploration-of-the-
earth-s-interior-proceedings-of-the-1st-springer-conference-of-the-
arabian-journal-of-geosciences-cajg-1-tunisia-2018-domenico-m-doronzo/
textbookfull.com

Little Brown Handbook The MLA Update Edition H. Ramsey

Fowler

https://textbookfull.com/product/little-brown-handbook-the-mla-update-
edition-h-ramsey-fowler/

textbookfull.com

Innovative skills to support well-being and resiliency in

youth 1st Edition Laser-Maira

https://textbookfull.com/product/innovative-skills-to-support-well-
being-and-resiliency-in-youth-1st-edition-laser-maira/

textbookfull.com
From Truth to Technique at Trial: A Discursive History of
Advocacy Advice Texts 1st Edition Philip Gaines

https://textbookfull.com/product/from-truth-to-technique-at-trial-a-
discursive-history-of-advocacy-advice-texts-1st-edition-philip-gaines/

textbookfull.com
Educational Linguistics

John Hellermann
Søren W. Eskildsen
Simona Pekarek Doehler
Arja Piirainen-Marsh Editors

Conversation
Analytic Research on
Learning-in-Action
The Complex Ecology of Second
Language Interaction ‘in the wild’
Educational Linguistics

Volume 38

Series Editor
Francis M. Hult, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA

Editorial Board Members

Marilda C. Cavalcanti, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
Jasone Cenoz, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain
Angela Creese, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
Ingrid Gogolin, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Christine Hélot, Strasbourg University, Strasbourg, France
Hilary Janks, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Constant Leung, King’s College London, London, UK
Angel Lin, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
Alastair Pennycook, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Educational Linguistics is dedicated to innovative studies of language use and
language learning. The series is based on the idea that there is a need for studies that
break barriers. Accordingly, it provides a space for research that crosses traditional
disciplinary, theoretical, and/or methodological boundaries in ways that advance
knowledge about language (in) education. The series focuses on critical and
contextualized work that offers alternatives to current approaches as well as
practical, substantive ways forward. Contributions explore the dynamic and multi-
layered nature of theory-practice relationships, creative applications of linguistic
and symbolic resources, individual and societal considerations, and diverse social
spaces related to language learning.
The series publishes in-depth studies of educational innovation in contexts
throughout the world: issues of linguistic equity and diversity; educational language
policy; revalorization of indigenous languages; socially responsible (additional)
language teaching; language assessment; first- and additional language literacy;
language teacher education; language development and socialization in non-
traditional settings; the integration of language across academic subjects; language
and technology; and other relevant topics.
The Educational Linguistics series invites authors to contact the general
editor with suggestions and/or proposals for new monographs or edited volumes.
For more information, please contact the Associate Editor: Natalie Rieborn,
Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5894

John Hellermann • Søren W. Eskildsen
Simona Pekarek Doehler • Arja Piirainen-Marsh
Editors

Conversation Analytic
Research on
Learning-in-Action
The Complex Ecology of Second Language
Interaction ‘in the wild’
Editors
John Hellermann Søren W. Eskildsen
Applied Linguistics Department of Design and Communication
Portland State University University of Southern Denmark
Portland, OR, USA Sønderborg, Denmark

Simona Pekarek Doehler Arja Piirainen-Marsh

Center for Applied Linguistics Department of Language and
University of Neuchâtel Communication Studies
Neuchâtel, Switzerland University of Jyväskylä
Jyväskylä, Finland

ISSN 1572-0292     ISSN 2215-1656 (electronic)

Educational Linguistics
ISBN 978-3-030-22164-5    ISBN 978-3-030-22165-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22165-2

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents

Introduction: On the Complex Ecology of Language Learning

‘in the Wild’������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1
Søren W. Eskildsen, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Arja Piirainen-Marsh, and John
Hellermann

Part I Learning in the Wild: Development of Interactional Competence

“We Limit Ten Under Twenty Centu Charge Okay?”: Routinization
of an Idiosyncratic Multi-word Expression ��������������������������������������������������   25
Sangki Kim
On the Reflexive Relation Between Developing L2 Interactional
Competence and Evolving Social Relationships: A Longitudinal
Study of Word-­Searches in the ‘Wild’������������������������������������������������������������   51
Simona Pekarek Doehler and Evelyne Berger
Turn Design as Longitudinal Achievement: Learning
on the Shop Floor ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   77
Hanh thi Nguyen

Part II Configuring the Wild for Learning: Learners’ In-Situ

Practices for Learning
Learning Behaviors in the Wild: How People Achieve L2 Learning
Outside of Class������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 105
Søren W. Eskildsen
Noticing Words in the Wild ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 131
Tim Greer

v
vi Contents

Part III Designing Infrastructures for Learning in the Wild:

Bridges Between Classroom and Real-Life Social
Activities
How Wild Can It Get? Managing Language Learning Tasks
in Real Life Service Encounters���������������������������������������������������������������������� 161
Arja Piirainen-Marsh and Niina Lilja
Building Socio-environmental Infrastructures for Learning���������������������� 193
John Hellermann, Steven L. Thorne, and Jamalieh Haley
The Rally Course: Learners as Co-designers of Out-of-Classroom
Language Learning Tasks ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 219
Niina Lilja, Arja Piirainen-Marsh, Brendon Clark, and Nicholas B. Torretta

Part IV Epilogue
Towards an Epistemology of Second Language Learning
in the Wild�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 251
Johannes Wagner

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 273
Introduction: On the Complex Ecology
of Language Learning ‘in the Wild’

Søren W. Eskildsen, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Arja Piirainen-Marsh,

and John Hellermann

I hope to evoke with this metaphor a sense of an ecology of

thinking in which human cognition interacts with an
environment rich in organizing resources.
E. Hutchins, Cognition in the Wild, 1995.

Abstract This introduction explicates the central issues informing the chapters in
the volume. We outline the epistemological development of Second Language
Acquisition research as it has evolved from being predominantly individual-­cognitive
to a more pluralistic endeavor in which social approaches to cognition and learning
are becoming central. Social interaction has been recognized as key to language
learning since the 1970’s but the field is still lacking in research that studies the
everyday social-interactional ecology in which the L2 speaker acts. We argue that it
is time to broaden contexts for empirical investigations to study language learning in
the full ecology of ‘the wild’, that is, in out-of-classroom, real world settings that put
into play the multisemiotic resources inhabiting the worlds of L2 speakers.

S. W. Eskildsen (*)
Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark,
Sønderborg, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Pekarek Doehler
Center for Applied Linguistics, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Piirainen-Marsh
Department of Language and Communication Studies, University of Jyväskylä,
Jyväskylä, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Hellermann
Applied Linguistics, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

J. Hellermann et al. (eds.), Conversation Analytic Research
on Learning-in-Action, Educational Linguistics 38,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22165-2_1
2 S. W. Eskildsen et al.

The contributions to the volume scrutinize the affordances of ‘the wild’ for the
development of L2 interactional competence, investigate how L2 speakers config-
ure learning opportunities in the wild, and analyze possible ways of integrating in-­
the-­wild-experiences into the L2 classroom agenda. Leading to new empirical
understandings of the richness of the affordances for L2 learning that emerge in
people’s lifeworlds, this affects our conception of L2 learning, as product and pro-
cess, and holds important implications for teaching practices.

Keywords Second language acquisition (SLA) · Learning in the wild · Usage-­

based · Conversation analysis

1 Prelude

Social interaction is uncontroversially recognized as a primary site of both first and

second language learning. This understanding has been embraced by a broad range
of approaches to second language acquisition (SLA): Whether seen as providing the
necessary input or feedback that structures the individual’s cognitive processes
required for language learning, or as the site where learning as a socio-cognitive
endeavor is collectively shaped through socially coordinated courses of activities,
social interaction is a – if not the – key locus of language learning (and possibly also
of much other learning). Yet, most of the empirical results that current thinking in
SLA is based on emanate from the analysis of learners’ language use studied inde-
pendently of the social-interactional ecology in which the learner acts, stemming
from (quasi)experimental designs the ecological validity of which remains to be
proven, or from the highly structured (and sometimes experimentally controlled)
setting of the language classroom. This includes research from the theoretical and
methodological approach taken by studies in this volume: Conversation Analysis.
While existing studies have enhanced our understanding of multiple facets of lan-
guage learning, both as an in-situ process and as a product, it is time to broaden
contexts for empirical investigations to study language learning in the full ecology
of ‘the wild’, that is, in out-of-classroom, real world settings that put into play the
multisemiotic resources inhabiting the worlds of L2 speakers.
This volume sets out to do this. The contributions to the volume scrutinize the
affordances of ‘the wild’ for the development of L2 interactional competence,
investigate how L2 speakers configure learning opportunities in the wild, and ana-
lyze possible ways of integrating in-the-wild-experiences into the L2 classroom
agenda. We borrow the metaphor of the wild from E. Hutchins’ seminal work
Cognition in the Wild (1995). Studying a navigation team on a US Navy ship,
Hutchins documents how processes of problem-solving and learning are collec-
tively organized, not residing in the individual’s skull but in social practice; not as
the cumulative result of the team members’ solitary mental activity, but as the prod-
uct of their coordination, mutual adaptation, and confrontation in action with a com-
plexly structured socio-cultural environment. His point, in a nutshell, is that
cognition is distributed and socially situated (as advocated by many others, e.g.,
Introduction: On the Complex Ecology of Language Learning ‘in the Wild’ 3

Suchman 1987; Lave 1988; Maynard and Clayman 1991; Cole et al. 1993; Edwards
1997) and that, therefore, the complexity of cognition is best apprehended in its
natural habitat, namely people’s engagement in their activities in the real world – as
opposed to the lab. The notion of cognition in the wild refers to “cognition in its
natural habitat – that is, to naturally occurring culturally constituted human activity”
(Hutchins 1995: xiii).
What does such an understanding imply for the study of SLA? For one thing, it
invites us to broaden the SLA database (Firth and Wagner 1997) as we have done in
this volume, focusing on people acting in their everyday social worlds, their out-of-­
classroom interactions. For another thing, and maybe less obviously, it sets the focal
object, language, against a background of multiple and complexly intertwined
resources for meaning-making (gesture, gaze, posture), of the sequential organiza-
tion and mutual coordination of social actions, as well as of the socio-culturally
structured material world, including computers or smartphones, pencils and papers,
streets and buildings, and so forth. All these elements are part of the ongoing orga-
nization of social interaction, the natural ecology of everyday language use. While
language has often been abstracted away from this natural ecology as a monolithic
construct, we find that such a move deprives the analyst and the field of SLA of the
possibility of understanding language in a more encompassing way as a constitutive
part of a larger ecology of action, and hence of understanding its learning as inextri-
cably intertwined with the complex organizing resources of the social world.
The purpose of this volume is twofold. We scrutinize learning in everyday mun-
dane situations by means of micro-analyses of how L2 speakers/learners act in the
world in concord with others while they accomplish social tasks and move through
time and space; and we explore ways in which such L2 speaker experiences can be
utilized for classroom purposes. We ask, for instance: What are the linguistic and
interactional tasks L2 speakers confront in the wild and what are the in-situ learning
processes and practices they observably carry out? What are the affordances that
naturally occurring social interactions offer for language learning and how do (or
can) L2 speakers, together with others, transform these affordances into mundane
infrastructures for learning, thereby actively constructing their social environments
as learning environments? What lessons can be learned from such observations for
usage-based, experiential pedagogy? How can systematic bridges be established
between the classroom and L2 speakers’ lifeworlds through methods that start from
the participants’ everyday language use experiences? Such interrogations also raise
fundamental conceptual issues: How can learning processes be reasonably under-
stood as part of the organization of action embedded in the wider multi-semiotic
ecology of diverse socio-cultural environments? And ultimately, how does the
micro-analysis of language learning in the wild affect our very understanding of
what language learning is, both as a process and as a product?
Drawing on sociologically-oriented research on language learning, the studies
presented in this volume analyze language in the first place as action and language
learning as profoundly rooted in action (cf. Firth and Wagner 2007). They see lan-
guage learning as centrally involving the ability to adapt semiotic resources for
action and constituted by the development of interactional repertoires for
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
4 S. W. Eskildsen et al.

c­ ontext-­sensitive social conduct (Pekarek Doehler and Berger 2018). Though they
all mainly put to work the conceptual and methodological apparatus of CA, their
breadth is not limited to a precise research paradigm. Rather, they all aspire, through
scrutiny of L2 speakers’ interacting in the social world, to bring us some steps fur-
ther toward a better understanding of the enormous complexity of L2 learning prod-
ucts and processes, learning environments, and learning behaviors.
The volume synthesizes recent CA studies and introduces current research that
critically examines the concept of L2 learning in the wild. The data collection meth-
ods involve video and audio recordings in contexts that range from everyday dinner
table conversations between an au pair and her host family, through L2 learners
engaging in service encounters which they record and analyze in class, to teacher-­
initiated tasks carried out outside of class, involving objects such as books and
computer-mediated technology. The data come from Danish, English, Finnish,
French, German, and Hungarian L2. While all chapters present empirical studies,
some chapters additionally outline the conceptual implications that arise from ana-
lyzing SLA and L2 competence in the wild. Others spell out the pedagogical poten-
tial for intervention, that is, for constructively bridging the gap between classroom
instruction and learning experiences outside of the classroom.
The chapters in this volume, then, each explore different aspects of the wild, the
in-situ learning that occurs in different everyday social activities as well as the peda-
gogical potential for intervention. This latter point implies that ‘wildness’ of data
may be a less binary category than previously indicated; here it has been implied to
be the antitheses to the classroom, but real life is arguably less categorical. L2
speakers can deliberately exploit the wild for learning purposes (Eskildsen and
Theodórsdóttir 2017) and classroom activities can be designed to support learning
in the wild (Eskildsen and Wagner 2015a; Lilja et al. this volume). Moreover, teach-
ers can design pedagogical tasks to be carried out in the wild ecology (Kasper and
Kim 2015; Hellermann et al. this volume), and while all these phenomena in a sense
tamper with the wild, or perhaps even tame it, they are nonetheless part of L2 learn-
ers’ lives. Therefore, the chapters in the volume explore and discuss the notion of
the wild itself as being a gradable concept; we are studying L2 language use and
learning on a ‘cline of wildness’.

2 Epistemological and Methodological Roots

Methodologically and conceptually, the chapters are all rooted in ethnomethodolog-

ical conversation analysis, as used in SLA research (CA-SLA). Introduced by
Harold Garfinkel (e.g. 1967) and emerging from sociology, ethnomethodology
(EM) is concerned with people’s achievement of social order through their methods
of accomplishing everyday actions and practices in situ and in vivo. EM thus took a
sociological micro-perspective, focusing specifically on how social order is under-
stood from the participants’ perspective (Garfinkel 2002).
Introduction: On the Complex Ecology of Language Learning ‘in the Wild’ 5

Originating from EM, CA’s objective is to explain the methods (i.e., systematic
procedures) whereby the various interactional practices that specify social order are
achieved in and through talk-in-interaction. It is important to stress, however, that
although the early CA studies were based on telephone calls, CA is no longer solely
concerned with the modality of talk but with all interactional behavior, including
embodied actions such as gesture, gaze, and body posture, as well as uses of and
orientations to configurations of space, objects, tools in the environment, etc. (cf.
Nevile 2015). Accordingly, some chapters in this volume use multimodal CA and
focus on embodied conduct.
Brief as these introductory marks must be, we emphasize two notions as crucial
to an understanding of ethnomethodological CA (Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1991;
see also Eskildsen and Majlesi 2018): (1) intersubjectivity; and (2) the next-turn
proof procedure. Intersubjectivity concerns the ongoing interactional work people
carry out to ensure a common understanding of what is currently happening in inter-
action, and CA is concerned with explicating people’s methods for achieving this.
CA’s focus, then, is on the interactional methods – people’s production and dis-
played understanding of actions in interaction – whereby people achieve shared
understanding. The next-turn proof procedure is the analytic method for scrutiniz-
ing people’s practices for achieving and maintaining intersubjectivity. It derives
from the basic CA finding that conversation consists of turns-at-talk and that these
are sequentially ordered (Sacks et al. 1974) – that is, when an action is produced, the
next relevant action is occasioned, and this next action gives meaning to the prior
one. In other words, by providing an answer to a question, or accepting an invita-
tion, or mitigating and producing an objection to a produced comment or assess-
ment (etc.), people show their understanding of what their co-participant just said,
thus ensuring the constant construction of intersubjectivity. If intersubjectivity is
challenged, people can initiate repair and work through the challenge to restore
intersubjectivity (for further detail on CA, see introductory texts such as Liddicoat
2011; Schegloff 2007; Sidnell 2010). The same analytic procedures apply in the
chapters in the volume, for example, to show participants’ orientations to word
searches and other forms of language focus (Eskildsen, Greer, Pekarek Doehler and
Berger, Wagner), public agreements of material objects made relevant in group talk
(Hellermann et al.), multimodal displays of understanding (Greer, Hellermann
et al., Kim, Lilja et al.), diversification of methods to perform assessments (Nguyen),
and on-going interactional adaptations (Pekarek Doehler and Berger, Piirainen-­
Marsh and Lilja).

3 Background in SLA

Naturalistic L2 learning (i.e., learning outside of classroom contexts) has been part
of the epistemology of SLA research for most of its history, at least since Rosansky
and Schumann (1976). Numerous studies, as well as prominent large-scale research
projects (e.g., the ESF project on adult immigrants in Europe), have drawn, entirely
6 S. W. Eskildsen et al.

or partly, on naturalistic data (Schmidt 1983; Perdue 1993; Ellis and Ferreira-Junior
2009a, b). Yet, it is only with the advent of the so-called ‘social turn in SLA’ (Block
2003) and of rigorous interaction analytic methods that approaches and research
frameworks for SLA have emerged that systematically examine learning processes
and practices as situated in the social reality and contexts of the L2 users’ everyday
world (Firth and Wagner 1997).1 Unlike the early studies, much of the work after the
social turn has used video-recorded data and methods from CA to delineate learning
as situated social action and the development of L2 interactional competence as the
focus of empirical investigation (e.g., Firth and Wagner 1997, 2007; Brouwer and
Wagner 2004; Hellermann 2008, 2011; Nguyen and Kasper 2009; Piirainen-Marsh
and Tainio 2009; Wagner 2010, 2015; Hall et al. 2011; Kasper and Wagner 2011,
2014; Pekarek Doehler 2010, 2018; Pekarek Doehler and Pochon-Berger 2011;
2015, 2018; Piirainen-Marsh 2011; Sahlström 2011; Theodórsdóttir 2011b; Achiba
2012; Hauser 2013; Kääntä et al. 2013; Burch 2014; Taguchi 2014; Barraja-Rohan
2015; Kasper and Burch 2016; Eskildsen and Theodórsdóttir 2017; Berger and
Pekarek Doehler 2018; Eskildsen and Majlesi 2018). Alongside developments in
CA-SLA, socio-cultural and socio-cognitive approaches to SLA have also estab-
lished themselves (e.g., Atkinson 2002, 2011; van Lier 2004; Watson-Gegeo 2004;
Lantolf and Thorne 2006; Lantolf 2011; van Compernolle 2015; Thorne and
Hellermann 2015; The Douglas Fir Group 2016), as have second language social-
ization studies (e.g. Kanagy 1999; Zuengler and Cole 2005; Cekaite 2007; Duff and
Talmy 2011; Anya 2017), identity theory in SLA (e.g., Norton 2000; Kramsch and
Whiteside 2008; Norton and McKinney 2011; Kolstrup 2015), and dynamic usage-­
based approaches to SLA focusing on the way linguistic constructions evolve
through real-world language use (Ellis and Larsen-Freeman 2006; Hall et al. 2006;
de Bot et al. 2007; Eskildsen 2012, 2015 inter alia; Ortega 2014; Roehr-Brackin
2014; Cadierno and Eskildsen 2015; Ellis 2015; Lowie and Verspoor 2015).
We mention these approaches together here because, although they differ in their
precise theoretical foundations and in the way in which they undertake empirical
work, they all share a basic understanding that language learning and the cognitive
processes that go into it are fundamentally situated in social practice; as such, any
individual learning and cognitive processes are inextricably intertwined with lan-
guage use. The breadth of the references also indicates that such perspectives on L2
learning are gaining prominence in the field to such an extent that it no longer makes
sense to speak of a somehow competing ‘mainstream SLA’ (Swain and Deters 2007;
Eskildsen and Markee 2018).
What is distinctive to the present volume is that the studies here investigate L2
learning specifically as a social process of the L2 speakers becoming members of a
community – a process that is embedded in people’s interacting with others, and

1
Going further back there were earlier attempts at opening up the field, perhaps not so much in
terms of abandoning the purely cognitive orientation, but for example to encompass bilingualism
(Ochsner 1979), situate the emergence of L2 syntax in real discourse (Hatch 1978), critically
examine theoretical constructs as literary metaphors (Schumann 1983), or redress the imbalance
between theory and practice (van Lier 1988).
Introduction: On the Complex Ecology of Language Learning ‘in the Wild’ 7

that involves the diversification and recalibration, over time, of methods of accom-
plishing social interaction (e.g. Hellermann 2008, 2011; Pekarek Doehler and
Pochon-Berger 2011, 2015, 2018; Berger and Pekarek Doehler 2018; Pekarek
Doehler 2018; see also Duff and Talmy 2011 from a language socialization perspec-
tive). While they do not neglect the import of learning linguistic resources, the stud-
ies’ focus is on generic practices for social interaction, including practices for
repairing, asking questions, listing, disagreeing, offering responses, and so on.
While they ask how people go about accomplishing these practices in their L2 as
they engage in real-world encounters, they also reflect on the consequences that
ensue for language pedagogy and teaching (cf. Wagner 2015).
As outlined above, the chapters in the volume are all indebted to CA-SLA. As
such, they are part of a larger stream of research that has, over the past two decades,
transformed SLA from using, primarily, an input-processing model (for discussions
see Markee 1994; Firth and Wagner 1997, 2007; Block 2003; Atkinson 2011;
Eskildsen 2018a), to what it is today. They draw on a distinctive understanding of
L2 learning and competence: learning behaviors are fundamentally embedded in the
social, bodily and material world, and the ensuing competence is understood as
context-sensitive and contingent upon the temporal-sequential unfolding of actions
coordinated with others.

4  earning and Competence: Conceptual Underpinnings

L
and Empirical Findings

We started from the observation that learning – at least much of it – is happening in

practice, that is, it is embedded in people’s activities conducted jointly with others
in the social and material world. As such, learning is socially displayed behavior,
complexly articulated in joint activities and subservient to participants’ understand-
ing of what they are doing conjointly with others. Through this, learning behaviors
become observable for the analysts. Importantly, although language learning behav-
iors might be most observable relating to lexical items (e.g., Greer, Eskildsen,
Pekarek Doehler and Berger this volume), what they typically target (at least out-
side of the classroom) is language-for-action, i.e. the development of linguistic
resources in and for accomplishing action as people co-establish shared communi-
cative semiotic repertories (Kasper and Burch 2016). This is paramount to how we
conceptualize the object of learning. L2 learning is not centrally about the formal
mastery of linguistic structures per se, but about appropriating and developing such
structures as resources for action – and linguistic structure, though central, is not the
sole object of such learning. While this has been stressed early on in much research
ensuing from Hymes’ (1972) seminal statement on communicative competence,
many existing studies on the pragmatic and sociolinguistic dimensions of SLA have
encountered some skepticism from researchers interested in the dynamic and
context-­sensitive nature of social interaction (e.g. Young 2000; Kasper and Rose
8 S. W. Eskildsen et al.

2002; Kasper 2006). Surprisingly, and despite Kramsch’s (1986: 367) early warning
against an “oversimplified view of human interaction”, it is only recently that SLA
research has started to tackle empirically the nature and the development of those
abilities that allow L2 speakers to specifically engage in the dynamic and context-­
sensitive coordination of social interaction. This has relevantly been captured in
CA-SLA studies on L2 development over time which have re-specified the ultimate
target of L2 learning as the development of interactional competence (Hall et al.
2011; for earlier statements, see Hall 1993, 1995; He and Young 1998). Following
Garfinkel (1967), the notion of ‘competence’ for social interaction has been concep-
tualized in terms of members’ ‘methods‘ for accomplishing and coordinating social
interaction. This has opened new avenues for understanding the products of L2
learning in ways that account for the praxeological, i.e. action-related, nature of the
learning object (L2): Competence is not in the first place understood as an individ-
ual cognitive matter; rather, it is a matter of action, pertaining to members deploying
conduct in locally appropriate ways (Hellermann 2011; Pekarek Doehler and
Pochon-Berger 2011, 2018; for the notion of competence-in-action see Pekarek
Doehler 2010).
Existing studies (for overviews see Kasper and Wagner 2014; Pekarek Doehler
and Pochon-Berger 2015; Pekarek Doehler 2018) illustrate the development of
interactional competence within different organizational domains of social interac-
tion: turn-taking (Cekaite 2007), sequence organization (Hellermann 2008; Pekarek
Doehler and Berger 2018; Berger and Pekarek Doehler 2018), repair organization
(Hellermann 2011), and preference organization (Pekarek Doehler and Pochon-­
Berger 2011). Much of this work, though, has focused on the language classroom.
For instance, in her case-study of a Kurdish child’s turn-taking in a Swedish primary
school, Cekaite (2007) documents the child’s use of more and more subtle tech-
niques for self-selecting at sequentially appropriate moments, as part of her devel-
oping L2 interactional competence. In his seminal work on dyadic interactions in
ESL classrooms involving adult learners, Hellermann (2008) examines how stu-
dents, over several terms, change their practices for opening dyadic tasks or disen-
gaging from these, and for opening storytellings (see below): task-openings, for
instance, are increasingly sequentially organized and designed in ways to be recog-
nized and accepted by recipients, involving, among other things, increased pre-task
opening work. In a cross-sectional study on disagreements in French L2 classrooms,
Pekarek Doehler and Pochon-Berger (2011) compare intermediate level to advanced
students, showing how with the advanced L2 speakers turn-designs emerge (such as
the ‘yes-but’ dispreferred action turn-shape) that accommodate the preference orga-
nization of talk-in-interaction, as well as new uses of linguistic resources for accom-
plishing precise interactional purposes. Similarly, other longitudinal
linguistically-semiotically oriented CA-research has shown how people develop
their interactional competence with respect to particular words and other lexically
specific items in and for an increasing variety of interactional contexts and purposes
(Markee 2008; Kim 2009; Eskildsen 2011, 2018b; Masuda 2011; Hauser 2013;
Eskildsen and Wagner 2015b, 2018a, Pekarek Doehler 2018).
Introduction: On the Complex Ecology of Language Learning ‘in the Wild’ 9

Overall, existing findings suggest that interactional competence is not simply

‘transferred’ from the first language but is ‘re-calibrated’ (Pekarek Doehler and
Pochon-Berger 2015) in L2 talk over extended periods of time. This re-calibration
entails an increased ability for context-sensitive conduct based on speakers’ pro-
gressive diversification of methods for action (Hellermann 2011; Pekarek Doehler
and Berger 2015, 2018; Berger and Pekarek Doehler 2018; see also Brouwer and
Wagner 2004; Markee 2008), which is inextricably intertwined with their becoming
more central participants (members) in the communities in which they interact.
Noteworthy is the fact that the existing research is almost exclusively concerned
with educational settings, mostly classrooms (but see Brouwer and Wagner 2004;
Piirainen-Marsh and Tainio 2009; Ishida 2011; Pekarek Doehler and Berger 2015,
2018; Berger and Pekarek Doehler 2018). Little is yet known about L2 interactional
development ‘in the wild’. The few existing studies on particularly advanced L2
speakers in the wild provide empirical evidence for the fact that despite their solid
mastery of linguistic forms, there is still much that develops in terms of the practices
participants deploy for dealing with basic organizational patterns of social interac-
tion and the way they use language to do so (cf. Brouwer and Wagner 2004 on busi-
ness telephone conversations; Pekarek Doehler and Berger 2018; Berger and
Pekarek Doehler 2018 on au-pairs in a homestay context). Interestingly, and most
relevantly for the present volume, the facets of interactional competence that have
so far been highlighted as objects of recalibration in an L2 are often those that evade
structured instruction: practices for disagreement, sequence organization or turn-­
taking or even the fundamental view of ‘language’ as a semiotic repertoire for social
action are typically not a target of any official language pedagogy. There are many
reasons for this, including lack of CA expertise among teachers, but work is accu-
mulating toward principled ways of organizing L2 teaching around CA and interac-
tional competence (Hall 2018; Waring 2018; Salaberry and Kunitz 2019). The
present volume adds to this body of work by providing insights into how L2 speak-
ers’ experiences from the wild can reshape classroom agendas. We argue that
extending SLA research toward analysis of L2 learning as situated in people’s being
and acting in the world can inform language pedagogies in various ways.

5 Towards a Usage-Based, Experiential Pedagogy

Classrooms have received a lot of attention in research, so much that part of Firth
and Wagner’s (1997) argument was to broaden the SLA database to include more
than classroom data. While this is still a valid point that we also pursue here, class-
rooms are just as varied as language teaching methods. Classroom interaction is
designed to be varied exactly for the purpose of enabling different kinds of peda-
gogical practice and offering opportunities for different ways of learning. A great
deal of CA research since 2000 has shown the diversity of interaction in classrooms
(see, among others, Markee 2000; Koshik 2002; Markee and Kasper 2004;
Seedhouse 2004; Mori 2002, 2004; Sert 2015). This book’s companion volume,
10 S. W. Eskildsen et al.

edited by Silvia Kunitz, Olcay Sert, and Numa Markee (forthcoming) is a current
state-of-the art presentation of research in this tradition. The immense breadth of the
chapters in Markee’s (2015) volume on classroom discourse and interaction further
attests to the variety of classrooms as interactional environments, showcasing how
classrooms are viewed differently across perspectives including cognitivist, socio-­
cultural, and conversation analytic standpoints.
Our volume builds on the growing attention paid to the coordination of epis-
temic, multilingual, and multimodal resources in the organization of tasks and peda-
gogical practices (Mori and Hayashi 2006; Mortensen 2009; Kääntä 2010; Kääntä
and Piirainen-Marsh 2013; Jakonen and Morton 2015; Sert 2015) as well as to
implications for teacher training (Sert 2015; Wong and Waring 2010; Walsh 2012;
Kunitz et al. forthcoming), and to the teaching and testing of interactional skills
(Lazaraton 2002; Roever and Kasper 2018; Taguchi and Roever 2017; Youn 2015).
What has by contrast not been closely scrutinized is how to bring CA findings to
bear on designs that integrate out-of-school interactional experiences into the peda-
gogical setup within the school (Wagner 2015).
Although uses of L2 learners’ living environment have been explored for L2
teaching in the past (e.g., Nunan 1989; Pickard 1995, 1996; Beglar and Hunt 2002;
Hyland 2004; Little 2007; Allwright and Hanks 2009; van den Branden 2012;
Dewey et al. 2013; Hinkel 2014; Eskildsen and Wagner 2015a, 2018b; McLeod
2017; Pedersen 2018), they are largely singular practices that build on excursions
out of the classroom and into society and/or aim to enhance and support learner
autonomy, and they have not inspired lasting, widespread changes of generic teach-
ing practices. As a consequence, language is too often distilled and abstracted away
from its natural habitat in the world and reproduced in more or less unauthentic
ways in teaching materials for language classroom use (cf. Wong 2002). This means
that the version of the language that people encounter there and are expected to
learn and use is not always in alignment with their interests and needs or with the
varieties and practices that they encounter outside of such educational contexts. The
present collection of chapters takes the viewpoint that, contrary to earlier assump-
tions according to which informal conversation is not a good source for language
learning (Long 1996), everyday practices are, in fact, rich L2 in learning opportuni-
ties (e.g., de Pietro et al. 1989; Brouwer 2003; Egbert 2004; Egbert et al. 2004;
Brouwer and Wagner 2004; Kurhila 2006; Wagner 2010; Theodórsdóttir 2011a, b,
2018; Theodórsdóttir and Eskildsen 2011; Greer 2013; Lilja 2014; Piirainen-­Marsh
and Tainio 2014; Kasper and Burch 2016; Eskildsen and Theodórsdóttir 2017;
Eskildsen 2018a). There is ample evidence in this research showing not only that
language learning activities are embedded in everyday life interactions, but also that
L2 speakers actively engage in learning behaviors, creating spaces for doing learn-
ing, establishing and sustaining pedagogical contracts, soliciting co-­participants’
help, displaying formulations as tentative, and thereby continually checking their
linguistic resources in use and the actions they accomplish therewith against what
others do and how they react to it. And they do so not with regard to linguistic struc-
tures ‘in the abstract’, but with regard to exactly those resources that are made
Introduction: On the Complex Ecology of Language Learning ‘in the Wild’ 11

locally relevant moment-by-moment, in the very course of the precise social inter-
action L2 speakers engage in.2
Pedagogically, then, the chapters in this volume aim to flip the coin: the class-
room becomes a place of recollection, reflection and elaborated focus on what has
happened or is happening in the world. We do away with the assumption that people
practice to learn language in controlled environments first, and are then released to
go out and use it later. Rather, language use in social encounters and language learn-
ing are two sides of the same coin that is L2 socialization: learning happens through
ongoing socialization in the world (see Pekarek Doehler and Berger, this volume),
and classrooms can be fitted and configured so as to support and scaffold this
process.
One of this book’s raisons d’être is to explore possibilities to offer new forms of
usage-based L2 pedagogies based on socialization and people’s real-life needs in
everyday and work-related practices. This move is motivated, as outlined above, by
a view of language as a situated, locally contextualized, embodied semiotic resource
for social action and a view of L2 learning that is fundamentally usage-driven and
experiential. The volume explores these views of language and learning empirically
and, on that basis, proposes ways of developing and implementing usage-based L2
pedagogies.
To further increase out-of-class learning opportunities, pedagogical tasks can be
designed to be carried out in the wild ecology (Kasper and Kim 2015; Hellermann
et al. this volume; Eskildsen 2018a), arrangements can be made to build bridges
between the classroom and local communities and classroom de-briefing activities
can be designed to facilitate reflection and post festum analysis of out-of-classroom
experiences (Wagner 2015; Lilja et al. this volume). Foundational to the attempt to
bridge the gap between language pedagogy and the learners’ lifeworld, two
Scandinavian initiatives, Språkskap in Sweden and The Icelandic Village, designed
ways for newcomers to interact with locals in business encounters and everyday
interaction (Clark et al. 2011; Wagner 2015).
The Icelandic Village is based on agreements made by the University of Iceland
with local business operators in Reykjavik affording students of Icelandic the oppor-
tunity to come in to participating stores, cafés and other businesses to use their
incipient L2 Icelandic for real purposes without the local co-participants switching
to English. In Sweden a network of teachers, learners, researchers, and interaction
designers developed a scheme to support Swedish L2 learning in everyday interac-
tions by mapping out the actual L2 speakers’ arenas for language use and setting up
spaces for reflecting on the social and linguistic resources used by the L2 speakers
to achieve their goals (Clark and Lindemalm 2011). Several chapters (Lilja et al.,
Piirainen-Marsh and Lilja, Eskildsen, Wagner) in this book directly draw on, sub-
stantiate and build theory on the basis of these initiatives. They also propose infra-
structures for language learning as mentioned above as the central element in the

2
It is important to stress that this argument is in line with usage-based studies demonstrating that
language emerges from use in particular contexts (Ellis 2002, 2015; Ellis and Cadierno 2009;
Eskildsen 2011, 2012, inter alia).
12 S. W. Eskildsen et al.

learning and teaching of a second language and discuss how to build similar social
infrastructures in other places.

6 Contributions to This Volume

The chapters in this volume each explore different aspects of the wild, focusing
either on the in-situ learning that occurs outside instructed L2 environments, or on
the outcomes of such learning as regards L2 speaker’s interactional competence.
They extend the already substantial body of research on language learning as situ-
ated social activity by (1) tracing L2 speakers’ language use, learning potentials,
processes and outcomes in diverse socio-material environments, (2) spelling out the
conceptual implications that arise for our understanding of L2 learning and compe-
tence, and (3) discussing how learners’ experiences of interactions in their lifeworld
can be made relevant, nurtured and harvested (Wagner 2015) in the language
classroom.
Chapters in Part I trace the development of interactional competence in the wild,
as it is observable in changes in specific interactional practices over time. They open
a window onto both the affordances and possible limits of language learning in
everyday social situations.
Pekarek Doehler and Berger present a longitudinal case-study of how an adult
French L2 speaker expands her repertoire for doing word searches over the course
of her 10-month employment as an au-pair in a French speaking host family. While
the authors document changes in language practices for word searches including the
incorporation of the phrase comment on dit, they also point out how these changes
occur within the context of the naturally-changing relationship between Julie and
the host family.
Nguyen also reports on a longitudinal case study. In this investigation of turn
design, an L2 user of English (a hotel employee in Vietnam) is seen to develop a
wider repertoire of interactional practices for small talk. The employee does not
engage, primarily, in service encounters with guests but is tasked with making inter-
national guests “feel welcome” by escorting them to their rooms and talking to
them. Nguyen outlines changes in the employee’s practices for assessments and
topic pursuit during these interactions.
Kim revisits the SLA notion of fossilization as a pervasive feature of naturalistic
L2 settings. Drawing on videorecordings of service encounters involving a Korean
speaking shop owner in Hawaii with limited proficiency in L2 English, he describes
how a routine sequence (informing customers about payment policy) is conducted
multimodally relying on participants’ previous knowledge and features of the envi-
ronment. Longitudinal analysis of repair sequences shows “how embodied L2 use is
reflexively tied to the stability of a non-targetlike routine practice in the wild”.
In Part II the focus is on learning behaviors: the in-situ practices that L2 speakers
use to show orientation to learning and accomplish learning. Building on the view
of learning as occasioned and achieved through public sense-making procedures,
Introduction: On the Complex Ecology of Language Learning ‘in the Wild’ 13

the chapters describe a range of methods through which L2 learners actively config-
ure out-of-classroom situations as learning environments.
Eskildsen presents a collection of such methods used by learners of Danish in
everyday interactions in out-of-classroom settings. He catalogs the methods of
noticing and using new words in word searches, making explicit use of an expert,
and re-indexing previously learned items. These behaviors are shown to be empiri-
cal evidence of the foundational, moment-by-moment ‘usage’ of usage-based theo-
retical explanations of SLA.
Greer describes learning activity in two distinct everyday settings: dinner talk
between a Japanese student and his American host family and interaction between a
Japanese hairdresser and non-Japanese clients. The focus is on instances of L2
interaction in which participants pay attention to and orient to learning new lexical
items. He describes how noticings of a novel lexical item can lead to further talk that
is similar to language classroom practices, including explanations, alternative for-
mulations and repair; sometimes also explicit noticing of learning itself.
Part III explores the connections between real-life social activities and teaching
practices that can support learning outside the classroom.
Like Wagner (2015, pp. 76–77), several chapters in this volume argue for a
reflexive relationship between classrooms and the wild. Classrooms have a central
role in nurturing the process of transforming language use experiences into learn-
ing. Through participants’ observations and self-recordings, some of these experi-
ences are brought back into the classroom for reflection and teaching purposes
(Thorne 2013; Lilja and Piirainen-Marsh 2019; Eskildsen and Wagner 2015a;
Wagner 2015), while others are scrutinized as to the complementary opportunities
for learning they offer with regard to classroom instruction.
The chapter by Piirainen-Marsh and Lilja investigates how experientially based
pedagogical activities that involve participation in real life service encounters pro-
vide occasions for developing L2 interactional competence. Drawing on students’
self-recorded interactions in service settings and videorecordings of classroom
planning activities and de-briefing discussions, it examines what kinds of occasions
for learning arise as the students move between the classroom and the real-world
service settings. The findings show that the different phases of the task complement
each other in supporting the development of interactional competence.
Hellermann, Thorne and Haley investigate how small groups draw on multiple
environmental resources and the physical environment in their activities while playing
an augmented reality game. They describe “improvisatory, collaborative actions and
language formulations that are made relevant by the rich and diverse sensory semiotic
resources available to participants walking through the environment”. The findings
suggest that the underspecified task fosters participants’ consistent use of a particu-
larly salient, built environmental object as a raw material for the task. They also show
ways that movement through the environment in small groups provides affordances
for language learning that may not be available inside the classroom walls.
The chapter by Lilja et al. introduces a radically student-centered course for
teaching Finnish as a second language and discusses how a CA-inspired
experientially-­based approach to language teaching can sensitize learners to social
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
14 S. W. Eskildsen et al.

interactions outside the classroom, widen their opportunities for interaction and
support the socialisation process. The chapter describes tangible materials and ped-
agogical activities designed to support language practice outside the classroom and
ways in which retrospective reflection and analysis of out-of-classroom experiences
create opportunities for learning. It also illustrates how design solutions can support
L2 speakers’ participation in interaction in their lifeworlds.
The chapter by Wagner serves as an epilogue to the entire volume as it discusses,
more broadly, the main conceptual issues addressed in the book such as the relation-
ship between contexts for language learning and the content of instruction and
learning. He presents an argument for an ethnomethodological and sociological per-
spective on learning that the chapters in the volume align with. Wagner argues that
this perspective on learning is the foundation of a new kind of experiential peda-
gogy that puts the myriad of social encounters that people living in a L2 society
participate in at the center of studies of language learning.
The chapters in this part of the volume thus contribute to socializing L2 peda-
gogy by bringing the L2 learners and their learning out of the classroom and into the
L2 community. Some of them explore innovative reconfigurations of activities and
local communities that encourage people to build L2 learning spaces in the wild
(Kääntä et al. 2013; Eskildsen and Theodórsdóttir 2017). This reconfiguration
equals a development of social infrastructures that enable newcomers to participate
in the surrounding community without fear of being misunderstood or not being
able to understand. Instead, newcomers will engage with locals to carry out their
business (e.g., buying groceries, joining sports clubs, becoming library users etc.) in
the local language under the agreement that the locals are cooperative and support-
ive (Wagner 2015). Such infrastructures need building through reconfiguration of
local communities by engaging locals in the process, but it essentially remains the
task of the newcomers to maintain and develop the infrastructure – and using it to
form longer relations to locals (e.g., through sports club memberships or at work
places).

References

Achiba, M. (2012). Development of interactional competence. Changes in participation over cook-

ing sessions. Pragmatics and Society, 3(1), 1–30.
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner – An introduction to explor-
atory practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Anya, U. (2017). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking blackness in Brazil.
New York: Routledge.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The
Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525–545.
Atkinson, D. (Ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. New York:
Routledge.
Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2015). "I told you": Storytelling development of a Japanese learning
English as a second language. In T. Cadierno & S. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives
on second language learning (pp. 271–304). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Introduction: On the Complex Ecology of Language Learning ‘in the Wild’ 15

Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002). Implementing task-based language teaching. In J. C. Richards &
W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice
(pp. 96–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Berger, E., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Tracking change over time in second language talk-­
in-­interaction: A longitudinal case study of storytelling practices. In S. Pekarek Doehler,
J. Wagner, & E. González-Martínez (Eds.), Longitudinal studies on the organization of social
interaction (pp. 67–102). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language learn-
ing? Modern Language Journal, 87, 534–545.
Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation.
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 29–47.
Burch, R. A. (2014). Pursuing information. A conversation analytic perspective on communication
strategies. Language Learning, 64(3), 651–684.
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language
learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 91, 45–62.
Clark, B., & Lindemalm, K. (2011). Språkskap—Swedish as a social language. Stockholm:
Ergonomidesign, Folkeuniversitetet and Interactive Institute.
Clark, B., Wagner, J., Lindemalm, K., & Bendt, O. (2011). Språkskap: Supporting second lan-
guage learning ‘in the wild.’ INCLUDE 11. International conference on inclusive design pro-
ceedings. Royal College of Art. http://include11.kinetixevents.co.uk/rca/rca2011/paper_final/
F514_1578.PDF. Accessed 8 Jan 2019.
Cole, M., Engström, Y., & Salomon, G. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cogni-
tion. In Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. H. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second
language acquisition. Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21.
de Pietro, J.-F., Matthey, M., & Py, B. (1989). Acquisition et contrat didactique: les sequences
potentiellement acquisitionnelles de la conversation exolingue. In D. Weil & H. Fugier (Eds.),
Actes du Troisième Colloque Régional de Linguistique (pp. 99–124). Strasbourg: Université
des Sciences Humaines et Université Louis Pasteur.
Dewey, D. P., Belnap, R. K., & Hillstrom, R. (2013). Social network development, language
use, and language acquisition during study abroad: Arabic language learners’ perspectives.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 22, 84–110.
Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition.
In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116).
New York: Taylor & Francis.
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
Egbert, M. (2004). Other-initiated repair and membership categorization—Some conversational
events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics,
36, 1467–1498.
Egbert, M., Niebecker, L., & Rezarra, S. (2004). Inside first and second language speakers’ trouble
in understanding. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 178–
200). London: Continuum.
Ellis, N. C. (2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno & S. W.
Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 49–74). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Construction learning as a function of frequency, fre-
quency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385.
16 S. W. Eskildsen et al.

Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009b). Constructions and their acquisition. Islands and the
distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguis-
tics. Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589.
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language. Introduction to the special
section. Annual review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2011). The L2 inventory in action: Conversation analysis and usage-based
linguistics in SLA. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice:
­Conversation-­analytic perspectives (pp. 337–373). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National
Foreign Language Resource Center.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). Negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning
of English questions. Language Learning, 65(1), 33–62.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2018a). “We’re learning a lot of new words”: Encountering new L2 vocabulary
outside of class. The Modern Language Journal, 102(Supplement), 46–63.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2018b). L2 constructions and interactional competence: Subordination and coor-
dination in English L2 learning. In A. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cogni-
tive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp. 61–96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Majlesi, A. R. (2018). Learnables and teachables in second language talk:
Advancing a social reconceptualization of central SLA tenets. Introduction to the special issue.
The Modern Language Journal, 102(Supplement), 3–10.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Markee, N. (2018). L2 talk as social accomplishment. In R. Alonso Alonso
(Ed.), Speaking in a second language (pp. 69–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Theodórsdóttir, G. (2017). Constructing L2 learning spaces: Ways to achieve
learning inside and outside the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 148–164.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015a). Sprogsbrugsbaseret læring i en tosproget hverdag [Usage-
based learning in everyday bilingual practice]. Nydanske Sprogstudier [Studies in Modern
Danish], 48, 71–104.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015b). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning,
65(2), 419–448.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2018a). From trouble in the talk to new resources – The interplay
of bodily and linguistic resources in the talk of a speaker of English as a second language. In
S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Wagner, & E. González-Martínez (Eds.), Longitudinal studies on the
organization of social interaction (pp. 143–171). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2018b). “Language learning in the wild” som praksisorienteret
sprogundervisning [“Language learning in the wild” as practice-oriented language teaching].
Sprogforum, 66, 62–70.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in
SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a locial accomplishment:
Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 757–772.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program. Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lantham:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Greer, T. (2013). Word search sequences in bilingual interaction: Codeswitching and embodied
orientation toward shifting participant constellations. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 100–117.
Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The
sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language.
Applied Linguistics, 14, 145–166.
Hall, J. K. (1995). Aw, man, where we goin?’: Classroom interaction and the development of L2
interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 37–62.
Introduction: On the Complex Ecology of Language Learning ‘in the Wild’ 17

Hall, J. K. (2018). From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires:

Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25–39.
Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and devel-
opment. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory
of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 220–240.
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley: Newbury House.
Hauser, E. (2013). Stability and change in one adult’s second language English negation. Language
Learning, 63(3), 463–498.
He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In
R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of
oral proficiency (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Hellermann, J. (2011). Members’ methods, members’ competencies: Looking for evidence
of language learning in longitudinal investigations of other-initiated repair. In J. K. Hall,
J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development
(pp. 147–172). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hinkel, E. (2014). Culture and pragmatics in language teaching and learning. In M. Celce-Murcia,
D. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 394–
408). Boston: National Geographic Learning.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualizing out-of-class English language learn-
ing. Language Awareness, 13(3), 180–202.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). New York: Viking.
Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-
based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94.
Kääntä, L. (2010). Teacher turn allocation and repair practices in classroom interaction. A multi-
semiotic perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Jyväskylä.
Kääntä, L., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2013). Manual guiding in peer group interaction: A resource
for organizing a practical classroom task. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4),
322–343.
Kääntä, L., Jauni, H., Leppänen, S., Peuronen, S., & Paakkinen, T. (2013). Learning English
through social interaction: The case of Big Brother 2006, Finland. The Modern Language
Journal, 97(2), 340–359.
Kanagy, R. (1999). Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and socialization in
an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1467–1492.
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review,
19, 83–99.
Kasper, G., & Burch, R. A. (2016). Orienting to focus on form in the wild. In R. A. van Compernolle
& J. McGregor (Eds.), Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts
(pp. 198–232). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kasper, G., & Kim, Y. (2015). Conversations-for-learning: Institutional talk beyond the classroom.
In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 390–408).
New York: Routledge.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language
Learning, 52(Supplement 1), 1–351.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition.
In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142).
New York: Routledge.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 34, 171–212.
18 S. W. Eskildsen et al.

Kim, Y. (2009). The Korean discourse markers -nuntey and kuntey in native-nonnative conversa-
tion: An acquisitional perspective. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction:
Multilingual perspectives (pp. 317–350). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource
Center.
Kolstrup, K. L. (2015). Opportunities to speak. A qualitative study of a second language in use.
PhD dissertation. University of Groningen.
Koshik, I. (2002). Alternative questions in pedagogical error correction sequences. Research on
Language in Social Interaction, 35, 277–309.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. Modern Language
Journal, 70(4), 366–372.
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a theory
of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 645–671.
Kunitz, S., Sert, O., & Markee, N. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Emerging issues in classroom discourse
and interaction: Theoretical and applied CA perspectives on pedagogy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kurhila, S. (2006). Second language interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). Sociocultural theory. A dialectical approach to L2 research. In S. M. Gass
& A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57–72). New York:
Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Liddicoat, A. (2011). An introduction to conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Lilja, N. (2014). Partial repetitions as other-initiations of repair in second language talk:
Re-establishing understanding and doing learning. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 98–116.
Lilja, N., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2019). Connecting the language classroom and the wild:
Re-enactments of language use experiences. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 594–623.
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 14–29.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468).
San Diego: Academic.
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders:
A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65(1), 63–88.
Markee, N. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second-language acqui-
sition studies. In E. Tarone, S. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-­
language acquisition (pp. 89–116). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah: Larence Erlbaum.
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied
Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427.
Markee, N. (Ed.). (2015). Handbook of classroom interaction. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language
Journal, 88, 491–500.
Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese 31
language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4),
519–540.
Maynard, D. W., & Clayman, S. E. (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of
Sociology, 17, 385–418.
McLeod, A. K. (2017). Service learning and community engagement for English classes. English
Teaching Forum, 55, 20–27.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
sus visitas, para que corresponda agradecida á su insolente amor?
D. Gregorio.—No, hija mía. Te quiero yo mucho para hacer tales
recomendaciones; pero este santo varón toma á juguete cuanto yo
le digo, y piensa que le engaño, cuando le aseguro que tú no le
puedes ver, y que á mí me quieres, que me adoras. No hay forma de
persuadirle. Con que te le traigo aquí para que tú misma se lo digas,
ya que es tan presumido ó tan cabezudo que no quiere entenderlo.
D.ª Rosa.—Pues ¿no le he manifestado á usted ya cuál es mi
deseo, que todavía se atreve á dudar? ¿De qué manera debo
decírselo?
D. Enrique.—Bastante ha sido para sorprenderme, señorita,
cuanto el vecino me ha dicho de parte de usted, y no puedo negar la
dificultad que he tenido en creerlo. Un fallo tan inesperado que
decide la suerte de mi amor, es para mí de tal consecuencia, que no
debe maravillar á nadie el deseo que tengo de que usted le
pronuncie delante de mí.
D.ª Rosa.—Cuanto el señor le ha dicho á usted ha sido por
instancias mías, y no ha hecho en esto otra cosa que manifestarle á
usted los íntimos afectos de mi corazón.
D. Gregorio.—¿Lo ve usted?
D.ª Rosa.—Mi elección es tan honrada, tan justa, que no hallo
motivo alguno que pueda obligarme á disimularla. De dos personas
que miro presentes, la una es el objeto de todo mi cariño, la otra me
inspira una repugnancia que no puedo vencer. Pero...
D. Gregorio.—¿Lo ve usted?
D.ª Rosa.—Pero es tiempo ya de que se acaben las inquietudes
que padezco. Es tiempo ya de que unida en matrimonio con el que
es el único dueño de la vida mía, pierda el que aborrezco sus mal
fundadas esperanzas, y sin dar lugar á nuevas dilaciones, me vea yo
libre de un suplicio más insoportable que la misma muerte.
 D. Gregorio.—¿Lo ve usted?... Sí, monita, sí; yo cuidaré de cumplir
tus deseos.
D.ª Rosa.—No hay otro medio de que yo viva contenta.
(Manifiesta en la expresión de sus palabras que las dirige á don
Enrique, y en sus acciones que habla con don Gregorio.)
D. Gregorio.—Dentro de muy poco lo estarás.
D.ª Rosa.—Bien advierto que no pertenece á mi estado el hablar
con tanta libertad...
D. Gregorio.—No hay mal en eso.
D.ª Rosa.—Pero en mi situación bien puede disimularse, que use
de alguna franqueza con el que ya considero como esposo mío.
D. Gregorio.—Sí, pobrecita mía... Sí, morenilla de mi alma.
D.ª Rosa.—Y que le pida encarecidamente, si no desprecia un
amor tan fino, que acelere las diligencias de unión.
D. Gregorio.—Ven aquí, perlita; (Abraza á doña Rosa; ella
extiende la mano izquierda, y don Enrique, que está detrás de don
Gregorio, se la besa afectuosamente, y se retira al instante)
consuelo mío, ven aquí, que yo te prometo no dilatar tu dicha...
Vamos, no te me angusties; calla, que... Amigo (Volviéndose muy
satisfecho á hablar á don Enrique) ya lo ve usted. Me quiere, ¿qué le
hemos de hacer?
D. Enrique.—Bien está, señora; usted se ha explicado bastante, y
yo la juro por quien soy, que dentro de poco se verá libre de un
hombre que no ha tenido la fortuna de agradarla.
D.ª Rosa.—No puede usted hacerme favor más grande, porque su
vista es intolerable para mí. Tal es el horror, el tedio que me causa,
que...
D. Gregorio.—Vaya, vamos, que eso es demasiado.
D.ª Rosa.—¿Le ofendo á usted en decir esto?
 D. Gregorio.—No por cierto... ¡Válgame Dios! No es eso, sino que
también da lástima verle sopetear de esa manera... Una aversión tan
excesiva...
D.ª Rosa.—Por mucha que le manifieste, mayor se la tengo.
D. Enrique.—Usted quedará servida, señora doña Rosa. Dentro de
dos ó tres días, á más tardar, desaparecerá de sus ojos de usted una
persona que tanto la ofende.
D.ª Rosa.—Vaya usted con Dios, y cumpla su palabra.
D. Gregorio.—Señor vecino, yo lo siento de veras, y no quisiera
haberle dado á usted este mal rato; pero...
D. Enrique.—No, no crea usted que yo lleve el menor
resentimiento; al contrario, conozco que la señorita procede con
mucha prudencia, atendido el mérito de entrambos. Á mí me toca
sólo callar, y cumplir cuanto antes me sea posible lo que acabo de
prometerla. Señor don Gregorio, me repito á la disposición de usted.
D. Gregorio.—Vaya usted con Dios.
D. Enrique.—Vamos pronto de aquí, Cosme, que reviento de risa.
(Retirándose hacia su casa, entran en ella los dos, y se cierra la
puerta.)

ESCENA XI.
DON GREGORIO, DOÑA ROSA.

D. Gregorio.—De veras te digo, que este hombre me da

compasión.
D.ª Rosa.—Ande usted, que no merece tanta como usted piensa.
D. Gregorio.—Por lo demás, hija mía, es mucho lo que me lisonjea
tu amor, y quiero darle toda la recompensa que merece. Seis ú ocho
días son demasiado término para tu impaciencia. Mañana mismo
quedaremos casados, y...
D.ª Rosa (turbada).—¿Mañana?
D. Gregorio.—Sin falta ninguna... Ya veo á lo que te obliga el
pudor, pobrecilla; y haces como que repugnas lo que estás
deseando. ¿Te parece que no lo conozco?
D.ª Rosa.—Pero...
D. Gregorio.—Sí, amiguita, mañana serás mi mujer. Ahora mismo
voy antes que oscurezca aquí á casa de don Simplicio el escribano,
para que esté avisado y no haya dilación. Adios, hechicera.
(Don Gregorio se va por una calle. Doña Rosa entra en su casa y
cierra.)
D.ª Rosa.—¡Infeliz de mí! ¿Qué haré para evitar este golpe?
 ACTO III.

ESCENA PRIMERA.
DOÑA ROSA, DON GREGORIO.

(La escena es de noche. Doña Rosa sale de su casa, manifestando el

estado de incertidumbre y agitación que denota el diálogo.)
D.ª Rosa.—No hay otro medio... Si me detengo un instante,
vuelve, pierdo la ocasión de mi libertad, y mañana... No... primero
morir. Declarándoselo todo á mi hermana y á don Manuel,
pidiéndoles amparo, consejo... Es imposible que me abandonen.
Desde su casa avisaré á mi amante, y él dispondrá cuanto fuere
menester, sin que mi decoro padezca... (Don Gregorio sale por una
calle á tiempo que doña Rosa se encamina á casa de su hermana; se
detiene, y al conocerle duda lo que ha de hacer.) Vamos, pero...
Gente viene... Y es él... ¡Desdichada! ¡Todo se ha perdido!
D. Gregorio.—¿Quién está ahí, eh? ¡Calle! ¡Rosita! ¿Pues cómo?
¿Qué novedad es esta?
D.ª Rosa.—¿Qué le diré?
D. Gregorio.—¿Qué haces aquí, niña?
D.ª Rosa.—Usted lo extrañará.
(Indica en la expresión de sus palabras que va previniendo la ficción
con que trata de disculparse.)
D. Gregorio.—¿Pues no he de extrañarlo? ¿Qué ha sucedido?
Habla.
 D.ª Rosa.—Estoy tan confusa y...
D. Gregorio.—Vamos, no me tengas en esta inquietud. ¿Qué ha
sido?
D.ª Rosa.—¿Se enfadará usted si le digo?...
D. Gregorio.—No me enfadaré. Dilo presto. Vamos.
D.ª Rosa.—Sí, precisamente se va usted á enojar, pero... Pues
tenemos una huéspeda.
D. Gregorio.—¿Quién?
D.ª Rosa.—Mi hermana.
D. Gregorio.—¿Cómo?
D.ª Rosa.—Sí, señor, en mi cuarto la dejo encerrada con llave para
que no nos dé una pesadumbre. Yo iba á llamar á doña Ceferina, la
viuda del pintor, á fin de suplicarla que me hiciera el gusto de
venirse á dormir esta noche á casa, porque al cabo, estando ella
conmigo... como es una mujer de tanto juicio, y...
D. Gregorio.—Pero ¿qué enredo es este, señor, que hasta ahora,
lléveme el diablo, si yo he podido entender cosa ninguna?... ¿Á qué
ha venido tu hermana?
D.ª Rosa.—Ha venido... Mire usted, le voy á revelar un secreto
que le va á dejar aturdido... Pero no se ha de enfadar usted, ¿no?
D. Gregorio.—¡Dale!... ¿Lo quieres decir ó tratas de que me
desespere? ¿Á qué ha venido tu hermana?
D.ª Rosa.—Yo se lo diré á usted... Mi hermana está enamorada de
don Enrique.
D. Gregorio.—¿Ahora tenemos eso?
D.ª Rosa.—Sí, señor. Hace más de un año que se quieren, y cuasi
el mismo tiempo que se han dado palabra de matrimonio. Por esto
fué la mudanza desde la calle de Silva á la plazuela de Afligidos,
pretextando Leonor que quería vivir cerca de mi casa, no siendo otro
el motivo que el de parecerla muy acomodado este barrio desierto,
adonde también se mudó inmediatamente don Enrique, para tener
más ocasión de verle y hablarle, aprovechándose de la libertad que
siempre la ha dado el bueno de don Manuel.
D. Gregorio.—Pero este don Enrique ó don demonio, ¿á cuántas
quiere? ¡Si yo estoy lelo!
D.ª Rosa.—Yo le diré á usted. Continuaron estos amores hasta que
don Enrique, celoso de un don Antonio de Escobar, oficial de la
secretaría de Guerra, con quien la vió una tarde en el jardín
botánico, la envió un papel de despedida lleno de expresiones
amargas; y desde entonces no ha querido volverla á ver. Parecióle
conveniente además pagar con celos que él la diese, los que le había
causado el tal don Antonio; y desde entonces dió en seguirme
adonde quiera que fuese, y hacerme cortesías, y rondar la casa,
todo sin duda para que mi hermana lo supiera y rabiase de envidia.
Yo, que ignoraba esto, bien advertí las insinuaciones de don Enrique;
pero me propuse callar y despreciarle, hasta que informada esta
tarde de todo por lo que me dijo Leonor (la cual vino á hablarme
muy sentida, creyendo que yo fuese capaz de corresponder á ese
trasto), resolví decirle á usted lo que á mí me pasaba, omitiendo
todo lo demás, para que la estimación de mi hermana no
padeciese... ¿Qué hubiera usted hecho en este apuro? ¿No hubiera
usted hecho lo mismo?
D. Gregorio.—Conque... Adelante.
D.ª Rosa.—Pues como yo la dijese á Leonor que inmediatamente
haría saber al dichoso don Enrique, por medio de usted, cuánto me
desagradaba su mal término, se desconsoló, lloró, me suplicó que no
lo hiciese; pero yo le aseguré que no desistiría de mi propósito.
Pensó llevarme á casa de doña Beatriz para estorbármelo; usted no
quiso que fuera con ella, y no parece sino que algún ángel le inspiró
á usted aquella repugnancia. Lo que ha pasado esta tarde con el tal
caballero bien lo sabe usted; pero falta decirle que así que usted me
dejó para ir á verse con el escribano, llegó mi hermana, la conté
cuánto había ocurrido, y... Vaya, no es posible ponderarle á usted la
aflicción que manifestó. Llamó á su criada, la habló en secreto, y
quedándose conmigo sola, me dijo en un tono de desesperación que
me hizo temblar, que la chica había ido á su casa á decir que esta
noche no iría, porque doña Beatriz se había puesto mala, y la había
rogado que se quedase con ella. Y que también iba encargada de
avisar á don Enrique, en nombre mío, de que á las doce en punto le
esperaba yo en el balcón de mi cuarto, que da al jardín. Con este
engaño se propone hablarle, y dar á sus celos cuantas satisfacciones
quiera pedirla.
D. Gregorio.—¡Picarona! ¡enredadora! ¡desenvuelta!... Y bien, ¿tú
qué le has dicho?
D.ª Rosa.—Amenazarla de que usted y don Manuel sabrán todo lo
que pasa, y que yo seré quien se lo diga para que pongan remedio
en ello; afearla su deshonesto proceder, instarla á que se fuera de
mi casa inmediatamente.
D. Gregorio.—¿Y ella?
D.ª Rosa.—Ella me respondió que si no la sacan arrastrando de los
cabellos, que no se irá. Que en hablando con don Enrique, y
desvaneciendo sus quejas, ni á usted, ni á don Manuel, ni á todo el
mundo teme.
D. Gregorio.—Mi hermano merece esto y mucho más... Pero
¿cómo he de sufrir yo en mi casa tales picardías? No, señor. Yo le
daré á entender á esa desvergonzada, que si ha contado contigo
para seguir adelante en su desacuerdo, se ha equivocado mucho; y
que yo no soy hombre de los que se dejan llevar al pilón como el
otro bárbaro. Yo la diré lo que... Vamos.
(Quiere entrar en su casa, y doña Rosa le detiene.)
 D.ª Rosa.—No, señor, por Dios, no éntre usted. Al fin es mi
hermana. Yo entraré sola, y la diré que es preciso que se vaya al
instante, ó á su casa ó á lo menos á la de doña Beatriz, si teme que
don Manuel extrañe ahora su vuelta.
(Hace que se va hacia su casa, y vuelve.)
D. Gregorio.—Muy bien; aquí espero á que salga.
D.ª Rosa.—Pero no se descubra usted, no la hable, no se acerque,
no la siga... Si le viese á usted, sería tanta su confusión y sobresalto,
que pudiera darla un accidente... Si ella quiere enmendar este
desacierto, aún hay remedio; y mucho más si ese hombre se va,
como ha prometido... En fin, yo la haré salir de casa, que es lo que
importa; pero, por Dios, retírese usted, y no trate de molestarla.
D. Gregorio.—¡Marta la piadosa!... ¡Cierto que merece ella toda
esa caridad!
D.ª Rosa.—Es mi hermana.
D. Gregorio.—¡Y qué poco se parece á ti la dichosa hermana!...
Vamos, entra, y veremos si logras lo que te propones.
D.ª Rosa.—Yo creo que sí.
D. Gregorio.—Mira que si se obstina en que ha de quedarse, subo
allá arriba y la saco á patadas.
D.ª Rosa.—No será menester. Voy allá... (Hace que se va, y
vuelve.) Pero repito que no se descubra usted, ni la hostigue, ni...
D. Gregorio.—Bien, sí, la dejaré que se vaya adonde quiera.
D.ª Rosa (se encamina hacia su casa, y vuelve.)—¡Ah! Mire usted.
Así que ella salga, éntrese usted, y cierre bien su puerta... Yo estoy
tan desazonada, que me voy al instante á acostar.
D. Gregorio.—Pero ¿qué sientes?
D.ª Rosa.—¿Qué sé yo? ¿Le parece á usted que estaré poco
disgustada con todo lo que ha sucedido?... Nada me duele; pero
deseo descansar y dormir... Conque... buenas noches.
 D. Gregorio.—Adios, Rosita... Pero mira que si no sale...
D.ª Rosa.—Yo le aseguro á usted que saldrá.
(Éntrase dejando entornada la puerta. Don Gregorio se pasea por el
teatro mirando con frecuencia hacia su casa, impaciente del
éxito.)
D. Gregorio.—Y á todo esto, ¿en qué se ocupará ahora mi erudito
hermano? Estará poniendo escolios á algún tratado de educación...
¡La niña y su alma!... Bien que ¿cómo había de resultar otra cosa de
la independencia y la holgura en que siempre ha vivido?... ¡Mujeres!
¡qué mal os conoce el que no os encierra y os sujeta y os enfrena y
os cela y os guarda!... Pero no, señor... Mañana á las diez
desposorio, á las once comer, á las doce coche de colleras, y á las
cinco en Griñón... ¿Cómo he de sufrir yo que la bribona de la
Leonorcica se nos venga cada lunes y cada martes con estos
embudos? No por cierto... Allá mi hermano verá lo que... ¡Oiga!
Parece que baja ya la niña bien criada.
(Se acerca más á un lado de la puerta de su casa, colocándose hacia
el proscenio, y escucha atentamente lo que dice desde adentro
doña Rosa, la cual finge que habla con su hermana.)
D.ª Rosa.—No te canses en quererme persuadir. Vete... Antes que
todo es mi estimación... Vete, Leonor, ya te lo he dicho... ¿Y qué
importa que me oigan? ¿Soy yo la culpada?... Vete. Acabemos, sal
presto de aquí.
D. Gregorio.—En efecto, la echa de casa... (Sale doña Rosa de su
cuarto con basquiña y mantilla semejantes á las que sacó doña
Leonor en el primer acto. Luégo que se aparta un poco, cierra don
Gregorio su puerta y guarda la llave.) ¿Y adónde irá la doncellita
menesterosa?... Ganas me dan de... Pero no, cerremos primero.
 ESCENA II.
DON ENRIQUE, COSME, DOÑA ROSA, DON GREGORIO.

(Los dos primeros salen de su casa.)

D. Enrique.—¿Dijiste al ama que no me espere?
Cosme.—Sí, señor.
D. Enrique.—Pues cierra y vamos, que aunque sepa atropellar por
todo, he de hablarla esta noche.
(Cierra Cosme la puerta con llave.)
Cosme.—¡Noche toledana!
D. Enrique.—Y á pesar de quien procura estorbarlo, ella y yo
seremos felices.
(Doña Rosa, después de haberse alejado un poco hacia el fondo del
teatro, vuelve encaminándose á casa de don Manuel; don
Gregorio se adelanta igualmente y la observa. Ella se detiene.)
D.ª Rosa.—Él se acerca á la puerta de don Manuel. ¿Qué haré?...
Ya no es posible... (Se retira llena de confusión hacia el fondo del
teatro. Don Enrique se adelanta, la reconoce y la detiene.) ¡Infeliz de
mí!
D. Enrique.—¿Quién es?
D.ª Rosa.—Yo.
D. Enrique.—¿Doña Rosita?
D.ª Rosa.—Yo soy.
D. Enrique.—Á mi casa.
D.ª Rosa.—Pero ¿qué seguridad tendré en ella?
D. Enrique.—La que debe usted esperar de un hombre de honor.
D.ª Rosa.—Yo iba á la de mi hermana; pero él me observa, no
puedo llegar sin que me reconozca, y...
 D. Enrique.—Está usted conmigo... Pasará usted la noche en
compañía de mi ama, mujer anciana y virtuosa... Mañana daré parte
á un juez; y á él, á don Manuel, á su tutor de usted, y á todo el
mundo, les diré que es usted mi esposa, y que estoy pronto si es
necesario á exponer la vida para defenderla... Abre, Cosme. Venga
usted.
(Cosme abre la puerta de la casa de don Enrique.)
D.ª Rosa.—Allí está.
D. Enrique.—Bien, que esté donde quiera. Poco importa.
D.ª Rosa.—Allí, allí.
D. Enrique.—Sí, ya le distingo... No hay que temer, quieto se
está... ¡Y qué bien hace en estarse quieto!... Adentro.
(Asiéndole de la mano se entra con ella en su casa, y Cosme detrás.)
D. Gregorio.—Pues, señor, se marchó á casa del galán. No puede
llegar á más el abandono y la... Pero ¡regocijo siento al ver tan
solemnemente burlado á este hermano que Dios me dió, necio por
naturaleza y gracia, y presumido de que todo se lo sabe!... Vamos á
darle la infausta noticia... (Se encamina á casa de don Manuel;
después se detiene.) No, el asunto es serio, y si el tiempo se pierde,
si yo no pongo la mano en esto, puede suceder un trabajo... Al fin
es hija de un amigo mío... Sí, mejor es... Allí pienso que ha de vivir
el comisario...
(Va á casa del comisario, y llama.)

ESCENA III.
UN COMISARIO, UN ESCRIBANO, UN CRIADO, DON GREGORIO.
(Salen los tres primeros por una de las calles. El criado con linterna.
La escena se ilumina un poco.)
Comisario.—¿Quién anda ahí?
D. Gregorio.—¡Ah! ¿No es usted el señor comisario del cuartel?
Comisario.—Servidor de usted.
D. Gregorio.—Pues, señor... Oiga usted aparte... (Se aparta con el
comisario á poca distancia de los demás.) Su presencia de usted es
absolutamente necesaria para evitar un escándalo que va á
suceder... ¿Conoce usted á una señorita que se llama doña Leonor,
que vive en aquella casa de enfrente?
Comisario.—Sí, de vista la conozco, y al caballero que la tiene
consigo... Y me parece que ha de ser un don Manuel de Velasco.
D. Gregorio.—Hermano mío.
Comisario.—¡Oiga! ¿Es usted su hermano?
D. Gregorio.—Para servir á usted.
Comisario.—Para hacerme favor.
D. Gregorio.—Pues el caso es que esta niña, hija de padres muy
honrados y virtuosos, perdida de amores por un mancebito andaluz
que vive aquí en este cuarto principal...
Comisario.—¡Calle! Don Enrique de Cárdenas; le conozco mucho.
D. Gregorio.—Pues bien. Ha cometido el desacierto de abandonar
su casa, venirse á la de su amante... Vamos, ya usted conoce lo que
puede resultar de aquí.
Comisario.—Sí... En efecto.
D. Gregorio.—Ello hay de por medio no sé qué papel de
matrimonio; pero no ignora usted de lo que sirven esos papeles
cuando cesa el motivo que los dictó... ¡Eh! ¿Me explico?
Comisario.—Perfectamente... ¿Y ella está adentro?
D. Gregorio.—Ahora mismo acaba de entrar... Conque, señor
comisario, se trata de salvar el decoro de una doncella, de impedir
que el tal caballero... Ya ve usted.
Comisario.—Sí, sí, es cosa urgente. Vamos... Por fortuna tenemos
aquí al señor, que en esta ocasión nos puede ser muy útil... (Alza un
poco la voz volviéndose hacia el escribano que está detrás, el cual se
acerca á ellos muy oficioso.) Es escribano...
Escribano.—Escribano real.
D. Gregorio.—Ya.
Escribano.—Y antiguo.
D. Gregorio.—Mejor.
Escribano.—Mucha práctica de tribunales.
D. Gregorio.—Bueno.
Escribano.—Conocido en testamentarías, subastas, inventarios,
despojos, secuestros y...
D. Gregorio.—No, ahí no hallará usted cosa en que poder...
Escribano.—Y muy hombre de bien.
D. Gregorio.—Por supuesto.
Escribano.—Es que...
Comisario.—Vamos, don Lázaro, que esto pide mucha diligencia.
D. Gregorio.—Yo aquí espero.
Comisario.—Muy bien.
(Llama el criado á la puerta de don Enrique, se abre, y entran los
tres. La escena vuelve á quedar oscura.)

ESCENA IV.
DON GREGORIO, DON MANUEL.

D. Gregorio.—Veamos si está en casa este inalterable filósofo, y le

contaremos la amarga historia... (Llama en casa de don Manuel,
abren la puerta, se supone que habla con algún criado, queda la
puerta entornada, y don Gregorio se pasea esperando á su
hermano.) ¿Está? Que baje inmediatamente, que le espero aquí para
un asunto de mucha importancia... ¡Bendito Dios! ¡En lo que han
parado tantas máximas sublimes, tantas eruditas disertaciones! ¡Qué
lástima de tutor! Vaya si... majadero más completo y más pagado de
su dictamen... ¡Oh, señor hermano!
(Don Manuel sale de la puerta de su casa, y se detiene inmediato á
ella.)
D. Manuel.—Pero ¿qué extravagancia es esta? ¿Por qué no subes?
D. Gregorio.—Porque tengo que hablarte, y no me puedo separar
de aquí.
D. Manuel (adelantándose hacia donde está don Gregorio.)—
Enhorabuena... ¿Y qué se te ofrece?
D. Gregorio.—Vengo á darte muy buenas noticias.
D. Manuel.—¿De qué?
D. Gregorio.—Sí, te vas á regocijar mucho con ellas... Dime: mi
señora doña Leonor ¿en dónde está?
D. Manuel.—¿Pues no lo sabes? En casa de su amiga doña Beatriz.
Allí quedó esta tarde, yo me vine porque tenía una porción de cartas
que escribir, y supongo que ya no puede tardar. De un instante á
otro... Pero ¿á qué viene esa pregunta?
D. Gregorio.—¡Eh! Así, por hablar algo...
D. Manuel.—Pero ¿qué quieres decirme?
D. Gregorio.—Nada... Que tú la has educado filosóficamente,
persuadido (y con mucha razón) de que las mujeres necesitan un
poco de libertad, que no es conveniente reprenderlas ni oprimirlas,
que no son los candados ni los cerrojos los que aseguran su virtud,
sino la indulgencia, la blandura y... en fin, prestarse á todo lo que
ellas quieren... ¡Ya se ve! Leonor, enseñada por esta cartilla, ha
sabido corresponder como era de esperar á las lecciones de su
maestro.
D. Manuel.—Te aseguro que no comprendo á qué propósito puede
venir nada de cuanto dices.
D. Gregorio.—Anda, necio, que bien merecido está lo que te
sucede, y es muy justo que recibas el premio de tu ridícula
presunción... Llegó el caso de que se vea prácticamente lo que ha
producido en las dos hermanas la educación que las hemos dado. La
una huye de los amantes; y la otra, como una mujer perdida y sin
vergüenza, los acaricia y los persigue.
D. Manuel.—Si no me declaras el misterio, dígote que...
D. Gregorio.—El misterio es que tu pupila no está donde piensas,
sino en casa de un caballerito, del cual se ha enamorado
rematadamente; y sola y de noche, y burlándose de ti, ha ido á
buscar mejor compañía... ¿Lo entiendes ahora?
D. Manuel.—¿Dices que Leonor?...
D. Gregorio.—Sí, señor, la misma...
D. Manuel.—Vaya, déjate de chanzas, y no me...
D. Gregorio.—¡Sí, que el niño es chancero!... ¡Se dará tal
estupidez! Dígole á usted, señor hermano, y vuelvo á repetírselo,
que la Leonorcita se ha ido esta noche á casa de su galán, y está
con él, y lo he visto yo, y se quieren mucho, y hace más de un año
que se tienen dada palabra de matrimonio, á pesar de todas tus
filosofías. ¿Lo entiendes?
D. Manuel.—Pero es una cosa tan agena de verisimilitud...
D. Gregorio.—¡Dale!... Vamos, aunque lo vea por sus ojos no se lo
harán creer... ¡Cómo me repudre la sangre!... Amigo, dígote que los
años sirven de muy poco cuando no hay esto, esto. (Señalándose
con el dedo en la frente.)
D. Manuel.—Ello es que tú te persuades á que...
 D. Gregorio.—Figúrate si me habré persuadido... Pero mira, no
gastemos prosa... ven y lo verás, y en viéndolo, espero y confío que
te persuadirás también. Vamos.
(Se encamina á casa de don Enrique, y después vuelve.)
D. Manuel.—¡Haber cometido tal exceso, cuando siempre la he
tratado con la mayor benignidad, cuando la he prometido mil veces
no violentar, no contradecir sus inclinaciones!
D. Gregorio.—Ya temía yo que no había de ser creído, y que
perderíamos el tiempo en altercaciones inútiles. Por eso, y porque
me pareció conveniente restaurar el honor de esa mujer, siquiera por
lo que me interesa su pobrecita hermana, he dispuesto que el
comisario del cuartel vaya allá, y vea de arreglarlo, de manera que
evitando escándalos, se concluya, si se puede, con un matrimonio.
D. Manuel.—¿Eso hay?
D. Gregorio.—¡Toma! Ya están allá el comisario y un escribano
que venía con él... Digo, á no ser que usted halle en sus libros algún
texto oportuno para volver á recibir en su casa á la inocente criatura,
disimularla este pequeño desliz, y casarse con ella... ¿Eh?
D. Manuel.—¿Yo? No lo creas. No cabe en mí tanta debilidad, ni
soy capaz de aspirar á poseer un corazón que ya tiene otro dueño.
Pero á pesar de cuanto dices, todavía no me puedo reducir á...
D. Gregorio.—¡Qué terco es!... Ven conmigo, y acabemos esta
disputa impertinente.
(Se encamina con su hermano hacia casa de don Enrique, y al llegar
cerca salen de ella el comisario y el criado. El teatro se ilumina
como en la escena tercera.)

ESCENA V.
 EL COMISARIO, UN CRIADO, DON GREGORIO, DON MANUEL.

Comisario.—Aquí, señores, no hay necesidad de ninguna violencia.

Los dos se quieren, son libres, de igual calidad... No hay otra cosa
que hacer sino depositar inmediatamente á la señorita en una casa
honesta, y desposarlos mañana... Las leyes protegen este
matrimonio y le autorizan.
D. Gregorio.—¿Qué te parece?
D. Manuel (reprimiéndose).—¿Qué me ha de parecer?... Que se
casen.
D. Gregorio.—Pues, señor, que se casen.
Comisario.—Diré á usted, señor don Manuel. Yo he propuesto á la
novia que tuviese á bien de honrar mi casa, en donde asistida de mi
mujer y de mis hijas, estaría, si no con las comodidades que merece,
á lo menos con la que pueden proporcionarla mis cortas facultades;
pero no ha querido admitir este obsequio, y dice que si usted
permite que vaya á la suya, la prefiere á otra cualquiera. Es cierto
que esta elección es la mejor; pero he querido avisarle á usted para
saber si gusta de ello, ó tiene alguna dificultad.
D. Manuel.—Ninguna... Que venga. Yo me encargo del depósito.
Comisario.—Volveré con ella muy pronto.
(Se entra con el criado en casa de don Enrique. El teatro queda
oscuro otra vez.)
D. Gregorio.—No me queda otra cosa que ver... Pero ¿cuál es más
admirable, el descaro de la pindonga, ó la frescura de este insensato
que se presta á tenerla en su casa después de lo que ha hecho, que
la toma en depósito de manos de su amante para entregársela
después tal y tan buena?... ¡Ay! Si no es posible hallar cabeza más
destornillada que la suya... No puede ser.
 D. Manuel.—No lo entiendes, Gregorio... Mira, tú has hecho
intervenir en esto á un comisario para evitar los daños que pudieran
sobrevenir, y has hecho muy bien... Yo la recibo por la misma razón;
para que su crédito no padezca; para que no se trasluzca lo que ha
sucedido entre la vecindad, que todo lo atisba y lo murmura; para
que mañana se casen, como si fuera yo mismo el que lo hubiese
dispuesto; para manifestar á Leonor que nunca he querido hacerme
un tirano de su libertad ni de sus afectos; para confundirla con mi
modo de proceder comparado al suyo... Pero... ¡Leonor! ¿Es posible
que haya sido capaz de tal ingratitud?
D. Gregorio.—Calla, que... (Salen por una calle doña Leonor,
Juliana, y el lacayo con un farol, habiendo pasado ya por delante de
la puerta de don Enrique, al volverse don Gregorio las ve. Doña
Leonor al ver gente se detiene un poco. Se ilumina el teatro.) Sí...
Ahí la tienes. Pídela perdón.
D. Manuel.—¡Yo! ¡Qué mal me conoces!

ESCENA VI.
DOÑA LEONOR, JULIANA, UN LACAYO, DON MANUEL, DON GREGORIO.

D. Manuel.—Leonor, no temas ningún exceso de cólera en mí, bien

sabes cuánto sé reprimirla; pero es muy grande el sentimiento que
me ha causado ver que te hayas atrevido á una acción tan poco
decorosa, sabiendo tú que nunca he pensado sujetar tu albedrío,
que no tienes amigo más fino, más verdadero que yo... No, no
esperaba recibir de ti tan injusta correspondencia... En fin, hija mía,
yo sabré tolerar en silencio el agravio que acabas de hacerme; y
atento sólo á que tu estimación no pierda en la lengua ponzoñosa
del vulgo, te daré en mi casa el auxilio que necesitas, y te entregaré
yo mismo el esposo que has querido elegir.
D.ª Leonor.—Yo no entiendo, señor don Manuel, á qué se dirige
ese discurso... ¿Qué acción indecorosa? ¿qué agravio? ¿qué esposo
es ese de quien usted me habla?... Yo soy la misma que siempre he
sido. Mi respeto á su persona de usted, mi agradecimiento, y para
decirlo de una vez, mi amor, son inalterables... Mucho me ofende el
que presuma que he podido yo hacer ni pensar cosa ninguna
impropia de una mujer honesta, que estima en más que la vida su
honor y su opinión.
D. Manuel (volviéndose á don Gregorio).—¿Oyes lo que dice?
D. Gregorio (acercándose á doña Leonor).—Ya se ve que lo oigo...
Conque Leonorcita... Ahorremos palabras... ¿De dónde vienes, hija?
D.ª Leonor.—De casa de doña Beatriz.
D. Gregorio.—¿Ahora vienes de allí, cordera?
D.ª Leonor.—Ahora mismo... ¿No ve usted á Pepe, que nos ha
venido á acompañar?
D. Gregorio.—¿Y no sales de casa de don Enrique?
D.ª Leonor.—¿De quién? ¿De ese que vive aquí en?... ¡Eh! no por
cierto.
D. Gregorio.—¿Y no habéis concertado vuestro casamiento á
presencia del comisario?
D.ª Leonor.—Me hace reir... ¿Ves qué desatino, Juliana?
D. Gregorio.—¿Y no estáis enamorados mucho tiempo há?
D.ª Leonor.—Muchísimo tiempo... ¿Y qué más?
D. Gregorio.—¿Y no estuviste en mi casa esta noche? ¿y no te
hicieron salir de allí? ¿y no te fuiste derechita á la de tu galán? ¿y no
te ví yo?
D.ª Leonor.—Esto pasa de chanza. Usted no sabe lo que se dice...
(Asiendo del brazo á don Manuel se dirige hacia su casa.) Vamos á
casa, don Manuel, que ese hombre ha perdido el poco
entendimiento que tenía; vamos.

ESCENA VII.
DOÑA ROSA, DON ENRIQUE, EL COMISARIO, EL ESCRIBANO, COSME, UN
CRIADO, DOÑA LEONOR, JULIANA, UN LACAYO, DON MANUEL, DON
GREGORIO.

(El criado saldrá con la linterna. La luz del teatro se duplica.)

D.ª Rosa.—¡Leonor!... ¡Hermana!...
(Corriendo hacia doña Leonor la coge de las manos, y se las besa.)
D. Gregorio.—¡Huf!...
(Al reconocer á doña Rosa, se aparta lleno de confusión.)
D.ª Rosa.—Yo espero de tu buen corazón que has de perdonarme
el atrevimiento con que me valí de tu nombre para conseguir el fin
de mis engaños. El ejemplo de tu mucha virtud hubiera debido
contenerme; pero, hermana mía, bien sabes qué diferente suerte
hemos tenido las dos.
D.ª Leonor.—Todo lo conozco, Rosita... La elección que has hecho
no me parece desacertada; repruebo solamente los medios de que
te has valido... Mucha disculpa tienes, pero toda la necesitas.
D.ª Rosa.—Cuanto digas es cierto, pero... (Volviéndose á don
Gregorio, que permanece absorto y sin movimiento.) usted ha sido
la causa de tanto error, usted... No me atrevería á presentarme
ahora á sus ojos, si no estuviese bien segura de que en todo lo que
acabo de hacer, aunque le disguste, le sirvo... La aversión que usted
logró inspirarme distaba mucho de aquella suave amistad que une
las almas para hacerlas felices... Tal vez usted me acusará de
liviandad; pero puede ser que mañana hubiera usted sido
verdaderamente infeliz, si yo fuese menos honesta.
D. Enrique.—Dice bien, y usted debe agradecerla el honor que
conserva y la tranquilidad de que puede gozar en adelante.
D. Manuel (acercándose á don Gregorio).—Esto pide resignación,
hermano... Tú has tenido la culpa, es necesario que te conformes.
D.ª Leonor.—Y hará muy mal en no conformarse; porque ni hay
otro remedio á lo sucedido, ni hallará ninguno que le tenga lástima.
Juliana.—Y conocerá que á las mujeres no se las encadena, ni se
las enjaula, ni se las enamora á fuerza de tratarlas mal. ¡Hombre
más tonto!
Cosme (hablando con Juliana).—Y en verdad que se ha escapado
como en una tabla. Bien puede estar contento.
D. Gregorio (No dirige á nadie sus palabras, habla como si
estuviera solo, y va aumentándose sucesivamente la energía de su
expresión).—No, yo no acabo de salir de la admiración en que
estoy... Una astucia tan infernal confunde mi entendimiento; ni es
posible que Satanás en persona sea capaz de mayor perfidia que la
de esa maldita mujer... Yo hubiera puesto por ella las manos en el
fuego, y... ¡Ah, desdichado del que á vista de lo que á mí me sucede
se fíe de ninguna! La mejor es un abismo de malicias y picardías.
Sexo engañador, destinado á ser el tormento y la desesperación de
los hombres... Para siempre le detesto y le maldigo, y le doy al
demonio, si quiere llevársele.
(Sacando la llave de su puerta, se encamina furioso hacia ella. Don
Manuel quiere contenerle, él le aparta, entra en su casa, y cierra
por dentro.)
D. Manuel.—No dice bien... Las mujeres, dirigidas por otros
principios que los suyos, son el consuelo, la delicia y el honor del
género humano... Conque, señor comisario, acepto el depósito, y
mañana sin falta se celebrará la boda.
D.ª Rosa.—¿La mía no más?
D. Manuel.—Si tu hermana me perdona una breve sospecha, con
tanta dificultad creída, no sería don Enrique el solo dichoso; yo
también pudiera serlo.
D.ª Leonor.—Hoy es día de perdonar.
D.ª Rosa.—Sí, bien merece tu perdón y tu mano el que supo darte
una educación tan contraria á la que yo recibí.
D.ª Leonor.—Con su prudencia y su bondad se hizo dueño de mi
corazón, y bien sabe que mientras yo viva es prenda suya.
D. Manuel.—¡Querida Leonor!
(Se abrazan don Manuel y doña Leonor.)
Juliana.—¡Excelente lección para los maridos, si quieren
estudiarla!
 EL MÉDICO Á PALOS
COMEDIA EN 3 ACTOS, EN PROSA, ESTRENADA EN 1814
 PERSONAS

DON JERÓNIMO.
DOÑA PAULA.

LEANDRO.
ANDREA.
BARTOLO.
MARTINA.

GINÉS.
LUCAS.

La escena representa en el primer acto un bosque, y en los dos

siguientes una sala de casa particular, con puerta en el foro y
otras dos en los lados.

La acción empieza á las once de la mañana, y se acaba á las cuatro

de la tarde.
 ACTO I.

ESCENA PRIMERA.
BARTOLO, MARTINA.

Bartolo.—¡Válgate Dios, y qué durillo está este tronco! El hacha

se mella toda, y él no se parte... (Corta leña de un árbol inmediato
al foro: deja después el hacha arrimada al tronco, se adelanta hacia
el proscenio, siéntase en un peñasco, saca piedra y eslabón,
enciende un cigarro y se pone á fumar.) ¡Mucho trabajo es éste!... Y
como hoy aprieta el calor, me fatigo, y me rindo, y no puedo más...
Dejémoslo, y será lo mejor, que ahí se quedará para cuando vuelva.
Ahora vendrá bien un rato de descanso y un cigarrillo, que esta triste
vida otro la ha de heredar... Allí viene mi mujer. ¿Qué traerá de
bueno?
Martina (sale por el lado derecho del teatro).—Holgazán, ¿qué
haces ahí sentado, fumando sin trabajar? ¿Sabes que tienes que
acabar de partir esa leña y llevarla al lugar, y ya es cerca de
mediodía?
Bartolo.—Anda, que si no es hoy, será mañana.
 Martina.—Mira qué respuesta.
Bartolo.—Perdóname, mujer. Estoy cansado, y me senté un rato á
fumar un cigarro.
Martina.—¡Y que yo aguante á un marido tan poltrón y desidioso!
Levántate y trabaja.
Bartolo.—Poco á poco, mujer; si acabo de sentarme.
Martina.—Levántate.
Bartolo.—Ahora no quiero, dulce esposa.
Martina.—¡Hombre sin vergüenza, sin atender á sus obligaciones!
¡Desdichada de mí!
Bartolo.—¡Ay, qué trabajo es tener mujer! Bien dice Séneca: que
la mejor es peor que un demonio.
Martina.—Miren qué hombre tan hábil, para traer autoridades de
Séneca.
Bartolo.—¿Si soy hábil? Á ver, á ver, búscame un leñador que
sepa lo que yo, ni que haya servido seis años á un médico latino, ni
que haya estudiado el quis vel qui, quæ, quod vel quid, y más
adelante, como yo lo estudié.
Martina.—Mal haya la hora en que me casé contigo.
Bartolo.—Y maldito sea el pícaro escribano que anduvo en ello.
Martina.—Haragán, borracho.
Bartolo.—Esposa, vamos poco á poco.
Martina.—Yo te haré cumplir con tu obligación.
Bartolo.—Mira, mujer, que me vas enfadando.
(Se levanta desperezándose, encamínase hacia el foro, coge un palo
del suelo y vuelve.)
Martina.—¿Y qué cuidado se me da á mí, insolente?
Bartolo.—Mira que te he de cascar, Martina.
Martina.—Cuba de vino.
Bartolo.—Mira que te he de solfear las espaldas.
 Martina.—Infame.
Bartolo.—Mira que te he de romper la cabeza.
Martina.—¿Á mí? Bribón, tunante, canalla, ¿á mí?
Bartolo (dando de palos á Martina).—¿Sí? Pues toma.
Martina.—¡Ay! ¡ay! ¡ay! ¡ay!
Bartolo.—Este es el único medio de que calles... Vaya, hagamos la
paz. Dame esa mano.
Martina.—¿Después de haberme puesto así?
Bartolo.—¿No quieres? Si eso no ha sido nada. Vamos.
Martina.—No quiero.
Bartolo.—Vamos, hijita.
Martina.—No quiero, no.
Bartolo.—Mal hayan mis manos, que han sido causa de enfadar á
mi esposa... Vaya, ven, dame un abrazo.
(Tira el palo á un lado, y la abraza.)
Martina.—¡Si reventaras!
Bartolo.—Vaya, si se muere por mí la pobrecita... Perdóname, hija
mía. Entre dos que se quieren, diez ó doce garrotazos más ó menos
no valen nada... Voy hacia el barranquitero, que ya tengo allí una
porción de raíces, haré una carguilla, y mañana con la burra la
llevaremos á Miraflores. (Hace que se va y vuelve.) Oyes, y dentro
de poco hay feria en Buitrago: si voy allá, y tengo dinero, y me
acuerdo, y me quieres mucho, te he de comprar una peineta de
concha con sus piedras azules.
(Toma el hacha y unas alforjas, y se va por el monte adelante.
Martina se queda retirada á un lado hablando entre sí.)
Martina.—Anda, que tú me las pagarás... Verdad es que una
mujer siempre tiene en su mano el modo de vengarse de su marido;
pero es un castigo muy delicado para este bribón, y yo quisiera otro
que él sintiera más, aunque á mí no me agradase tanto.

ESCENA II.
MARTINA, GINÉS, LUCAS.

(Salen por la izquierda.)

Lucas.—Vaya, que los dos hemos tomado una buena comisión... Y
no sé yo todavía qué regalo tendremos por este trabajo.
Ginés.—¿Qué quieres, amigo Lucas? Es fuerza obedecer á nuestro
amo; además, que la salud de su hija á todos nos interesa... Es una
señorita tan afable, tan alegre, tan guapa... Vaya, todo se lo merece.
Lucas.—Pero, hombre, fuerte cosa es que los médicos que han
venido á visitarla no hayan descubierto su enfermedad.
Ginés.—Su enfermedad bien á la vista está; el remedio es el que
necesitamos.
Martina (aparte).—¡Que no pueda yo imaginar alguna invención
para vengarme!
Lucas.—Veremos si este médico de Miraflores acierta con ello...
Como no hayamos equivocado la senda...
Martina.—(Aparte, hasta que repara en los dos y les hace la
cortesía. Pues ello es preciso, que los golpes que acaba de darme los
tengo en el corazón. No puedo olvidarlos...) Pero, señores, perdonen
ustedes, que no los había visto, porque estaba distraída.
Lucas.—¿Vamos bien por aquí á Miraflores?
Martina.—Sí, señor. (Señalando adentro por el lado derecho.) ¿Ve
usted aquellas tapias caídas junto aquel noguerón? Pues todo
derecho.
 Ginés.—¿No hay allí un famoso médico, que ha sido médico de
una vizcondesita, y catedrático, y examinador, y es académico, y
todas las enfermedades las cura en griego?
Martina.—¡Ay! sí, señor. Curaba en griego; pero hace dos días que
se ha muerto en español, y ya está el pobrecito debajo de tierra.
Ginés.—¿Qué dice usted?
Martina.—Lo que usted oye. ¿Y para quién le iban ustedes á
buscar?
Lucas.—Para una señorita que vive ahí cerca, en esa casa de
campo junto al río.
Martina.—¡Ah! sí. La hija de don Jerónimo. ¡Válgate Dios! ¿Pues
qué tiene?
Lucas.—¿Qué sé yo? Un mal que nadie le entiende, del cual ha
venido á perder el habla.
Martina.—¡Qué lástima! Pues... (Aparte, con expresión de
complacencia. ¡Ay, qué idea me ocurre!) Pues mire usted, aquí
tenemos el hombre más sabio del mundo, que hace prodigios en
esos males desesperados.
Ginés.—¿De veras?
Martina.—Sí, señor.
Lucas.—¿Y en dónde le podemos encontrar?
Martina.—Cortando leña en ese monte.
Ginés.—Estará entreteniéndose en buscar algunas yerbas
salutíferas.
Martina.—No, señor. Es un hombre extravagante y lunático, va
vestido como un pobre patán, hace empeño en parecer ignorante y
rústico, y no quiere manifestar el talento maravilloso que Dios le dió.
Ginés.—Cierto que es cosa admirable, que todos los grandes
hombres hayan de tener siempre algún ramo de locura mezclada con
su ciencia.