This reflective piece tells the story of how I started out doing Conversation Analysis (CA) and have been transitioning into doing mixed methods for some years now. My basic argument is that language learning talk is too complex a phenomenon to analyse using a single methodology. Specifically, it is extremely difficult to isolate from the interaction concrete evidence of the learning of specific individual items in terms of change of cognitive state. This is owing to the singular complexity of language learning, which adds an extra level of complexity to language learning talk, hence supercomplexity. Of course, the counter-argument to this would be that CA as a methodology is designed to reveal the complexity and fluidity of spoken interaction. The complex organisation of ordinary conversation (Sacks et al., 1974) and of varieties of institutional interaction (Drew & Heritage, 1992) have been very well established for a very long time. CA has been extremely successful and popular as a methodology for the analysis of spoken interaction in a huge range of settings. There have been many CA studies of language learning talk over the last few decades, including my own. So why do I now feel that it cannot portray the full complexity of language learning talk on its own? There is an idiosyncratic problem with language learning talk, namely that it has an additional level of complexity superimposed on top of the regular problems of analysing spoken interaction. This is because language is the object as well as the vehicle of language learning talk.

这篇反思性的文章讲述了我如何开始进行对话分析 (CA) 以及多年来一直过渡到使用混合方法的故事。我的基本观点是，语言学习谈话是一种过于复杂的现象，无法使用单一方法进行分析。具体而言，从认知状态变化的角度，从交互中分离出特定个体项目学习的具体证据是极其困难的。这是由于语言学习的独特复杂性，这增加了语言学习谈话的额外复杂性，因此超级复杂性。当然，对此的反驳是，CA 作为一种方法论旨在揭示口语交互的复杂性和流动性。普通对话（Sacks et al., 1974）和各种机构互动（Drew & Heritage, 1992）的复杂组织已经在很长一段时间内得到了很好的确立。CA 作为一种在各种环境中分析口语交互的方法论已经非常成功和流行。在过去的几十年里，有很多关于语言学习谈话的 CA 研究，包括我自己的。那么为什么我现在觉得它不能单独描绘语言学习谈话的全部复杂性呢？语言学习谈话有一个特殊的问题，即除了分析口语互动的常规问题之外，它还具有额外的复杂性。这是因为语言既是语言学习谈话的对象，又是语言学习的载体。