Cover not available
Article published In:
Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 6:1 (2024) ► pp.31–59

Sequence organization in L2 interactions

Differences in the post-expansion token okay and recipient uptake during storytelling episodes

ORCID logo | The University of Texas at Austin
Employing conversation analysis (CA) to analyze a first encounter between a second language (L2) learner and a native speaker (NS) of Spanish, this study demonstrates how interactants’ differences in deploying sequence expansion and recipient uptake impact the interaction. Focusing on sequence organization during storytelling episodes, I argue that both interactants, teller and recipient, act as co-authors of the telling episode by conveying stancetaking differently, to display (mis)alignment and/or (dis)affiliation with the telling. The focal data are derived from one videotaped, semi-structured conversation of an L2-NS dyad. I identify ten focal episodes of sequences representing some form of post-expansions, recipient uptake, and stancetaking. The study reveals that these two speakers used post-expansions differently: the Spanish NS used them to accept a second-pair part; the Spanish learner employed them to close a second-pair part and transition toward a new topic, such as when encountering less-preferred recipient uptake. Gestures and gaze (e.g., looking away from the interlocutor) accentuated closing a dispreferred second-pair part. Given the importance of recipient uptake in talk-in-interaction, the article offers implications for research and pedagogy regarding training L2 learners to produce appropriate sequences beyond minimal post-expansions in talk.
Keywords: sequence organization, storytelling, second language interactions, post-expansions, recipient uptake, stancetaking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sequence organization in talk-in-interaction
    • 2.1Post-expansions
    • 2.2Recipient uptake and stancetaking in talk-in-interaction
  • 3.The current study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Instruments for data collection
    • 3.3Procedures of data collection and analysis
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Sequence expansion with okay: Minimal post-expansions in storytelling
    • 4.2Recipient uptake: Acknowledgement and affiliative tokens
      • 4.2.1Passive minimal continuers
      • 4.2.2Active continuers
    • 4.3Stance-taking
      • 4.3.1Seeking affiliation
      • 4.3.2Portraying disaffiliation
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.22002.gar
References (60)
References
Al-Gahtani, S. (2017). Sequence organization of requests among Australian English and Saudi Arabic speakers: A contrastive study. Arabica, 64 (5–6), 761–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2014). Insert and post-expansions in L2 Arabic requests. System, 42 1, 189–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners and co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 941–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52 (3), 566–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19 (4), 325–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Using prosodically marked “Okays” to display epistemic stances and incongruous actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169 1, 151–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, E., & Sorjonen, M. L. (2021). Introduction: OKAY emergening as a cross-linguistic object of study in prior research. 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. 2–28). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2021a). OH + OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination. Open Linguistics, 7 (1), 816–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b). Language over time: Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English. Interactional Linguistics, 1 (1), 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
deSouza, D. K., Betz, E., Clinkenbeard, M., Morita, E., Shrikant, N. & Tuccio, W. A. (2021). Taking a detour before answering the question: Turn-initial okay in second position in English interaction. Language & Communication, 76 1, 47–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (S1), 19–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A. (1986). The audience as co-author: An introduction. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 6 (3), 239–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetakin in discourse: An introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1–26). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipi, A., & Wales, R. (2003). Differential uses of okay, right, and alright, and their function in signaling perspective shift or maintenance in a map task. Semiotica, 147 (1/4), 429–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 285–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaines, P. (2011). The multifunctionality of discourse oerator Okay: Evidences from a police interview. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (14), 3291–3315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 48 (1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9 1, 205–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (10), 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2018). From interactional competence to interactional repertoires: Reconceptualizing the goal of L2 learning, Classroom Discourse, 9 (1), 25–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23 (1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Polity.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1997). “A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 307–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics & language Learning (Vol. 111, pp. 281–314). University of Hawai‘i at Manoa/National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
(2008). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking (2nd ed., pp. 279–303). Continuum.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2015). How listeners use facial expression to shift the emotional stance of the speaker’s utterance. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48 (3), 319–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168 1, 119–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70 (4), 366–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, J. (1989). Interpersonal dynamics in conversational storytelling. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53 (2), 114–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 492–507). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2017). Using conversation tasks and retrospective methodology to investigate L2 pragmatics development: the case of EFL criticisms and responses to criticisms. The Language Learning Journal, 45 (3), 399–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Data collection methods in L2 pragmatics research: An overview. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 195–211). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2012). Facial pursuit of response. In A. Peräkylä & M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 64–91). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2016). Sequence organization. In J. Nussbaum (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedias: Communication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezaee, P. (2020). Word searches in Persian tutoring sessions: Opportunities for language learning. Applied Pragmatics, 2 (2), 148–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruusuvuori, J. (2013). Emotion, affect, and conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 330–349). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53 (2), 361–382. [URL]
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8 (4), 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleef, E. (2008). The “lecturer’s OK” revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the influence of academic division. American Speech, 83 (1), 62–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts:An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41 (1), 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Sequence organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 191–228). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2013). Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46 (1), 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Embodiment in human communication. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44 (1), 419–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2018). Advanced second language pragmatic competence. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benatti (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 505–526). Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Second language acquisition and pragmatics: An overview. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 31–46). Routledge.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. & Yamaguchi. (2019). Implicature comprehension in L2 pragmatics research. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 1–14). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J., & Gardner, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 1–17). Continuum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar