1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

L2 frameworks, such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, describe expected linguistic abilities at different levels of L2 development. These frameworks, and the assessment rubrics they inform, only peripherally address how L2 speakers to informings in interaction. Through responses interactants show their understanding of, and stance toward, a previous informing. In question-answer sequences in which a participant requests new information, the response to the answer may additionally reveal the questioning participant’s orientation to the answer in terms of its fit with the question. Responses to informings are thus a site of important interactional work. In our paper, we draw on the notion of ‘Interactional Competence’ and propose a conversation-analytic approach to assessing L2 speakers’ responses to elicited informings in German in question-answer sequences. We analyze L2 speakers’ use of tokens (e.g., ) in sequentially third position in dyadic, video-mediated everyday conversations with L1 speakers, as, in the turns following the third-position token, participants make visible their understanding of the token. We thereby attempt to describe how competent an L2 speaker’s use of a third-position token is. We end our paper by using our findings to make recommendations for language assessment frameworks and rubrics.

Comment

A commentary article has been published for this article:
The competence in little words
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00010.sch
2023-02-28
2024-05-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ACTFL
    ACTFL (2017) NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do statements. [Electronic version] https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-andmanuals/ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements
  2. Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2011) Double sayings of German ja: More observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(2), 157–185. 10.1080/08351813.2011.567099
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.567099 [Google Scholar]
  3. Betz, E., & Deppermann, A.
    (2018) Indexing priority of position: Eben as response particle in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 171–193. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1449449
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1449449 [Google Scholar]
  4. Betz, E., & Huth, T.
    (2014) Beyond grammar: Teaching interaction in the German language classroom. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 47(2), 140–163. 10.1111/tger.10167
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tger.10167 [Google Scholar]
  5. Betz, E., Taleghani-Nikazm, C., Drake, V., & Golato, A.
    (2013) Third-position repeats in German: The case of repair- and request-for-information sequence. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 141, 133–166. www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2013/ga-betz.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2018) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2009) A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’. InM. Laakso, M. Haakana & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp.94–123). Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2021) The prosody and phonetics of okay in American English. InE. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), OKAY across languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction (pp.132–173). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.34.05cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34.05cou [Google Scholar]
  9. Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A.
    (2009) Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423–443. 10.1177/0265532209104669
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104669 [Google Scholar]
  10. East, M.
    (2020) Addressing the possibilities and limitations of implementing a new classroom-based assessment of oral proficiency. InM. Poehner & O. Inbar-Lourie (Eds.), Toward a reconceptualization of second language classroom assessment (pp.221–240). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑35081‑9_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35081-9_11 [Google Scholar]
  11. Galaczi, E.
    (2014) Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests?Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–574. 10.1093/applin/amt017
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017 [Google Scholar]
  12. Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L.
    (2018) Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219–236. 10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gardner, R.
    (2007) “Broken” starts: bricolage in turn starts in second language talk. InZ. Hua, P. Seedhouse, L. Wei, & V. Cook (Eds.), Language learning and teaching as social interaction (pp.58–71). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230591240_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591240_5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Garfinkel, H.
    (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goethe-Institut
    Goethe-Institut (2021) Goethe-Zertifikat A2: Modellsatz Erwachsene. Goethe-Institut.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Golato, A.
    (2010) Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies, 12(2), 147–176. 10.1177/1461445609356497
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609356497 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012) German oh: marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 245–268. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699253
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699253 [Google Scholar]
  18. Golato, A., & Betz, E.
    (2008) German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 27(1), 7–37. 10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2011) L2 interactional competence and development. InJ. K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp.1–18). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072‑003
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heinemann, T., & Koivisto, A.
    (2016) Indicating a change-of-state in interaction: Crosslinguistic explorations. Journal of Pragmatics, 1041, 83–88. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hellermann, J.
    (2009) Practices for dispreferred responses using ‘no’ by a learner of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(1), 95–126. 10.1515/iral.2009.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2011) Members’ methods, members’ competencies: Looking for evidence of language learning in longitudinal investigations of other-initiated repair. InJ. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 Interactional competence and development (pp.147–172). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072‑008
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Helmer, H., Betz, E., & Deppermann, A.
    (2021) Coordination of OKAY, nods, and gaze in claiming understanding and closing topics. InE. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), OKAY across languages. Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction (pp.363–393). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.34.12hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34.12hel [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, J.
    (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.299–345). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2007) Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. InN. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp.255–280). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2010) Questioning in medicine. InA. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp.208–230). Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R.
    (2008) Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Huth, T.
    (2006) Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 381, 2025–2050. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.010 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2019) Adding and rethinking: Interactional competency and proficiency. Interactional competencies and practices in a second language (ICOP L2), Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden. May 29–31, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2021) Conceptualizing interactional learning targets for the second language curriculum. InS. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp.359–381). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_18 [Google Scholar]
  31. Huth, T., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C.
    (2006) How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics?Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 53–79. 10.1191/1362168806lr184oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr184oa [Google Scholar]
  32. Ikeda, N.
    (2017) Measuring L2 oral pragmatic abilities for use in social contexts: Development and validation of an assessment instrument for L2 pragmatics performance in university settings (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  33. Imo, W.
    (2011) Nein sagen, ‘wow’ meinen … Die Reaktion auf Informationen durch inszeniertes Infragestellen als sequenzielles Muster einer interaktionalen Grammatik [Saying no, meaning ‘wow’ … Reacting to information with show questioning as a sequential pattern in an interactional grammar]. InJ. C. Freienstein, J. Hagemann, & S. Staffelt (Eds.), Äußern und Bedeuten (pp.251–264). Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Jefferson, G.
    (1993) Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 26(1), 1–30. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InG. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.13–23). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  36. Koivisto, A.
    (2019) Repair receipts: On their motivation and interactional import. Discourse Studies, 21(4), 398–420. 10.1177/1461445619842737
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619842737 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee, S. H.
    (2013) Response design in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.415–432). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. May, L., Nakatsuhara, F., Lam, D., & Galaczi, E.
    (2020) Developing tools for learning oriented assessment of interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Language Testing, 37(2), 165–188. 10.1177/0265532219879044
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219879044 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mondada, L. [Google Scholar]
  40. Oloff, F.
    (2017) Genau als redebeitragsinterne, responsive, sequenzschließende oder sequenzstrukturierende Bestätigungspartikel im Gespräch. InH. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy, T. (Eds.), Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen (pp.207–232). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2019) Okay as a neutral acceptance token in German conversation. Lexique, 251, 197–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2019) On the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence: State of the art and implications for praxis. InM. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.25–59). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-2 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E.
    (2018) L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 555–578. 10.1093/applin/amw021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E.
    (2011) Developing ‘methods’ for interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. InJ. K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp.206–243). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072‑010
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-010 [Google Scholar]
  45. Roever, C., & Kasper, G.
    (2018) Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 35(3), 331–355. 10.1177/0265532218758128
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A.
    (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.15–21). Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  48. Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S.
    (2019) Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sandlund, E. & Greer, T.
    (2020) How do raters understand rubrics for assessing L2 interactional engagement? A comparative study of CA- and non-CA-formulated performance descriptors. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9(1), 128–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1979) The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. InT. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax (pp.261–286). Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368897_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_012 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(1–2), 361–382. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  53. Taleghani-Nikazm, C.
    (2015) On reference work and issues related to the management of knowledge: An analysis of the Farsi particle dige in turn-final position. Journal of Pragmatics, 871, 267–281. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.015 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2019) Ohja. Ja. Ja. (‘Oh yes. Yes. Yes.’): Providing the appropriate next relevant action in L2 interaction. InM. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.125–141). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑5
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-5 [Google Scholar]
  55. Taleghani-Nikazm, C., & Huth, T.
    (2010) L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 29(2), 185–202. 10.1515/mult.2010.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2010.008 [Google Scholar]
  56. Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  57. Youn, S. J.
    (2015) Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199–225. 10.1177/0265532214557113
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214557113 [Google Scholar]
  58. Young, R. F.
    (2011) Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp.426–443). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00010.sch
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00010.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error