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

Abstract

Abstract

The contributions to this Special Issue employ conversation analysis to illustrate how detailed analysis of language use can lead to the identification of assessable features of second/foreign language Interactional Competence (L2 IC) and the development of institutional testing instruments and practices. L2 IC has been the focus of much research at the intersection of social interaction and second language acquisition. It has also been treated as a construct in the field of language assessment. However, scholars in each research branch have just begun to collaborate systematically. This Special Issue furthers this collaboration, connecting research on L2 IC in diverse learning contexts with practical questions regarding the assessment of individual learners. It adopts a dialogic ‘full paper–commenting paper’ structure: Four empirical papers are each paired with invited commentaries that provide critical discussion and a complementary view of the topics the full papers address. The final discussion papers take a broader perspective on the complex nature of L2 IC and assessment and propose ways to productively move forward. Besides introducing the notion of L2 IC and each individual contribution, this introductory article explains the rationale behind the Special Issue in relation to current research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00020.mal
2023-03-07
2024-02-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abe, M., & Roever, C.
    (2019) Interactional Competence in L2 text-chat interactions: First-idea proffering in task openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 1441, 1–14. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2020) Task closings in L2 text-chat interactions: A study of L2 Interactional Competence. CALICO Journal, 371, 23–45. 10.1558/cj.38562
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.38562 [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C.
    (2012) Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 42–65. 10.1093/applin/amr031
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr031 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2013) ‘Hi doctor, give me handouts’: Low-proficiency learners and requests. ELT Journal, 67(4), 413–424. 10.1093/elt/cct036
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct036 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2018) Proficiency and preference organization in second language refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 1291, 140–153. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.014 [Google Scholar]
  6. Balaman, U. & Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2022) Navigating the complex social ecology of screen-based activity in video-mediated interaction. Pragmatics, 32(1), 54–79. 10.1075/prag.20023.bal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20023.bal [Google Scholar]
  7. Balaman, U. & Sert, O.
    (2017) Development of L2 interactional resources for online collaborative task accomplishment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7), 601–630. 10.1080/09588221.2017.1334667
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1334667 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, A.
    (2003) Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20(1), 1–25. 10.1191/0265532203lt242oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt242oa [Google Scholar]
  9. Burch, A. R., & Kley, K.
    (2020) Assessing Interactional Competence: The role of intersubjectivity in a paired-speaking assessment task. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9(1), 25–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cekaite, A.
    (2017) What makes a child a good language learner? Interactional Competence, identity, and immersion in a Swedish classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 371, 45–61. 10.1017/S0267190517000046
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000046 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clift, R.
    (2016) Conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis, L.
    (2009) The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment. Language Testing, 26(3), 367–396. 10.1177/0265532209104667
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104667 [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, A.
    (2020) Lean syntax: How argument structure is adapted to its interactive, material, and temporal ecology. Linguistische Berichte, 2631, 255–293.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Deppermann, A., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2021) Longitudinal Conversation Analysis: Introduction to the Special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 127–141. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899707
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899707 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ducasse, A., & 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]
  16. Eskildsen, S. W.
    (2018) Building a semiotic repertoire for social action: Interactional Competence as biographical discovery. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 68–76. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1437052
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437052 [Google Scholar]
  17. Firth, A., & Wagner, J.
    (1997) On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1997.tb05480.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Galaczi, E. D.
    (2008) Peer–peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119. 10.1080/15434300801934702
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300801934702 [Google Scholar]
  19. (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]
  20. 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]
  21. Gan, Z., & Davison, C.
    (2011) Gestural behavior in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 94–120. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2010.00264.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00264.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Gan, Z., Davison, C., & Hamp-Lyons, L.
    (2009) Topic negotiation in peer group oral assessment situations: A conversation analytic approach. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 315–334. 10.1093/applin/amn035
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn035 [Google Scholar]
  23. Garfinkel, H.
    (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1996) Ethnomethodology’s Program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 5–21. 10.2307/2787116
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2787116 [Google Scholar]
  25. Grabowski, K.
    (2009) Investigating the construct validity of a test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge in the context of speaking [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
  26. (2013) Investigating the construct validity of a role-play test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge at multiple proficiency levels. InS. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp.149–171). Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9781137003522_6
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003522_6 [Google Scholar]
  27. Greer, T.
    (2019) Closing up testing: Interactional orientation to a timer during a paired EFL proficiency test. InH. T. Nguyen & T. Malabarba (Eds.) Conversation Analytic Perspectives on English Language Learning, Teaching and Testing in Global Contexts (pp.159–190). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788922890‑009
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922890-009 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2020) Using a conversation analytic exemplar-based rubric to assess engagement in a paired EFL test. Journal of School of Languages and Communication, Kobe University, 161, 11–24. 10.24546/81011980
    https://doi.org/10.24546/81011980 [Google Scholar]
  29. Greer, T., & Potter, H.
    (2008) Turn-taking practices in multi-party EFL oral proficiency tests. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 297–320.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 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, 141, 145–166. 10.1093/applin/14.2.145
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.145 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1995) (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics, 161, 206–232. 10.1093/applin/16.2.206
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.2.206 [Google Scholar]
  32. (1999) A prosaics of interaction. The development of interactional competence in another language. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp.137–151). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2018) From L2 Interactional Competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25–39. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (Eds.) (2011) L2 Interactional Competence and development. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hauser, E.
    (2019a) Handling unprepared-for contingencies in an interactional language test: Student initiation of correction as a collaborative accomplishment. InH. T. Nguyen & T. Malabarba (Eds.), Conversation analytic perspectives on English language learning, teaching and testing in global contexts (pp.59–84). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788922890‑008
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922890-008 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2019b) The Construction of Interactional Incompetence in L2 Interaction. InM. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.77–121). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-4 [Google Scholar]
  37. He, A. W., & Young, R. F.
    (1998) Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. InR. F. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp.1–24). Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.14.02he
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.14.02he [Google Scholar]
  38. Hellermann, J.
    (2007) The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 83–96. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00503.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00503.x [Google Scholar]
  39. (2008) Social actions for classroom language learning. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690272
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690272 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2009) Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of selfinitiated self-repair by an adult learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 113–132. 10.1080/00313830902757550
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757550 [Google Scholar]
  41. (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.124–172). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072‑008
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-008 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2018) Languaging as competencing: considering language learning as enactment. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 40–56, 10.1080/19463014.2018.1433052
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1433052 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hırçın Çoban, M., & Sert, O.
    (2020) Resolving interactional troubles and maintaining progressivity in paired speaking assessment in an EFL context. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9(1), 31.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Huth, T.
    (2021) Conceptualizing interactional learning targets for the second language curriculum. InS. Kunitz, O. Sert, & N. Markee (Eds.), Emerging issues in classroom discourse and interaction: Theoretical and applied CA perspectives on pedagogy (pp.359–382). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_18 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hymes, D.
    (1974) Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 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.
  47. Jenkins, S., & Parra, I.
    (2003) Multiple layers of meaning in an oral proficiency test: The complementaryroles of nonverbal, paralinguistic, and verbal behaviors in assessment decisions. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 90–107. 10.1111/1540‑4781.00180
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00180 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kasper, G., & Ross, S. J.
    (2013) Assessing second language pragmatics: An overview and introductions. InS. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp.1–40). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137003522_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003522_1 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kasper, G., & Youn, S. J.
    (2018) Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment. Applied Linguistics Review, 9(4), 589–616. 10.1515/applirev‑2017‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0020 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kasper, G. & Wagner, J.
    (2011) A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. InD. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp.117–142). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kim, H.
    (2018) What constitutes professional communication in aviation: Is language proficiency enough for testing purposes?Language Testing, 35(3), 403–426. 10.1177/0265532218758127
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758127 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kim, S.
    (2019) “We limit ten under twenty centu charge okay?”: Routinization of an idiosyncratic multi-word expression. InJ. Hellermann, S. Pekarek-Doehler, S. W. Eskildsen, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’ (pp.25–49). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑22165‑2_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22165-2_2 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kley, K.
    (2019) What counts as evidence for Interactional Competence? Developing rating criteria for a German classroom-based paired speaking test. InM. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.291–321). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-12 [Google Scholar]
  54. Konzett-Firth, C.
    (2020) Co-adaptation processes in plenary teacher-student talk and the development of L2 Interactional Competence. Classroom Discourse, 11(3), 209–228. 10.1080/19463014.2019.1597744
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1597744 [Google Scholar]
  55. Koschmann, T.
    (2013) Conversation analysis and learning in interaction. InC. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp.1038–1043). Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kramsch, C.
    (1986) From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1986.tb05291.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05291.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Lam, D.
    (2018) What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of Interactional Competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 377–401. 10.1177/0265532218758126
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758126 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2021) Don’t turn a deaf ear: A case for assessing interactive listening. Applied Linguistics, 42(4), 740–764. 10.1093/applin/amaa064
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa064 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lampropoulou, L.
    (2022) Interactional Competence and the role ‘role play’ plays: The Language Cert perspective. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 4(1), 32–47. 10.46451/ijts.2022.01.04
    https://doi.org/10.46451/ijts.2022.01.04 [Google Scholar]
  60. Looney, S.
    (2022, October14–15). Assessing grammar for talking: Particles, multiword expressions, and non-lexical Items [Conference presentation]. LANSI, Columbia University.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Malabarba, T.
    (2022) Requesting on WhatsApp: The interplay of Interactional Competence and deontics in English as an additional language. TESOL in Context, 30(2), 35–62. 10.21153/tesol2022vol30no2art1516
    https://doi.org/10.21153/tesol2022vol30no2art1516 [Google Scholar]
  62. Markee, N.
    (2016, April29–May1). On competence and intersubjective agency: A post-cognitive perspective [Conference presentation]. Teaching and Testing of L2 Interactional Competence, CLIC, Rice University.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (2019) Some theoretical reflections on the construct of Interactional Competence. InM. 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]
  64. Markee, N., & Kasper, G.
    (2004) Classroom talks. An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491–500. 10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2004.t01‑14‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-14-.x [Google Scholar]
  65. Markee, N., Kunitz, S., & Sert, O.
    (2021) Introduction: CA-SLA and the diffusion of innovations. InS. Kunitz, N. Markee & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-Based Conversation Analytic Research: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Pedagogy (pp.1–18). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_1 [Google Scholar]
  66. May, L.
    (2009) Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Language Testing, 26(3), 397–421. 10.1177/0265532209104668
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104668 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2011) Interactional Competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 127–145. 10.1080/15434303.2011.565845
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.565845 [Google Scholar]
  68. 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]
  69. McNamara, T. F.
    (1997) ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance?Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446–466. 10.1093/applin/18.4.446
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.4.446 [Google Scholar]
  70. Nakatsuhara, F.
    (2013) The co-construction of conversation in group oral tests. Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑03584‑1
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-03584-1 [Google Scholar]
  71. Nakatsuhara, F., May, L., Lam, D., & Galaczi, E. D.
    (2018) Learning oriented feedback in the development and assessment of Interactional Competence. Research Notes, 701. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/517543-research-notes-70.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Nguyen, H. t.
    (2012a) Developing Interactional Competence: A conversation-analytic study of patient consultations in pharmacy. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230319660
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230319660 [Google Scholar]
  73. (2012b) Social interaction and competence development: Learning the structural organization of a communicative practice. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 127–142. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  74. (2017) Toward a conversation analytic framework for tracking Interactional Competence development from school to work. InS. Pekarek Doehler, A. Bangerter, G. de Weck, L. Filliettaz, E. González-Martinez, & C. Petitjean (Eds.), Interactional competences in institutional settings: From school to the workplace (pp.197–225). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑46867‑9_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46867-9_8 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2019) Developing Interactional Competence in a lingua franca at the workplace: An ethnomethodologically endogenous account. InH. T. Nguyen & T. Malabarba (Eds.), Conversation analytic perspectives on English language learning, teaching and testing in global contexts (pp.59–84). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788922890‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922890-005 [Google Scholar]
  76. Nguyen, H. t. & Malabarba, T.
    (forthcoming). Learning ‘on the shop floor’: The development of Interactional Competence at the workplace by users of English as a foreign language. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Okada, Y., & Greer, T.
    (2013) Pursuing a relevant response in oral proficiency interview role plays. InS. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp.288–310). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137003522_11
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003522_11 [Google Scholar]
  78. Patharakorn, P.
    (2018) Assessing Interactional Competence in a multiparty roleplay task: A mixed-methods study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2189769559/abstract/CF07071343A147F0PQ/1
  79. Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2018) Elaborations on L2 Interactional Competence: The development of L2 grammar-forinteraction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759 [Google Scholar]
  80. (2021) L2 Interactional Competence and L2 education. InS. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based Conversation analytic Research (pp.417–424). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_21
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_21 [Google Scholar]
  81. 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 in Social Interaction, 54(2), 183–202. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710 [Google Scholar]
  82. 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]
  83. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Eskildsen, S.
    (2022) Emergent L2 grammars in and for social interaction: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal106(S1), 3–22. 10.1111/modl.12759
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12759 [Google Scholar]
  84. 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.233–270). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110378528‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-012 [Google Scholar]
  85. Plough, I., Banerjee, J., & Iwashita, N.
    (Eds.) (2018a) Special issue on Interactional Competence. Language Testing, 35(3).
    [Google Scholar]
  86. (2018b) Interactional Competence: Genie out of the bottle. Language Testing, 35(3), 427–445. 10.1177/0265532218772325
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218772325 [Google Scholar]
  87. Roever, C.
    (2018, May4–5). Assessing interactional competence: Features, scoring, and practicality [Keynote address]. Assessing speaking in context – New trends, Center for Languages & Intercultural Communication, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. (2022) Teaching and testing second language pragmatics and interaction: A practical guide. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Roever, C., & Dai, W.
    (2021) Interactional Competence and language testing. InM. R. Salaberry & R. Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking (pp.23–49). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.21832/9781788923828‑003
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923828-003 [Google Scholar]
  90. 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]
  91. Ross, S.
    (2018) Listener response as a facet of Interactional Competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 357–375. 10.1177/0265532218758125
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758125 [Google Scholar]
  92. Sacks, H.
    (1984) Notes on methodology. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.21–27). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, & G. Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 501, 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  94. Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S.
    (Eds.) (2019) Teaching and testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging theory and practice (1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021 [Google Scholar]
  95. Salaberry, R., & Burch, R.
    (Eds.) (2021) Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications. Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 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]
  97. Sandlund, E., & Sundqvist, P.
    (2019) Doing versus assessing Interactional Competence. InM. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 Interactional Competence (pp.357–397). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑14
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-14 [Google Scholar]
  98. Sato, T., & McNamara, T.
    (2019) What counts in second language oral communication ability? The perspective of linguistic laypersons. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 894–916. 10.1093/applin/amy032
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy032 [Google Scholar]
  99. Sert, O.
    (2015) Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748692651
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748692651 [Google Scholar]
  100. (2019a) The interplay between collaborative turn sequences and active listenership. Implications for the development of L2 Interactional Competence. InM. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.142–166). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑6
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-6 [Google Scholar]
  101. (2019b) Classroom interaction and language teacher education. InS. Walsh & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English language teacher education (pp. 216–238). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315659824‑19
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315659824-19 [Google Scholar]
  102. (2021) Transforming CA findings into future L2 teaching practices: Challenges and prospects for teacher education. InS. Kunitz, N. Markee & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (p.259–279). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  103. Sidnell, J.
    (2010) Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Skogmyr Marian, K.
    (2021) Initiating a complaint: Change over time in French L2 speakers’ practices. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 163–182. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899709
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899709 [Google Scholar]
  105. (2023) The development of L2 Interactional Competence; A multimodal study of complaining in French interactions. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Skogmyr Marian, K., & Balaman, U.
    (2018) Second language Interactional Competence and its development: An overview of conversation analytic research on interactional change over time. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(8), e12285. 10.1111/lnc3.12285
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12285 [Google Scholar]
  107. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
    (2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Vo, S. T.
    (2019) Effects of task types on Interactional Competence in oral communication assessment [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University, United States.
  109. Walters, F. S.
    (2021) Some considerations regarding validation in CA-informed oral testing for the L2 classroom. InS. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research (pp.383–404). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_19
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_19 [Google Scholar]
  110. Waring, H. Z.
    (2018) Developing Interactional Competence with limited resources. InM. R. Salaberry and S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 Interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.215–227). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. (2021) Harnessing power of heteroglossia: How to multi-task with teacher talk. InS. Kunitz, O. Sert, & N. Markee (Eds.), Emerging issues in classroom discourse and interaction: Theoretical and applied CA perspectives on pedagogy (pp.359–382). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_14 [Google Scholar]
  112. Watanabe, A.
    (2016) Engaging in an interactional routine in EFL classroom: The development of L2 Interactional competence over time. Novitas-ROYAL, 10(1), 48–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z.
    (2010) Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203852347
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852347 [Google Scholar]
  114. Youn, S.
    (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]
  115. (2020) Pragmatic variables in role-play design for the context validity of assessing Interactional Competence. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9(1), 95–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Youn, S., & Burch, R.
    (2020) Where conversation analysis meets language assessment: Toward expanding epistemologies and validity evidence. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9(1), iii–xvii. https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/language-testing-research-centre/research/publications/papers-in-language-testing-and-assessment-plta/back-issues/back-issues/volume-9,-issue-1,-2020
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Young, R.
    (1999) Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 191, 105–132. 10.1017/S0267190599190068
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190599190068 [Google Scholar]
  118. Young, R. F.
    (2011) Interactional Competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol.21, pp.426–443). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00020.mal
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