Cover not available
Commentary 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. 202–207
Commentary

Grammar-in-Interaction and its place in assessing interactional competence

ORCID logo | Kobe University
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The co-constructed nature of interactional grammar
  • 3.The routinization of grammar for and through social action
  • 4.The quant-qual link: Is CA even a qualitative approach?
  • 5.A final word
  • References
Published online: 14 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00013.gre
References (14)
References
Auer, P. (2015). The temporality of language in interaction. In A. Depperman & S. Günthner, (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp. 27–56). John Benjamins. 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 (2), 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, E. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics 35 (5), 553–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, E. M., & Kendrick, K. H. (2017). Conversation analysis. In A. de Groot and P. Hagoort (Eds.). Research methods in psycholinguistics: A practical guide (pp. 151–173). Wiley Blackwell.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 (2), 165–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H. (2013). Grammar in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 475–491). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65 1, 137–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, I., & Pekarek Doehler, S. P. (2021). Linguistic structures in social interaction: Moving temporality to the forefront of a science of language. Interactional Linguistics, 1 (1), 2–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (2), 149–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Balaman, U. (2021). The routinization of grammar as a social action format: A longitudinal study of video-mediated interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54 (2), 183–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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), 132–166. [URL]
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26 (1), 99–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar