The competence in little words
Response patterns in German L2 interaction
L2 frameworks, such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, describe expected linguistic abilities at different levels of L2 development. These frameworks, and the assessment rubrics they inform, only peripherally address how L2 speakers respond to informings in interaction. Through responses interactants show their understanding of, and stance toward, a previous informing. In question-answer sequences in which a participant requests new information, the response to the answer may additionally reveal the questioning participant’s orientation to the answer in terms of its fit with the question. Responses to informings are thus a site of important interactional work. In our paper, we draw on the notion of ‘Interactional Competence’ and propose a conversation-analytic approach to assessing L2 speakers’ responses to elicited informings in German in question-answer sequences. We analyze L2 speakers’ use of tokens (e.g., oh, okay, wirklich) in sequentially third position in dyadic, video-mediated everyday conversations with L1 speakers, as, in the turns following the third-position token, participants make visible their understanding of the token. We thereby attempt to describe how competent an L2 speaker’s use of a third-position token is. We end our paper by using our findings to make recommendations for language assessment frameworks and rubrics.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature Review: L2 interactional competence and its assessment
- 3.The study’s focus: Question-answer sequences and third position
- 4.Data and method
- 5.Analyses of interaction: L2 learners’ third-position response tokens in informing sequences
- 5.1Looking for recognizability in sequential unfolding: Third-position okay
- 5.2Third position oh + okay: Minimal expansion after a third-position token combination
- 5.3Third position achso okay: A third-position token and sequential closure
- 5.4Third position wirklich: Inviting sequential expansion
- 6.Discussion: Assessing L2 German interaction: Goethe-Zertifikat
- 7.Conclusion and implications
- Notes
-
References
References (58)
References
ACTFL. (2017). NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do statements. [Electronic version] [URL]
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). Double sayings of German ja: More observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction,
44
(2), 157–185. 
Betz, E., & Deppermann, A. (2018). Indexing priority of position: Eben as response particle in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction,
51
(2), 171–193.
Betz, E., & Huth, T. (2014). Beyond grammar: Teaching interaction in the German language classroom. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German,
47
(2), 140–163.
Betz, E., Taleghani-Nikazm, C., Drake, V., & Golato, A. (2013). Third-position repeats in German: The case of repair- and request-for-information sequence. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion,
14
1, 133–166. [URL]
Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. [URL]
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’. In M. Laakso, M. Haakana & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp. 94–123). Finnish Literature Society.
Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation to interaction. Language Testing,
26
(3), 423–443.
East, M. (2020). Addressing the possibilities and limitations of implementing a new classroom-based assessment of oral proficiency. In M. Poehner & O. Inbar-Lourie (Eds.), Toward a reconceptualization of second language classroom assessment (pp. 221–240). Springer.
Galaczi, E. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics,
35
(5), 553–574.
Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly,
15
(3), 219–236.
Gardner, R. (2007). “Broken” starts: bricolage in turn starts in second language talk. In Z. Hua, P. Seedhouse, L. Wei, & V. Cook (Eds.), Language learning and teaching as social interaction (pp. 58–71). Palgrave Macmillan.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
Goethe-Institut (2021). Goethe-Zertifikat A2: Modellsatz Erwachsene. Goethe-Institut.
Golato, A. (2010). Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies,
12
(2), 147–176.
Golato, A. (2012). German oh: marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction,
45
(3), 245–268.
Golato, A., & Betz, E. (2008). German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft,
27
(1), 7–37.
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1–18). Multilingual Matters.
Heinemann, T., & Koivisto, A. (2016). Indicating a change-of-state in interaction: Crosslinguistic explorations. Journal of Pragmatics,
104
1, 83–88.
Hellermann, J. (2009). Practices for dispreferred responses using ‘no’ by a learner of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
47
(1), 95–126.
Hellermann, J. (2011). Members’ methods, members’ competencies: Looking for evidence of language learning in longitudinal investigations of other-initiated repair. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 Interactional competence and development (pp. 147–172). Multilingual Matters.
Helmer, H., Betz, E., & Deppermann, A. (2021). Coordination of OKAY, nods, and gaze in claiming understanding and closing topics. In E. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), OKAY across languages. Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction (pp. 363–393). John Benjamins.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp. 255–280). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 208–230). Sage.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Polity Press.
Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics,
38
1, 2025–2050.
Huth, T. (2019). Adding and rethinking: Interactional competency and proficiency. Interactional competencies and practices in a second language (ICOP L2), Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden. May 29–31, 2019.
Huth, T. (2021). Conceptualizing interactional learning targets for the second language curriculum. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp. 359–381). Springer.
Huth, T., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research,
10
(1), 53–79.
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 doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Imo, W. (2011). Nein sagen, ‘wow’ meinen … Die Reaktion auf Informationen durch inszeniertes Infragestellen als sequenzielles Muster einer interaktionalen Grammatik [Saying no, meaning ‘wow’ … Reacting to information with show questioning as a sequential pattern in an interactional grammar]. In J. C. Freienstein, J. Hagemann, & S. Staffelt (Eds.), Äußern und Bedeuten (pp. 251–264). Stauffenburg.
Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language & Social Interaction,
26
(1), 1–30.
Koivisto, A. (2019). Repair receipts: On their motivation and interactional import. Discourse Studies,
21
(4), 398–420.
Lee, S. H. (2013). Response design in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 415–432). Blackwell.
May, L., Nakatsuhara, F., Lam, D., & Galaczi, E. (2020). Developing tools for learning oriented assessment of interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Language Testing,
37
(2), 165–188.
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription. [URL]
Oloff, F. (2017). Genau als redebeitragsinterne, responsive, sequenzschließende oder sequenzstrukturierende Bestätigungspartikel im Gespräch. In H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy, T. (Eds.), Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen (pp. 207–232). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Oloff, F. (2019). Okay as a neutral acceptance token in German conversation. Lexique,
25
1, 197–225.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2019). On the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence: State of the art and implications for praxis. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 25–59). Routledge.
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.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing ‘methods’ for interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206–243). Multilingual Matters.
Roever, C., & Kasper, G. (2018). Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing,
35
(3), 331–355.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). Irvington.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language,
50
(4), 696–735.
Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S. (2019). Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Routledge.
Sandlund, E. & Greer, T. (2020). How do raters understand rubrics for assessing L2 interactional engagement? A comparative study of CA- and non-CA-formulated performance descriptors. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment,
9
(1), 128–163.
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–286). Academic Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language,
53
(1–2), 361–382.
Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2015). On reference work and issues related to the management of knowledge: An analysis of the Farsi particle dige in turn-final position. Journal of Pragmatics,
87
1, 267–281.
Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2019). Ohja. Ja. Ja. (‘Oh yes. Yes. Yes.’): Providing the appropriate next relevant action in L2 interaction. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 125–141). Routledge.
Taleghani-Nikazm, C., & Huth, T. (2010). L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication,
29
(2), 185–202.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge University Press.
Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing,
32
(2), 199–225.
Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 426–443). Routledge.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Uskokovic, Budimka & Sam Schirm
2024.
Assessment of Interactional Competence in L2 German: Integrating an innovative rubric to help language teachers effectively evaluate pragmatics.
System 125
► pp. 103400 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.
