Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Classroom-based Conversation Analytic Research pp 359–381Cite as

Conceptualizing Interactional Learning Targets for the Second Language Curriculum

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Educational Linguistics ((EDUL,volume 46))

Abstract

The skill, awareness, and perhaps the competence, of language learners to engage in specific interactional behaviors are currently encapsulated in the term Interactional Competence (IC). While IC-oriented teaching materials propose learning targets beyond vocabulary and sentence level grammar, their action-oriented view of what language is and how language works contrasts with basic notions of language and proficiency currently reflected in transnational curriculum guidelines and assessment protocols. This paper illustrates how IC-oriented teaching materials can be conceptualized for, and used in, the second language classroom and argues that their use encourages a rethinking of the notions of language and proficiency for second language teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To appreciate the considerable difficulties innovation efforts face in the context of educational systems, see Adams and Chen (1981), Wall (1996), or Markee (1997).

References

  • Adams, R. S., & Chen, D. (1981). The process of educational innovation: An international perspective. London: Kogan Page/UNESCO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. Available at: https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012

  • Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (1997). Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms with conversation analysis. In A. J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching language, teaching culture (pp. 71–88). Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barraja-Rohan, A.-M., & Pritchard, C. R. (1997). Beyond talk: A course in communication and conversation skills for intermediate adult learners of English. Melbourne: Western Melbourne Institute of TAFE (now Victoria University).

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz, E., & Huth, T. (2014). Beyond grammar: Teaching interaction in the German language classroom. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 47(2), 140–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Can Daşkın, N. (this volume). A micro-analytic investigation into a practice of informal formative assessment in L2 classroom interaction. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayman, S. E. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 150–166). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Also available from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf

  • Council of Europe. (2018). CEFR companion volume with new descriptors. See https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989

  • Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131–149). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filipi, A., & Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2015). An interaction-focused pedagogy based on conversation analysis for developing L2 pragmatic competence. In S. Gesuato, F. Bianchi, & W. Cheng (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and investigating pragmatics: Principles, methods, and practices (pp. 231–251). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and compliment responses: Grammatical structure and sequential organization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. K., Hellerman, J., & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harren, I., & Raitaniemi, M. (2008). The sequential structure of closings in private German phone calls. Gesprächsforschung. Online Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 9, 198–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi, M. (2013). Turn allocation and turn sharing. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2025–2050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huth, T. (2014). “When in Berlin...”: Teaching German telephone openings. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 47(2), 164–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huth, T., & Betz, E. (2019). Testing interactional competence in language classrooms: Goals, formats, and caveats. In R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 322–356). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huth, T., Betz, E., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2019). Rethinking language teacher training: Steps for making talk-in-interaction research accessible to practitioners. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imo, W., & Moraldo, S. (Eds.). (2015). Interaktionale Sprache und ihre Didaktisierung im DaF-Unterricht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, A. (1994). Pragmatic failure in a second language: Greeting responses in English by Polish students. IRAL, 32(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampen-Robinson, C. (2014). “i’ve got to go now. bis dann”: Teaching closing sequences. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 47(2), 180–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 201–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunitz, S., & Yeh, M. (2019). Instructed L2 interactional competence in the first year. In R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 228–259). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luke, K., & Pavlidou, T. S. (Eds.). (2002). Telephone calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricular innovation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changing world. http://www.mla.org/resources/documents/flreport

  • Pekarek Doehler, S. (this volume). Toward a coherent understanding of L2 interactional competence: Epistemologies of language learning and teaching. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy. Cham: Springer.

    Google 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). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 8(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses. Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). New York: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rieger, C. (2003). Some conversational strategies and suggestions for teaching them. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 36(2), 164–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roever, C. (2018, May). Assessing interactional competence: Features, scoring, and practicality. Keynote address presented at the conference “assessing speaking in context: New trends”, Center for Languages and Intercultural Communication. Houston: Rice University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1987) [1973]. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S. (Eds.). (2019). Teaching and testing interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice: Texts and contexts in second language learning. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savignon, S. (1985). Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Modern Language Journal, 69(2), 129–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1986). Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections. In J. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, & N. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 207–234). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2002). A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1807–1832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschirner, E. (Ed.). (2012). Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing: The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the common European framework of reference for languages. Stauffenburg: Stauffenburg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, D. (1996). Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general education and from innovation theory. Language Testing, 13(3), 334–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, F. S. (this volume). Some considerations regarding validation in CA-informed oral testing for the L2 classroom. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waring, H. Z. (2018). Teaching L2 interactional competence: Problems and possibilities. Classroom discourse, 9, 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, J. (2002). “Applying” conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. IRAL, 40, 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Thorsten Huth

Authors
  1. Thorsten Huth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thorsten Huth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Language, Literature and Intercultural Studies, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

    Silvia Kunitz

  2. Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Numa Markee

  3. School of Education, Culture and Communication, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden

    Olcay Sert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Huth, T. (2021). Conceptualizing Interactional Learning Targets for the Second Language Curriculum. In: Kunitz, S., Markee, N., Sert, O. (eds) Classroom-based Conversation Analytic Research. Educational Linguistics, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52192-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52193-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation