Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study explores the ability of advanced adolescent German learners of English to optimize turn design for talk-in-interaction, focusing on collaborative turn constructions and ellipses. Data deriving from recorded conversations conducted in the foreign language among German learners of English are compared to conversations between native speakers of British English and integrated into a diagnostic approach that helps identify deficits in the field of interactional skills. The results show that the two syntactic formats occur less frequently in learner conversations, which indicates that learners are less likely to use syntactic resources to bind their contribution immediately to prior talk or to the situational context. It is argued that this has a negative effect upon the sequential fit of turns and that conversational practice targeted toward a syntax for conversation would help learners achieving a more fluid interplay of conversational moves.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z.
    (1998) Do Language Learners Recognize Pragmatic Violations? Pragmatic versus Grammatical Awareness in Instructed L2 Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 321, 233–262. 10.2307/3587583
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587583 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2020) Pedagogical linguistics. A view from L2 pragmatics. Pedagogical Linguistics, 1(1), 44–65. 10.1075/pl.19013.bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.19013.bar [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell, D.
    (1998) Cancellative discourse markers. Pragmatics, 8(4), 515–541.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M.
    (1995) Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 141–158. 10.1093/applin/16.2.141
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cherchi, L.
    (1985) On the role of ellipsis in discourse coherence. InR. Meyer Hermann & H. Rieser (Eds.), Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke, Band21 (pp.224–249). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111358307.224
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111358307.224 [Google Scholar]
  6. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2012) On affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. Text & Talk, 32(4), 453–476. 10.1515/text‑2012‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0022 [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, E., Fox, B. & Thompson, S.
    (2014) Forms of responsivity: Grammatical formats for responding to two types of requests in conversation. InS. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and dialogism: sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation (pp.109–138). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110358612.109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110358612.109 [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional linguistics. Studying language in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cutrone, P.
    (2005) A case study examining backchannels between Japanese-British dyads. Multilingua, 241, 237–274. 10.1515/mult.2005.24.3.237
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2005.24.3.237 [Google Scholar]
  10. Deppermann, A.
    (2012) Über Sätze in Gesprächsbeiträgen – wann sie beginnen und wann man sie braucht. InC. Cortès (Ed.), Satzeröffnung. Formen, Funktionen, Strategien. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2013) Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 91–121. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dingemanse, M.
    (2020) Der Raum zwischen unseren Köpfen. Technology Review, 131, 10–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, B., & Thompson, S.
    (2010) Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 133–156. 10.1080/08351811003751680
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003751680 [Google Scholar]
  14. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr.
    (2006) Ellipsis and discourse coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy, 291, 315–346. 10.1007/s10988‑006‑0002‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-0002-3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fung, L., & Carter, R.
    (2007) Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439. 10.1093/applin/amm030
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm030 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gengel, K.
    (2013) Pseudogapping and ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665303.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665303.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Haselow, A.
    (2019) Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics, 1461, 1–18. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2021) The acquisition of pragmatic markers in the foreign language classroom: An experimental study on the effects of implicit and explicit learning. Journal of Pragmatics, 1861, 73–86. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.017 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hasselgreen, A.
    (2004) Testing the spoken English of young Norwegians: a study of test validity and the role of “smallwords” in contributing to pupils’ fluency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, J.
    (2013) Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics, 571, 331–337. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacoby, S. & Ochs, E.
    (1995) Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction28(3), 171–183. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Knobloch, C.
    (2013) „Ein Teil, das fehlt, geht nie kaputt.“ – Ellipsen in Grammatik und Kommunikation. InM. Hennig (Ed.), Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Problem (pp.19–38). Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110312560.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110312560.19 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lerner, G.
    (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 201, 441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1992) Assisted storytelling: deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 151, 247–271. 10.1007/BF00990328
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990328 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2004) Collaborative turn sequences. InG. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp.225–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.12ler
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.12ler [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, S., & Torreira, F.
    (2015) Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. InJ. Holler, K. Kendrick, M. Casillas & S. Levinson (Eds.), Turn taking in human communicative interaction (pp.10–26). Lausanne: Frontiers Media. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lightbown, P.
    (2008) Transfer appropriate processing in classroom second language acquisition. InZ. H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp.27–44). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McCarthy, M.
    (2003) Talking back: ‘Small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research in Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 33–63. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2010) Spoken fluency revisited. English Profile Journal, 1(1), 1–15. 10.1017/S2041536210000012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S2041536210000012 [Google Scholar]
  30. Merchant, J.
    (2001) The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2018) Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. InJ. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis (pp.19–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.2
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Müller, S.
    (2005) Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.138
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138 [Google Scholar]
  33. Neary-Sundquist, C.
    (2013) The development of cohesion in a learner corpus. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 109–130. 10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.1.6
    https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S.
    (2007) Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 105–110. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Raymond, G.
    (2003) Grammar and social organization: yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 681, 939–967. 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  37. Roll, M., Gosselke, S., Lindgren, M., & Horne, M.
    (2013) Time-driven effects on processing grammatical agreement. Frontiers in Psychology, 41, 1004. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01004
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01004 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sacks, H.
    (1995) Lectures on conversation, 21vols. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (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]
  40. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1996) Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2000) “When ‘Others’ Initiate Repair”. Applied Linguistics, 211, 205–243. 10.1093/applin/21.2.205
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.205 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 531, 361–382. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schremm, A., Horne, M., & Roll, M.
    (2015) Brain responses to syntax constrained by time- driven implicit prosodic phrases. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 351, 68–84. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  45. Selting, M.
    (2001) Fragments of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational talk. InM. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp.229–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.12sel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.12sel [Google Scholar]
  46. Thompson, S., Fox, B., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  47. Winkler, S.
    (2005) Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110890426
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110890426 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): collaborative turn construction; conversation; ellipsis; language acquisition
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