Cover not available
Article In:
Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 15:2 (2024) ► pp.242–276

A multi-dimensional analysis of backchannels in L1 German, L1 Italian and L2 German

 | University of Cologne
 | University of Cologne
 | University of Cologne
Previous research has found that vocal feedback, referred to as backchannels, has positive effects on social interaction, especially by indicating listener engagement. For second language (L2) learners, however, backchannels can be challenging, because their use is bound by cultural and language-specific conventions. This study focuses on backchannels as used in dyadic task-oriented dialogue of native speakers of German and native speakers of Italian, the latter both in their native (L1) Italian and in their L2 German, at two proficiency levels. We provide an in-depth multidimensional analysis of backchannel rate, duration, intonation, lexical form, and turn-taking function. We found that dyad-specific behaviour generally outweighs effects of proficiency. Despite considerable variability across dyads, learners tended to reproduce behaviour from their L1 in their L2 in the form of a complex mapping between intonation, lexical form and turn-taking function.
Keywords: backchannels, backchannel intonation, L2 acquisition, individual variability, crosslinguistic communication, interactional competence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Backchannels in intercultural and L2 communication
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Task
    • 3.3Data
    • 3.4Data treatment and coding
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1BC rate
    • 4.2BC length
    • 4.3BC structure
    • 4.4BC type
      • 4.4.1BC type by function
      • 4.4.2Other VSU types by function
    • 4.5BC intonation
      • 4.5.1Intonation of other VSUs
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
    • 5.1Discussion
    • 5.2Implications of the study
    • 5.3Limitations of the study
  • CRediT authorship contribution statement
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (95)
References
Albert, A., Cangemi, F., Ellison, T. M., & Grice, M. (2020). ProPer: PROsodic analysis with periodic energy.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. DOI logo
Amador-Moreno, C. P., McCarthy, M., & O’Keeffe, A. (2013). Can English provide a framework for Spanish response tokens? In Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2013 (pp. 175–201). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., … others. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34 (4), 351–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berry, A. (1994). Spanish and American turn-taking styles: A comparative study. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, 5 1, 180–190.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2021). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer programme]. Version, 6.2 (Version 6.2). [Retrieval date: 12/11/2024]Google Scholar
Borras, J. & Llanes, A. (2019). Re-examining the impact of study abroad on L2 development: a critical overview. The Language Learning Journal. 491. 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Larsen, J. (2015). Interactional competence in second language acquisition. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review, 19 1, 265–287.Google Scholar
Cangemi, F. (2015). Mausmooth [Praat script]. Retrieved from [URL] [Retrieval date: 12/11/2024]
Cangemi, F., Albert, A., & Grice, M. (2019). Modelling intonation: Beyond segments and tonal targets. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 572–576). Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Castello, E., & Gesuato, S. (2019). Holding up one’s end of the conversation in spoken English: Lexical backchannels in L2 examination discourse. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5 (2), 231–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 (3), 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF Conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta, (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings (pp. 254–273). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (CEFR). (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutrone, P. (2005). A case study examining backchannels in conversations between Japanese-British dyads. Multilingua. Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 24 (3), 237–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). A cross-cultural examination of the backchannel behavior of Japanese and Americans: Considerations for Japanese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11 (1), 83–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42 (4), 476–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dideriksen, C., Fusaroli, R., Tylén, K., Dingemanse, M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019). Contextualizing conversational strategies: backchannel, repair and linguistic alignment in spontaneous and task-oriented conversations. In The 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 261–267). Cognitive Science Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drummond, K., & Hopper, R. (1993). Back channels revisited: Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26 (2), 157–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. (1974). On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society, 3 (2), 161–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S., & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Edlund, J., Heldner, M., & Pelcé, A. (2009). Prosodic features of very short utterances in dialogue. In Nordic prosody — Proceedings of the Xth conference (pp. 57–68). Citeseer.Google Scholar
Fellegy, A. M. (1995). Patterns and functions of minimal response. American Speech. International Journal of Educational Best Practices, 2 (1), 186–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C., & Kelly, B. F. (2012). Listening between the lines: social assumptions around foreign accents. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 35 (1), 74–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (2), 275–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, C. C. (1952). The structure of English. Harcourt & Brice.Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016). Investigating conversational dynamics: Interactive alignment, interpersonal synergy, and collective task performance. Cognitive Science, 40 (1), 145–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35 (5), 553–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2016). Discourse markers in L2 English. From classroom to naturalistic input. In O. Timofeeva, A.-C. Gardner, A. Honkapohja, & S. Chevalier (Eds.), New approaches to English linguistics (213–249). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Girgin, U., & Brandt, A. (2020). Creating space for learning through ‘Mm hm’ in a L2 classroom: Implications for L2 classroom interactional competence. Classroom Discourse, 11 (1), 61–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 6 (3), 283–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, M., & Savino, M. (2003). Map tasks in Italian: Asking questions about given, accessible and new information. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 2 1, 153–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ha, K.-P. (2012). Prosody in Vietnamese: Intonational form and function of short utterances in conversation (PhD thesis). Canberra: The Australian National University; Asia-Pacific Linguistics (SEAMLES).
Ha, K.-P., Ebner, S., & Grice, M. (2016). Speech prosody and possible misunderstandings in intercultural talk: A study of listener behaviour in standard Vietnamese and German dialogues. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody (pp. 801–805). Boston. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics, 16 (2), 206–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Y. (2014). Japanese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. Talking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency, 14 1, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinz, B. (2003). Backchannel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speakers’ conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (7), 1113–1142. 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
Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28 (3), 171–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janz, A. (2022). Navigating common ground using feedback in conversation — A phonetic analysis [MA thesis]. University of Cologne.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah” and “mm hm.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 30 1, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle 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
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26 1, 22–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kjellmer, G. (2009). Where do we backchannel?: On the use of mm, mhm, uh huh and such like. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14 (1), 81–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kousidis, S. & Dorran, D. (2009). Monitoring convergence of temporal features in spontaneous dialogue speech. 1st Young Researchers Workshop on Speech Technology, University College Dublin. Dublin, Ireland, 25th April. URL: [URL]
Kraaz, M., & Bernaisch, T. (2022). Backchannels and the pragmatics of South Asian Englishes. World Englishes, 41 (2), 224–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraut, R. E., Lewis, S. H., & Swezey, L. W. (1982). Listener responsiveness and the coordination of conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (4), 718–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambertz, K. (2011). Back-channelling: The use of yeah and mm to portray engaged listenership. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 4 1, 11–18.Google Scholar
Li, H. Z. (2006). Backchannel responses as misleading feedback in intercultural discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35 (2), 99–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, H. Z., Cui, Y., & Wang, Z. (2010). Backchannel responses and enjoyment of the conversation: The more does not necessarily mean the better. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2 (1), 25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. (2009). Rethinking spoken fluency. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 9 1, 11–29.Google Scholar
Mifka-Profozic, N. (2023). Interactive alignment in L2 Learning: The link between social ionteraction and psycholinguistic phenomena. Education Sciences, 13 (8), 792. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nurjaleka, L. (2019). Backchannel behavior in interview discourse: A contrastive study between Japanese and Indonesian. In Eleventh Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2018) (pp. 451–457). Atlantis Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, J. (2011). Fluency, complexity and informativeness in native and non-native speech. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16 (2), 276–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piccardo, E., North, B., & Goodier, T. (2019). Broadening the scope of language education: Mediation, plurilingualism, and collaborative learning: The CEFR companion volume. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15 (1).Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation, 4 1, 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, B. J., & Malvern, D. D. (2000). Accommodation in oral interviews between foreign language learners and teachers who are not native speakers. Studia Linguistica, 54 (2), 260–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, M. J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65 (3), 395–412. DOI logoGoogle 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
Saito, K., Ilkan, M., Magne, V., Tran, M. N., & Suzuki, S. (2018). Acoustic characteristics and learner profiles of low-, mid- and high-level second language fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39 (3), 593–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savignon, S. (1990). Communicative language teaching: Definitions and directions. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 1 1, 207–217.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 635–651). Routledge.Google Scholar
Savino, M. (2010). Intonational strategies for backchanneling in Italian Map Task dialogues. In Third ISCA workshop on experimental linguistics (pp. 157–160). URL: [URL]
(2011). The intonation of backchannels in Italian task-oriented dialogues: Cues to turn-taking dynamics, information status and speaker’s attitude. In Proceedings of the 5th Language and Technology Conference: Human language technology as a challenge for Computer Science and Linguistics, Poznan (Poland), 25–27 November 2011 (pp. 370–374). URL: [URL]
(2014). The intonation of backchannel tokens in Italian collaborative dialogues. In Z. Vetulani & J. Mariani (Eds.), Human language technology challenges for Computer Science and Linguistics. Springer. URL: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savino, M., Sbranna, S., Ventura, C., Albert, A., & Grice, M. (2022). Imitating intonation in a non-native variety: the influence of the native repertoire. 11th International Conference on Speech Prosody, 2022. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbranna, S., Cangemi, F., & Grice, M. (2020). Quantifying L2 interactional competence. In L. Romito (Ed.), Language change under contact conditions: acquisitional contexts, languages, dialects and minorities in Italy and around the world (pp. 383–405). Officinaventuno. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbranna, S., Möking, E., Wehrle, S., & Grice, M. (2022). Backchannelling across languages: Rate, lexical choice and intonation in L1 Italian, L1 German and L2 German. 11th International Conference on Speech Prosody, 2022. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbranna, S., Ventura, C., Albert, A., & Grice, M. (2023). Prosodic marking of information status in Italian. Journal of Phonetics, 97 1, 101212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbranna, S., Wehrle, S., & Grice, M. (2022). The use of backchannels and other very short utterances by Italian learners of German. In Orrico, R. & Schettino, L. The position of the speaker in interaction: attitudes, intentions, and emotions in verbal communication (pp. 149–169). Officinaventuno.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, 71 1, 71–93.Google Scholar
Senk, K. M. (1997). Analyzing interactional management in native/non-native English conversation: A case of listener response. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 35 (1), 37.Google Scholar
Shelley, L., & Gonzalez, F. (2013). Back channeling: Function of back channeling and L1 effects on back channeling in L2. Linguistic Portfolios, 2 (1), 9.Google Scholar
Simon, C. (2018). The functions of active listening responses. Behavioural Processes, 157 1, 47–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spaniol, M., Janz, A., Wehrle, S., Vogeley, K., & Grice, M. (2023). Multimodal signalling: the interplay of oral and visual feedback in conversation. In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Stocksmeier, T., Kopp, S., & Gibbon, D. (2007). Synthesis of prosodic attitudinal variants in German backchannel ja . In Proceedings of Interspeech 2007 (Antwerp) (pp. 1290–1293). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, H., & Thompson, S. A. (1991). English backchannels in Mandarin conversations: A case study of superstratum pragmatic “interference.” Journal of Pragmatics, 16 (3), 209–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tolins, J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). Addressee backchannels steer narrative development. Journal of Pragmatics, 70 1, 152–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G. (1991). Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B. (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 254–271). Routledge.Google Scholar
Tsai, P. S., & Chu, W. H. (2017). The use of discourse markers among Mandarin Chinese teachers, and Chinese as second language and Chinese as foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 38 (5), 638–665.Google Scholar
Ward, N., & Tsukahara, W. (2000). Prosodic features which cue back-channel responses in English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (8), 1177–1207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88 (3), 331–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehrle, S. (2021). A multi-dimensional analysis of conversation and intonation in autism spectrum disorder [PhD thesis]. University of Cologne.
Wehrle, S., & Grice, M. (2019). Function and prosodic form of backchannels in L1 and L2 German. Poster at the Hanyang international symposium on phonetics and cognitive sciences of language 2019 , Seoul (South Korea).
Wehrle, S., Grice, M., & Vogeley, K. (2023). Filled pauses produced by autistic adults differ in prosodic realisation, but not rate or lexical type. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehrle, S., Roettger, T. B., & Grice, M. (2018). Exploring the dynamics of backchannel interpretation: The meandering mouse paradigm. Presentation at ProsLang–Workshop on the Processing of Prosody across Languages and Varieties . Wellington, New Zealand.
Wehrle, S., Vogeley, K., & Grice, M. (2024). Backchannels in conversations between autistic adults are less frequent and less diverse prosodically and lexically. Language and Cognition, 16 (1), 108–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, S. (1989). Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language in Society, 18 (1), 59–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., & Grice, M. (2021). Independence and generalizability in linguistics. Linguistics, 59 (5), 1251–1277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J. P. (2008). The effects of backchannels on fluency in L2 oral task production. System, 36 (2), 279–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In Chicago Linguistics Society, 6th Meeting, 1970 (pp. 567–578).Google Scholar
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 (Vol. 21) (pp. 426–443). Routledge.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar