Volume 32, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



Based on longitudinal conversation data between a father and child collected over the period of eighteen months, this study examines “today narrative” where the father asks the child “how was your day” when they meet after being apart during the day. The routine provides a recurrent sequential structure, which is both located within and itself occasions further talk. Examining the talk between this father and child longitudinally reveals how the initial sequential structure, where the child lists activities in short run-on sentences, goes through transformation and elaboration. Indices for development include the emergence of three-part structure in the child’s list construction, more details incorporated in the list, story prefaces, and the emergence of assessment response (or personal voice). The overall sequential organization of the routine moves from heavy reliance on the father’s questions to more volunteered talk by the child. This paper considers the generalizability of longitudinal conversation analytic data.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Atkinson, J. Maxwell
    1984Our Masters’ Voices. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aukrust, Vibeke
    2002 “‘What did you do in school today?’ Speech Genres and Tellability in Multiparty Family Mealtime Conversations in two Cultures”. InTalking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition, ed. byShoshana Blum-Kulka and Catherine E. Snow, 55–84. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bachman, Lyle F.
    1990Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berger, Evelyn and Simona Pekarek Doehler.
    2018 “Tracking Change Over Time in Storytelling Practices: A Longitudinal Study of Second Language Talk-in-interaction.” InLongitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction, ed. bySimona Pekarek Doehler, Johannes Wagner, and Esther Gonzalez-Martinez, 67–102. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑57007‑9_3
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9_3 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1993 “‘You Gotta Know How to Tell a Story’: Telling, Tales, and Tellers in American and Israeli Narrative Events at Dinner.” Language in Society22 (3): 361–402.   10.1017/S0047404500017280
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017280 [Google Scholar]
  6. 1997Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brouwer, Catherine. E., and Johannes Wagner
    2004 “Developmental Issues in Second Language Conversation.” Journal of Applied Linguistics1: 29–47.   10.1558/japl.
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl. [Google Scholar]
  8. Button, Graham, and Neil Casey
    1984 “Generating Topic: The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors.” InStructures of Social Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 167–190. New York: Cambridge University Press.   10.1017/CBO9780511665868.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.013 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1985 “Topic Nomination and Pursuit.” Human Studies9: 355–400.   10.1007/BF00143022
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143022 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carlin, Andrew P.
    2003 “Pro Forma Arrangements: The Visual Availability of Textual Artefacts.” Visual Studies18 (1): 6–20.   10.1080/1472586032000100038
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586032000100038 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carlin, Andrew P. and Younhee Kim
    2021 “Longitudinal Conversation Analysis of Parent–child Interaction: Small Data and Interdisciplinary Work in Linguistics and Sociology.” InSAGE Research Methods Cases, Part 1.   10.4135/9781529757248
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529757248 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cekaite, Asta
    2007 “A Child’s Development of Interactional Competence in a Swedish L2 Classroom.” Modern Language Journal91 (1): 45–62.   10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00509.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00509.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2011a “The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics.” Human Studies34 (2): 115–128.   10.1007/s10746‑011‑9187‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2011b “Notionalization: The Transformation of Descriptions into Categorizations.” Human Studies34 (2): 155–181.   10.1007/s10746‑011‑9186‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9186-9 [Google Scholar]
  15. Drew, Paul
    1992 “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   10.4324/9781315250663‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315250663-12 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1997 “‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics28: 69–101.   10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)89759‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Filipi, Anna
    2009Toddler and Parent Interaction: The Organization of Gaze, Pointing and Vocalization. The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.192
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.192 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2015 “The Development of Recipient Design in Bilingual Child-Parent Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction48 (1): 100–119.   10.1080/08351813.2015.993858
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.993858 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2018 “Making Knowing Visible: Tracking the Development of the Response Token Yes in Second Turn Position.” InLongitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction, ed. bySimona Pekarek Doehler, Johannes Wagner, and Esther Gonzalez-Martinez, 39–66. London: Palgrave Macmillan.   10.1057/978‑1‑137‑57007‑9_2
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9_2 [Google Scholar]
  20. Forrester, Michael A.
    2008 “The Emergence of Self-Repair: A Case Study of One Child During the Preschool Years.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41: 97–126.   10.1080/08351810701691206
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691206 [Google Scholar]
  21. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    1987 “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments.” IPRA Papers in Pragmatics1 (1): 1–54.   10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo [Google Scholar]
  23. Greer, Tim
    2019 “Initiating and Delivering News of the Day: Interactional Competence as Joint-development.” Journal of Pragmatics146: 150–164.   10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hall, Joan Kelly
    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 Linguistics14 (2): 145–166.   10.1093/applin/14.2.145
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.145 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1999 “A Prosaics of Interaction: The Development of Interactional Competence in Another Language.” InCulture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, ed. byEli Hinkel, 137–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hall, Joan Kelly, John Hellermann, and Simona Pekarek Doehler
    (eds.) 2011L2 Interactional Competence and Development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hellermann, John
    2008Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690272
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690272 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hellermann, John, and Y-A Lee
    2014 “Members and their Competencies: Contributions of Ethnomethodological Conversation Analysis to a Multilingual Turn in Second Language Acquisition.” System44: 54–65.   10.1016/j.system.2014.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Heritage, John
    1984 “A Change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heritage, John and David Greatbatch
    1986 “Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences.” American Journal of Sociology92 (1): 110–157.   10.1086/228465
    https://doi.org/10.1086/228465 [Google Scholar]
  31. Higgins, Christina
    2009 “‘Are you Hindu?’: Resisting Membership Categorization.” InTalk-in-interaction: Multilingual Perspectives, ed. byHanh Nguyen and Gabriele Kasper, 111–136. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hymes, Dell
    1972 “On Communicative Competence.” InSociolinguistics, ed. byJ. B. Pride and Janet Holmes, 269–293. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jefferson, Gail
    1972 “Side Sequences.” InStudies in Social Interaction, ed. byDavid Sudnow, 294–338. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1978 “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. byJim Schenkein, 219–248. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50016‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1990 “List-construction as a Task and Resource.” InInteraction Competence, ed. byGeorge Psathas, 63–92. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2004 “A Note on Laughter in ‘Male’-‘Female’ Interaction.” Discourse Studies6 (1): 117–133.   10.1177/1461445604039445
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039445 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jefferson, Gail, and John R. E. Lee
    1992 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew, and John Heritage, 521–548. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kasper, Gabriele, and Merete Dahl
    1991 “Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition13 (2): 215–247. 10.1017/S0272263100009955
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009955 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kasper, Gabriele, and Johannes Wagner
    2011 “A Conversation-analytic Approach to Second Language Acquisition.” InAlternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. byDwight Atkinson, 117–142. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Keel, Sara
    2016Socialization: Parent – Child Interaction in Everyday Life. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315609706
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315609706 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim, Younhee and Andrew P. Carlin
    2019 “Today narrative” in Parent-child Interaction with a Focus on Increasing Interactional Complexity. Presented at theSecond International Conference on Interactional Competences and Practices in a Second Language (ICOP-L2), May, Mälardalen University, Sweden.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. . (no date). Storytelling in Parent-child Interaction: A Socialization-Interactional Competence Nexus. Unpublished manuscript, University of Macau. [Under Review at Text and Talk]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kim, Younhee and Crepaldi, Yvonne T.
    (2021) “Co-constructed Storytelling as a Site for Socialization in Parent-child Interaction: A Case from a Malay-English Bilingual Family in Singapore.” Journal of Pragmatics172: 167–180.   10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.019 [Google Scholar]
  44. Koschmann, Timothy
    2013 “Conversation Analysis and Learning in Interaction.” InThe Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. byCarol A. Chapelle, 1038–1043. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.   10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0208
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0208 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lerner, Gene
    1992 “Assisted Storytelling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter.” Qualitative Sociology15 (3): 247–271.   10.1007/BF00990328
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990328 [Google Scholar]
  46. 1995 “Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities.” Discourse Processes19 (1): 111–131.   10.1080/01638539109544907
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544907 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mackay, Robert W.
    1974 “Conceptions of Children and Models of Socialization.” InEthnomethodology: Selected Readings, ed. byRoy Turner, 180–193. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Mackay, Wendy E.
    1995 “Ethics, Lies and Videotape …” CHI’95 Mosaic of Creativity: Conference Proceedings on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ed. byIrvin R. Katz, 138–145. Denver, CO: Association for Computing Machinery Press/Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Mehan, Hugh
    1979Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ochs, Elinor, and Lisa Capps
    2001Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ohta, Amy Snyder
    1999 “Interactional Routines and the Socialization of Interactional Style in Adult Learners of Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics31 (11): 1493–1512.   10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00115‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00115-5 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2019 “On the Nature and the Development of L2 Interactional Competence: State of the Art and Implications for Praxis.” InTeaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice, ed. byM. Rafael Salaberry and Silvia Kunitz, 25–59. New York: Routledge.   10.4324/9781315177021‑2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-2 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Johannes Wagner, and Esther González-Martínez
    eds. 2018Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.   10.1057/978‑1‑137‑57007‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Evelyn Pochon-Berger
    2011 “Developing ‘Methods’ for Interaction: Disagreement Sequences in French L2.” InL2 Interactional Competence and Development, ed. byJoan Kelly Hall, John Hellermann, and Simona Pekarek Doehler, 206–243. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.   10.21832/9781847694072‑010
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-010 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Evelyn Berger
    2016 “L2 Interactional Competence as Increased Ability for Context-sensitive Conduct: A Longitudinal Study of Story Openings.” Applied Linguistics39 (4): 555–578.   10.1093/applin/amw021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pomerantz, Anita
    1978 “Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple Constraints.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interactioned. byJim Schenkein, 79–112. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50010‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50010-0 [Google Scholar]
  57. 1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 1988 “Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy.” Communication Monographs55 (4): 360–373.   10.1080/03637758809376177
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177 [Google Scholar]
  59. Pomerantz, Anita, and Jenny Mandelbaum
    2005 “A Conversation Analytic Approach to Relationships.” InHandbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. byKristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders, 149–171. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Richards, Jack C., and Theodore S. Rodgers
    2001Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667305
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sacks, Harvey
    1974 “An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation.” InExplorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, ed. byR. Bauman and J. Sherzer, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 1975 “Everyone has to Lie.” InSociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, ed. byM. Sanches and B. G. Blount, 57–80. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and their Interaction.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. byGeorge Psathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Searles, Darcey K.
    2019 “Positioning Updates as Relevant: An Analysis of Child-initiated Updating in American and Canadian Families.” Research on Children and Social Interaction3 (1–2): 144–167.   10.1558/rcsi.37286
    https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.37286 [Google Scholar]
  65. Strauss, Susan, and Yumiko Kawanishi
    1996 “Assessment Strategies in Japanese, Korean, and American English.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics5: 149–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Takada, Akira, and Michie Kawashima
    2019 “Caregivers’ Strategies for Eliciting Storytelling from Toddlers in Japanese Caregiver-child Picture Book Reading Activities.” Research on Children and Social Interaction3 (1–2): 196–223.   10.1558/rcsi.37287
    https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.37287 [Google Scholar]
  67. Tolmie, Peter, and Mark Rouncefield
    2013 “Reading for Pleasure: Bedtime Stories.” InEthnomethodology at Play, ed. byPeter Tolmie and Mark Rouncefield, 53–71. Farnham: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Wagner, Johannes, Simona Pekarek Doehler, and Esther González-Martinez
    2018 “Longitudinal Research on the Organization of Social Interaction: Current Developments and Methodological Challenges.” InLongitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction, ed. bySimona Pekarek Doehler, Johannes Wagner, and Esther Gonzalez-Martinez, 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]
  69. Waring, Hansun Zhang
    2013 “‘How was your Weekend?”: Developing the Interactional Competence in Managing Routine Inquiries.” Language Awareness22 (1): 1–16.   10.1080/09658416.2011.644797
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.644797 [Google Scholar]
  70. Watson, D. Rod
    1990 “Some Features of the Elicitation of Confessions in Murder Interrogations.” InInteraction Competence, ed. byGeorge Psathas, 263–295. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Watson, Rod
    2008 “Comparative Sociology, Laic and Analytic: Some Critical Remarks on Comparison in Conversation Analysis.” Cahiers de praxématique50: 203–244.   10.4000/praxematique.967
    https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.967 [Google Scholar]
  72. Wootton, Anthony J.
    1997Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519895
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519895 [Google Scholar]
  73. Zimmerman, Don H.
    1999 “Horizontal and Vertical Comparative Research in Language and Social Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction32 (1&2): 195–203.   10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_23
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_23 [Google Scholar]
  74. Young, Richard F.
    2008Language and Interaction: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Zimmerman, Don H. and Melvin Pollner
    1970 “The Everyday World as Phenomenon.” InUnderstanding Everyday Life: Towards a Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge, ed. byJack D. Douglas, 80–103. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑015624‑8.50006‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-015624-8.50006-6 [Google Scholar]

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