Cover not available
Article published In:
Describing and assessing interactional competence in a second language: Special issue of the journal of Applied Pragmatics 5:2 (2023)
Edited by Emma Betz, Taiane Malabarba and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Applied Pragmatics 5:2] 2023
► pp. 174–201

Grammar as validity evidence for assessing L2 interactional competence

The case of requests in role-play interaction

ORCID logo | Daegu National University of Education

This study examines how L2 learners of English at different pragmatic performance levels implement requests during role-play assessment interaction. In doing so, the role of grammar-for-interaction as validity evidence of assessing interactional competence is explicated. Using qualitative and quantitative data, the following research questions are investigated: (a) How do learners use grammar differently depending on the role-play request situations they are engaged in?; (b) To what extent are learners’ role-play performance levels associated with the ability to use context-sensitive grammar when co-constructing request sequences? The data come from a database of 102 L2 English learners’ role-play interactions with 45 hours of recorded interaction in total. The role-play assessment tasks include various real-life communicative situations, such as requests designed for specific interlocutors in a university context. Using conversation analysis, the role-play interactions at different performance levels were analyzed. Sequential analyses showed that higher-level learners utilized diverse grammatical formats that are sensitive to their sequential positions and contingencies associated with requests. As quantitative evidence, the relationship between selected grammatical constructions and the learners’ role-play performance levels determined by trained raters was examined. With this, I discuss the role of grammar-for-interaction in defining and assessing interactional competence.

Keywords: language Assessment, requests, grammar-for-interaction, validity Evidence, role-plays, interactional competence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1L2 grammar-for-interaction: The case of requests
    • 2.2Grammar as the evidence of assessing speaking proficiency
  • 3.This study
  • 4.Data and methods
    • 4.1Data
    • 4.2Methods
      • 4.2.1Qualitative analysis
      • 4.2.2Quantitative analysis
        • 4.2.2.1First variable (Coded data)
        • 4.2.2.2Second variable (Scores for role-play performances)
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Sequential positions and grammar constructions in role-play interaction
      • 5.1.1Recommendation letter request
        • 5.1.1.1Higher-level learners
        • 5.1.1.2Lower-level learners
      • 5.1.2Advising-time request
        • 5.1.2.1Higher-level learners
        • 5.1.2.2Lower-level learners
    • 5.2Relationships between grammatical constructions and role-play performance level
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00012.you
References
AERA, APA, NCME (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education)
(1999) Standards for education and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Alcón-Soler, E.
(2017) Pragmatic development during study abroad: An analysis of Spanish teenagers’ request strategies in English emails. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37 1, 77–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C.
(2012) Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33 1, 42–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
British Council
n.d.). IELTS speaking band descriptors (public version). Retrieved from [URL]
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S.
(1995) Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 1, 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2001) Interactional prosody: High onsets in reasons-for-the-call turns. Language in Society, 30 1, 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, D. J.
(2016) Request modification in synchronous computer-mediated communication: The role of focused instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 100 1, 484–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P.
(2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 1, 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R.
(2001) Meaning in interaction: The case of ‘actually’. Language, 77 1, 245–291. [URL]
De Ruiter, J. P., & Albert, S.
(2017) An appeal for a methodological fusion of conversation analysis and experimental psychology. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50 1, 90–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2014) Requesting – from speech act to recruitment. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 1–34). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D.
(1993) Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W.
(2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62 1, 335–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 1–15). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E.
(2013) Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal, 97 1, 828–852. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, J.
(2007) The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal, 91 1, 83–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S., & Piirainen-Marsh, A.
(Eds.) (2019) Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, E. D.
(2014) Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35 1, 553–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L.
(2018) Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15 1, 219–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K.
(2018) From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9 1, 25–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S.
(2008) Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29 1, 24–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(1983) Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. In V. D’Urso & P. Leonardi (Eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetorics (pp. 11–38). Cleup Editors.Google Scholar
(1984) Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (ix–xvi). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, G.
(2006) Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 111 (pp. 281–314). Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2009) Korean discourse markers in L2 Korean speakers’ conversation: An acquisitional perspective. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 317–350). University of Hawai‘i.Google Scholar
Lam, D. M. K.
(2018) What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35 1, 377–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M.
(2013) A user’s guide to FACETS: Rasch-model computer programs. [URL]
Markee, N.
(2019) Some theoretical reflections on the construct of interactional competence. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 60–76). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T.
(1997) ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18 1, 446–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Messick, S.
(1989) Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education & Macmillan.Google Scholar
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 1, 165–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A.
(Eds.) (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2018) Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9 1, 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–268). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plough, I., Banerjee, J., & Iwashita, N.
(Eds.) (2018) Special issue on interactional competence. Language Testing, 35 (3).Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J.
(2013) Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roever, C.
(2011) Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28 1, 463–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salaberry, M. R., & Burch, A. R.
(Eds.) (2021) Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (p. 71–93). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2015) Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48 1, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streek, J.
(2021) The emancipation of gestures. Interactional Linguistics, 1 1, 90–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
(2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Urdan, T. C.
(2017) Statistics in plain English. Routledge.Google Scholar
Youn, S. J.
(2015) Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32 (2), 199–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Youn, S. J., & Burch, A. R.
(2020) Where conversation analysis meets language assessment: Toward expanding epistemologies and validity evidence. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9 1, iii–xvii.Google Scholar
Youn, S. J.
(2020) Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment: Validity evidence of interactional competence across levels. Language Testing, 37 (1), 76–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar