Grammar-in-Interaction and its place in assessing interactional competence

References

1. Auer, P.
   (2015) The temporality of language in interaction. InA. Depperman & S. Günthner, (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27.01aue
   https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.01aue [Google Scholar]
2. Curl, T. S., & Drew, P.
   (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351810802028613
   https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
3. Galaczi, E.
   (2014) Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests?Applied Linguistics(), –. 10.1093/applin/amt017
   https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017 [Google Scholar]
4. Hoey, E. M., & Kendrick, K. H.
   (2017) Conversation analysis. InA. de Groot and P. Hagoort (Eds.). Research methods in psycholinguistics: A practical guide (pp.–). Wiley Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
5. May, L., Nakatsuhara, F., Lam, D., & Galaczi, E.
   (2020) Developing tools for learning oriented assessment of interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Language Testing, (), –. 10.1177/0265532219879044
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219879044 [Google Scholar]
6. Mazeland, H.
   (2013) Grammar in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.–). Wiley-Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Mondada, L.
   (2014) The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004 [Google Scholar]
8. Mushin, I., & Pekarek Doehler, S. P.
   (2021) Linguistic structures in social interaction: Moving temporality to the forefront of a science of language. Interactional Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/il.21008.mus
   https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21008.mus [Google Scholar]
9. Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R.
   (1996) Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, (), –. 10.1017/S0272263100014868
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014868 [Google Scholar]
10. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Balaman, U.
    (2021) The routinization of grammar as a social action format: A longitudinal study of video-mediated interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710 [Google Scholar]
11. 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. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072‑010
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-010 [Google Scholar]
12. 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, (), –. www.altaanz.org/uploads/5/9/0/8/5908292/2020_9_1__5_sandlund_greer.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
13. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1993) Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5 [Google Scholar]
14. Youn, S. J.
    (2023/this issue). Grammar as validity evidence for assessing L2 interactional competence: The case of requests in role-play interaction. Applied Pragmatics. 10.1075/ap.00012.you
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00012.you [Google Scholar]