1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Applied Pragmatics
  4. Volume 6, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Employing conversation analysis (CA) to analyze a first encounter between a second language (L2) learner and a native speaker (NS) of Spanish, this study demonstrates how interactants’ differences in deploying sequence expansion and recipient uptake impact the interaction. Focusing on sequence organization during storytelling episodes, I argue that both interactants, teller and recipient, act as co-authors of the telling episode by conveying stancetaking differently, to display (mis)alignment and/or (dis)affiliation with the telling. The focal data are derived from one videotaped, semi-structured conversation of an L2-NS dyad. I identify ten focal episodes of sequences representing some form of post-expansions, recipient uptake, and stancetaking. The study reveals that these two speakers used post-expansions differently: the Spanish NS used them to accept a second-pair part; the Spanish learner employed them to close a second-pair part and transition toward a new topic, such as when encountering less-preferred recipient uptake. Gestures and gaze (e.g., looking away from the interlocutor) accentuated closing a dispreferred second-pair part. Given the importance of recipient uptake in talk-in-interaction, the article offers implications for research and pedagogy regarding training L2 learners to produce appropriate sequences beyond minimal post-expansions in talk.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.22002.gar
2024-01-18
2025-06-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ap.22002.gar
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Gahtani, S.
    (2017) Sequence organization of requests among Australian English and Saudi Arabic speakers: A contrastive study. Arabica, 64(5–6), 761–784. 10.1163/15700585‑12341471
     https://doi.org/10.1163/15700585-12341471 [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C.
    (2014) Insert and post-expansions in L2 Arabic requests. System, 421, 189–206. 10.1016/j.system.2013.10.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.018 [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T.
    (2000) Listeners and co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941–952. 10.1037/0022‑3514.79.6.941
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.941 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2002) Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 566–580. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02562.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02562.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Beach, W. A.
    (1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325–352. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2020) Using prosodically marked “Okays” to display epistemic stances and incongruous actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 1691, 151–164. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  8. Betz, E., & Sorjonen, M. L.
    (2021) Introduction: OKAY emergening as a cross-linguistic object of study in prior research. 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.2–28). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.34.01bet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.34.01bet [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  10. Burch, A. R.
    (2019) Responding (or not) to other’s talk: Changes in recipiency practices during a Japanese study abroad program. Applied Pragmatics, 1(2), 119–153. 10.1075/ap.18015.bur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.18015.bur [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, H. H.
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2021a) OH + OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination. Open Linguistics, 7(1), 816–836. 10.1515/opli‑2020‑0151
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2020-0151 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2021b) Language over time: Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English. Interactional Linguistics, 1(1), 33–63. 10.1075/il.20008.cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20008.cou [Google Scholar]
  14. deSouza, D. K., Betz, E., Clinkenbeard, M., Morita, E., Shrikant, N. & Tuccio, W. A.
    (2021) Taking a detour before answering the question: Turn-initial okay in second position in English interaction. Language & Communication, 761, 47–57. 10.1016/j.langcom.2020.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Douglas Fir Group
    Douglas Fir Group (2016) A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. 10.1111/modl.12301
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301 [Google Scholar]
  16. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2007) The stance triangle. InR. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp.139–182). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  17. Duranti, A.
    (1986) The audience as co-author: An introduction. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 6(3), 239–248. 10.1515/text.1.1986.6.3.239
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1986.6.3.239 [Google Scholar]
  18. Englebretson, R.
    (2007) Stancetakin in discourse: An introduction. InR. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp.1–26). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.02eng
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.02eng [Google Scholar]
  19. Filipi, A., & Wales, R.
    (2003) Differential uses of okay, right, and alright, and their function in signaling perspective shift or maintenance in a map task. Semiotica, 147(1/4), 429–455. 10.1515/semi.2003.102
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2003.102 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Gaines, P.
    (2011) The multifunctionality of discourse oerator Okay: Evidences from a police interview. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3291–3315. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gardner, R.
    (2001) When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.92
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goffman, E.
    (1983) The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17. 10.2307/2095141
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141 [Google Scholar]
  24. Goodwin, C.
    (1986) Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 91, 205–217. 10.1007/BF00148127
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148127 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  26. Hall, J. K.
    (2018) From interactional competence to interactional repertoires: Reconceptualizing the goal of L2 learning, Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25–39. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heritage, J.
    (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp.299–345). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. L.
    (1994) Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. 10.1017/S0047404500017656
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R.
    (2008) Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Polity.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kasper, G.
    (1997) “A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 307–312. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1997.tb05483.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05483.x [Google Scholar]
  31. (2006) Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. InK. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics & language Learning (Vol.111, pp.281–314). University of Hawai‘i at Manoa/National Foreign Language Resource Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2008) Data collection in pragmatics research. InH. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking (2nd ed., pp.279–303). Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J.
    (2015) How listeners use facial expression to shift the emotional stance of the speaker’s utterance. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3), 319–341. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1058607
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058607 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2020) Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 1681, 119–138. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. Leech, G.
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Mandelbaum, J.
    (1989) Interpersonal dynamics in conversational storytelling. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 114–126. 10.1080/10570318909374295
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318909374295 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2013) Storytelling in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.492–507). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nguyen, T. T. M.
    (2017) Using conversation tasks and retrospective methodology to investigate L2 pragmatics development: the case of EFL criticisms and responses to criticisms. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 399–417. 10.1080/09571736.2014.908404
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.908404 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2019) Data collection methods in L2 pragmatics research: An overview. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp.195–211). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑13
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-13 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J.
    (2012) Facial pursuit of response. InA. Peräkylä & M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp.64–91). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Raymond, C. W.
    (2016) Sequence organization. InJ. Nussbaum (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedias: Communication. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.133
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.133 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rezaee, P.
    (2020) Word searches in Persian tutoring sessions: Opportunities for language learning. Applied Pragmatics, 2(2), 148–173. 10.1075/ap.19016.rez
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19016.rez [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruusuvuori, J.
    (2013) Emotion, affect, and conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.330–349). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [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. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://www.jstor.org/stable/413107
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H.
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schleef, E.
    (2008) The “lecturer’s OK” revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the influence of academic division. American Speech, 83(1), 62–84. 10.1215/00031283‑2008‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2008-003 [Google Scholar]
  52. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech acts:An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  53. Stivers, T.
    (2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2013) Sequence organization. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.191–228). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Streeck, J.
    (2013) Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 69–90. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2015) Embodiment in human communication. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44(1), 419–438. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑102214‑014045
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014045 [Google Scholar]
  57. Taguchi, N.
    (2018) Advanced second language pragmatic competence. InP. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benatti (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp.505–526). Wiley. 10.1002/9781119261650.ch26
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch26 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2019) Second language acquisition and pragmatics: An overview. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp.31–46). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Taguchi, N. & Yamaguchi
    (2019) Implicature comprehension in L2 pragmatics research. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp.1–14). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑3
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-3 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wagner, J., & Gardner, R.
    (2004) Introduction. InR. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp.1–17). Continuum. 10.1142/9781860945397_0001
     https://doi.org/10.1142/9781860945397_0001 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.22002.gar
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): post-expansions; recipient uptake; second language interactions; sequence organization; stancetaking; storytelling

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