1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Applied Pragmatics
  4. Volume 7, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores the development of L2 learners’ interactional competence (IC) in online text chat involving request scenarios. Against the background of research on L2 IC development in spoken interaction, which had shown increased use of prefatory moves with increasing IC, we investigate how learners establish shared background knowledge in text chat through preliminary moves and whether the medium facilitates more prefatory moves at lower IC levels. We also explored how learners orient to entitlement and contingency associated with a possible grant through the selection of syntactic forms. 72 learners of English at three different proficiency levels and 16 English L1 speakers engaged in two dyadic role plays on WeChat. Online interactional data demonstrated L2 learners’ following a similar trajectory in the deployment of prefatory moves as in spoken interaction, using more prefatory moves and designing them more tightly to the interlocutor’s epistemic status as their proficiency and IC increase. Lower-level learners overwhelmingly produced or structures, whereas higher-level learners also used constructions to accommodate potential contingencies related to their requests, though not as systematically as native speakers. We discuss methodological and developmental implications from these findings for L2 pragmatics teaching and testing.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.23007.wan
2025-11-04
2025-11-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ap.23007.wan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
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, 37(1), 23–45. 10.1558/cj.38562
     https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.38562 [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Gahtani, S.
    (2022) The development of L2 interactional competence in Arabic: The case of multiple requests. Foreign Language Annals, 55(2), 610–634. 10.1111/flan.12603
     https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12603 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. (2014) Preference structure in L2 Arabic requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(4), 619–643. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0027
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0027 [Google Scholar]
  6. (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]
  7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Craven, A., & Potter, J.
    (2010) Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. 10.1177/1461445610370126
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126 [Google Scholar]
  9. Curl, T. S., & Drew, P.
    (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. 10.1080/08351810802028613
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  10. Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (Eds.) (2014) Requesting in social interaction. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26 [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, P., & Walker, T.
    (2010) Citizens’ emergency calls requesting assistance in calls to the police. InM. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp.95–110). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203855607.ch7
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fox, B.
    (2015) On the notion of pre-request. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 41–63. 10.1177/1461445614557762
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614557762 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T.
    (2021) Are they requests? An exploration of declaratives of trouble in service encounters. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 20–38. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864154
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864154 [Google Scholar]
  14. Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B.
    (1999) The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367. 10.1207/S15327973rls3204_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973rls3204_2 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gonzales, A.
    (2013) Development of politeness strategies in participatory online environments: A case study. InN. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp.101–120). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.36.06gon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.36.06gon [Google Scholar]
  16. Heinemann, T.
    (2006) ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1081–1104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hellermann, J.
    (2008) Social actions for classroom language learning. Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Heritage, J.
    (2012a) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2012b) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  20. Herring, S. C.
    (2013) Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. InD. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp.1–25). Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. IELTS Partners
    IELTS Partners (2023) IELTS and the CEFR. Retrieved22 November 2023fromhttps://ielts.org/organisations/ielts-for-organisations/compare-ielts/ielts-and-the-cefr
  22. 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 Ph.D. dissertation]. University of Melbourne.
  23. (2021) Assessing L2 learners’ pragmatic ability in problem-solving situations at English-medium university. Applied Pragmatics, 3(1), 51–83. 10.1075/ap.19039.ike
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19039.ike [Google Scholar]
  24. Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P.
    (2016) Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C.
    (2003) Coping with high imposition requests: High vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. InA. M. Flor, A. Fernández Guerra, & E. Usó Juan (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp.161–184). Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lindström, A.
    (2005) Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. InA. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp.209–230). John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.11lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.11lin [Google Scholar]
  27. Malabarba, T.
    (2022) Requesting on WhatsApp: The interplay of interactional competence and deontics in English as an additional language. TESOL in Context, 30(2). 10.21153/tesol2022vol30no2art1516
     https://doi.org/10.21153/tesol2022vol30no2art1516 [Google Scholar]
  28. Markman, K. M.
    (2013) Conversational coherence in small group chat. InS. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp.539–564). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214468.539
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.539 [Google Scholar]
  29. Meredith, J.
    (2020) Conversation analysis, cyberpsychology and online interaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(5), 285–294. 10.1111/spc3.12529
     https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12529 [Google Scholar]
  30. Meredith, J., Giles, D., & Stommel, W.
    (2021) Introduction: The microanalysis of digital interaction. InJ. Meredith, D. Giles, W. Stommel (Eds.), Analysing digital interaction (pp.1–21). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑64922‑7_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64922-7_1 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ogiermann, E.
    (2015) In/directness in Polish children’s requests at the dinner table. Journal of Pragmatics, 821, 67–82. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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 (pp.25–59). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑2
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-2 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2021) Toward a coherent understanding of L2 interactional competence: Epistemologies of language learning and teaching. InS. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp.19–33). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_2 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  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 Mouton. 10.1515/9783110378528‑012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-012 [Google Scholar]
  36. QSR International Pty Ltd
    QSR International Pty Ltd (2020) NVivo (released in March 2020).
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Roever, C., & Dai, D. W.
    (2021) Reconceptualising interactional competence for language testing. InM. R. Salaberry & A. R. Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications (pp.23–49). Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Sacks, H.
    (1995) Lectures on conversation, volumes I and II. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1980) Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 104–152. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  40. (2006) Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is situated. InN. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp.70–96). Berg.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sidnell, J.
    (2010) Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Simpson, J.
    (2013) Conversational floor in computer-mediated discourse. InS. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp.515–538). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214468.515
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.515 [Google Scholar]
  44. Stivers, T., & Rossano, F.
    (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. 10.1080/08351810903471258
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  45. Taleghani-Nikazm, C., & Huth, T.
    (2010) L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua, 29(2), 185–202. 10.1515/mult.2010.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2010.008 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tencent Holdings Limited
    Tencent Holdings Limited (2018) WeChat.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Trott, S., & Rossano, F.
    (2020) The role of entitlement in formatting preferences across requesters and recipients. Discourse Processes, 57(7), 551–572. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1719796
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1719796 [Google Scholar]
  48. Tudini, V.
    (2013) Form-focused social repertoires in an online language learning partnership. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 187–202. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2015) Extending prior posts in dyadic online text chat. Discourse Processes, 52(8), 642–669. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.969138
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.969138 [Google Scholar]
  50. Walther, J. B.
    (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 191, 52–90. 10.1177/009365092019001003
     https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wu, J., & Roever, C.
    (2021) Proficiency and preference organization in second language mandarin chinese refusals. Modern Language Journal, 105(4), 897–918. 10.1111/modl.12736
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12736 [Google Scholar]
  52. Youn, S. J.
    (2023) Grammar as validity evidence for assessing L2 interactional competence: The case of requests in role-play interaction. Applied Pragmatics5(2), 174–201. 10.1075/ap.00012.you
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00012.you [Google Scholar]
  53. Young, R. F.
    (2019) Interactional competence and L2 pragmatics. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (1st ed., pp.93–110). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑7
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-7 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.23007.wan
Loading
Interactional competence in online text chat
Applied Pragmatics 7, 109 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.23007.wan
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.23007.wan
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.23007.wan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): interactional competence; intersubjectivity; online interaction; requests; second language pragmatics; text chat

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