1887
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Research on L2 interactional competence (IC) has become increasingly focused on how L2 speakers develop and recalibrate linguistic resources to do interactional work, i.e., how L2 speakers develop a (Pekarek Doehler 2018). In this paper, I use interactional linguistics to track one L2 German speaker’s IC development over 11 months by analyzing her use of German (English ‘so’) in formulations (see Deppermann 2011; Heritage & Watson 1979, 1980). In initial months, the L2 speaker uses exclusively to do work on her own prior talk, e.g., in upshots, consequences, and unpackings. The L2 speaker’s initial uses contribute to moves that maintain intersubjectivity by ensuring her co-interactant’s understanding of her own talk. In later months, the L2 speaker diversifies her uses of , including uses oriented to co-interactants’ prior talk that address manifest problems of intersubjectivity: to preface an other-correction of an incorrect candidate understanding, and to preface turns addressing a co-interactant’s problem of understanding. The L2 speaker’s changing uses demonstrate her ability to contribute to interactional organization in increasingly diverse ways, evidencing a developing grammar-for-interaction. I end by calling for more research on the L2 development of linguistic resources that primarily serve interactional functions, such as particles.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.23008.sch
2024-04-05
2025-02-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alm, M.
    (2004) Contribution of sentence position: the word also in spoken German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 35(1), 1–14. 10.21248/zaspil.35.2004.219
    https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.35.2004.219 [Google Scholar]
  2. Antaki, C.
    (2012) Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 531–547. 10.1177/1461445612454074
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454074 [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, P.
    (1996) The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics, 6(3), 295–322.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, P., & Günthner, S.
    (2005) Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung?InT. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp.335–362). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110925364.335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925364.335 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blühdorn, H., Foolen, A., & Loureda, O.
    (2017) Diskursmarker: Begriffsgeschichte – Theorie – Beschreibung. Ein bibliographischer Überblick. InH. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen (pp.3–36). Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolden, G. B.
    (2006) Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 661–688. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2006.00314.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x [Google Scholar]
  7. (2015) Discourse markers. InK. Tracy, T. Sandel, & C. Ilie (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp.1–7). Chichester: Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi031
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi031 [Google Scholar]
  8. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2018) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2020) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/histories/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9781139055895%5Cnwww.cambridge.org/ca/academic/subjects/history/european-history-general-interest/new-cambridge-modern-history-volume-13?format=HB
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2021) 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]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, A.
    (2011) The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9187‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8 [Google Scholar]
  14. Deppermann, A., & Helmer, H.
    (2013) Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 32(1), 1–39. 10.1515/zfs‑2013‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Deppermann, A., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2021) Longitudinal conversation analysis – Introduction to the special issue. ROLSI, 54(2), 127–141. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899707
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899707 [Google Scholar]
  16. Deppermann, A., & Reineke, S.
    (2020) Practices of indexing discrepant assumptions with German ich dachte (‘I thought’) in talk-in-interaction. Functions of Language, 27(2), 113–142. 10.1075/fol.00031.dep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.00031.dep [Google Scholar]
  17. Dittmar, N.
    (2011) Zum Verhältnis von Form und (kommunikativer) Funktion in der mündlichen Rede am Beispiel des Konnektors also. InN. Dittmar & N. Bahlo (Eds.), Beschreibungen für gesprochenes Deutsch auf dem Prüfstand: Analysen und Perspektiven (pp.99–135). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑00927‑9/7
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-00927-9/7 [Google Scholar]
  18. Drew, P.
    (1997) “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. JoP, 281, 69–101. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)89759‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dudenredaktion
    Dudenredaktion. (n.d.). also. Duden Online. RetrievedAugust 13, 2021, fromhttps://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/also_Adverb
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Egbert, M.
    (2004) Other-initiated repair and membership categorization – Some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization. JoP, 36(8), 1467–1498.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fernández-Villanueva, M.
    (2007) Uses of also in oral semi-informal German. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 61, 95–115. 10.5565/rev/catjl.126
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.126 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fischer, K.
    (2006) Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: introduction to the volume. InK. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp.1–20). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Garfinkel, H.
    (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H.
    (1970) On formal structures of practical actions. InJ. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp.337–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Golato, A.
    (2012) German oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 245–268. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699253
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699253 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gülich, E.
    (2002) Reformulierungen. InI. Kolboom, T. Kotschi, & E. Reichel (Eds.), Handbuch Französisch. Sprache-Literatur-Kultur-Gesellschaft (pp.350–357). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hellermann, J.
    (2008) Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690272
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690272 [Google Scholar]
  28. Heritage, J.
    (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InM. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.299–345). Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (1998) Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334. 10.1017/S0047404500019990
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L.
    (2018) Introduction. Analyzing turn-initial particles. InJ. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between turn and sequence. Turn-Initial particles across languages (pp.1–22). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.01her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.01her [Google Scholar]
  31. Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R.
    (1979) Formulations as conversational objects. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.123–163). New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1980) Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances analysed. Semiotica, 30(3–4), 245–262. 10.1515/semi.1980.30.3‑4.245
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.245 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ishida, M.
    (2009) Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study-abroad. InH. thi Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp.351–387). Honolulu: National Foreign Resource Center-University of Hawai’i.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Koschmann, T.
    (2013) Conversation analysis and learning in interaction. InC. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp.1038–1043). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mandelbaum, J.
    (2013) Storytelling in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp.492–507). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2018) Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2019) On the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence. State of the art and implications for praxis. InS. Salaberry, Rafael M. Kunitz (Ed.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence (pp.25–59). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-2 [Google Scholar]
  38. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2019) On the reflexive relation between developing L2 interactional competence and evolving social relationships: A longitudinal study of word-searches in the ‘wild.’InJ. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action. The complex ecology of second language acquisition “in the wild” (pp.51–75). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑22165‑2_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22165-2_3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Eskildsen, S. W.
    (2022) Emergent L2 grammars in and for social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. MLJ, 106(1), 3–22. 10.1111/modl.12759
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12759 [Google Scholar]
  41. Pfeiffer, M.
    (2017) Über die Funktion der Reparaturmarker im Deutschen. InH. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen (pp.259–283). Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1997) Third turn repair. InG. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov (pp.31–40). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.128.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.128.05sch [Google Scholar]
  43. (2013) Ten operations of self-initiated, same-turn repair. InM. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversation repair and human understanding. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H.
    (2009) Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. ROLSI, 42(2), 91–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Schirm, R. S. K.
    (2022) L2 discourse markers and the development of interactional competence during study abroad [Ph.D. Dissertation]. University of Waterloo.
  46. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., … Uhmann, S.
    (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung, 121, 1–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Shively, R. L.
    (2011) L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. JoP, 43(6), 1818–1835. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 [Google Scholar]
  48. Skogmyr Marian, K.
    (2023) Longitudinal change in linguistic resources for interaction. The case of tu vois (‘you see’) in L2 French. Interactional Linguistics, 1–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Skogmyr Marian, K., & Balaman, U.
    (2018) Second language interactional competence and its development: An overview of conversation analytic research on interactional change over time. Linguistics and Language Compass, 121, 1–16. 10.1111/lnc3.12285
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12285 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sorjonen, M.-L.
    (2018) Reformulating prior speaker’s turn in Finnish. Turn-initial siis, eli(kkä), and nii(n) et(tä). InJ. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages (pp.251–286). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.09sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.09sor [Google Scholar]
  51. Wagner, J., Pekarek Doehler, S., & González-Martínez, E.
    (2018) Longitudinal research on the organization of social interaction: Current developments and methodological challenges. InS. Pekarek Doehler, J. Wagner, & E. González-Martínez (Eds.), Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction (pp.3–35). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑57007‑9_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9_1 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.23008.sch
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/il.23008.sch
Loading

Data & Media 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