1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Applied Pragmatics
  4. Volume 5, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines how L2 learners of English at different pragmatic performance levels implement requests during role-play assessment interaction. In doing so, the role of grammar-for-interaction as validity evidence of assessing interactional competence is explicated. Using qualitative and quantitative data, the following research questions are investigated: (a) How do learners use grammar differently depending on the role-play request situations they are engaged in?; (b) To what extent are learners’ role-play performance levels associated with the ability to use context-sensitive grammar when co-constructing request sequences? The data come from a database of 102 L2 English learners’ role-play interactions with 45 hours of recorded interaction in total. The role-play assessment tasks include various real-life communicative situations, such as requests designed for specific interlocutors in a university context. Using conversation analysis, the role-play interactions at different performance levels were analyzed. Sequential analyses showed that higher-level learners utilized diverse grammatical formats that are sensitive to their sequential positions and contingencies associated with requests. As quantitative evidence, the relationship between selected grammatical constructions and the learners’ role-play performance levels determined by trained raters was examined. With this, I discuss the role of grammar-for-interaction in defining and assessing interactional competence.

© 2022 John Benjamins

Comment

A commentary article has been published for this article:
Grammar-in-Interaction and its place in assessing interactional competence
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00012.you
2023-01-12
2024-12-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ap.00012.you
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AERA, APA, NCME (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education)
    AERA, APA, NCME (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education) (1999) Standards for education and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcón-Soler, E.
    (2017) Pragmatic development during study abroad: An analysis of Spanish teenagers’ request strategies in English emails. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 371, 77–92. 10.1017/S0267190517000125
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000125 [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C.
    (2012) Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 331, 42–65. 10.1093/applin/amr031
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr031 [Google Scholar]
  4. British Council
    British Council. (n.d.). IELTS speaking band descriptors (public version). Retrieved fromhttps://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/speaking_band_descriptors_0.pdf
  5. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S.
    (1995) Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 61, 5–35. 10.5070/L462005216
     https://doi.org/10.5070/L462005216 [Google Scholar]
  6. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2001) Interactional prosody: High onsets in reasons-for-the-call turns. Language in Society, 301, 29–53. 10.1017/S0047404501001026
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501001026 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cunningham, D. J.
    (2016) Request modification in synchronous computer-mediated communication: The role of focused instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 1001, 484–507. 10.1111/modl.12332
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12332 [Google Scholar]
  8. Curl, T. S., & Drew, P.
    (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 411, 129–153. 10.1080/08351810802028613
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clift, R.
    (2001) Meaning in interaction: The case of ‘actually’. Language, 771, 245–291. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3086775
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Ruiter, J. P., & Albert, S.
    (2017) An appeal for a methodological fusion of conversation analysis and experimental psychology. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 501, 90–107. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1262050
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262050 [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2014) Requesting – from speech act to recruitment. InP. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp.1–34). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.01dre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.01dre [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D.
    (1993) Outline of discourse transcription. InJ. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp.45–89). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Eskildsen, S. W.
    (2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 621, 335–372. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00698.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00698.x [Google Scholar]
  14. 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.1–15). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072‑003
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-003 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E.
    (2013) Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal, 971, 828–852. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.12049.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12049.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Hellermann, J.
    (2007) The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal, 911, 83–96. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00503.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00503.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S., & Piirainen-Marsh, A.
    (Eds.) (2019) Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑22165‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22165-2 [Google Scholar]
  18. Galaczi, E. D.
    (2014) Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests?Applied Linguistics, 351, 553–574. 10.1093/applin/amt017
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017 [Google Scholar]
  19. Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L.
    (2018) Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 151, 219–236. 10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hall, J. K.
    (2018) From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 91, 25–39. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050 [Google Scholar]
  21. Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S.
    (2008) Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct?Applied Linguistics, 291, 24–49. 10.1093/applin/amm017
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm017 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jefferson, G.
    (1983) Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. InV. D’Urso & P. Leonardi (Eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetorics (pp.11–38). Cleup Editors.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (1984) Transcription notation. InJ. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (ix–xvi). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kasper, G.
    (2006) Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. InK. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol.111 (pp.281–314). Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, Y.
    (2009) Korean discourse markers in L2 Korean speakers’ conversation: An acquisitional perspective. InH. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp.317–350). University of Hawai‘i.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lam, D. M. K.
    (2018) What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing, 351, 377–401. 10.1177/0265532218758126
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758126 [Google Scholar]
  27. Leech, G. N.
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Linacre, J. M.
    (2013) A user’s guide to FACETS: Rasch-model computer programs. Winsteps.com
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Markee, N.
    (2019) Some theoretical reflections on the construct of interactional competence. InM. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.60–76). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑3
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-3 [Google Scholar]
  30. McNamara, T.
    (1997) ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance?Applied Linguistics, 181, 446–466. 10.1093/applin/18.4.446
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.4.446 [Google Scholar]
  31. Messick, S.
    (1989) Validity. InR. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp.13–103). American Council on Education & Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. May, L., Nakatsuhara, F., Lam, D., & Galaczi, E.
    (2020) Developing tools for learning oriented assessment of interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Language Testing, 371, 165–188. 10.1177/0265532219879044
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219879044 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A.
    (Eds.) (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2018) Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 91, 3–24. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E.
    (2015) The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. InT. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp.233–268). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110378528‑012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-012 [Google Scholar]
  36. Plough, I., Banerjee, J., & Iwashita, N.
    (Eds.) (2018) Special issue on interactional competence. Language Testing, 35(3).
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J.
    (2013) Preference. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.210–228). Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Roever, C.
    (2011) Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 281, 463–481. 10.1177/0265532210394633
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210394633 [Google Scholar]
  39. Salaberry, M. R., & Burch, A. R.
    (Eds.) (2021) Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications. Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. InD. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (p.71–93). Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stivers, T.
    (2015) Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis?Research on Language and Social Interaction, 481, 1–19. 10.1080/08351813.2015.993837
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.993837 [Google Scholar]
  43. Streek, J.
    (2021) The emancipation of gestures. Interactional Linguistics, 11, 90–122. 10.1075/il.20013.str
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20013.str [Google Scholar]
  44. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
    (2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Urdan, T. C.
    (2017) Statistics in plain English. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 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]
  47. Youn, S. J., & Burch, A. R.
    (2020) Where conversation analysis meets language assessment: Toward expanding epistemologies and validity evidence. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 91, iii–xvii.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Youn, S. J.
    (2020) Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment: Validity evidence of interactional competence across levels. Language Testing, 37(1), 76–106. 10.1177/0265532219860077
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219860077 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00012.you
Loading
Grammar as validity evidence for assessing L2 interactional competence
Applied Pragmatics 5, 174 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00012.you
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00012.you
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00012.you
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): grammar-for-interaction; interactional competence; language Assessment; requests; role-plays; validity Evidence

Most Cited

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