University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
2015
Interactional competence in paired speaking tests:
role of paired task and test-taker speaking ability in
co-constructed discourse
Katharina Kley
University of Iowa
Copyright 2015 Katharina Kley
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1663
Recommended Citation
Kley, Katharina. "Interactional competence in paired speaking tests: role of paired task and test-taker speaking ability in co-constructed
discourse." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2015.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1663.
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the First and Second Language Acquisition Commons
INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCE IN PAIRED SPEAKING TESTS: ROLE OF PAIRED
TASK AND TEST-TAKER SPEAKING ABILITY IN CO-CONSTRUCTED DISCOURSE
by
Katharina Kley
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Second Language Acquisition in the
Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
May 2015
Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro
Copyright by
KATHARINA KLEY
2015
All Rights Reserved
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
____________________________
PH.D. THESIS
_________________
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Katharina Kley
has been approved by the Examining Committee for
the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Second Language Acquisition at the May 2015 graduation.
Thesis Committee:
____________________________________________
Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro, Thesis Supervisor
____________________________________________
Sarah M. B. Fagan
____________________________________________
Kristine L. Muñoz
____________________________________________
Bruce Nottingham-Spencer
____________________________________________
Lia M. Plakans
____________________________________________
Donald B. Yarbrough
To my parents
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to all the people who were involved in this project. Without their support, it would
have been impossible to complete this dissertation. My deepest and sincere gratitude goes to my
advisor Judy Liskin-Gasparro for her guidance, encouragement, and patience. I wish to thank
Sarah Fagan, Kristine Muñoz, Bruce Nottingham-Spencer, Lia Plakans, and Donald Yarbrough
for agreeing to be on my dissertation committee.
I also want to thank Elke Heckner, Sabine Gölz, Kirsten Kumpf Baele, and Yasemin
Mohammad for allowing me to collect data in their German classes. I extend my thanks to the
students who participated in my study. Their participation made this project possible.
I am very grateful for my friends and colleagues—Fatima Baig, Elizabeth Deifell, Katja
Himmelreich, Franziska Kretzschmar, Pilar Marcé, Regina Range, and Hiromi Takayama—, who
have supported and helped me during the dissertation process.
Last but not least, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my parents, whose
encouragement and support have always been invaluable to me. Without them, I would have
never made it this far.
iii
ABSTRACT
This dissertation centers on the under-researched construct of interactional competence, which
refers to features of jointly constructed discourse. When applied to the testing of speaking skills
in a second language, interactional competence refers to features of the discourse that the two
students produce together; rather than the speaking ability or performance of each person
individually. This dissertation describes the construct of interactional competence in a lowstakes, paired speaking test setting targeted at students in their second year of German instruction
at the college level.
The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, the study analyzes the conversational
resources that are co-constructed in the test discourse to maintain mutual understanding, which is
considered the basis for interactional competence. Second, the study examines the impact of task
(jigsaw task and discussion task) and speaking ability-level combination (same and different
ability) in the test-taker pair on the co-constructed test discourse and thus on the deployment of
the conversational resources to maintain intersubjectivity. In that respect, this study also seeks to
analyze how the identified conversational resources are involved in establishing and negotiating
language ability identities that are displayed in the test discourse.
Conversation analytic conventions were used to investigate the interactional resources
that test takers deploy to maintain mutual understanding. The procedures of repair (self-repair in
response to other-initiated repair, inter-turn delays, and misunderstandings as well as other-repair
in conjunction with word search activities) that emerged from the inductive analysis of the test
discourse have broadened the conceptualization of interactional competence in the context of
paired speaking assessments.
iv
Frequency distributions of the interactional resources were created to provide a better
understanding of the impact of task and ability-level combination on the co-constructed repair
procedures. The rationale behind this analysis is the general understanding of language testers
that both resources and context influence test performance. The findings from the quantitative
analysis suggest that there are more similarities than differences in repair use across the jigsaw
task and the discussion task. In addition, even though some trends in the co-construction of repair
procedures may be attributed to the higher or lower speaking ability of the test takers, the
relationship between the ability-level combination in the pair and the use of repair seems to be
rather variable.
Finally, to learn more about the interrelationship between test takers’ speaking ability and
interactional competence, this dissertation also approached speaking ability in terms of test
takers’ co-constructed language ability identities that are displayed in the test discourse. By
means of single case analyses, the study provided a detailed picture of the relationship between
language ability identities and the procedures of repair, both of which are co-constructed at the
discourse level. The findings from the conversation analysis show that the speaker who provides
the repair is usually able to position himself or herself as the more competent or proficient
speaker in the test discourse.
v
PUBLIC ABSTRACT
Anyone who plays tennis knows that the ability of one’s opponent—whether matched in ability,
a stronger player, or a weaker player—has an effect on the way one plays. Thus, the tennis skills
of both players influence the game. The type and condition of the tennis court may also have an
effect on the match. Depending on the tennis court and the tennis players, it may be easy to keep
the ball in the game. It may also require a lot of effort to have the ball going back and forth a few
times.
The influence of the setting and the participants also holds true for interactions in a
second language, although the degree and nature of their influence has hardly been studied. This
dissertation studies how the task and the conversational partners influence the interaction in a
speaking test for German as a second language. What role do the task and the participants’
speaking ability play in getting an interaction back on track when it was going astray? The
interactions that two test takers produced in two different test tasks were analyzed to determine
what the test takers do to maintain understanding between each other. The findings from this
study may help develop appropriate test tasks and rating scales.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Context of the study ............................................................................................................ 1 Motivation of the study ....................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of the study and research questions ...................................................................... 9 Setting of the study ........................................................................................................... 13 Overview of the study ....................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 16 2.1 Communicative competence ............................................................................................. 16 2.1.1 Hymes (1972a) ........................................................................................................... 18 2.1.2 Canale and Swain (1980) ........................................................................................... 19 2.1.3 Bachman (1990) ......................................................................................................... 21 2.1.4 Bachman and Palmer (1996) ...................................................................................... 21 2.1.5 Criticisms ................................................................................................................... 23 2.1.6 Summary .................................................................................................................... 24 2.2 Interactional competence .................................................................................................. 25 2.2.1 Discursive practice ..................................................................................................... 28 2.2.2 Resources ................................................................................................................... 29 2.2.3 Context ....................................................................................................................... 30 2.2.4 Intersubjectivity.......................................................................................................... 32 2.2.5 Summary .................................................................................................................... 34 2.3 Interactional competence and development in CA–SLA.................................................. 37 2.3.1 Excursus: Conversation analysis ................................................................................ 38 2.3.2 Interactional competence as object of L2 learning..................................................... 42 2.3.3 Interactional competence as condition for L2 learning .............................................. 45 2.3.4 L2 learning and interactional development from a CA–SLA perspective ................. 46 2.3.5 Evidence for L2 interactional development ............................................................... 47 2.3.6 Summary .................................................................................................................... 49 2.4 Interaction-based language testing.................................................................................... 51 2.4.1 Ability-in-language user-in-context approach (Chalhoub-Deville, 2003) ................. 52 2.4.2 Bachman’s (1990) interaction–abilities approach ...................................................... 53 2.4.3 Criticisms ................................................................................................................... 55 2.4.4 Summary .................................................................................................................... 57 2.5 Interactional competence in paired and group speaking tests ........................................... 58 2.5.1 Conversation analyses ................................................................................................ 59 2.5.2 Discourse analyses ..................................................................................................... 62 2.5.3 Rater perceptions ........................................................................................................ 65 2.5.4 Summary .................................................................................................................... 70 2.6 Task and interlocutor effects in paired and group speaking tests ..................................... 71 2.6.1 Task effects ................................................................................................................ 73 vii
2.6.2 Effects of proficiency and language ability ............................................................... 77 2.6.3 The interlocutor effect revisited: Language ability identities .................................... 82 2.6.4 Summary .................................................................................................................... 84 2.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 88 3.1 Participants........................................................................................................................ 88 3.2 Data collection instruments .............................................................................................. 91 3.2.1 Self-assessment checklist ........................................................................................... 91 3.2.2 Instructor perceptions on test-taker speaking ability ................................................. 93 3.2.3 Second speaking test and final exam grades .............................................................. 93 3.2.4 Paired test tasks .......................................................................................................... 94 3.3 Data collection procedures................................................................................................ 98 3.3.1 Consent and screening process................................................................................... 98 3.3.2 Speaking ability ratings and assignment to test-taker pairs ....................................... 99 3.3.3 Administration of the paired speaking test............................................................... 102 3.4 Transcription of data ....................................................................................................... 104 3.5 Data analysis ................................................................................................................... 105 3.5.1 Building collections (Research Question 1) ............................................................. 106 3.5.2 Quantification (Research Question 2) ...................................................................... 108 3.5.3 Single case analysis (Research Question 3) ............................................................. 109 3.6 Requirements of reliability and validity ......................................................................... 110 3.7 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 111 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE TEST DISCOURSE ....................................................... 113 4.1 Other-initiated self-repair ............................................................................................... 116 4.1.1 Repair initiators ........................................................................................................ 117 4.1.2 Self-repair in response to repair initiations by the other .......................................... 137 4.1.3 Summary .................................................................................................................. 154 4.2 Self-initiated self-repair .................................................................................................. 157 4.2.1 Transition space repair ............................................................................................. 158 4.2.2 Third position repair ................................................................................................. 165 4.2.3 Summary .................................................................................................................. 169 4.3 Word search activities ..................................................................................................... 170 4.3.1 Word search markers................................................................................................ 171 4.3.2 Corrections ............................................................................................................... 187 4.3.3 Turn completions ..................................................................................................... 198 4.3.4 Summary .................................................................................................................. 205 4.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 207 CHAPTER 5 EFFECTS OF TASK AND ABILITY LEVEL ................................................. 210 5.1 Impact of task and speaking ability in the test-taker pair on interactional competence . 212 5.1.1 Other-initiated self-repair ......................................................................................... 213 5.1.2 Self-initiated self-repair ........................................................................................... 229 viii
5.1.3 Word search activities .............................................................................................. 236 5.1.4 Summary .................................................................................................................. 257 5.2 Language ability identities and the role of repair ........................................................... 261 5.2.1 Test-taker pair ML and KN ...................................................................................... 264 5.2.2 Test-taker pair AS and RO ....................................................................................... 269 5.2.3 Test-taker pair MG and TM ..................................................................................... 276 5.2.4 Summary .................................................................................................................. 279 5.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 280 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 282 6.1 Major findings................................................................................................................. 283 6.1.1 Research Question 1 ................................................................................................. 283 6.1.2 Research Question 2 ................................................................................................. 289 6.1.3 Research Question 3 ................................................................................................. 295 6.2 Implications of the findings and contributions of the study ........................................... 297 6.2.1 Interactional competence ......................................................................................... 297 6.2.2 Test-taker pairs ......................................................................................................... 299 6.2.3 Paired tasks............................................................................................................... 300 6.3 Limitations of the study .................................................................................................. 301 6.4 Recommendations for future research ............................................................................ 302 6.5 Final thoughts ................................................................................................................. 305 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 306 APPENDIX A SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST ................................................................. 325 APPENDIX B TEST TASKS ..................................................................................................... 329 APPENDIX C PRACTICE TASKS ............................................................................................ 336 APPENDIX D TEST-TAKER PAIRS ........................................................................................ 342 APPENDIX E TRANSCRIPTION NOTATION ........................................................................ 344 ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3–1: Distribution of participants by gender and course level .............................................. 89 Table 3–2: Summary of the paired tasks and their characteristics ................................................ 97 Table 3–3: Number of test-taker pairs across course level and ability-level combination.......... 101 Table 5–1: Frequency distribution of open-class repair initiators ............................................... 215 Table 5–2: Frequency distribution of repeat requests and understanding repair initiators ......... 216 Table 5–3: Frequency distribution of understanding checks and comprehension checks ........... 218 Table 5–4: Frequency distribution of expansions ....................................................................... 220 Table 5–5: Frequency distribution of entire action trouble ......................................................... 222 Table 5–6: Frequency distribution of modified repetitions and other forms of self-repair
(adjustments, clarifications) orienting to understanding trouble ......................... 225 Table 5–7: Frequency distribution of repetitions or affirmations after a hearing problem was
displayed .............................................................................................................. 227 Table 5–8: Frequency distribution of transition space repair ...................................................... 231 Table 5–9: Frequency distribution of third position repair ......................................................... 234 Table 5–10: Frequency distribution of other-directed word search markers: interrogatives and
‘ich weiß nicht’/‘I don’t know’ markers ............................................................. 239 Table 5–11: Frequency distribution of instances of searched-for word provided and ‘ich weiß
nicht’/‘I don’t know’ token ................................................................................. 242 Table 5–12: Frequency distribution of disengagements from word search and non-responses .. 243 Table 5–13: Frequency distribution of exposed corrections and embedded corrections ............ 247 Table 5–14: Frequency distribution of non-corrections .............................................................. 249 Table 5–15: Frequency distribution of turn completions: try-marked completions and assuredly
correct completions ............................................................................................. 251 Table 5–16: Frequency distribution of confirmations and acknowledgements.......................... 253 Table 5–17: Frequency distribution of rejections and corrections and delayed completions ..... 254 x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Context of the study
Language proficiency was first understood as the knowledge of structure (grammatical, lexical,
phonological) that, it was believed, could best be measured by discrete-point tests (Lado, 1961).
With the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1970s, performance testing gained
significance. The proficiency movement of the 1980s leveraged a specific type of performance
test—the language proficiency interview (e.g., the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview, or OPI),
which became an influential means to assess second language (L2) learners’ speaking ability.
As the communicative turn in language teaching led to an increase in pair and group work
activities in the L2 classroom, pair and group work also became more common in
communicative-based assessments (van Moere, 2012). Hence, in paired test tasks, the test taker
is matched with one peer–interlocutor, and the pair is given tasks that elicit an interaction that is
constructed by the two participants. During the test, an examiner is present and usually guides
the test but is not engaged in the candidates’ interaction. The examiner’s function is to observe
and to evaluate the performance.
This paired task format has been incorporated in high-stakes tests, such as in the
University of Cambridge ESOL examinations (e.g., Galaczi, 2004, 2008, 2014; Taylor, 2001),
but it is also part of small-scale speaking tests in language programs at schools and universities
for purposes of placement, exit, and achievement testing (van Moere, 2012), as can be seen in the
research reported on by Brooks (2009), Csépes (2009), and Ducasse and Brown (2009). Even
though the Cambridge ESOL Main Suite exams have used paired speaking tasks since the 1980s,
1
considerably more validation research on paired speaking tests has appeared in the past few
years, hinting at the increased popularity of this test format.
The popularity of the paired test format can be partly understood as a reaction to the
criticism that has been leveled against the asymmetric nature of traditional interview-style oral
tests (e.g., the face-to-face OPI; the tape-mediated Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview, or
SOPI), which have been widely used for oral proficiency testing. In particular, the OPI of the
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) has been the subject of
debate as to whether or not it measures speaking ability in a conversation, meaning a face-to-face
interaction in a real-life context, as its advocates claim it does. In a now classic paper, van Lier
(1989) compared features of the OPI speech event with those of a natural conversation. He found
substantial differences between the two interactions, which raised concerns regarding the validity
of the OPI.
With his seminal work, van Lier (1989) drew attention to the empirical analysis of the
features of discourse in face-to-face oral assessment. He called for further research that would
look at the turn-by-turn sequential interaction in oral language proficiency interviews and the
way participants structure the oral test discourse. Following van Lier’s (1989) call, a number of
studies appeared in the 1990s dealing with language proficiency interviews in general and the
OPI in particular from a variety of discourse analytic perspectives (e.g., Brown, 2003, 2005;
Johnson, 2000, 2001; Johnson & Tyler, 1998; Kormos, 1999; Lazaraton 1992, 1996a, 1996b,
2002; Moder & Halleck, 1998; Ross & Berwick, 1992; Young, 1995; Young & He, 1998; Young
& Milanovic, 1992).
Data from these studies revealed the occurrence of an asymmetrical power relationship
between examiner and examinee in face-to-face oral interviews that puts the interviewer in
2
control over turn-taking and topic initiation. In addition, this research showed that turn unit types
are fixed, with the interviewer asking questions and the interviewee responding (Johnson, 2000,
2001; Young, 1995; Young & Milanovic, 1992). In comparison, discourse data from paired
speaking tests showed that the language features elicited tend to be equally distributed between
the candidates (Brooks, 2009; Taylor, 2001). In addition, the turns produced in the paired format
are longer and more balanced across the interlocutors (Csépes, 2009). Hence, the paired test
format elicits predominantly everyday-like balanced interactions between language users, where
one speaker does not dominate the other.
Moreover, choosing a peer format for a speaking test should have a positive washback
effect from teaching to testing and vice versa, since pair-work activities are commonly used in
communicative language teaching (Együd & Glover, 2001; Fulcher, 2003; van Moere, 2012).
Students also seem to prefer the peer mode to individual speaking tasks with an examiner, as
student responses to questionnaires show (Együd & Glover, 2001; May, 2000). A recurring
element in student and teacher comments is that the paired speaking test format reduces the
examinee’s stress level and intimidates examinees less than an interview-formatted speaking test
(Együd & Glover, 2001; May, 2000). Van Moere (2012) also highlights that paired tests are less
time consuming and less costly compared to examiner–candidate oral interview tests, as two
individuals can be tested at the same time. Furthermore, since examiners do not have to act as
interlocutors in a paired test setting, they can fully concentrate on their role as evaluators (van
Moere, 2012).
Even though paired tests can be employed for the assessment of various aspects of oral
proficiency, such as pronunciation, accuracy, and fluency, they are valued for their potential to
elicit language performance that gives insight into more complex constructs than language
3
proficiency interviews would be able to provide (Fulcher, 2003; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007; van
Moere, 2012). In fact, empirical research that compared peer–peer performance with the
discourse displayed in an examiner-led interview (Taylor, 2001) and the performance produced
in a paired assessment with an examiner–interlocutor (Brooks, 2009; Csépes, 2009) demonstrates
that candidates matched with a peer produce a wider range of interactive features. Most
important, paired speaking tests have been advocated as a test task format that is particularly
suitable to generate the evidence needed to make inferences about candidates’ interactional
competence (Fulcher, 2003; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007), a construct that refers to features of the
jointly constructed discourse between the test takers (Kramsch, 1986).
Thus far, models of communicative competence (e.g., Bachman, 1990; Bachman &
Palmer, 1996) prevail in the field of language testing to describe constructs of oral proficiency in
L2 speaking tests; however, language testers such as McNamara (1996) and Chalhoub-Deville
(2003) have criticized these models as being too cognitive in nature and for focusing too much
on the individual language user. Drawing on concepts of co-construction (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995)
and interactional competence (Kramsch, 1986; Young, 2008, 2011), McNamara (1996, 1997)
and Chalhoub-Deville (2003) have called for a shift in language testing in favor of an alternative
L2 construct model that emphasizes the candidate in interaction with others (see also Swain,
2001; Young, 2000).
The concepts interactional competence (Kramsch, 1986) and co-construction (Jacoby &
Ochs, 1995), both of which originated from within the field of second language acquisition
(SLA), refer to the learner interacting with other language users from a dynamic and social
perspective (He & Young, 1998; McNamara, 1996, 1997; Young, 2008, 2011). Beginning with
Kramsch (1986), scholars in SLA have argued that being proficient in a foreign language does
4
not only refer to the ability to produce language in an accurate and fluent manner; rather, it
should also be associated with language learners’ interactional competence in the L2, which is
understood in the sense that learners collaborate with one another by negotiating meanings,
providing and requesting clarifications, and anticipating the interlocutor’s response to reach a
common meaning and understanding (Kramsch, 1986).
1.2
Motivation of the study
Having understood that there is a social dimension to proficiency and face-to-face interaction (cf.
McNamara & Roever, 2006), language testers have begun to incorporate an interactional
competence perspective into language testing. In line with the conceptualization of interactional
competence in SLA, Chalhoub-Deville (2003) introduced an interaction-based approach to
construct definition that includes both abilities and contextual features in one interaction
structure, thus placing emphasis on actual performance and the adaptability of resources to
domain situations.
Operationalization studies have defined the construct of interactional competence in
paired speaking tests mostly in terms of symmetrical and collaborative turn-taking behavior and
topic management between test takers (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Galaczi, 2004, 2008; May,
2009, 2011). Thus, in language testing, co-constructed discourse seems to be mainly perceived as
collaborative interaction (see also May, 2009). In addition, the interactional abilities of low
proficiency speakers are considered limited. It therefore seems that interactional competence
cannot be tested at low ability levels (Galaczi, 2014).
However, scholars within CA–SLA, an approach within SLA that draws on the theories
and methodologies of conversation analysis (CA), argue that even though learners are
5
linguistically weak does not imply that they are less interactionally competent than native
speakers or learners with more advanced linguistic expertise (Kasper, 2006; see also Carroll,
2000, 2004; Gardner, 2004; Wagner & Gardner, 2004). Wagner and Gardner (2004) even speak
of the “normality of second language talk” (p. 2), meaning that learners, regardless of their
linguistic knowledge, design turns and actions with respect to their interlocutors and to the
activity as a whole. In a similar vein, Kasper (2006) argues that L2 learners should not be
considered deficient but rather variably interactionally competent co-participants, also given the
fact that interactional procedures may become more complex and diversified over time (Hall &
Pekarek Doehler, 2011; Hellermann, 2008; Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004; Pekarek
Doehler, 2010, 2012, 2013).
In addition, within SLA, interactional competence is understood in terms of mutual
understanding (also referred to as intersubjectivity) (He & Young, 1998; Kasper, 2006, 2009;
Young, 2008). By using CA, a method that studies the sequential organization of talk and the
interactional work that is accomplished by means of conversational resources, SLA researchers
have described learners’ mutual employment of interactional resources to accomplish
intersubjective meaning. Thus, by understanding intersubjectivity as the basis for interactional
competence, SLA researchers analyze how learners (even novice learners) interpret each other’s
utterances as they move from one turn to the next and thus create a shared context and mutual
understanding. Mutual understanding is a fundamental perspective to interaction that language
testers have disregarded thus far.
Furthermore, in L2 performance testing, scholars have repeatedly stated that test
discourse and assigned ratings not only reflect candidate performance, but are also influenced by
a variety of factors related to the test setting, which may cause variability in test scores and
6
discourse and may thus affect the construct validity of a test (e.g., Bachman, 1990; Bachman &
Palmer, 1996; Csépes, 2009; McNamara, 1996). A range of models that depict the processes
involved in testing speaking (e.g., Csépes, 2009; McNamara, 1996; Milanovic & Saville, 1996)
have illustrated that such factors include, for example, the test task, the candidate, the rater, and
the interlocutor, who can be a peer or a tester. In addition, it is understood that these factors
interact in a rather complex manner (cf. Csépes, 2009; McNamara, 1996; Nakatsuhara, 2013).
A large body of research has examined variability in interview-formatted test discourse
and ratings due to interviewer conduct (Berwick & Ross, 1996; Brown, 2003, 2005; Brown &
Hill, 1998; Cafarella, 1997; Filipi, 1994; Lazaraton, 1996a, 1996b; McNamara & Lumley, 1997;
Ross, 1992, 1996, 2007; Ross & Berwick, 1992); interviewer characteristics, such as gender
(O’Loughlin, 2002), cultural background (Berwick & Ross, 1996), native speaker status
(Richards & Malvern, 2000), and familiarity with the interviewee (Katona, 1998); and rater
behavior (Brown, 2005; Douglas, 1994; McNamara & Lumley, 1997).
In comparison to oral interviews, variability in paired and group oral testing has not
received much attention thus far. Only a few studies have examined the impact of test takers’
proficiency levels (Csépes, 2009; Davis, 2009; Iwashita, 1996) and test task characteristics
(Nakatsuhara, 2013; van Moere, 2007) on test discourse and ratings in group speaking tests.
Even though the test task is known to cause variation in the speaking ability being tested,
research in paired testing so far has primarily included only one paired task; namely a discussion
task (cf. Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Galaczi, 2004, 2008; May, 2011). Also referred to as the
“default task” (p. 117) by van Moere (2007) in his research on group speaking tests, the
discussion task is believed to naturally elicit conversation-like discourse in paired testing
7
contexts. The impact other paired tasks may have on test performance in paired assessment has
been largely neglected.
Another issue in paired testing concerns the appropriate matching of peer–interlocutors.
Swain (2001) made this point clear when she remarked that “who one is paired or grouped with,
is not unimportant” (p. 296). Foot (1999) made a similar argument when he claimed in a position
paper that a candidate’s speaking ability seems to be highly sensitive to the interlocutor with
whom he or she is paired. As test performance is understood to be jointly constructed and
distributed across interlocutors in paired test tasks, interlocutor characteristics and behavior
inevitably affect test discourse. It is thus likely that characteristics of the peer–interlocutor, such
as language proficiency, disadvantage or benefit a candidate’s test performance (Davis, 2009). In
a similar vein, Norton (2005) suggests that the acquaintance level of the test takers may have an
effect on paired test discourse and scores; she therefore calls for research that examines the
performance of paired test takers who are friends and who are strangers.
The test-taker/interlocutor characteristic that has been researched the most in paired test
settings is language ability or proficiency. While Foot (1999) hypothesized that interlocutor
language proficiency in the L2 has an effect on performance in paired tests, a small number of
empirical studies that subsequently investigated his argument demonstrated that interlocutor
proficiency, in fact, appears to have an effect on the quantity of talk and the interaction pattern in
the test discourse (Davis, 2009; Galaczi, 2004, 2014), but such research is rather minimal.
As was pointed out, both abilities and contextual features have been found to affect the
performance on language tests. Language testers usually investigate this relationship on the basis
of prior constructs, such as speaking ability, gender, native or nonnative speaker status, showing
that these participant categories have an influence on how discourse is constructed. However,
8
these macro categories do not necessarily reflect how categories such as speaking ability are coconstructed and displayed in interaction with others. Thus, some scholars in language testing
(Brown & McNamara, 2004; Lazaraton & Davis, 2008; McNamara, 2001; McNamara & Roever,
2006) have pointed out that language abilities emerge from the test discourse itself and can be
observed in terms of co-produced language ability identities as participants take turns at talk.
However, how speaking ability, for example, is displayed in paired and grouped test discourse
and interrelates with other conversational resources of co-constructed test discourse (to achieve
or maintain intersubjectivity) has hardly been researched.
1.3
Purpose of the study and research questions
The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, the study analyzes the conversational resources that
are co-constructed in the test discourse to maintain intersubjectivity, which is considered the
basis for interactional competence. Second, the study examines the impact of task and speaking
ability-level combination in the test-taker pair on the co-constructed test discourse and thus on
the deployment of the conversational resources to maintain intersubjectivity. In that respect, the
study also seeks to analyze how the identified conversational resources are involved in
establishing and negotiating language ability identities that are displayed in the test discourse.
The following research questions emerged:
Research Question 1: What mechanisms of repair are prominently used in the paired test
discourse of an intermediate-level German speaking test to maintain intersubjectivity?
a) What is the sequential organization of the procedures used to co-construct repair?
9
b) Which of the repair procedures identified in the test discourse can be described as more
or less complex procedures of interactional competence in co-constructing repair and
sustaining intersubjectivity?
In line with previous research on interactional competence in SLA and CA–SLA, this
study defines interactional competence in terms of mutual understanding. A conversation
analysis was conducted to identify the conversational resources (which turned out to be practices
of repair) deployed to maintain intersubjectivity in the test discourse. In that respect, the
resources were investigated in the discourse on a turn-by-turn basis (Research Question 1a).
Also, some of the identified conversational resources may be characterized as more complex than
others, for example, with respect to how test takers orient to a trouble source or how they project
trouble (Research Question 1b). Since interactional competence develops, it may be that some
test takers co-construct more complex conversational resources to maintain intersubjectivity than
other participant pairs.
Thus, the analysis attempts to provide a better understanding of the construct of
interactional competence by identifying the resources that realize the interactional work of
‘maintaining intersubjectivity’. The findings from the conversation analysis indicate what
‘maintaining intersubjectivity’ as one component of interactional competence actually implies.
The conversational resources identified may help refine this sub construct and inform the
development of descriptors for rating scales. Particularly, identifying differences in complexity
of the interactional resources used to maintain intersubjectivity may be relevant for descriptor
and rating scale development.
10
Research Question 2: What procedures of repair are used in the different tasks and the various
ability-level combinations?
a) What are the range and frequency of these procedures in a discussion task and in a jigsaw
task?
b) What are the range and frequency of procedures produced by pairs where both members
of the pair are at the same level of speaking ability and in pairs where the members are at
different levels of speaking ability?
c) What procedures are produced predominantly by the higher or lower ability-level partner
in the different ability-level combinations?
The second research question is concerned with the impact of the test task (jigsaw task
and discussion task) and the ability-level combination in the test-taker pair (High–High, Mid–
Mid, Low–Low, High–Mid, Mid–Low, High–Low) on the co-construction of the interactional
procedures (or practices of repair). To answer this research question, a quantitative analysis was
conducted to identify the number and distribution of the various procedures of repair across tasks
(Research Question 2a) and ability-level combinations (Research Question 2b). In that respect,
an analysis was carried out to determine whether the higher or lower ability-level speaker in the
pair is more prone to initiate repair or to orient to trouble in a specific way (Research Question
2c). Raw and proportional frequencies are provided to determine the relationship between
practices of repair and two contextual features, that is, task and speaking ability.
Investigating the impact of the test task and test takers’ speaking ability on the jointly
constructed test discourse may provide better insights on the co-construction and structural
organization of peer-to-peer test talk in the present data set. For example, the analysis may
11
discover that different ability-level pairs accomplish the interactional work of ‘maintaining
intersubjectivity’ with different types of conversational resources. Learning more about that
relationship may shed light on how the test takers may best be paired. Moreover, an investigation
of the conversational resources used to maintain intersubjectivity may reveal similarities and
differences in the architecture between both practices, that is, the jigsaw task and the discussion
task. Being aware of the similarities and differences in the discourse that the tasks elicit may feed
into the construction of descriptors and rating scales.
Research Question 3: How are procedures of repair that are jointly constructed in test discourse
involved in the co-construction of the test takers’ language ability identities at the discourse
level?
a) What are the practices of repair by which test takers position themselves as proficient or
competent in the paired test discourse of an intermediate-level German speaking test?
b) How are projected discourse and language ability identities negotiated in the test
discourse?
Rather than understand speaking ability as an a priori category, it may also be understood
in terms of language ability identities that are co-constructed and displayed in the test discourse
itself. Viewing speaking ability with respect to discourse identities that emerge from the test
discourse coincides with a conceptualization of interactional competence that embraces the
notion of evolving resources from the discourse.
To obtain a better understanding of the relationship between practices of repair and
speaking ability identities, both of which are co-constructed in the test discourse, another
12
conversation analysis was conducted. Segments from three test interactions were analyzed to
discover what practices of repair are involved in the co-construction of speaking ability identities
in talk-in-interaction (Research Question 3a) and how language ability identities are negotiated
(Research Question 3b).
1.4
Setting of the study
The study is set in the second-year German program at the University of Iowa. The program
offers two consecutive courses of second-year intermediate-level German. One of the main goals
of these courses is to further develop students’ speaking skills in German. As one of the course
requirements, students who are enrolled in either of the two intermediate courses participate in an
end-of-the-semester oral test, which aims at assessing their speaking skills. The 15-minute
speaking test is administered outside of class and consists of two parts, an oral interview and a
role-play, which are conducted by a tester who is a professor or a teaching assistant. The tester
rates each individual student performance, and the speaking test grade is incorporated into
students’ final course grade.
The test as it is conducted currently is not without problems. For example, administering
the test has turned out to be very time-consuming for examiners. In addition, the majority of test
takers tend to be intimidated by the test, mainly because speaking is the skill they struggle with
the most and also because the examiner is an instructor other than their course instructor. Most
important, however, is that the test intends to assess only the candidates’ command of
grammatical structure, vocabulary use, pronunciation, and fluency. Even though these are
commonly tested dimensions to reach an understanding of an individual’s overall speaking
13
development, the test, in fact, takes a rather limited approach to speaking ability, in that it does
not incorporate test takers’ interactional competence.
Thus, to include the notion of interactional competence in this second-year German
speaking test and to adjust for some of the drawbacks of the one-on-one test setting between
examiner and candidate, two different paired test tasks have been developed as alternative test
tasks for this locally used, instructor-administered speaking test.
1.5
Overview of the study
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the basic premises of the concept of interactional competence
and the theoretical underpinnings of CA. Previous research on interactional competence in SLA,
CA–SLA, and language testing is presented and discussed.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology of the study. It explains the procedures for participant
selection and the assignment of test takers to pairs based on speaking ability ratings. The test
administration procedures are presented, and the CA-based framework used for the data analysis
is discussed.
Chapter 4 answers Research Question 1, What mechanisms of repair are prominently
used in the paired test discourse of an intermediate-level German speaking test to maintain
intersubjectivity? Based on the findings from a conversation analysis, this chapter provides an
overview of the salient procedures of repair that were deployed in the test discourse to maintain
intersubjectivity.
Chapter 5 is devoted to the relationship between task and test-taker speaking ability on
the one side and the conversational resources deployed to maintain intersubjectivity on the other.
Chapter 5 presents the findings from a quantitative analysis that answers Research Question 2,
14
What procedures of repair are used in the different tasks and the various ability-level
combinations? Frequency distributions are provided to shed light on which of the ability-level
pairs deploy which of the conversational resources in what task. In a second part, chapter 5 looks
at speaking ability from a micro-level perspective. Test takers’ speaking ability is here
understood in terms of speaking ability identities that are constructed and displayed in the test
discourse itself. This second part of chapter 5 answers Research Question 3, How are procedures
of repair that are jointly constructed in test discourse involved in the co-construction of the test
takers’ language ability identities at the discourse level? Single case analyses were carried out to
better understand the discourse-level relationship of the conversational resources to maintain
intersubjectivity and the speaking ability identities co-constructed in the discourse.
Chapter 6 summarizes the findings presented in chapters 4 and 5. The practical
implications for language testing and the theoretical contributions of the study are discussed. The
limitations of the study are addressed, and directions for future research are given.
15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, I first present the theoretical frameworks of communicative competence and
interactional competence, as they refer to two different types of interaction with one being more
cognitive in nature and the other more socially oriented. After reviewing the conceptualization of
interactional competence in second language acquisition (SLA) research, I proceed to a
discussion of interactional competence from the perspective of CA–SLA, which is one strand
within SLA that draws on the epistemology and methodology of conversation analysis (CA). In
that respect, I also discuss important theoretical aspects of CA, which is a method used to
analyze the sequential organization of talk.
I then provide an overview of how interactional competence has been incorporated in
language testing. First, I present an interaction-based approach to test construct definition that
corresponds to the conceptualization of interactional competence within SLA and CA–SLA
research. Second, I review how interactional competence has been operationalized in paired and
grouped peer-to-peer speaking tests. Finally, I end with a review of previous studies on the
impact of task and test-taker/interlocutor proficiency and language ability on paired and group
test discourse and ratings. The major points of the literature review are summarized.
2.1
Communicative competence
Language testers rely on models that provide a theoretical description of what it means to
communicate, to know and use a second language (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007). In short, models
describe constructs (Fulcher, 2010) or the “theoretical rationale” (McNamara, 1996, p. 49) that
allows test developers to draw valid inferences from test scores and test performance to test-taker
16
abilities (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007; McNamara, 1996). For test development, language testers
select constructs from the theoretical model to combine them in an operational test framework
for a particular test with a particular purpose (Chalhoub-Deville, 1997; Fulcher, 2010; Fulcher &
Davidson, 2007).
Fulcher (2010) points out that Lado, a pioneer in the field of language testing, created a
model of language use that contained constructs. Lado (1961) based the construction of language
tests on theoretical structural linguistics. After Lado, a variety of models have been advanced
since the 1970s, beginning with Hymes’s (1972a) communicative competence model, which had
a major impact on the models that followed (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010;
Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell, 1995).
McNamara (1996, p. 48) points out that all models of second language (L2)
communicative ability share three dimensions:
a) Language knowledge (model of knowledge)
b) Underlying non-linguistic factors that relate to language use ability (model of
performance)
c) Specific instances of language use (actual language use)
The first two dimensions are often referred to in the various models as communicative
competence or communicative language ability. The third dimension alludes to actual language
use and not to the knowledge and ability for use that is necessary to communicate in a second
language (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007). McNamara (2001) highlights that communicative
competence is one of the most fundamental concepts in the field of language testing.
In this section, I focus on communicative competence models, in particular Canale and
Swain’s (1980) communicative competence model and Bachman’s (1990; Bachman & Palmer,
17
1996; 2010) communicative language ability model, which probably are the most influential
models of communicative competence after Hymes (1972a). The models of communicative
competence are reviewed in chronological order. That is, I begin with Hymes’s (1972a) model
and then turn to Canale and Swain’s (1980) communicative competence model, before I present
and discuss Bachman’s (1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010) model of communicative
language ability. The models are explored particularly with respect to how the interactions
between competence and context are defined, as communicative and interactional competence
models differ in this aspect.
2.1.1
Hymes (1972a)
Hymes’s (1972a) model of communicative competence was the first model that appeared after
Lado’s (1961). Disagreeing with Chomsky’s (1965) notion of competence that refers only to the
knowledge of tacit grammar rules, Hymes (1972a) introduced the term communicative
competence. For him, communicative competence also includes contextual or sociolinguistic
knowledge rather than grammar knowledge alone. Hymes (1972a) claims that language users
acquire the ability to appropriately use grammar rules, depending on the social context given (cf.
Johnson, 2004).
In addition to the model of knowledge, Hymes’s (1972a) communicative competence
model includes a model of performance, which differs from Chomsky’s (1965) understanding of
performance as actual language use in concrete situations. In contrast, Hymes’s (1972a) model of
performance refers to underlying rules of performance, also termed ability for use. This kind of
performance, which has not yet been realized as actual performance, is described in rather broad
terms. It refers to cognitive and non-cognitive factors that are not related to language
18
performance, such as motivation. With reference to Goffman (1967), Hymes (1972a) includes
some other factors in the ability for use dimension, that is, “capacities in interaction such as
courage, gameness, gallantry, composure, presence of mind, dignity, stage confidence” (p. 283).
According to Hymes (1972a), not only an individual’s underlying ability is important for
communication, but also the capacity to use this ability in various contexts.
From the underlying models of performance (ability for use) and tacit knowledge
(competence), Hymes (1972a) distinguishes actual language use (performance).
2.1.2
Canale and Swain (1980)
Hymes’s (1972a) first language (L1) framework was first fully adapted to the context of SLA
and language testing by Canale and Swain (1980) (McNamara, 1996). Canale and Swain (1980)
refined the notion of communicative competence by categorizing it into three competencies:
grammatical competence (knowledge of grammar, lexis, morphology, syntax, semantics,
phonology), strategic competence (ability to overcome communicative difficulties) and,
following Hymes (1972a), sociolinguistic competence (sociocultural rules of use and rules of
discourse). The various competencies are understood to interact with one another. At the same
time, Canale and Swain (1980) exclude Hymes’s (1972a) underlying performance model, also
referred to as ability for use, from their model of communicative competence, arguing that it
cannot be modeled.1 Instead, they subsume Hymes’s (1972a) underlying performance model
under their concept of communicative performance or actual performance. Communicative
1
Even though Canale and Swain (1980) do not incorporate underlying performance in their communicative
competence model, McNamara (1996) and Johnson (2001, 2004) point out that they still implicitly refer to it by
including strategic and discourse competencies, which involve skill or ability rather than language knowledge.
Interestingly, in a revised version of the model, Canale (1983) conforms with Hymes’s (1972a) position regarding
the notion of ability for use, as he incorporates both knowledge and skills as underlying competencies of actual
communication in the modified model.
19
performance is understood as the realization of the different components of communicative
competence (grammatical, strategic, and sociolinguistic competencies), including the interactions
between these competencies in authentic communicative L2 situations. Whether intentionally or
unintentionally, Canale and Swain (1980) bring the notion of interaction into the discussion on
communicative competence (Johnson, 2004).
Canale (1983) later argues that the model falls short in establishing internal relationships
between the various constituents of communicative competence and between the constituents and
other factors in actual performance. Other scholars (e.g., Johnson, 2001, 2004; McNamara, 1996;
Shohamy, 1988) also point to this flaw. Shohamy (1988), for example, contends that since
Canale and Swain (1980) failed to empirically validate the components of their model and
neglected to show their internal relationships, the model does not lend itself as a source for test
developers to define constructs for language tests.
In conjunction with the deficient definition of internal component relations in Canale and
Swain’s (1980) model, Johnson (2004) emphasizes that it remains unclear whether and, if so,
how the interactions between the competencies are conducted in an individual’s mind or take
place in social context. She conjectures that the inclusion of strategic competence (the ability to
use coping strategies to overcome communicative difficulties) hints at the interaction with other
interlocutors and thus at social interaction. However, the fact that Canale and Swain (1980)
separate communicative competence from actual performance and put major emphasis on the
various competencies gives Johnson (2004) reason to believe that interaction between different
components of communicative competence is understood to occur in the mind of the individual,
making interaction a primarily cognitive rather than a social matter.
20
2.1.3
Bachman (1990)
With his model of communicative language ability, Bachman (1990) elaborated on Canale and
Swain’s (1980) model and intended to show how the various components interrelate with each
other and with the context in which language is used. To accomplish this goal Bachman (1990)
modeled strategic competence that he adopted from Canale and Swain (1980) and
reconceptualized as a part of ability for use instead of linguistic knowledge. Bachman (1990)
defines strategic competence as “a general ability, which enables an individual to make the most
effective use of available abilities in carrying out a given task” (p. 106). It thus pertains to
general underlying non-linguistic, cognitive factors or abilities, such as assessing, planning, and
executing, which are used to achieve a communicative goal (Johnson, 2004; McNamara, 1996).
The main function of strategic competence is that of linking language competence to other
knowledge structures (e.g., world knowledge) and to the context, in which communication takes
place. Bachman (1990) thus resolves the shortcomings of Canale and Swain’s (1980) model,
which lacks a mechanism that explains how the various competencies interrelate.
2.1.4
Bachman and Palmer (1996)
Bachman and Palmer (1996) amended Bachman’s (1990) model. New to the model in
comparison to the previous version in Bachman (1990) was the addition of affective schemata.
Affective schemata are defined as the “affective or emotional correlates of topical knowledge”
(Bachman & Palmer, 1996, p. 65). They allow the language user to assess the current task setting
and decide to what extent emotional experiences from similar previous contexts can be applied in
the response.
21
Additional important components of the model are various language user characteristics,
such as the individual’s personal characteristics (e.g., age, gender, nationality, native language,
educational level), topical knowledge or real-world knowledge, and language knowledge (e.g.,
textual, grammatical, lexical, functional, and sociocultural knowledge). In the most recent
version of the model, Bachman and Palmer (2010) added another language user attribute, namely
cognitive strategies, which language users employ to execute plans in comprehending and
producing utterances.
The dimension of ability for use comprises topical knowledge, affective schemata, and
strategic competence in Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) model. Both topical knowledge
(knowledge structures, knowledge of the world) and affective schemata are cognitive structures,
which can be understood as previously made experiences or memories in language use that are
drawn on as resources in communicative situations (cf. McNamara, 1996). In addition, compared
to Bachman’s earlier model, strategic competence has now been reconceptualized as a set of
metacognitive strategies. Three different metacognitive components are differentiated: goalsetting (deciding on what one is going to do), assessment (taking stock of what is needed, what
one has to work with, and how well one has done), and planning (deciding how to use what one
has) (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, pp. 70–75). As in the earlier model, strategic competence is of
particular importance because it provides a link between the various attributes (e.g., language
knowledge, topical knowledge, affective schemata) in the language user and the characteristics of
the language use situation or context.
In sum, two kinds of interactions occur within Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) model: (a)
the interactions among the attributes of the individual language user (personal characteristics,
affect, topical and language knowledge); and (b) the interactions between language user
22
characteristics and the characteristics of the language use situation. In the moderately revised
version of their model from 2010, Bachman and Palmer emphasize that language use situations
can include not only one language user (non-reciprocal language use) but also two or more
language users (reciprocal language use).
2.1.5
Criticisms
Even though Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) communicative competence model can be described
as an L2 interaction model, where the language learner’s strategies mediate between internal
knowledge and the context (including other language users) of the test, the model has been
criticized because it views communication merely from a cognitive stance (e.g., ChalhoubDeville & Deville, 2005; Johnson, 2004; McNamara, 1997). That is, major emphasis lies in
defining the abilities of the individual candidate in cognitive terms (general and linguistic
knowledge). In addition, strategic competence, or the ability for use component, which links the
language user attributes and the characteristics of the language use situation or context, involves
a set of cognitive and metacognitive capacities and is thus cognitive in nature as well
(McNamara, 1997).
Moreover, even though Bachman and Palmer (1996) incorporate the extensive aspect of
context into their conceptualization of language use in context by presenting a task framework (a
list of context features that replicate real life context and that language testers can use to define
test specifications), Johnson (2004) criticizes that the authors understand context merely in stable
terms referring to predetermined features such as dialect, variety, and register. The assumption
further seems to be that all participants in an interaction understand contextual features in the
same way (Johnson, 2004). This static perspective of context may be due to the fact that
23
Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) model is meant for language testers, who have an interest in
keeping test settings stable to eliminate measurement errors (Johnson, 2004).
Overall, the Bachman model of communicative language ability understands
communication in terms of passing on information from one brain to the other (Johnson, 2004).
It fails to include context sensitivity in human interaction. That is, the model falls short in
implementing the intensive aspect of context, which with reference to Gilbert (1992), concerns
the immediate sphere of interaction between language learners that refers to the moment-bymoment construction of interaction to achieve shared understanding (Chalhoub-Deville, 2009).
In a similar vein, Johnson (2004) argues that Bachman and Palmer (1996) neglect major
theoretical research in the field of discourse analysis, which maintains that context is dynamic
and that the interlocutors shape context with the specific activities they perform in the very
moment of interaction (e.g., Douglas, 2000; Goffman, 1974, 1981a; Gumperz, 1982; Goodwin &
Duranti, 1992; Schiffrin, 1994).
2.1.6
Summary
To summarize, this section presented and discussed models of communicate competence, starting
with Hymes (1972a), then Canale and Swain (1980) followed by Bachman (1990; Bachman &
Palmer, 1996, 2010). Bachman’s (1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010) model of
communicative language ability is the most recent model of communicative competence in
language testing. It can probably best be described as an ability model. That is, major focus is put
on a candidate’s internal knowledge and the interactions between different ability attributes
within a language user. An extensive aspect of context was incorporated into the model by means
of a task framework that is used to replicate the target language use domain; however, an
24
intensive or internal aspect of context that involves the co-construction of discourse to achieve
mutual understanding between interlocutors has been neglected. Thus, in terms of
communicating with the outside world, participants are understood to pass information from one
brain on to the next. Social interaction as such has been downplayed.
Given the dissatisfaction with the cognitive nature of models of communicative
competence in general and Bachman’s model of communicative language ability in particular,
new developments emerged that view interaction from a more social perspective (Hall, 1993,
1995; He & Young, 1998; Young, 1999). These developments in the form of an interactional
competence approach are discussed in the following section.
2.2
Interactional competence
Whereas models of communicative competence focus on the individual language user and try to
explain what language competence an individual needs to know and to do to communicate,
applied linguists and scholars within SLA have discussed communication from a more socially
oriented perspective. Concepts such as interactional competence (Kramsch, 1986; Young, 2008,
2011) and co-construction (Jacoby & Ochs, 1985) have been advanced to indicate that the
abilities for interaction are not in the possession of an individual. Instead, discourse is understood
as being jointly created between interlocutors in real time.
He and Young (1998) and McNamara (1996) point out that the position that abilities and
activities are co-constructed by all participants included in the interaction has been set forth by
scholars from a number of different research traditions, including ethnography,
ethnomethodology, phenomenology, and conversation analysis. Within SLA as well, there are a
number of scholars (e.g., Hall, 1993, 1995; He & Young, 1998; Kramsch, 1986, Young, 2008,
25
2011), who have discussed a theory of interactional competence (Young, 1999), which Young
(1999) considers a sociolinguistic theory of SLA. Even though the theory of interactional
competence may vary slightly between the different scholars, all approaches to interactional
competence fit with the characterization that it is “a theory of the knowledge that participants
bring to and realize in interaction and includes an account of how such knowledge is acquired”
(Young, 1999, p. 118).
Kramsch (1986), for example, was the first scholar in the field of SLA to argue that the
main goal of developing students’ proficiency in a foreign language should be to make them
interactionally competent. Criticizing the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages (ACTFL) Guidelines as too accuracy oriented, she emphasizes that when interacting,
participants first and foremost construct “a shared internal context or sphere of inter-subjectivity”
(p. 367) through collaborative efforts. She further argues that language users employ these efforts
to reduce one’s doubts about the other’s intentions, perceptions, and expectations. Overall,
Kramsch (1986) stresses that the goal of interaction is to arrive “at the closest possible match
between intended, perceived, and anticipated meanings” (p. 367). To work towards that goal,
language users negotiate meanings, anticipate the listener’s response, and clarify their intentions
and the intentions of the other.
According to Young (1999), one of the foundations of interactional competence is the
concept of co-construction. The term co-construction, proposed by Jacoby and Ochs (1995),
refers to “the joint creation of a form, interpretation, stance, action, activity, identity, institution,
skill, ideology, emotion or other culturally meaningful reality” (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995, p. 171).
Jacoby and Ochs (1995) claim that the interlocutors share the responsibility to create meaning,
which also implies that the discourse they construct cannot be predetermined by their individual
26
competence. They also point out that co-construction refers to processes of interaction such as
“collaboration, cooperation, and coordination” (p. 171). However, the authors maintain that coconstruction does not necessarily require “affiliative or supportive interactions” (p. 171) from all
participants involved in the discourse. Rather, disagreement between interlocutors is also viewed
as co-construction.
Another characteristic of interactional competence is that it is located in instances of
interaction (Young, 1999), which have been called oral practices (Hall, 1993), interactive
practices (Hall, 1995), or discursive practices (Young, 2008, 2011).2 These types of practices are
recurrent and structured episodes of talk that influence a community of speakers in social and
cultural terms. Since Hall (1993, 1995, 1999) and Young (2008, 2011) are the scholars whose
approaches to interactional competence situated in discursive practices are the most prominent
within SLA research, I present their understanding of interactional competence in this section. To
a major extent, Hall (1993, 1995, 1999) and Young (2008, 2011) define interactional competence
similarly. In that respect, I particularly dwell on relevant categories of their approaches to
interactional competence, such as (a) the notion of discursive practice, (b) the resources that
structure discursive practices, (c) the meaning of context as it brings about the use of specific
resources in a specific discursive practice, and (d) intersubjectivity or mutual understanding
between interlocutors that builds the basis for interactional competence. Based on these
categories, I summarize Young (2008, 2011) and Hall’s (1993, 1995, 1999) interpretation of
interactional competence in discursive practices.
2
Henceforth, I use the term discursive practice.
27
2.2.1
Discursive practice
Both Young’s (2008, 2011) and Hall’s (1993, 1995) notion of practice was inspired by genre
(Bakhtin, 1986) and practice theory (Bourdieu, 1977). Genre, in the sense of the Russian literary
critic and philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin (1986), refers to the stable pattern of a particular
communication that was created in previous recurring communicative situations. Similarly, the
notion of practice advanced by the French socialist and anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu (1977)
alludes to regularly performed activities, which are crucial to our everyday lives. They, for
example, help us build identities and create culture. Overall, the term practice refers to any
activity people do. However, the practices that Hall (1993, 1995) and Young (2008, 2011) focus
on involve language. Hence, Young (2008, 2011) names them discursive practices; Hall (1995)
understands interactive practices as speech events, a term coined by Hymes (1962, 1972b)
referring to “activities, or aspects of activities, that are directly governed by rules or norms for
the use of speech” (Hymes, 1972b, p. 56). Examples of speech events are church sermons or
sales talks, etc. (Hymes, 1962).
Young (2008) defines discursive practices as “recurring episodes of social interaction in
context, episodes that are of social and cultural significance to a community of speakers”
(Young, 2008, p. 57). Hall’s (1995) definition of interactive practices is similar; for her,
interactive practices are “structured moments of face-to-face interaction—differently enacted and
differently valued—whereby individuals come together to create, articulate, and manage their
collective histories via the uses of sociohistorically defined and valued resources” (pp. 207–208).
In sum, discursive practices can be described by the following features: (a) they are
recurring episodes of social interaction; (b) they are structured through the participants’
employment of linguistic and paralinguistic resources; (c) they take place in context; and (d) they
28
contribute to a community’s development of culture and the building of identities as well as
collective histories.
In the next section, I look at the resources that structure discursive practices.
2.2.2
Resources
Young (2008) points out that according to Bourdieu (1977) practices are structured and follow
certain rules and constraints. Discursive practices are also structured. Hall (1993) explains that
the elements framing discursive practices are the generic resources that language users bring to
the interaction, are aware of and then use to co-construct a practice. Hall (1993) bases her
framework of universal resources on CA research and Hymes’s (1962, 1972b) SPEAKING grid,
which combines the factors of a speech event. Hall (1993) thus suggests to describe practices
with respect to the following elements or resources: (1) participants; (2) setting; (3) purposes; (4)
content; (5) participation structures (i. e., turn-taking, participant roles and rights); (6) actsequence (i. e., the order of speech activities); and (7) rhythm. Identifying and analyzing these
features helps L2 learners to understand the meaning of a given practice.
Young (2008, 2011; He & Young, 1998) also describes discursive practices by specifying
the ways in which participants use a variety of resources. According to He and Young (1998),
these linguistic and pragmatic resources are the following types of knowledge: knowledge of
rhetorical scripts, of certain lexis and syntactic patterns specific to the practice, of how turns are
managed, of topical organization, and of the means for signaling boundaries between practices
and transitions within the practice itself.
Expanding on this list of resources, Young (2008, 2011) differentiates among identity,
linguistic, and interactional resources. Whereas identity resources refer to knowledge about the
29
identities or footing (different speaker and hearer roles in a conversation, Goffman, 1981b) of all
participants in an interaction, linguistic resources entail features of register, such as
pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar of a particular practice, and modes of meaning, which
comprise ways of participants to construct interpersonal, experiential and textual meanings in a
practice. Besides setting boundaries and taking turns, as listed in He and Young (1998),
interactional resources also include ways in which participants select speech acts and structure
action sequences as well as provide and deal with instances of repair after interactional trouble in
a given practice.
In addition to the resources employed in a particular discursive practice, the context in
which the practice is set also plays a crucial role. I turn to context and its meaning for
interactional competence in the next section.
2.2.3
Context
The generic resources in Hall’s (1993) framework are the elements of a practice that turned out
to be the most stable in the development of the practice. That is, language users had employed
them recurrently in a given practice in the past, so that the resources were conventionalized. Hall
(1993) contends that participants in a specific practice know of the conventionalized nature of
these resources and have learned how to use them in the practice. However, how specifically the
resources are realized and how the practice is created depends on the situated moment in which
the practice takes place. Borrowing from Bakhtin (1986), Hall (1993) uses the notion of
dialogicality to describe this inextricable and interactive relationship between the generic and
conventionalized resources on the one hand and the locally situated uses of these resources on
the other.
30
Thus, to understand why participants employ certain resources in a particular way in a
practice, it is crucial to consider the context of the practice. Context is a fundamental part of
practice. Next to the spatiotemporal context in which the interaction takes place, social, cultural,
and historical aspects also have an effect on how the participants use the sets of interactional
resources mentioned above (Young, 2008). For example, Bourdieu (1977) highlights that
participants act and talk in communicative situations due to their learned behavior and personal
history, as reflected in their opinions, their ways of talking, walking, dressing, and so on.
Bourdieu (1977) refers to these socially acquired predispositions as habitus. He emphasizes that
it is their habitus that limits participants in their actions and their talk in a practice. Hence, Young
(2011) argues that context should be viewed from a rather broad perspective. Next to place and
time, circumstances of physical, social, institutional, political, and historical nature also play a
role when participants engage in a practice.
The conditions in which a practice takes place have also been referred to as frame
(Goffman, 1974). Goffman (1974) has pointed out that participants interpret each other’s
utterances with reference to a frame, where frame implies individuals’ perceptions of and
experiences with their environment. Knowing the frame determines understanding of the
utterances made in a conversation. Young (2008) stresses that participants sometimes explicitly
name frames, for example, to make certain interlocutors understand that the speaker is joking or
is being sarcastic.
However, most of the time our interpretation of utterances is channeled by features, also
known as contextualization cues (Gumperz, 1982), such as rhythm, pitch, stress, intonation,
speech style, posture, gaze, gestures, that signal how an utterance is supposed to be interpreted
and understood. Since contextualization cues are subtle and the frames can easily and rapidly
31
change within one interaction, misinterpretations may occur, especially when the participants
come from different cultural backgrounds (Young, 2008).
Overall, Young (2008), with reference to Goodwin and Duranti (1992), emphasizes that
context includes two aspects: It implies (a) an focal event, which is language that is being
contextualized, and (b) the field of action beyond the event itself, understood as the phenomena,
such as cultural setting, speech situation, or shared background knowledge, in which the focal
event is embedded. As mentioned above, the field of action, in which the effect is placed, has
also been referred to as frame (Goffman, 1974). Even though frame and focal event have been
isolated from each other, the two entities still influence one another. The frame helps to interpret
the interaction, and the event can help build a frame to allow for its interpretation (Young, 2008).
After describing the features of discursive practice, that is, its structure (i.e., the resources
brought to the practice) and the context in which the practice is set, I now turn to
intersubjectivity, or shared understanding that can be observed in discursive practice.
2.2.4
Intersubjectivity
As mentioned earlier, Kramsch (1986) notes that interlocutors first and foremost construct “a
shared internal context or sphere of inter-subjectivity” (p. 367). This notion of intersubjectivity—
first found in the work of the German philosopher Edmund Husserl, who established the school
of phenomenology (Young, 2011)—refers to “the conscious attribution of intentional acts to
others and involves putting oneself in the shoes of an interlocutor” (p. 430). Thus,
intersubjectivity is to be understood as shared knowledge between interlocutors. Young (2008)
considers intersubjectivity the basis for interactional competence. In his discussion on
intersubjectivity, Young (1999, 2008; He & Young, 1998) refers to the psychologist Ragnar
32
Rommetveit (1985, 1987), who bases this notion on a peculiar circularity, in that, the speaker
makes a contribution with the listener’s background information in mind, while the listener has
to make sense of the speaker’s contribution by adopting the speaker’s perspective.
Young (2011) points out that intersubjectivity was first looked at empirically by
Trevarthen (1977, 1979), who examined the interactions between infants and their mothers.
Trevarthen (1977, 1979) found that at the age of two months, infants begin to move their hands,
face, and body. For example, with their eyes, they follow their mother’s gaze or pointing. That is,
child and mother engage in mutual activity, and a mutual intentionality between them becomes
apparent (cf. Young, 2011).
Wells (1981) builds on Trevarthen’s research by arguing that children learn their first
language through social interaction with others. Whereas Rommetveit (1985, 1987) argues that
intersubjectivity is based on the circular relationship between speaker and hearer, Wells (1981)
additionally brings in the situation to which the interaction refers, that is, both the context and the
content of the interaction, as the element that speaker and hearer establish intersubjectivity about.
He contends that sender, listener, and the situation build a triangular relationship to make
communication happen. Overall, Wells (1981) maintains that
[t]he sender intends that, as a result of his communication, the receiver should come to
attend to the same situation as himself and construe it in the same way. For the
communication to be successful, therefore, it is necessary (a) that the receiver should
come to attend to the situation as intended by the sender; (b) that the sender should know
that the receiver is so doing; and (c) that the receiver should know that the sender knows
that this is the case. (p. 47)
33
To be more precise, only by attending to the information that is delivered from one utterance to
the next, it is possible to construct a shared context and mutual understanding. During a
communicative act, interlocutors thus have to constantly pay attention to the sequential context
of the discourse they produce. Observing participants’ use of nonverbal cues, such as gaze,
gestures, and facial expressions, also helps in producing a joint discourse (Wells, 1981).3
In addition, Young (2008) emphasizes that intersubjectivity is observed in interlocutors’
turn-taking, action sequencing, and instances of repair in interaction. These three conversational
structures are relevant in CA research that studies the interactional organization of talk. Young
(2008) further explicates that they are “the fundamental building blocks of intersubjectivity” (p.
50–51), as they reveal how participants achieve, maintain, and restore common understanding in
interaction. Intersubjectivity is further discussed in conjunction with CA.
Based on the categories (e.g., the structure and context of discursive practices as well as
intersubjectivity) discussed thus far, a definition of the notion of interactional competence in both
Hall (1993, 1995, 1999) and Young (2008, 2011) is provided in the next section.
2.2.5
Summary
To summarize, according to Young (2008, 2011), interactional competence (or the absence
thereof) can be observed in discursive practices, that is, recurring episodes of social interaction.
Young’s (2008, 2011) understanding is that interlocutors bring a variety of identity, linguistic,
and interactional resources to the interaction and by using them construct, modify and change a
3
In addition, Wells (1981) points out that there are two other levels of shared knowledge: Common knowledge has
to be obtained also on a cultural level to prevent misunderstandings. Moreover, messages are delivered and
construed in light of one’s personal past experiences. Due to the experiences made during previous communicative
acts, participants have formed expectations as to what other participants intend to convey in an interaction. If the
expectations to an interaction diverge between interlocutors, information delivery and interpretation will be affected
and a shared knowledge and mutual understanding cannot be obtained.
34
practice together with the other participants involved in the practice. Interactional competence is
therefore not the knowledge or ability of a single individual, but rather refers to how two or more
participants in a practice mutually employ a variety of resources. The co-constructed practice
presupposes shared knowledge between the participants, also referred to as intersubjectivity.
Shared knowledge or intersubjectivity in interaction is considered the basis for interactional
competence.
Discursive practices can be described by specifying the ways in which participants use
these resources. Because a configuration of resources that participants use in one practice can be
different from those employed in other practices, interactional competence is determined by the
specific practice in which participants are involved. Thus, a language learner’s interactional
competence is considered local and practice specific (He & Young, 1998).
For Hall (1999), interactional competence also occurs in discursive practices (or
interactive practices) and involves context-specific knowledge. Hall (1993, 1995) also points out
that by making use of the resources in several instances of the same practice, participants
eventually acquire an interactional competence for that particular practice and not general or
practice-independent interactional competence. According to Hall (1993, 1995), becoming
interactionally competent in a discursive practice of a group requires repeated exposure to the
given practice. With reference to scholars from the tradition of sociocultural theory (Vygotsky,
1978; Wertsch, 1985, 1991), she highlights that new participants (including L2 learners) will
become more experienced members in discursive practices when they follow three steps: (a)
discovering the interactive patterns used in the practice; (b) observing how the practice is jointly
created; and (c) participating in constructing the practice with more competent members of the
group (Hall, 1995).
35
Finally, Young (2008, 2011) stresses the significance of external context for constructing
interactional competence in a given practice. In a review of a set of studies on interactional
competence and development, Young (2011) observed that intersubjectivity has predominately
been taken as evidence for interactional competence without taking the wider context of the
practice into consideration (e.g., Dings, 2007; Yagi, 2007). However, for him, interactional
competence goes beyond sequentially shared understanding between participants in talk-ininteraction. He points out that investigating the social, institutional, political, and historical
circumstances of the context in which the interaction takes place is necessary to fully grasp
interactional competence in a given practice. In that respect, he mentions Nguyen’s (2006, 2008)
research that takes into account this broader context of interaction to investigate how novice
pharmacy interns gain more experience in managing the interactional and interpersonal functions
in the practice of patient consultation talk in the course of an eight-week internship (Young,
2011).
As Young (2011) pointed out in his review article, research conducted on interactional
competence seems to be mostly concerned with how interactional competence is co-constructed
in interaction and also how interactional competence develops in recurrent interactions. To carry
out this type of research, scholars adopt CA, a method that studies the sequential organization of
talk on a turn-by-turn basis and analyzes the procedures that participants employ in interaction to
achieve, maintain, and restore intersubjectivity. Young’s (2008, 2011) approach to interactional
competence that incorporates a wider perspective of context, which goes beyond a sequential
analysis of talk-in-interaction, is not necessarily compatible with CA. Conversation analysts
consider external categories pertinent only if the participants themselves find the social, political
or historical context relevant and orient to these categories in their talk (e.g., Sidnell, 2010).
36
Overall, in recent years, L2 interactional competence and development have been mostly
investigated from a CA–SLA perspective, an approach within SLA that draws on the
epistemology and methodology of CA. In the next section, I focus on CA and interactional
competence in CA–SLA.
2.3
Interactional competence and development in CA–SLA
In their seminal paper, Firth and Wagner (1997) criticized mainstream SLA studies as too
cognitivist and individualistic in nature and called for a reconceptualization of the field. They
argued that SLA scholars have to adopt a more emic (participant-relevant) orientation to
language learning and be more aware of the contextual and interactional dimensions of language
use. In addition, Firth and Wagner (1997) called for a broadening of the traditional SLA
database.
Following Firth and Wagner’s (1997) call, socioculturally and sociointeractionally
oriented approaches to SLA (e.g., a sociocultural approach, complexity theory approach,
sociocognitive approach, or conversation-analytic approach) have become more prevalent in the
past two decades (see the edited volume by Atkinson, 2011). These alternative approaches to
SLA are characterized by reconceptualizations of both learning and language. That is, they view
learning not as intrapsychological and cognitive phenomenon but as anchored in and through the
social practices learners engage in. Hence, learning is “learning-in-action” (Firth & Wagner,
2007, p. 809). In addition, the widespread notion of language as static and context-independent
linguistic knowledge has shifted away towards an adaptive, dynamic, and context-sensitive
understanding of language (Pekarek Doehler, 2012).
37
A CA–SLA approach—referring to SLA research drawing on CA terms—is distinctive to
other alternative approaches with respect to its CA-infused epistemology and research
methodology, in that CA is primarily concerned with orderliness in interaction and in explicating
the methods, procedures, or practices that participants in talk-in-interaction employ to achieve,
maintain, and restore intersubjectivity (Kasper, 2006). From a theoretical and empirical stance,
CA has greatly influenced the current conceptualizations of interactional competence in CA–
SLA. Hall and Pekarek Doehler (2011) emphasize that interactional competence is a prevalent
object of inquiry within CA–SLA.
In this section, I first present important aspects of CA’s epistemology. Then, I review
how interactional competence has been defined from a CA–SLA perspective and also how the
development of interactional competence is understood. As an approach within SLA, CA–SLA is
interested in tracking learning in L2 interaction. Thus, interactional competence is approached
here through the lens of L2 learning and development. From a CA–SLA perspective, I look at
interactional competence as the object and condition for L2 learning and then show what scholars
within CA–SLA count as evidence for interactional development. The major findings are
summarized.
2.3.1
Excursus: Conversation analysis
In his lectures at UCLA in the early 1960s, the sociologist Harvey Sacks developed an approach
to the study of talk, which came to be known as conversation analysis (CA). In the late 1960s and
early 1970s, through the work of Sacks and his colleagues Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson,
CA “began to emerge from sociology as an independent area of enquiry oriented towards
38
understanding the organizational structure of talk” (Liddicoat, 2011, p. 4), which influenced
various disciplines that analyze human communication (Liddicoat, 2011).
CA’s major assumption is that ordinary talk is systematically organized and socially
ordered. As talk-in-interaction is considered a socially ordered phenomenon, CA aims to find the
structures that construct that orderliness in interaction (Psathas, 1995). In order to do so,
naturally occurring talk is recorded, closely transcribed, and analyzed to find patterns of
organization across instances (Sidnell, 2010).
In comparison to many other linguists, conversation analysts are not interested in
analyzing language structure per se. Rather, CA focuses on how interactants understand and
respond to each other’s contributions and how they generate sequences and actions in interaction.
According to CA, utterances are objects that are designed and used to negotiate social activities,
such as requests, proposals, and complaints. Therefore, CA is predominantly viewed as an
approach to study talk-in-interaction instead of merely talk (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008).
In this section, I briefly present some important aspects of CA’s epistemology and focus
on principles, such as recipient design, intersubjectivity, socially distributed cognition, and
context-sensitivity in talk-in-interaction.
Recipient design
One major principle of CA is that conversationalists orient to each other’s utterances in talk-ininteraction. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) argue that speakers design their talk in such a
way as to make it appropriate to the co-participants they are addressing. To ensure understanding
on the co-participant’s end, speakers base their contributions on knowledge that they assume they
share with the interlocutor (cf. Liddicoat, 2011; Sidnell, 2010). At the same time, listeners
39
interpret a turn with the expectation that the turn was specifically designed for them (Liddicoat,
2011). Examples of recipient design (Sacks et al., 1974), as this orientation to the co-participant
has also been called, is the use of increased volume and nuances in word selection (Sidnell,
2010).
Intersubjectivity
In a similar vein, speakers display what they understood from the prior turn when they were in
the role of the listener. First speakers thus determine whether their utterance was interpreted as
intended, and second speakers learn whether their analysis of the first speaker’s turn was
adequate when the first speaker takes the floor again (Heritage, 1984a). In the third turn of the
conversation, the first speaker has the option to repair misunderstandings that became apparent in
the second speaker’s turn (Schegloff, 1992a). Schegloff (1992a) calls these instances of repair
third position repair. If the second speaker interprets the first speaker’s contribution adequately,
understanding is not explicitly confirmed; rather, the first speaker further develops the sequence
and by doing so tacitly confirms that the second speaker analyzed the first turn as intended
(Heritage, 1984a). Sacks et al. (1974) call this conversational procedure of speakers displaying
their understanding of what was conveyed in the prior turn as next-turn proof procedure (see also
Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008).
Hence, since it is understood that each utterance reveals an understanding and
interpretation of the preceding turn, an analysis of the turn-by-turn organization of talk is able to
display how intersubjectivity emerges in a conversation. In this respect, CA also shows how
intersubjectivity is checked on and repaired in talk-in-interaction (Heritage, 1984a; Schegloff,
1992a; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973; Sidnell, 2010). Overall, CA provides “for a continuously
40
updated context of intersubjective understanding, accomplished en passant in the course of the
other activities” (Sidnell, 2010, p. 13).
Socially distributed cognition
As intersubjectivity emerges turn by turn, CA also portrays and explicates the progress of coparticipants’ socially distributed cognition (Schegloff, 1991; see also Kasper, 2006, 2008, 2009;
Markee, 2000; Potter & te Molder, 2005; Seedhouse, 2004, 2005). In CA, cognition manifests
itself in interaction; that is, socially distributed cognition is accomplished as interactional
behavior and is thus visible through participants’ conversational conduct. For example, instances
of socially shared cognition, such as repair of conversational trouble, are prompted by members’
interactional practices (Schegloff, 1991). Conversation analysts’ perspective to cognition is thus
a contrast to cognitive scientists’, who construe mental processes within the individual (Mori &
Hasegawa, 2009). In comparison to cognitive science, CA does not intend to uncover the
underlining mental states of the participants in an interaction, “but rather to understand how such
behavioral manifestations of cognition are motivated and treated by the participants in talk-andother-conduct-in-interaction” (Mori & Hasegawa, 2009, p. 69).
Context-sensitivity and internal context
In addition, the structural resources that conversationalists use to orient to each other’s utterances
and to display understanding sequentially are context-sensitive in CA. Context-sensitivity
implies that co-participants deploy particular resources only in reference to the utterances prior to
the present talk (Sacks et al., 1974; see also Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). With reference to
Heritage (1984a), Liddicoat (2011) emphasizes that talk-in-interaction is context-renewing. As
41
each turn constrains the turn that follows, talk constantly shapes and renews context. In other
words, every new utterance represents the context for the next utterance, making context a
dynamic entity that is in constant change. However, at the same time, the structural resources
used in talk-in-interaction are context-free. Therefore, it is not the case that co-participants
deploy particular structural techniques only in specific occasions; rather, the same kind of
structural resources are used in various different circumstances (Sacks et al., 1974; see also
Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). Hence, conversation analysts are more concerned with internal
context (Schegloff, 1992b) that is created in talk-in-interaction. In terms of external context,
including social categories or cultural settings, which are traditionally understood as having an
impact on interaction, Schegloff (1992b) points out that not all aspects of external context can be
considered as potentially relevant for conversation. In CA, external categories are therefore only
relevant when conversationalists orient to them in their talk (Sidnell, 2010).
After introducing major principles of CA, I now turn to interactional competence in CA–
SLA. I first look at the competencies that constitute interactional competence.
2.3.2
Interactional competence as object of L2 learning
With reference to Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998, p. 14), Kasper (2006) emphasizes that CA’s
object of inquiry is a set of “sociolinguistic competencies” (p. 83) that conversationalists use to
participate in “intelligible, socially organized interaction” (Heritage & Atkinson, 1984, p. 1).
Kasper (2006) further explains that SLA researchers (Hall, 1993, 1995; He & Young, 1998;
Kramsch, 1986; Markee, 2000; Young & Miller, 2004) refer to these competencies as
interactional competence (see also Kasper & Wagner, 2011). Based on CA research and the work
42
by He and Young (1998) and Young and Miller (2004), Kasper (2006) lists the following
interactional competencies4 as resources used by conversationalists in social interaction:
1) to understand and produce social actions in their sequential contexts
2) to take turns at talk in an organized fashion
3) to format actions and turns, and construct an epistemic and affective stance (Ochs,
1996), by drawing on different types of semiotic resources (linguistic, nonverbal,
nonvocal), including register-specific resources
4) to repair problems in speaking, hearing, and understanding
5) to co-construct social and discursive identities through sequence organization,
actions-in-interaction and semiotic resources (Goffman, 1981a; Zimmerman, 1998)
6) to recognize and produce boundaries between activities, including transitions from
states of contact to absence of contact (interactional openings, Schegloff, 1968;
closings, Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) and transitions between activities during
continued contact (Markee, 2004). (p. 86)
Similarly, Markee (2000) points out that from a CA perspective L2 interactional
competence is associated with “sociolinguistic notions of communicative competence” (p. 64)
(Bachman, 1990; Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1972a). With respect to Celce-Murcia et al.’s
(1995) model of communicative competence, interactional competence thus subsumes the
conversational structure component of discourse competence (that is, actions inherent to the turntaking system), non-verbal communicative elements of sociocultural competence, and strategic
competence (Markee, 2000). Hence, interactional competence involves learners’ orientation to
4
Kasper (2006) prefers the term interactional competencies over interactional competence. She thus emphasizes the
non-finiteness and diversity of the capacities that participants bring to an interaction.
43
different semiotic systems, such as turn-taking, repair, and sequence organization as well as to
gaze and embodied actions (Markee, 2008).
In a similar vein, with reference to Garfinkel (1967), Pekarek Doehler (2012, 2013)
explicates that participants’ methods can be understood as L2 interactional competence. Methods
(in the ethnomethodological sense of the term) are procedures of turn-taking, repairing, opening
and closing conversation, and so forth, that conversationalists deploy to accomplish talk-ininteraction.5 Within these systematic interactional procedures, participants make use of language
resources, gaze, as well as gestures and other bodily conduct (Hellermann, 2008; Pekarek
Doehler, 2010, 2012, 2013).
A number of empirical CA–SLA studies, which employ CA epistemology and research
methodology, have investigated the methods that linguistically less competent L2 speakers
deploy in talk-in-interaction. This research has contributed to a more detailed specification of L2
learners’ interactional competence (Kasper, 2004, 2006; Pekarek Doehler, 2013), as the studies
provided insights into various interactional methods and practices, such as classroom interaction
(Markee, 2000; Seedhouse, 2004), naturally occurring conversations (Gardner & Wagner, 2004),
forms of repair and correction (Brouwer, Rasmussen & Wagner, 2004; Kurhila, 2001; Wong,
2000), fluency (Carroll, 2000), the use of gaze (Carroll, 2004), and gestures (Mori & Hayashi,
2006; Olsher, 2004).
In addition to the object of L2 learning, that is, the resources used by conversationalists in
social interaction, interactional competence is also considered the condition for learning, as is
explicated in the next section.
5
Garfinkel (1967) developed a form of sociology, which came to be known as ethnomethodology, that sought to
study the practices, procedures, and methods that members of a society use to accomplish social activities in their
everyday lives (see also Liddicoat, 2011). For social activities in any given situation, people must determine what
norms or rules apply. Also, Garfinkel (1967) noted that particular background expectancies build the base for
accomplishing social activities.
44
2.3.3
Interactional competence as condition for L2 learning
In CA–SLA, interactional competence is not only viewed the object of learning but also the
condition for learning (Kasper & Wagner, 2011). That is, interactional competence is considered
the competencies that participants bring to an interaction, whereas these competencies are put to
use only in interaction with other conversationalists. Employing these competencies in
interaction provides for the social activity of learning and development, which implies a more
effective participation in practices over time. As was mentioned previously, interactional
competence is thus not an individual or intrapsychological competence; neither can it be
separated from performance. Rather, the procedures comprising interactional competence (e.g.,
turn-taking, turn-construction, sequence organization, repair) are interactional in nature and can
only be observed locally in interaction (Kasper & Wagner, 2011). That is, the deployment of a
particular set of competencies is local and depends on the situated activity (Kasper, 2006). In
other words, “the configuration of […] resources may be conceived as an interactional
architecture unique to a specific discursive practice. The interactional competence of participants
[…] is defined as participants’ knowledge of how to configure these resources in a specific
practice” (Young & Miller, 2004, p. 520).
In addition, participants’ interactional competence deployed to participate in specific
discursive practices develops with recurrent participation in these practices, making
conversationalists’ interactional competence more effective over time (Kasper & Wagner, 2011;
Pekarek Doehler, 2012). How interactional competence develops over time and how interactional
development can be accounted for are questions that have been of major interest to CA–SLA
scholars. Before I show what counts as evidence for interactional development from a CA–SLA
perspective, I turn briefly to CA–SLA’s understanding of learning.
45
2.3.4
L2 learning and interactional development from a CA–SLA perspective
CA–SLA scholars understand learning as a local, “socially situated activity” (Mori, 2007, p. 856;
see also Brouwer & Wagner, 2004; Kasper, 2004; Markee, 2000; Markee & Kasper, 2004;
Pekarek Doehler, 2012). That is, learning is viewed to emerge from interactional conduct
(Pekarek Doehler, 2012). Markee and Kasper (2004) make explicit that “learning behaviors may
usefully be understood as a conversational process that observably occurs in the intersubjective
space between participants” (p. 496). That implies that learning is a socially distributed behavior,
which becomes evident at the micro level of social interaction (Pekarek Doehler, 2012).
Even though the notion of learning has been made explicit, it is less clear how CA can
contribute to explain L2 interactional development. Brouwer and Wagner (2004) emphasize that
language learning has to also be understood from a broader perspective, in terms of developing
increasingly more complex interactional resources (see also Kasper & Wagner, 2011). They thus
conceptualize learning as “a social process” rather than “a social practice” (Brouwer & Wagner,
2004, p. 32). Tracking learning as social process, which includes a change of interactional
resources over time, requires scholars to conduct longitudinal studies (Brouwer & Wagner, 2004;
Kasper, 2004; Mori, 2007; Wagner, 2004). However, CA is not a learning theory (He, 2004); it
was not designed to capture change of interactional behavior over a period of time (e.g., Brower
& Wagner, 2004; Hall, 2004; He, 2004; Kasper, 2004, 2006; Markee & Kasper, 2004; Mondada
& Pekarek Doehler, 2004; Pekarek Doehler, 2010; Seedhouse, 2004; Wagner, 2004; Young &
Miller, 2004).
To resolve this theoretical gap of learning, scholars working within CA–SLA have linked
CA with a theory of L2 learning, such as language socialization (He, 2004), sociocultural theory
(Hall, 2004), situated learning theory (e.g., Brouwer & Wagner, 2004; Cekaite, 2007; Dings,
2007; Hellermann, 2007, 2008; Hellermann & Cole, 2009; Nguyen, 2006, 2008; Yagi, 2007;
46
Young & Miller, 2004), or a combination of sociocultural theory and situated learning theory
(Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004). Kasper (2006, 2008) points out that such combinations are
justified because CA and either of the perspectives to learning cited view cognition as socially
constituted and distributed. In addition, following CA and either one of these L2 learning
theories, social interaction occurs in situated activities—a locus for learning. The theory of
situated learning appears to be the most favorable approach in linking CA with an a priori
learning theory. It conceptualizes learning as social process in communicative practices and is
related to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of learning as participation. Lave and Wenger
(1991) describe learning as the development from peripheral to full participation in a
communicative practice. That is, with the help of experts, novices become full members of the
community of practice over time.
In comparison, some scholars within CA–SLA consider CA’s own ethnomethodological
stance sufficient to account for L2 learning (Kasper, 2006, 2009; Markee, 2000, 2008; Markee &
Seo, 2009; Mori & Hasegawa, 2009; Mori & Markee, 2009; Seedhouse, 2004).
Based on CA–SLA scholars’ call to track the development of interactional competence as
a social process over time, I want to show next what counts as evidence for development.
2.3.5
Evidence for L2 interactional development
As was highlighted in the previous section, CA–SLA scholars have called for research to be
carried out on learning as social process, which includes an analysis of talk-in-action across time.
Pekarek Doehler (2010, 2012) notes that there are two strands of research that investigate talk-ininteraction over time: One group of scholars investigates how participants develop their
competencies through the turn-by-turn unfolding of talk within short time-spans (Atkinson,
47
Churchill, Nishino, & Okada, 2007; Firth, 2009; Firth & Wagner, 2007; Ishida, 2006; Markee &
Seo, 2009; Mori & Hasegawa, 2009; Pekarek Doehler, 2010). The interest of these studies lies in
capturing the process of learning. Also, they predominantly focus on the learning of linguistic
resources in interaction.
Another group of researchers looks at interactional development from a longitudinal
(Brouwer & Wagner, 2004; Cekaite, 2007; Hellermann, 2007, 2008; Ishida, 2009; Young &
Miller, 2004) or cross-sectional perspective (Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2011). These
studies are designed to track the product of learning or the state of interactional competence in at
least two points in time. For example, Brouwer and Wagner (2004) collected interactions of
learners of Danish over several months and found that in terms of organizing sequences and
initiating repair, the learners’ interactional repertoire developed and became more complex over
time. That is, in an interaction early on during her stay in Denmark, a student of Danish did not
display any understanding of a trouble source when initiating repair. Later, the student was able
to locate trouble more specifically, which became evident, for example, in her repeating elements
of the trouble source. Drawing on situated learning theory, Young and Miller (2004) show that at
the end of a four-week period of writing conferences an English as a second language student
was able to perform many of the actions that his instructor initially performed for him when they
started with the revision talks. Setting her study in a Swedish immersion classroom, Cekaite
(2007) looked at the emergent interactional competence of a Kurdish girl over one year. She
found, for example, that the girl’s turn-taking behavior developed across three stages, from
silences, through inappropriate turn-taking behavior, to correct turn-taking behavior. In an
English language classroom setting, Hellermann (2008) examined the changes of interactional
resources used in student-student interactions over time. In terms of opening moves, he, for
48
example, observed that students at lower proficiency levels begin their pair task interactions
without prefatory talk, whereas the majority of the more proficient students partaking in the
study engage in task-prefatory talk. In yet another classroom setting, Pekarek Doehler and
Pochon-Berger’s (2011) show how techniques for doing disagreements differ between
intermediate and advanced students of French. Whereas the students at the intermediate level
predominantly use polarity markers (e.g., no) at the beginning of turns to indicate disagreement,
advanced-level students seem to deploy an increased number of the more complex forms of
disagreements, such as ‘but’-introduced counter-arguments or non-turn initial disagreements,
while they use less of the turn-initial polarity markers.
The studies of the latter group of researchers share the view that the development of L2
interactional competence can be captured by studying participants’ changing methods for
accomplishing talk-in-interaction. As was mentioned earlier, methods (from an
ethnomethodological point of view) are the procedures that interactants deploy to organize their
interactions (e.g., taking turns, repairing, organizing sequences, etc.). That learning occurs can be
taken from the greater diversification, efficacy, or complexity of the methods used across
recurrent micro-practices (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011; Hellermann, 2008; Mondada &
Pekarek Doehler, 2004; Pekarek Doehler, 2010, 2012, 2013).
2.3.6
Summary
This section was devoted to interactional competence and development from a CA–SLA
perspective. As an approach within SLA, CA–SLA draws on the principles and the methodology
of CA, a method that investigates the structural organization of talk-in-interaction. After a brief
introduction to major principles of CA, this section showed that scholars within CA–SLA define
49
the interactional competencies that conversationalists use in social interaction as sociolinguistic
competencies. To be more precise, these competencies are procedures of conversational
organization (e.g., procedures of turn-taking, repair, action sequencing, opening and closing
conversations, etc.) that participants use to accomplish talk-in-interaction and to obtain, maintain,
and restore intersubjectivity or mutual understanding with their interactional partners. The review
of the literature also showed that interactional competence is not understood as an individual
competence, but rather that it is co-constructed between interlocutors in an interaction. In
addition, the set of competencies deployed can be attributed to the local and situated activity or
discursive practice in which the interaction takes place.
The understanding further is that participants’ interactional competence in a specific
discursive practice develops with recurrent participation in this practice. Moreover, CA–SLA
research reveals that participants’ interactional development can be tracked and described by
investigating the changing procedures (e.g., taking turns, opening and closing conversations,
repairing trouble, etc.) deployed to accomplish talk-in-interaction and to gain and maintain
intersubjectivity. More complex and diversified procedures are used over time, which is an
indicator that learning has taken place.
It becomes apparent that CA–SLA’s notion of interactional competence coincides to a
major extent with Young’s (2008, 2011) understanding of interactional competence discussed in
the previous section. It is important to note, however, that Young’s (2008, 2011) call to
incorporate a wider context, that is, the historical, social, or political circumstances of the
practice in which the interaction is set, is not incorporated in CA–SLA’s conceptualization of
interactional competence. CA does not account for macro categories, such as the social, political,
or historical context, unless the participants themselves orient to them in their talk.
50
After having discussed interactional competence in SLA and CA–SLA, I now turn to
interactional competence in language testing. In the next section, I present the interaction-based
approach to construct definition that is most suitable to assess interactional competence.
2.4
Interaction-based language testing
Understanding how abilities and context interrelate in affecting performance on language tests
has been of major interest to language testers (Bachman, 2007). Three approaches to defining test
constructs emerged, which Bachman (2007) refers to as ability-based, task-based, and
interaction-based. Whereas trait or ability-based theorists attribute consistencies to test-taker
characteristics and thus describe constructs with respect to test takers’ knowledge and
fundamental processes disregarding context, behaviorists or task-based language theorists are
concerned with consistencies of context and define constructs in relation to contextual factors
and conditions under which the test is performed (Chapelle, 1998).
The focus of this section is on the interaction-based approaches to construct definition,
which incorporate both trait and behaviorist approaches and thus include abilities and contextual
features into the construct (Chapelle, 1998). I concentrate on Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) “abilityin-language user-in-context”, also known as a “moderate” interactionist approach (Bachman,
2007; Mislevy, 2012). In comparison to Bachman’s (1990) “interaction-ability” (Bachman,
2007) approach, which is another interaction-based approach, a moderate or ability-in-language
user-in-context approach may be better suited to define the construct of interactional
competence, as Chalhoub-Deville (2003) suggests.
In this section, I present what Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) approach to defining test
constructs implies and how her approach differs from Bachman’s interaction-ability approach.
51
An ability-in-language user-in-context approach, however, bears problems for a positivistoriented field such as language testing. The criticism that has leveled against this approach and
potential solutions to the raised problems are outlined briefly before the major concepts of this
section are summarized.
2.4.1
Ability-in-language user-in-context approach (Chalhoub-Deville, 2003)
Drawing on research in social interaction and discourse analysis, some language testers,
particularly Chalhoub-Deville (2003; Chalhoub-Deville & Deville, 2005; Deville & ChalhoubDeville, 2006), McNamara (1996, 1997), and Young (2000), have advocated incorporating
ability and context as intricately enmeshed and indistinguishable entities in language testing.
They also view discourse between interactants as situated, jointly constructed language use and
maintain that the underlying characteristics of language users and context are meshed with one
another in one interaction structure and that contextual aspects and ability features influence each
other (Chalhoub-Deville, 2003). Thus, less emphasis is put on the candidate’s cognitive ability
and underlying traits, and more prominence is given to the performance produced through jointly
constructed discourse between participants in social context. Chalhoub-Deville (2003) calls this
approach to construct definition “ability-in-language user-in-context” and thus emphasizes that
the abilities a candidate brings to the situation interact with the context, change context, and are
changed by context. Thus, of interest is how the test taker adapts resources to situations
(Mislevy, 2012).
Clearly, an approach to interactional competence as described by scholars within SLA
and CA–SLA (see sections 2.2 and 2.3) aligns with Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) ability-inlanguage user-in-context model to construct definition and is to be preferred over Bachman’s
52
(1990) underlying abilities model or the current mainstream communicative language testing
approach mentioned by Harding (2014), both of which are briefly described in the next section.
2.4.2
Bachman’s (1990) interaction–abilities approach
Chalhoub-Deville (2003) contrasts her representation of interaction, which she calls “ability-inlanguage user” based on “language user-in-context,” with that of Bachman’s (1990) construct.
To design and develop language tests, Bachman (1990) proposed two frameworks to be included
into his approach to construct definition: communicative language ability (see section 2.1) and
test method facets. That is, for Bachman (1990), performance on language tests is a matter of
both the candidate’s language ability and the features of the test method.
In this approach, both language abilities and contextual features (discussed through
Bachman’s test method approach) as well as their interaction are included in the construct. The
quality of traits and context changes when they are combined, that is, trait components cannot be
defined independently from context, and contextual features cannot be characterized without
taking into consideration underlying characteristics. Because trait and context are included in one
construct, a linking component is needed that controls the interaction between the two. This
component is defined as a set of metacognitive strategies that help to make use of individual
ability in context. In sum, traits and fundamental processes are specified within a certain context.
Metacognitive strategies that control performance, in that particular context are specified as well
(Chapelle, 1998).
Even though language abilities and contextual features are “interacting entities” in
Bachman’s (1990) model, the two parts still remain “distinguishable” (Bachman, 2006, p. 193),
which is not the case in Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) representation of interaction, where abilities
53
and context are entangled in one interaction structure. The reason that traits and context remain
distinguishable in Bachman’s approach is to allow for generalizations of transferable abilities,
which is possible only if both entities are kept separate (Chalhoub-Deville, 2003).
In a recent article, Harding (2014) points out that the current mainstream communicative
approach to defining constructs in language testing draws on Bachman’s interaction–abilities
approach and his atheoretical real-life, task-driven approach (Bachman, 1990). The current
mainstream communicative language testing approach can therefore best be described as a
synthesis of underlying abilities and the test task. Harding (2014) references Buck (2001) as an
example for this approach. Describing the development of a listening construct in his book
Assessing Listening, Buck (2001) understands performance as underlying traits that are
influenced by contextual features. Contextual features refer to the test task characteristics based
on real-life language tasks that can be found in a specific target language use domain.
To summarize, by viewing “language, social contexts, and the co-construction of
meaning as inextricable” (Chalhoub-Deville & Deville, 2005, p. 825), Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003)
ability-in-language user-in-context approach is fundamentally different from Bachman’s (1990)
interaction–abilities approach that separates language abilities and contextual features. Language
testers have criticized the proposal that abilities and contextual features be understood as
entangled in one interaction structure in the ability-in-language user-in-context approach. The
next section is devoted to the criticisms toward the representation of L2 interaction based on
Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) construct definition approach.
54
2.4.3
Criticisms
Given that context and abilities form one entity, a model of interactional competence provides a
challenge to the field of language testing for two main reasons: (a) Performance is not considered
to be solely based on individual ability but on the dynamic and co-constructed discourse among
participants; and (b) language performance is local and thus most likely to change with the
interlocutors and the situation (Chalhoub-Deville, 2003).
These two features of interactional competence signal problems for language testing
validation research in terms of drawing generalizable inferences from test scores (Bachman,
2007; Chalhoub-Deville, 2003). Chalhoub-Deville (2003) points out that if cognitive attributes of
test-taker ability are considered indistinguishable from a given context, “then any inferences
about ability and performance in other contexts are questionable” (p. 376). Similarly, Bachman
(2007) argues that if the construct of interaction is local and co-constructed by all participants in
a particular discursive practice, then each interaction is unique. However, uniqueness in
performance is problematic for language testers. That is, if no performance consistencies can be
observed across contexts or participants, then generalizations cannot be made (Bachman, 2007).
Swain (1993) disagrees; she argues that language testers have to rethink the concept of
reliability as internal consistency in communicative language assessments, which often elicit
variable performance. Instead of measuring consistency, more meaningful criteria should be used
to ensure the quality of performance-based assessments. With reference to Linn, Baker, and
Dunbar (1991), Swain (1993) points out that such criteria could be a test’s consequences,
fairness, cognitive complexity, content quality, and content coverage.
In addition, Young (2000) proposes a way out of this dilemma of performance
consistency and generalizability by saying that the construct of interactional competence may be
defined from a behaviorist perspective. As was mentioned earlier, behaviorists are concerned
55
with consistencies of context. They define a construct in relation to contextual factors and
conditions under which the test is performed (Chapelle, 1998).
Young (2000) further highlights that even though interactional competence is local, in
that a specific discursive practice is characterized by a specific configuration of interactional
resources, it is not necessarily the case that every discursive practice is unique. Rather, there may
be resources that are shared across different practices (cf. Young, 2013). Thus, Young (2000)
claims that the performance elicited through one performance assessment, which he considers a
discursive practice, may be generalized to performances in other non-test contexts. However, to
be able to draw comparisons and generalizations between discursive practices, he calls for
language testers to first identify the “interactional architecture” (p. 12) of performance
assessments, that is, the configuration of resources in performance tests.
Moreover, the fact that interactional competence is conceptualized from a sociocultural
perspective that considers meaning as inherent in context and interaction, instead of in the
individuals, has implications for scoring and interpreting performance. For that matter, Fulcher
(2010) is convinced that the construct of interactional competence cannot be employed in
language testing, arguing that the primary concern of language testing is to assign scores to
individuals. Hence, it is not surprising that Fulcher (2003) rejects interactional competence as an
alternative model to language abilities models in which interactional competence is subsumed as
a trait under communicative competence.
In contrast, some researchers have suggested providing one score to all participants
included in the interaction, instead of disentangling the contributions made by each test taker to
give individual scores (Chalhoub-Deville & Deville, 2005; Taylor & Wigglesworth, 2009).
Johnson (2004) also suggests evaluating oral events by assigning test takers a pass or a fail or by
56
describing the strengths and weaknesses of candidates’ abilities. Since interaction is socially
situated and tester and test taker contributions influence one another, Johnson (2004) proposes
evaluating not only the candidate’s speaking ability but also the tester’s performance. Similarly,
Swain (2001) proposes measuring the jointly constructed discourse. Nevertheless, ChalhoubDeville and Deville (2005) argue that the profession may have to rethink its stance on scoring
altogether if it embraces the assessment of co-constructed discourse. Scholars agree that means
need to be found to make scoring of co-constructed test-taker performance fair and adequate
(Chalhoub-Deville & Deville, 2005; Fulcher, 2003; McNamara, 1997; Swain, 2001).
2.4.4
Summary
A social interaction approach to language testing, as explicated by Chalhoub-Deville (2003),
substantially differs from Bachman’s (1990) interaction–abilities approach and the current
mainstream communicative language testing approach that Harding (2014) describes. Although
language abilities and contextual features are separated in Bachman’s (1990) interaction-ability
approach, they are entangled in Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) ability-in-language user-in-context
approach. In comparison to Bachman’s (1990) approach, Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) model is
better suited to represent L2 interaction and interactional competence in language testing because
it places major emphasis on performance and adaptability of resources to context domains.
However, Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) approach has been criticized because of problems of
scoring and the generalizability of performance.
In the next section, I concentrate on the resources or competencies that language testers
consider part of a construct of interactional competence in paired and group speaking tests
between peers.
57
2.5
Interactional competence in paired and group speaking tests
This section investigates how interactional competence has been operationalized in paired and
group speaking tests between peers. When working with the construct of interactional
competence, language testers need to know what kind of test performance actually “counts as
evidence for interactional competence” (Fulcher, 2010, p. 113). Thus, the question is how the
construct is defined, so that it can be operationalized in specific tests, including the development
of adequate test tasks and rating scales. Fulcher (2003) argues that language testers have mostly
defined the construct of interactional competence with respect to “how speakers structure speech,
its sequential organization and turn-taking rules, sometimes including strategies” (p. 44). From
the paired and group speaking tests reviewed in this section, it seems that the construct of
interactional competence between peers has been mainly understood in terms of collaborative
and symmetric interaction between test takers (e.g., Ducasse, 2010; Ducasse & Brown, 2009;
May, 2006, 2009, 2011) and in terms of interactional language functions, some of which may be
understood as interactional strategies (e.g., Brooks, 2009; He & Dai, 2006; Taylor, 2001).
Language testers analyzed the paired and group test discourse by means of conversation
and discourse analyses to refine a test’s conceptualization of interactive communication or
interactional competence (e.g., Brooks, 2009; Galaczi, 2004). In a similar vein, to elaborate on a
test’s construct of interactional competence, raters were asked for their perception of the
interactional features produced in test discourse that make the interaction between test takers
successful (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; May, 2006, 2011). The findings obtained from these types
of studies were used to operationally define rating scale descriptors and to inform the
development of new rating scales. In addition, discourse analysis studies were also conducted as
validation studies, with the goal to determine whether the intended interactional functions are
actually produced in the test discourse.
58
In this section, I first look at the conversation and discourse analytic studies that were
conducted to better refine the conceptualization of interactional competence. Then, the findings
from rater perception studies are reviewed, followed by a summary section.
2.5.1
Conversation analyses
Galaczi (2004, 2008) examined the discourse of a paired speaking test task in terms of the
dynamic interaction model proposed by Storch (2002), which is based on the notions of
mutuality and equality (Damon & Phelps, 1989). Whereas mutuality refers to the extent to which
interlocutors engage with each other’s contribution, equality is evident in an equal distribution of
turns, or rather where the interlocutors have “an equal degree of control over the direction of a
task” (Storch, 2002, p. 127). Storch’s (2002) work on the nature of dyadic interaction in pair
work activities resulted in four distinguishable interactional patterns that differ in terms of
equality and mutuality levels. She termed these interactions collaborative, dominant/dominant,
dominant/passive, and expert/novice.
Framed within Storch’s (2002) interaction model of mutuality and equality, the main
purpose of Galaczi’s (2004, 2008) study was to identify patterns of interaction elicited through
an English language paired task. Galaczi (2008) investigated the “co-constructed” (p. 91) talk
produced between test takers in the dyads. Thirty test-taker pairs participated and took the
speaking part of the University of Cambridge ESOL examination First Certificate of English
(FCE), with one task being a discussion task for peer–interlocutors. The discourse in the paired
task was analyzed using CA conventions to investigate the nature of fundamental conversation
management concepts, such as overall structural organization, turn-taking, sequencing, and topic
organization. In addition, conversational dominance features were analyzed in terms of the
59
quantity of talk (quantitative dominance), interruptions (participatory dominance), and questions
(sequential dominance) (Itakura, 2001).
Galaczi’s (2004, 2008) data analysis revealed three main types of dyadic patterns of
discourse: collaborative, parallel, and asymmetric interaction, as well as a blended form that
combines features of two of the identified interactional patterns. The majority of the test-taker
dyads produced a discourse that was collaborative, parallel, or a blend of collaborative/parallel or
collaborative/asymmetric features. The discourse of three of the 30 dyads was asymmetric in
nature.
Asymmetric interactions constitute two different discourse roles, one dominant and one
passive, with moderate mutuality in topic development. This type of interactional pattern is
characterized by an unbalanced quantity of talk and topic development contributions, which puts
one interlocutor in a leading position and the other in a secondary role. The dominant participant
either interrupts the other less dominant interlocutor to take the floor or prompts the other
participant with a lot of questions. Also, quantitative dominance (Itakura, 2001) prevails with one
speaker talking noticeably more than the other.
In comparison, parallel interactions are characterized by candidates engaging in a solo
versus solo interaction, in which both speakers initiate and develop topics (high equality), but
their engagement with each other’s ideas is minimal (low mutuality). Topic extensions seldom
occur in parallel talk because the interlocutors are preoccupied with developing their own
contributions. With respect to conversational dominance features, Galaczi (2004, 2008) found
lengthy gaps between turns, as well as competitive interruptions in the nature of participatory
dominance (Itakura, 2001).
60
Finally, collaborative interactions are identified by high mutuality and high equality. In
collaborative dyads, the two participants constantly shift between the listener role and the
speaker role, and they develop their own topics but also support and relate to the topics initiated
by the interlocutor. Moreover, features such as short turns, rapid speaker change, follow-up
questions, avoidance of gaps between turns, supportive overlaps, and frequent acknowledgment
tokens suggest that the interlocutors are highly engaged with each other’s contributions. In
collaborative discourse, conversational dominance was found to be mainly sequential (Itakura,
2001), with the interlocutors being oriented to posing questions and offering the next speaker the
floor.
In terms of the interactive communication scores that refer to candidate ability to take
turns, initiate topics, and respond to interlocutor contributions, collaborative pairs whose
discourse was oriented to high mutuality and high equality were awarded higher scores than pairs
who interacted in a parallel or asymmetric fashion. Galaczi (2004, 2008) highlights that some
validity evidence for the interactive communication scores was provided, as patterns of
collaborative interaction are reflected in higher ratings. In comparison, parallel dyads received
the lowest ratings. Hence, Galaczi (2004, 2008) has defined interactional competence in terms of
a symmetric pattern of interaction, identified by high levels of mutuality and equality.
To my knowledge, Galaczi’s (2004, 2008) research is the only conversation analytic
study conducted to identify interactional patterns between peers in a paired speaking test.
Various discourse analyses were carried out to better understand peer-to-peer interaction in
paired and group speaking test settings. These discourse studies are reviewed in the next section.
61
2.5.2
Discourse analyses
To learn more about the peer-to-peer speech event, scholars used observation checklists of
language functions, some of which can be considered interactional language strategies. The
checklist approach can be understood as a complementary method to discourse analysis for testtask validation (O’Sullivan, Weir & Saville, 2002; Taylor, 2000).
Taylor (2001), for example, reports on a research study conducted at Cambridge ESOL
that compared the paired and interview test formats of the Certificate of Proficiency in English
(CPE) by employing an observation checklist. The 30 language functions on the checklist were
drawn from the literature on L2 speaking ability and were grouped into three categories: (a)
informational (e.g., expressing opinion, elaborating, comparing, speculating); (b) interactional
(e.g., persuading, (dis)agreeing, modifying, asking for opinion, asking for information,
conversational repair, negotiating meaning); and (c) managing interaction (e.g., initiating and
reciprocating an interaction, changing a topic, coming to a decision) (cf. ffrench, 2003, p. 453;
Galaczi & ffrench, 2011, p. 164). In paired test interaction, informational functions account for
only 55% of the candidates’ spoken discourse, and interactional and managing interaction
functions occur in 45% of the paired discourse (Taylor, 2001).
He and Dai (2006) also used a checklist of language functions or strategies to examine
interaction in oral test discourse. In comparison to Taylor (2001), He and Dai were interested in
investigating the language functions elicited in the group discussion section of the CollegeEnglish Test-Spoken English Test (CET–SET), a national speaking test for non-English majors
in China. The purpose of their study was to validate the group discussion task, in that evidence
was gathered to investigate whether the intended interactional functions are actually produced in
the test discourse. He and Dai (2006) point out that the developers of the CET–SET intend to test
“interactional competence” (p. 377), which they defined in terms of eight interactional language
62
functions (p. 378f.), which to a major extent overlap with the interactional language functions
discussed by Taylor (2001): (dis)agreeing with what another speaker has said; asking for
opinions or information; challenging opinions or assertions made by another speaker by giving
countering reasons or evidence; supporting opinions or assertions made by another speaker by
providing more reasons or evidence; modifying arguments or opinions in response to another
speaker; persuading another speaker to accept one’s view; developing ideas based on what
another speaker has said; and negotiating meaning (asking for clarification, giving clarification,
asking for confirmation, checking for comprehension).
Forty-eight CET–SET group discussions were analyzed in terms of the eight interactional
language functions. The results show that (dis)agreeing with an occurrence rate of 49.5% was the
function produced the most in the group test discourse, followed by asking for opinions with
24%. In contrast, there are few occurrences of the six remaining interactional functions
(challenging, supporting, modifying, persuading, developing, negotiating meaning) (He & Dai,
2006).
The questionnaire He and Dai (2006) gave out to candidates after the testing provided
some insights into the factors that may have contributed to this rather low degree of interaction in
the group test discourse. Thus, the authors found that the candidates did not view the other
participants in the group as their target audience, but rather the examiners, who were present
during the group discussion. In addition, most candidates indicated that they focused on
organizing and presenting their own contributions rather than in engaging with the ideas brought
forward by the other group members. He and Dai (2006) speculate that the candidates’ focus on
solo performances may also be due to their feeling that their English was not accurate and fluent
enough to communicate interactively in a small group setting. All these points made the authors
63
believe that the candidates were predominantly concerned in displaying their own best
performance, which indicates that the majority of candidates must have framed the CET–SET
group discussion not as “a meaningful discussion with group members” (p. 388), but rather that
they approached it as a test event in the traditional sense, in which individual ability takes center
stage in the assessment.
In comparison to Taylor (2001) and He and Dai (2006), Brooks (2009) carried out a
discourse analysis to determine interactional language functions in paired test performance. Her
goal was to determine differences in interaction between two paired tests that differ in the
interlocutor. In one of the two tests the candidates interacted with a peer–interlocutor, and in the
other they engaged with a tester. The test context was a high-stakes exit assessment of an
academic English language class, whose purpose is to prepare students to enter university; and
the test task in the study was a guiding discussion question. Sixteen candidates participated in the
study; each candidate was matched with an examiner and with another candidate.
The range of interactional functions that emerged from the discourse analysis proved to
be wider for the peer-to-peer interaction than for the examinee–tester interaction. The features
that were elicited in the peer format but did not occur in the tester format were prompting
elaboration, finishing the partner’s sentences, referring to the partner’s ideas, and paraphrasing.
Brooks (2009) argues that these four features involve intersubjectivity, in that they reflect “the
test-takers be[ing] attuned to each other […] and negotiate[ing] meaning rather than us[ing] the
opportunity to organize their own ideas while their partner was speaking” (p. 361). In an
interview with Fox (2004), Swain, who as Brooks’s advisor was familiar with her research early
on, remarked that Brooks (later published in Brooks, 2009) had uncovered a new construct in her
data, namely the construct of “working together” (p. 239) or of peer-to-peer interaction.
64
After I have presented research studies that conducted conversation and discourse
analyses to better grasp the conceptualization of interactional competence displayed in the test
discourse, I turn to rater perception studies that were carried out to obtain the criteria by which
raters would judge test takers’ interactional competence.
2.5.3
Rater perceptions
To investigate the construct of interactional competence, raters were asked for their perception of
which interactional features make interaction between candidates successful. Thus, with the goal
to identify the “construct of ‘interaction’” (p. 428) or, rather, an operational definition of
successful interaction in the context of a university achievement test for beginning Spanish
learners, Ducasse and Brown (2009; see also Ducasse, 2010), with reference to Brown (2005),
argue that it is crucial to investigate the criteria by which paired interactions are judged, as these
criteria define the construct of the test. In stimulated verbal protocols, 12 raters verbalized what
they observed in videos showing 17 pairs of students engaging in a paired discussion task. The
rater comments revealed that three features contributed to the success of interpersonal
interaction. These features are non-verbal interpersonal communication, interactive listening, and
interactional management.
Non-verbal interpersonal communication was included as one of the features of
successful interaction because the raters interpreted gaze and body positioning, including gesture,
as ways to physically support verbal interaction. Whereas raters usually considered it a positive
attribute of interaction when the candidates looked at each other during the discourse, Ducasse
and Brown (2009) also found that hand gestures, when used too frequently, elicited a negative
rater reaction. Although an overuse of hand gestures suggested that the candidate lacked the
65
necessary verbal resources and therefore compensated for difficulties conveying his or her
message, hand gestures were in most cases viewed as a way to underline one’s message and thus
received positive comments from raters.
Also salient to raters was interactive listening, which includes two subcategories:
comprehension and supportive listening. Comprehension is defined as giving verbal support and
as encouraging the speaker to continue talking. Means of comprehension, for example, include
providing the speaker with a word he or she is searching for, which shows that the interlocutor
has been attending to the other person’s contribution. Requesting and offering clarification
questions and commenting on the interlocutor’s contributions are also considered features of
comprehension.
Although considered a type of interlocutor support through attentive listening, backchanneling, which is feedback in the form of sounds that is provided while the other speaker
maintains the floor, was categorized as supportive listening rather than as comprehension.
English examples of back-channeling are uh-huh, mm, yeah, right, okay, and really? The authors
argue that this decision is based on the impression that the use of back-channeling encourages the
interlocutor to continue, but these sounds do not necessarily demonstrate comprehension. Thus,
supportive listening is characterized as audible support with sounds provided to the other
speaker, whereas features of comprehension imply that the interlocutors engage in the discourse
and attend to one another. Ducasse and Brown (2009) further argue that if both candidates are
successful in their roles as speaker and listener, then this is an indicator of fluency between them,
which also signals co-constructed dialogue.
The third feature, interactional management, emerged from rater reactions to turn-taking
and topic management. Interactions were considered successful when the interlocutors took their
66
turns within a reasonable time and when they left time for the other to take the floor. With
respect to topic development, the raters highlighted that interlocutors should be able to extend
already initiated topics and connect them.
Similar to Ducasse and Brown’s (2009) study, May (2006) investigated which features of
performance raters attend to when rating an English for Academic Purposes paired discussion
task. Two raters and 12 Chinese learners of English participated in the study. The test takers took
two parallel tasks, which differed only in topic. For one task, the candidates were matched with a
partner at a similar proficiency level and for the other task with a partner at a different
proficiency level. After raters viewed a videotape of the peer discourse, they gave a score and
then produced a stimulated verbal report. May (2006) found that raters attended to many features
of performance that were not incorporated in the rating scale. That is, the two raters expanded on
the criteria in the band descriptors, but they also added new criteria, such as being able to
paraphrase own and partner’s ideas, controlling/managing interaction, or helping partner out (p.
40).
May (2011) expanded on her study from 2006. In the more recent study, she was
interested in identifying the features of paired test-taker performance that are salient to raters
when they award scores for interactional effectiveness, which is one of the five criterion
measures that May (2011) refers to as “interactional competence” (p. 127). In their verbal
reports, raters commented on three aspects of interactional effectiveness as they were
operationalized in the rating scale: how well the interlocutors understood each other’s
contributions, how well they responded, and whether they used communicative strategies
appropriately. By doing so, the raters added more details to these three criteria with the goal of
providing implications for a comprehensive definition of the construct of interactional
67
effectiveness. Interactional features that are salient to raters, for example, are understanding the
interlocutor’s message, producing speech that is intelligible to the rater, responding to the
interlocutor, using body language, demonstrating assertiveness through communication, asking
for partner’s opinion, and clarifying/asking for clarification.
Similar to her earlier study from 2006, May (2011) discovered that raters “fleshed out”
(p. 133) the interactional effectiveness criterion. In terms of mutual understanding by the test
takers, May (2011) found that the raters did not simply relate listening to comprehension. For
these raters, understanding the other speaker implied that there be signs demonstrating interest in
what the partner contributed to the conversation. It also includes the ability to understand the
interlocutor’s argument and how it was developed and linked to the other person’s ideas and
concepts. May’s (2011) data thus coincide with Ducasse and Brown’s (2009) research on rater
perception.
Responding to the partner as one aspect of interactional effectiveness was attained when
the raters felt that the candidates understood one another and were eager to engage with each
other’s contributions. Interestingly, body language proved to be salient to raters although it was
not part of any of the three aspects the raters were invited to comment on. Thus, making and
maintaining eye contact, showing an open body position, and using gestures to stress one’s point
are aspects of nonverbal communication that raters evaluated positively, as they were found to
contribute to a cooperative and authentic interaction. Hence, May’s (2011) findings seem to
agree with Ducasse and Brown (2009), whose data also hint at the importance of nonverbal skills
to make interaction effective. With respect to the communicative strategies, which were left
undefined in the rating scale, rater comments centered on the extent to which interlocutors are
68
able to offer and request clarification, ask for their partner’s opinion, and use functional
language.
Overall, raters considered an interaction successful when features of collaboration were
included; for example, when candidates were working together cooperatively, managing a
conversation, communicating with assertiveness, and effectively using body language and
interactive listening. Thus, a collaborative pattern of interaction is viewed as more authentic and
of higher quality than parallel and asymmetric interactional patterns (May, 2011).
In a study from 2009, May came to similar results. There she also found that raters
commented positively on features characteristic of Galaczi’s (2004, 2008) collaborative patterns
of interaction, while they were indecisive on how to grade interactional effectiveness when
candidates engaged in asymmetric patterns. Clearly, the raters in May’s (2009) study, who also
indicated that they perceived paired interaction as mutual accomplishment, associate coconstruction with collaboration, defined by high degrees of equality and mutuality. The raters in
Ducasse and Brown’s (2009) study have a similar impression of peer-to-peer interaction: They
also consider interaction successful only if the conversation within the dyad is characterized by
an “equal flow” (p. 440), in which the test takers “move equally between speaker and listener
roles, and participate equally in the management of the interaction” (p. 440). However, May
(2009) has hinted that drawing this association between co-constructed talk and collaborative
dialogue is a misconception, as co-constructed discourse does not necessarily imply supportive
interactions (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995).
Since raters have trouble scoring the less dominant test taker in asymmetric interactions,
May (2009) concludes that they need to be told explicitly how to deal with dominant/passive
dyads. In that respect, she argues that it needs to be determined whether, and if so, how the
69
ratings can compensate those test takers who are disadvantaged by the dominating interactional
style of their interlocutor. At the same time, May (2009) emphasizes that a collaborative pattern
should not be considered the “‘gold standard’ of communication” (p. 418), as asymmetric talk
occurs naturally in a variety of real-life situations.
2.5.4
Summary
To summarize, a number of researchers have empirically analyzed the interactional features and
patterns prevalent in paired and group speaking discourse to obtain a deeper and more complete
picture of the construct of interactional competence reflected in the test discourse, often with the
goal to provide some validity evidence for the operationalized construct or to refine the
descriptors of the rating scale.
Overall, it seems that interactional competence has been defined in paired and group
speaking tests in terms of symmetric and collaborative talk (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Galaczi,
2004, 2008; May, 2009, 2011) and in terms of interactional language functions or strategies, such
as meaning negotiation (Brooks, 2009; He & Dai, 2006; Taylor, 2001). Despite these differences
in approaching interactional competence, features and patterns of interaction that were identified
by the two approaches still seem to overlap to a major extent. For example, some of the
interactional features in Brooks’s (2009) and He and Dai’s (2006) data (e.g., suggesting words,
checking for comprehension, asking for confirmation) remind us of the dimension of interactive
listening that Ducasse and Brown (2009) found to be an important component of the construct of
interactional competence in their test. In addition, there seem to be parallels between the
characteristics of Galaczi’s (2004) collaborative interaction pattern and the interactional features
70
in peer-to-peer discourse identified by Brooks (2009), for example, in terms of asking questions
and referring to the partner’s ideas.
Since test performance does not only reflect the test takers’ competence or underlying
abilities but also represents the influence of characteristics of the test situation, such as the test
method and the interlocutor (as became apparent in this section), I now move on to review
previous research on test and interlocutor effects on paired and grouped oral test discourse.
2.6
Task and interlocutor effects in paired and group speaking tests
As mentioned earlier, test-taker oral performance not only reflects language ability, but is also
influenced by a variety of factors in the testing context that has an impact on the test discourse
and scores whenever individuals take a given performance test. McNamara (1996) points out that
oral performance on speaking tests is determined by interactions between the candidate and other
individuals (e.g., interlocutor or rater) and non-human characteristics of the test setting, such as
test materials, location, and time provided (for similar representations see also Csépes, 2009;
Milanovic & Saville, 1996). McNamara (1996) highlights that as the candidate and interlocutor
(a peer or an examiner) interact with one another, their personal characteristics, such as age,
gender, and proficiency level, may have an effect on the candidate’s performance. Being part of
the interactions between candidate and interlocutor, the test task may affect candidate
performance as well. In addition, the rater, who uses a rating scale or rating criteria to evaluate
candidate performance, provides a rating. Finally, this rating is influenced by a combination of
factors: the rater’s personal characteristics (native vs. non-native speakership, age, rater
experience), the rating scale used, and the candidate’s performance, which may be influenced by
task and interlocutor characteristics in the first place.
71
Given that the oral test performance is interactive, it is impossible to disregard the
interlocutor and his or her characteristics in the co-construction of the test discourse. McNamara
(1997) rightly asks whose performance is assessed in performance tests. That the test task
interrelates with the test taker and interlocutor characteristics even more so hints at the
complexity of co-constructed oral test performance. That the notion of performance is not the
sole representation of a test taker’s underlying competence has also been pointed out by
Bachman (1990), who introduced a test method framework that acknowledges the influence of
the characteristics of the methods or tasks on test performance.
Previous research has investigated the extent to which different speaking test formats
elicit different oral traits and influence test discourse and ratings. For example, a variety of
studies have been conducted that found that the test task has an impact on test scores (e.g.,
Bachman & Palmer, 1981; Henning, 1983) and that the ratings vary depending on the extent to
which the test tasks differ from one another (e.g., Bachman, Lynch, & Mason, 1995; Shohamy,
1983). Moreover, previous research has revealed that the discourse features elicited through
different tasks vary as well (e.g., Chalhoub-Deville, 1995; Shohamy, 1988; Upshur & Turner,
1999). In that respect, scholars compared the effects of paired oral tests with other test formats,
such as interview-formatted speaking tests (e.g., Kormos, 1999; Shohamy, Reves & Bejerano,
1986; Taylor, 2001). However, the differences in performance across different tasks are not
necessarily reflected in the scores assigned to the test takers (e.g., Douglas, 1994).
In addition, in paired and group testing, research was conducted to investigate the impact
of test-taker and interlocutor characteristics on test discourse and scores. For example, scholars
examined the impact of introversion and extroversion levels of test takers and their group
members on the test-taker scores awarded (e.g., Berry, 2007; Ockey, 2009). Other peer–
72
interlocutor characteristics that were researched in terms of their effects on performance and
scores in paired tests were the gender of the interlocutor and the candidate as well as the
familiarity with the candidate (e.g., O’Sullivan, 2002). General language proficiency and oral
proficiency seem to be the peer–interlocutor characteristics that have been of particular interest
to scholars. The extent to which proficiency levels of the peer–interlocutor in relation to the
candidate affect test-taker scores was investigated in both group (e.g., Gan, 2010) and paired
(e.g, Csépes, 2009; Davis, 2009; Iwashita, 1996) oral tests. Finally, in multi-variable studies
scholars included a variety of different test-taker and interlocutor characteristics and investigated
their combined effects on scores and discourse (e.g., Nakatsuhara, 2011, 2013; O’Sullivan,
2004).
This study focuses on the effects of the paired task and the speaking ability of the testtaker pair on the co-constructed peer-to-peer test discourse. In this section, I therefore review
previous research conducted on the impact of task and test takers’ proficiency or language ability
on the peer-to-peer oral test discourse in paired speaking tests. Since the research conducted on
paired test interaction including peer–interlocutors is minimal, I incorporate studies on group
tests in the literature review. First, I turn to studies that researched task effects. Then, I review
studies on proficiency and language ability effects on the co-constructed test discourse. The
major findings are summarized.
2.6.1
Task effects
To my knowledge, no studies have been conducted that look at task effects in paired speaking
test discourse between peer–interlocutors. Research on group speaking test discourse among
peers was found that incorporates an investigation of task effects on test takers’ performance.
73
Thus, two studies (van Moere, 2007; Nakatsuhara, 2013) compared and contrasted the influence
of different task characteristics on test discourse in group speaking test settings. Van Moere’s
(2007) investigation centers on the speaking component of the Kanda English Proficiency Test
(KEPT), a group discussion task. For his study, he developed two other tasks, a consensus task
and a picture difference task. The three group tasks differ in their characteristics, such as goal
and task orientation and informational requirements. Sixty-four learners of English at a Japanese
university took all three tasks in groups of three or four. Two independent raters rated their
performance for each task in terms of pronunciation, fluency, grammar, vocabulary, and
communicative skills/strategies.
T-tests revealed that the scores assigned were not significantly different across the three
tasks. ANOVAs also showed that the consensus task elicited a greater number of words than the
other two tasks, whereas the picture task elicited the highest number of turns and the discussion
task the lowest. In addition, it was shown that the speech prompted by the discussion task
consisted of fewer but longer turns in comparison to the other two tasks. In contrast, the picture
task elicited many turns, which were of short length. The frequency and range of interactional
language functions (He & Dai, 2006) elicited in the discourse were also examined: The
consensus task elicited the widest range of interactional functions in the discourse, whereas the
picture task prompted the greatest number of interactional functions. These findings seem to
indicate that task characteristics do have an effect on interactional competence in group test
settings.
Van Moere (2007) concludes that the picture task is rather unsuitable for oral proficiency
testing because of the many short turns, large number of sentence fragments, and the little
language produced. The consensus task, however, seems to be the best of the three tasks. First,
74
instances of interactional functions, such as disagreeing and challenging other participants’
opinions, as well as persuading interlocutors and making suggestions, occurred more frequently
in the discourse elicited by the consensus task than in the other two tasks. Thus, the candidates’
interactiveness seems greater in the consensus task than, for example, in the discussion task,
where disagreeing or challenging each other’s opinions hardly occurred. In the discourse elicited
by the discussion task, interlocutors mainly repeated each other’s contributions but did not
provide support of their agreement moves.
Second, from the results of the CA, van Moere (2007) had the impression that test takers
in the consensus task must have felt more obligated to make themselves understood. In
comparison, in the discussion task many occurrences of monologue instead of interaction were
noted, and interlocutors did not seem to feel pressure to communicate effectively. Van Moere
(2007) argues that the reason for the different participant behavior may lie in the varying goal
orientation of the tasks. The tasks were designed such that in the discussion task, interlocutors
did not have to come to an agreement (divergent goal orientation), whereas participants in the
consensus task worked toward a common goal (convergent goal orientation). Thus, the consensus
task was more successful in involving the interlocutors in the talk. In addition, candidates
participating in the consensus task also had access to different types of information and were
required to supply the information they had, both of which may have contributed to the findings
as well. These two features were markedly different from the discussion task, where candidates
obtained the same information at the beginning of the task and where the exchange of
information was optional and not necessary to complete the task.
It is worth noting that van Moere (2007) developed the group tasks for his study based on
a task taxonomy that stems from a widely cited task categorization scheme proposed by Pica,
75
Kanagy and Falodun (1993). Their framework for describing tasks originated from the work of
interactionists within SLA, who have an interest in analyzing and classifying tasks in terms of
their potential for L2 acquisition based on negotiation of meaning (Long, 1989; Pica, 1994).
Pica et al. (1993), for example, found that tasks that foster large amounts of meaning
negotiation are the ones in which interlocutors hold different portions of information, request and
supply this information to each other, have convergent goals and work towards only one
acceptable task outcome to meet their common goals. The authors further argue that jigsaw and
information-gap tasks seem most preferable because they hold the desired qualities mentioned
that would allow participants to negotiate meaning. In comparison, the examples of problemsolving, decision-making and opinion-exchange tasks Pica and colleagues (1993) looked at seem
to be less effective in this respect because in these tasks all interlocutors have access to the same
kind of information and, in addition, are not required to supply and request information. Even
though their research is framed differently, the impact of the various task characteristics on
interaction tends to be similar in both van Moere (2007) and Pica et al. (1993).
In contrast to van Moere’s (2007) research, Nakatsuhara (2013) included multiple
variables in her study. She examined the extent to which extroversion and oral proficiency of the
test taker and other group members influence the conversational patterns among different group
tasks and between different group sizes. Set in a Japanese high school context, 269 learners of
English performed three group test tasks—information-gap, ranking, and free discussion—in
groups of either three or four.
In Nakatsuhara’s (2013) study, quantitative and qualitative analyses of the data revealed
that oral proficiency levels had an impact on all tasks, whereas extroversion levels had a greater
effect in more open tasks, such as the ranking and free discussion tasks. For example, the
76
information-gap task allowed participants of lower oral proficiency to contribute more to the
interaction than other tasks because the task required them to exchange their information with the
other members in the group. The ranking task, however, seems to be suitable for more
extraverted and proficient test takers, as the task demands more goal orientation and initiative
from the participants to complete the task. Similarly, for the free discussion where test takers
bring in their own ideas and topics, the interaction most likely results in active conversation
characterized by latches and overlaps. However, group members who are less proficient and
more introverted may have difficulty bringing themselves in and initiating topics, which would
then cause a different interactional pattern altogether.
To summarize, the two studies reviewed in this section suggest that there is an effect of
task on group discourse. Nakatsuhara (2013) also showed that task characteristics may interrelate
with test taker and interlocutor characteristics, such as proficiency and extraversion. The next
section is devoted to research carried out on the impact of proficiency and language ability on
paired and group speaking tests.
2.6.2
Effects of proficiency and language ability
The effect of language proficiency or oral proficiency has been investigated largely for paired
rather than for group tests, which is why the studies reviewed in this section report on research
conducted in paired test settings. Iwashita (1996), for instance, examined whether the oral
proficiency level of the peer–interlocutor in Japanese language paired oral tasks influence the
amount of talk produced and the assigned ratings. Seventeen test takers were paired with
interlocutors who for one task were at the same proficiency level and for a second task at a
different proficiency level. The findings from the descriptive statistics reveal that the majority of
77
high-proficiency candidates obtained better overall assessment scores and produced more words
when they were paired with a partner of the same proficiency. Test takers of low proficiency
tended to score higher and talk more when assigned to a partner of higher proficiency. Iwashita
(1996) also emphasizes that more talking did not necessarily lead to higher scores and that not all
test takers talked more when their interlocutor was at a higher proficiency level. Thus, individual
differences in the amount of talk and assessment scores occurred which, as Iwashita (1996)
argues, might be due to the test takers’ anxiety and confidence level regarding the interlocutor’s
proficiency level as well as the test takers’ perceptions of task difficulty.
In comparison, Csépes (2009) could not confirm Iwashita’s (1996) results. She used three
versions of the same role-play task and for each role-play paired 30 learners of English with
peer–interlocutors at a higher, lower, or about the same overall language proficiency level. A
non-parametric repeated-measures statistical procedure indicated that there was no statistically
significant variation in the core students’ scores across the three conditions. Thus, it becomes
apparent that the two raters did not perceive candidate performance differently, although the
interlocutor’s proficiency changed in the three assessments. Csépes (2009) highlights that since
the scores did not vary, validity evidence of this particular paired test was provided.
Similar to Csépes (2009), Davis (2009), who tested the effect of interlocutor proficiency
on ratings and discourse in a group of 20 first-year English learners, found by means of paired ttests and a Rasch analysis that the test-taker scores were not significantly different across the two
paired test sequences, in which candidates were tested once with an interlocutor with similar
proficiency and once with a partner of higher or lower proficiency. In some cases, Davis (2009)
found that test takers received better scores with one interlocutor or the other. However, these
individual differences were not consistent. In addition, the amount of talk produced varied with
78
the interlocutor: Lower-proficiency candidates produced more words when matched with a
higher-proficiency interlocutor, a finding that confirms Iwashita’s (1996) results. However,
Davis (2009) could not find this effect in higher-proficiency candidates. Even though the
quantity of talk correlated positively with the scores assigned, lower-proficiency candidates
produced more language when working with higher-proficiency interlocutors; however, the
greater amount of talk did not lead to higher scores. Davis (2009) assumes that raters did not give
scores with regard to the amount of language produced, but rather in terms of the overall quality
of the discourse displayed.
In terms of proficiency and interaction type, Davis (2009) discovered that higherproficiency dyads produced primarily collaborative and asymmetric dominant interactional
patterns, while the interactional patterns of lower-proficiency pairs tended to be more varied.
Although collaborative interaction commonly occurred between less-proficient candidates,
parallel or asymmetric passive interactions seemed to prevail in the exchanges between the
lowest-scoring pairs. Davis’s (2009) finding aligns with Galaczi’s (2004, 2008) data that
suggested that interlocutor proficiency influences interaction patterns between candidates.
Davis (2009) emphasizes that even though the pairing of candidates in terms of
proficiency affects the amount of talk and the interactional patterns produced, these differences
are not reflected in the scores assigned. He therefore concludes that the effect of interlocutor
proficiency should be considered “indirect and unpredictable, rather than simple and consistent”
(p. 388). He further points out that examining the effects of interlocutor proficiency in paired
assessment is complex, in that a combination of other characteristics of the interlocutor, but also
candidate and task characteristics, may influence test performance and scores. Since the type of
the paired task used may increase or reduce the level of interlocutor influence on discourse and
79
scores, Davis (2009) calls for research that more closely investigates the interplay between paired
task characteristics and interlocutor or candidate characteristics such as proficiency.
Except for Davis’s (2009) research, the studies reviewed thus far mainly investigated the
impact of the peer-interlocutor’s speaking ability or proficiency level on the candidate’s
composite speaking score. How speaking ability or proficiency level correlate with interactional
competence or patterns was shown by Galaczi (2014) in a paired test and by Gan (2010) in a
group test.
Galaczi (2014) shows that the discourse of candidates at different proficiency levels
displays differences in occurrence and range of interactional features, such as topic organization,
listener support, and turn-taking management. Looking closely at the relationship between oral
proficiency level and interactional competence in a paired speaking task, she investigated the
features of interactional competence that occur in the discourse co-constructed by test-taker pairs
who participated in a Cambridge ESOL paired speaking task and who were at different oral
proficiency levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
Forty-one subject pairs at CEFR proficiency levels B1 through C2 took part in a peer–peer
interaction task in which they were asked to exchange opinions about a specific topic. CA
conventions were used to analyze common interactional features across pairs at different
proficiency levels. Galaczi (2014) described the interactional competence behavior at each of the
four CEFR levels and found that candidates at different proficiency levels also produce different
interactional features. For example, whereas speakers at the B1 level extend self-initiated topics
but are weak in developing other-initiated topics, C1 and C2-level speakers extend self- and
other-initiated topics over multiple turns. In addition, the listener support was rather scarce at the
B1 level. At the B2 level, listener support was provided more often but predominantly in the
80
form of back-channels. At the C1/C2 level, supportive listening was not only characterized by
back-channeling but by indicating comprehension. Finally, the ability to start a turn after a latch
or to slightly overlap with the previous speaker increased with the proficiency level. Galaczi
(2014) argues that the ability to decode the partner’s utterance, compose one’s own contribution,
and project the end of the current turn must therefore improve with the proficiency level of the
test takers.
In a group speaking test setting, Gan (2010) also found that the test takers’ speaking
ability in the group correlates with the interactional functions that were produced in the test
discourse. He examined the kinds of interactional features that characterize the “co-constructed
talk-in-interaction” (p. 585) of high- and low-proficiency secondary ESL students in Hong Kong.
He found that the group of high-proficiency students engaged constructively and contingently
with one another and used a variety of different speech functions, such as suggestions,
agreements or disagreements, explanations, and challenges, which provided opportunities for
genuine communication to emerge among the interlocutors. However, the members of the lowproficiency group engaged in a different kind of discourse: Their group interaction was
characterized by instances of negotiation of meaning when they encountered linguistic trouble;
these students also helped each other to construct the right forms and meanings through coconstruction.
In sum, while the discourse studies suggest that test-takers co-construct the test discourse
differently depending their overall proficiency or language ability, the quantitative research
conducted to investigate the influence of proficiency or language ability on scores remains
inconclusive.
81
In the next section, I stay with the notion of the interlocutor effect but briefly turn to the
conception of co-constructed participant roles and identities (e.g., proficiency identities) that are
displayed in the test discourse. Instead of investigating interlocutor effects on test performance
from a macro level, as is commonly done in language testing (e.g., Csépes, 2009; Davis, 2009;
Iwashita, 1996), analyzing how test takers jointly construct their roles and identities (e.g.,
proficiency identities) in discourse stresses the role of the interlocutor and is thus more
compatible with an interactional competence approach.
2.6.3
The interlocutor effect revisited: Language ability identities
As outlined at the beginning of this section, language testers hypothesize that interlocutor
categories, such as gender, proficiency, cultural norms, native/nonnative speaker status, and
familiarity with the test taker, may have an effect on the test discourse and scores, thus
compromising the validity of the test. These macro categories are usually determined top-down
and are considered stable. With reference to CA, some language testers object to this a priori
determinacy of macro categories (Brown & McNamara, 2004; Lazaraton & Davis, 2008;
McNamara, 2001; McNamara & Roever, 2008). From a CA perspective, participant roles are
constructed and displayed in the discourse itself. They are of relevance only if the participants
themselves orient to them in talk-in-interaction (e.g., Goodwin, 1987; Richards, 2005; Schegloff,
1992b, 1997c). Regarding the dimension of proficiency or competence, Richards (2005) points
out that CA does not act on the assumption that interactants have a particular competence or not;
rather, CA allows scholars to explore how competence is co-constituted between the participants
involved in the interaction. It is evident that an interactional competence approach to language
82
testing, which understands that test taker resources emerge from the discourse itself (Mislevy,
2012), corresponds to the notion of co-constructed participant roles or identities in discourse.
Thus far, only a few research studies have been conducted to observe macro features of
identity on a micro level (Lazaraton & Davis, 2008; Norton, 2013; Park, 2007). For example, in a
speaking test setting, Lazaraton and Davis (2008) looked at how test takers participating in
paired tests co-construct their language proficiency identities in the test discourse. The authors
investigated the means by which the participants in the test positioned themselves as proficient or
competent speakers of English in a particular speaking test. For example, by acting supportive in
the test discourse, a test taker was able to position herself as a competent or proficient speaker.
Lazaraton and Davis (2008) show that this candidate repeated the partner’s statement or
expanded on the partner’s contribution when he encountered trouble. By scaffolding her partner,
the test taker came across as a supportive speaker and thus as more competent, which resulted in
a high speaking test rating.
Lazaraton and Davis (2008) highlight that each test taker brings a language proficiency
identity to the test. This identity is then displayed and constructed in the test discourse. The
interlocutor may influence the partner’s displayed proficiency identity through his or her
appraisal of the other speaker’s displayed proficiency, so that it may come to shifts in proficiency
identity in interaction.
Similarly, Park (2007) investigated the interactions of English native/nonnative speaker
pairs to identify the characteristics that distinguish native speaker and nonnative speaker
identities. The purpose of the study was to empirically determine member categories for the
notions of native speaker and nonnative speaker.
83
In both studies, identity is conceptualized as a jointly created social product that is local
and context-sensitive, indicating that identity emerges from the contingencies of local
interaction. At the same time, identity is understood as negotiable. That is, identities are in flux;
they shift on a turn-by-turn basis in interaction (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Lazaraton &
Davis, 2008; Ochs, 1993; Park, 2007). In addition, both Lazaraton and Davis (2008) and Park
(2007) investigate the perceptions of language proficiency and native/nonnative speaker
identities by using the notion of positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990). This method of analysis is
used to understand the roles that interactants attribute to themselves and others in interaction.
How a speaker positions himself or herself and the other can be uncovered through the language
used in the interaction, such as word choice or use of metaphors. Park (2007) highlights that the
conceptualization of a relative positioning toward one another can be used to explain identity
construction.
2.6.4
Summary
To summarize, research on the impact of the task on paired test discourse among peers has not
been conducted thus far. However, research in terms of effects of group task features on
interactional competence was carried out by van Moere (2007) who found that the consensus
task, which required that participants reach a common goal, to be the better task to test
interactional behavior because it elicits more interactiveness than the picture or discussion tasks.
In addition, group task and test-taker characteristics were found to interrelate. That is,
Nakatsuhara’s (2013) research indicates that differential oral proficiency and extraversion levels
in combination with different group tasks result in different interactional patterns in terms of
turn-taking, topic development, and the amount of talk produced.
84
With respect to the impact of test takers’ proficiency and language ability on paired and
group test discourse and scores, the literature review revealed that the findings whether the
relative proficiency levels influence ratings and test discourse are rather mixed. It seems that the
test takers’ proficiency has little influence on ratings, which may suggest that test takers can be
paired regardless of the proficiency level. However, differences in proficiency seem to have an
effect on the quantity of talk and on the interaction pattern in the dyads, but these differences are
inconsistently reflected in scores. In addition, some scholars (Galaczi, 2014; Gan, 2010)
conducted detailed analyses of the test discourse and described the interactional features that
occur at specific language ability levels. Moreover, Davis (2009) suggests that task and testtaker/interlocutor characteristics may interrelate, as became evident in Nakatsuhara’s (2011,
2013) research on group speaking tests.
This section also showed that test taker and interlocutor characteristics, such as
proficiency or language ability, may be investigated at discourse level to determine how
participants orient to these macro categories and how they position themselves, for example, as
proficient or competent in the test discourse. Such an approach corresponds to a CA-based
conceptualization of interactional competence, given the assumption that everything is jointly
constructed in the interaction itself.
2.7
Summary
This chapter presented the theoretical underpinnings of and previous research on the concept of
interactional competence in both SLA and language testing. Both the theoretical frameworks and
the findings from previous research feed into the present study.
85
The first part of the literature review presented Bachman and Palmer’s (1996, 2010)
model of communicative language ability and the notion of interactional competence (Hall, 1993,
1995, 1999; Kramsch, 1986; Young, 2008, 2011). The two approaches reflect different types of
interaction (cf. Hall, 1995; McNamara, 1997). The former is psychological in nature and refers to
the mental or cognitive activities within a single individual, as in Bachman and Palmer’s (1996,
2010) model. The latter, also referred to as interactional competence, emerges from a social
perspective and centers on the locally situated moment in which the interaction occurs.
After describing Young’s (2008, 2011) and Hall’s (1993, 1995, 1999) conceptualization
of interactional competence in SLA, the literature review also showed that L2 interactional
competence is a common object of inquiry for scholars working within CA–SLA. CA has had a
major influence on CA–SLA’s current conceptualization of interactional competence. Because
they are particularly interested in the development of interactional competence, CA–SLA
researchers attempt to show how interactional development in a specific discursive practice
occurs over time. The assumption is that with recurrent participation in the practice, learners’
procedures to gain and maintain intersubjectivity in interaction diversify and become more
complex.
The second half of the literature review was devoted to interactional competence in
language testing. First, Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) interaction-based approach to construct
definition, also referred to as ability-in-language user-in-context, was presented. Following this
approach, the test construct is described in terms of abilities and contextual features being
enmeshed in one interaction structure. By placing major emphasis on performance and
adaptability of resources to context domains, Chalhoub-Deville’s (2003) ability-in-language
86
user-in-context approach to defining test constructs corresponds to SLA and CA–SLA scholars’
conceptualization of interactional competence.
The review then shifted to discourse and conversation analyses as well as to rater
perception studies that were conducted to better grasp the construct of interactional competence
in language test settings. These studies reveal how interactional competence has been
operationalized in paired and group speaking tests. These studies indicate that the construct of
interactional competence has been mainly understood in terms of engaging, collaborative, and
symmetric interaction between test takers (e.g., Ducasse, 2010; Ducasse & Brown, 2009; May,
2006, 2009, 2011). Thus, co-construction is mostly associated with collaboration.
Finally, the literature review showed that the test task and test-taker/interlocutor
proficiency as the contextual features in the test situation potentially interrelate with test takers’
abilities in affecting test performance. However, the influence of the task on paired peer-to-peer
test discourse has been largely neglected, and the findings from studies investigating the impact
of test-taker/interlocutor proficiency on peer–interlocutor paired and group discourse and ratings
are rather mixed. In addition, how a priori categories, such as test-taker/interlocutor proficiency,
are displayed in paired and grouped test discourse and interrelate with other features of coconstructed test discourse has been minimally researched.
The next chapter presents the methodological basis for this study.
87
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides an overview of the methodology for the present study. The participants
included in the study are described first. Then the data collection instruments and the procedures
for data collection are reported. Since this study is set and analyzed within the conversation
analysis (CA) framework, the next section is devoted to an explanation of how the speaking data
were transcribed. The following sections are concerned with a description of the procedures
carried out to analyze the data and to answer the research questions. The last section discusses
the requirements of reliability and validity for the data analysis and the verification of assigning
participants to different speaking ability levels (high, mid, and low speaking ability). This
chapter concludes with a summary.
3.1
Participants
The participants in this study were 68 learners of German (34 test-taker pairs) who were enrolled
in a third- or fourth-semester German course at the University of Iowa at the time of data
collection. Students who take these courses are usually between 18 and 25 years old. Generally,
there are more male students than female students enrolled in these German courses. The
students in these courses have studied German at the college level for a minimum of two
semesters (about 120 in-class contact hours) or took German in high school and placed into one
of the intermediate-level courses or a lower-level course at the University of Iowa. The number
of participants by gender and across course level is displayed in Table 3–1.
88
Table 3–1: Distribution of participants by gender and course level
Low-Intermediate (third-semester
German)
Female
15
Male
17
Total
32
High-Intermediate (fourth-semester
German)
10
26
36
As can be seen, with 36 participants somewhat more High-Intermediate level students,
that is, fourth-semester students, participated. Thirty-two Low-Intermediate level students were
included in the study. The students who were enrolled in the Intensive Intermediate German
course at the time of data collection were considered Low-Intermediate students.
It should be noted that the majority of data were collected in the spring semester of 2014.
In the previous semester, that is, fall 2013, some data were collected. Only four students (two
test-taker pairs) participated in that semester. Three of these students were female students; one
participant was a male student. They all were students at the High-Intermediate level. These four
participants are included in the tally presented in Table 3–1.
Table 3–1 also indicates that at the High-Intermediate level, a higher number of male
students than female students participated in the study. It can also be seen that the distribution of
male and female students was more balanced at the Low-Intermediate level.
In addition, only students with English as their first language were included in the study.
Also, students who were studying languages other than German or who had studied another
language in recent years and spoke that languages fairly well did not participate, as it was
assumed that their interactional competence might be further developed due to their greater
experience in second language (L2) conversation compared to their classmates.
The students’ German language skills are basic. It seems obvious that their oral
proficiency ranges from Novice High to Intermediate Mid on the American Council on the
89
Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) scale. Research has shown that at the end of the fourth
semester, learners of German usually do not exceed the Intermediate Mid level (Tschirner &
Heilenman, 1998). However, more recent research by Norris and Pfeiffer (2003) came to slightly
different results; they found that the majority of students at Georgetown University were at the
Intermediate Mid level after two years of German instruction. Interestingly, the Stanford
Language Center reported for the academic year 2011–2012, about 60% of learners of German at
that institution reached the Intermediate Mid level after only one year of instruction; an
additional 35% of learners were Intermediate Low speakers after taking German for one year
(Stanford University, Stanford Language Center, n.d.). The difference in proficiency ratings
among these studies may be due to differences in the overall academic performance of the
participants in Tschirner and Heilenman’s (1998) research, compared to the participants in Norris
and Pfeiffer’s (2003) study and those in the Stanford Language Center report (students at a
public university versus two selective private universities, respectively). Nevertheless, Norris and
Pfeiffer (2003) also emphasize that the oral proficiency ratings differ to a great extent, from
Novice High to as high as Advanced High after 12 credit hours. Despite the different findings, it
still seems to be the case that most students are at an Intermediate level according to the ACTFL
Guidelines after two years of studying German.
For the present study, the participants were differentiated in terms of their speaking
ability and thus categorized as high, mid, or low ability-level speakers. The instruments used to
classify the participants as high, mid, or low speakers are explicated in the next section. The
paired test tasks are also presented in the next section.
90
3.2
Data collection instruments
This section is devoted to the data collection instruments. Following the presentation of the
paired test tasks in the second part of this section, I present the variety of tools that were used to
categorize participants into three speaking ability-level groups of high, mid, and low ability.
3.2.1
Self-assessment checklist
The students completed a self-assessment checklist (see Appendix A) that helped them to
evaluate their speaking ability. The 25 can-do statements on the self-assessment checklist are
based on the interpersonal communication and presentational speaking LinguaFolio checklists.
Each can-do statement is followed by one or two examples to make clear what the expectation is.
Next to each statement, students checked whether or not they could do what the statement
describes.
The statements included in the list refer to presentational and interactional speaking
abilities at four different ability levels, that is, Novice High, Intermediate Low, Intermediate Mid,
and Advanced, according to the ACTFL Guidelines. The first nine statements orient to Novice
High level abilities, the next seven to Intermediate Low level abilities, the following four to the
Intermediate Mid level abilities, and the last five to Advanced level abilities. About half of the
statements at each level apply to presentational skills and the other half to interactional skills.
The majority of Intermediate Mid statements, however, apply to presentational speaking skills.
The original LinguaFolio statements were adjusted. That is, statements were moved to a
different level when they fitted better there. Also, examples below individual statements were
modified to better match the college student population at whom this study was directed.
91
When the participants indicated that they could do the majority of the activities described
in the statements at a particular level, the level was considered passed. That is, a student passed a
level when he or she responded ‘no’ to no more than two statements. When statements were not
completed or when students checked both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ options, the item was counted as a ‘no’
response.
Based on their responses to the self-assessment checklist, the participants were assigned a
speaking ability rating. The assumption was that the majority of the High-Intermediate level
students, that is, the students enrolled in a fourth-semester German course, are Intermediate Low
speakers according to the ACTFL Guidelines. To categorize students into groups of high, mid,
and low speaking level for the present study, the following approach was taken: A student was
considered a mid ability-level student when he or she passed the Intermediate Low level as
indicated by the self-assessment checklist. When the Intermediate Low level was not passed, the
student was categorized as low ability-level speaker. Students who passed the Intermediate Mid
level were classified as high ability-level speakers.
The majority of Low-Intermediate level students, that is, the students in their third
semester of German instruction, were assumed to be somewhat less proficient than their
counterparts in the next-higher course. Thus, when students’ responses on the self-assessment
checklist indicated that they did not pass the Novice High ability level, they were categorized as
low ability-level speakers for the present study. If they passed the Novice High level, they were
classified as mid ability-level speakers. Passing the Intermediate Low level was considered high
speaking ability.
92
3.2.2
Instructor perceptions on test-taker speaking ability
In addition to the students’ self-assessment, the students’ instructors classified the participants as
high, mid, or low speakers. In that respect, the instructors, who are German faculty members,
were asked to briefly explain what speaking ability implies for them. The small survey indicated
that all four instructor respondents link speaking ability with fluency. In this section, I briefly
describe the instructors’ responses:
•
Instructor 1 pointed out that speaking ability implies that a student is able to make
himself or herself understood to the instructor and to other students. In that respect,
grammatical correctness plays less of a role.
•
Instructor 2 also said that grammar is less important in speaking. Speaking ability means
to her that the students speak German and do not revert to English. This instructor also
places major emphasis on fluency and considers a rich vocabulary essential in speaking.
•
Instructor 3 understands speaking ability with respect to students’ capability to express
themselves and to get their message across.
•
Instructor 4 also finds that speaking ability entails that students are able to speak fluently.
This instructor is also of the opinion that accuracy is another indication for speaking
ability.
3.2.3
Second speaking test and final exam grades
Based on the students’ self-assessment and their instructors’ perception, the students were
classified as high, mid, or low ability-level speakers. To verify the students’ assignment to an
ability-level category, participants’ grades from a second speaking test (an end-of-the-semester
oral exam) and from the final exam for their German course were collected.
93
The second speaking test was given at the end of the semester. It is a test between a tester,
the instructor, and one test taker. The test consists of two sections, an interview part and a roleplay part. Following a script, the tester interviews the test taker. Then the tester and test taker
engage in a role-play situation. The test takes about 10 to 15 minutes. Student performance is
evaluated based on accuracy, fluency, pronunciation, and vocabulary use. The grades from this
speaking test and the first speaking test (the paired test under investigation) were combined into
one speaking test grade.
The final exam for the High- and Low-Intermediate level courses is a written exam that
tests students’ listening, reading, and writing skills. Students’ command of some grammar points
and vocabulary items covered in the course of the semester are tested by means of discrete-point
test tasks.
How speaking ability levels were assigned to participants based on the ratings obtained
from the self-assessment and the instructor is explained in the section on data collection
procedures. In this section, I also explain how the participants were assigned to test-taker pairs.
After having discussed the tools used to assign high, mid, and low ability-level ratings to
participants, the next section describes the paired speaking test tasks in more detail.
3.2.4
Paired test tasks
Two different paired tasks were used for the present study (see Appendix B), a jigsaw task and a
discussion task. Based on Fulcher’s (2003) and van Moere’s (2007) taxonomies used for the
development of L2 speaking test tasks6, the two tasks differ significantly across four dimensions:
6
Van Moere’s (2007) framework mainly originated from Pica, Kanagy and Falodun’s (1993) task organization
scheme, which is based on research studies within the interationist tradition. Fulcher’s (2003) framework also
includes features of the task characterization taxonomy presented by Pica and colleagues (1993).
94
•
Access to information: The information provided in the task input can be split one-way or
two-way; that is, the information that is supposed to be shared with the other
interlocutor(s) is held by either one person only or by two or more people. The tasks in
the present study are two-way tasks. In two-way tasks, candidates can either share the
same information or hold different information. If the test takers have access to different
information, then this information is distributed such that each candidate holds
information that differs from that held by the other.
•
Interactional requirement: Candidates may be required to exchange the information that is
provided to them in the task input. When an information exchange is required, it is
necessary for the candidates to supply the information they can access. They can also ask
their peer to supply their information. However, when the task has been developed such
that an exchange of information is not required, then it is still expected that the candidates
request and supply information, their ideas or opinions, so that a conversation can evolve.
•
Goal orientation (convergent vs. divergent): In convergent tasks candidates have to
mutually agree to one or more solutions to a problem. In divergent tasks candidates
defend their individual opinions and refute each other’s opinion.
•
Task orientation (closed vs. open): Whereas in closed tasks outcomes are predetermined
by task input or rubrics, outcomes in open tasks depend upon the participants’
contributions to the task.
A jigsaw task and a discussion task were chosen for the present study because of their
contrasting characteristics. It is of interest whether tasks that are so different in features also elicit
different test discourse.
95
The jigsaw task is characterized as a closed and convergent task, in which each of the two
candidates holds different information based on the input given in the task. Candidates are
required to supply and request information as needed. In the present study, the jigsaw task was
adapted from Oscoz’s (2003) apartment search jigsaw, which is based on a jigsaw task developed
by Blake (2000). The two test takers are provided with different information, in that each of them
receives four classified ads for apartments in Berlin. The candidates’ task is to first read their
four ads, discuss all eight options and then make a decision together on one apartment based on
their individual preferences, which are specified in the task. They have to accommodate each
other’s priorities in their discussion and decision making process because they will be sharing the
apartment during the summer months.
In the discussion task used in this study, the candidates share all information provided to
them, so that an information exchange is not required. In addition, the task is characterized as
open, and since the two participants do not have to come to an agreement, the task’s goal
orientation is divergent. The discussion task is centered on the crisis in the German newspaper
industry due to the rise of the Internet. Media use is a topic that is also discussed in one of the
earlier chapters of the second-year students’ German textbook. It thus is a familiar topic.
For this discussion task, the test takers are presented with a prompt, which is a short
paragraph in German that provides some background information. This paragraph is also
provided in English. A graphic that visualizes the decline of the newspaper in comparison to the
rise of the Internet is presented after the paragraph. The test takers are supposed to read the
paragraph (the German and/or English version), study the graphic, and then discuss their
opinions on the topic. Guiding questions are provided in English to activate the candidates’
96
thoughts and to stimulate interaction. The two paired tasks and their characteristics are
summarized in Table 3–2 below.
Table 3–2: Summary of the paired tasks and their characteristics
Task/Features
Access to
information
Interactional
requirement
Goal
orientation
Task
orientation
Jigsaw
Each candidate
holds different
information
from the input
provided in the
task.
The candidates are
required to supply
the information that
is provided to them
in the task input.
Convergent
Closed
Discussion
Each candidate
has access to
all information
that is provided
in the task
input.
The candidates are
expected to
exchange their ideas
and opinions, but
from the task input
provided they are
not required to
request and supply
information.
Divergent
Open
Before the tasks were used in the test, they were pilot tested with a small group of
second-year German students (eight student pairs) in the year before the data collection. The goal
of the pilot study was to find out whether the students would be able to cope with the prompts
and instructions for both tasks. Based on the test interactions produced, some modifications were
made to the tasks. For example, some difficult vocabulary items were exchanged for seemingly
easier lexical items. Also, the apartment ads were shortened because they turned out to be too
long. In the discussion task, a graphic that visualizes the problem to be discussed as well as an
English version of the introductory paragraph were added after the try-outs.
97
In addition, based on the two test tasks, two practice tasks, a jigsaw and a discussion task
(see Appendix C), were developed to give students the opportunity to try out the tasks with their
partner before the test. The practice and the test tasks are structured in the same way, differing
only in topic. In the practice jigsaw task, the students are presented with descriptions of hotels in
Vienna. The discussion task is concerned with the changing recreational behavior of Germans.
Following a description of the data collection instruments in this section, I now turn to the
data collection procedures.
3.3
Data collection procedures
The data collection procedures can be broken down into three phrases: (a) the consent and
screening process; (b) the assignment of a speaking ability level to each participant and an
assignment of participants to test-taker pairs; and (c) the administration of the paired test tasks.
The three phases are presented in this order.
3.3.1
Consent and screening process
In the semester when the data were collected (spring 2014), the paired speaking test was an
integrated part of the second-year German courses. That is, each student enrolled in a third- or
fourth-semester German course took the paired test tasks with a partner from the same section.
To be able to analyze the students’ test discourse, the students had to give permission for
their test interactions to be audio- and video-recorded and then analyzed for this study. Also, the
test discourse was recorded of only those students who qualified for the study: undergraduate
students, English native speakers, and experts in no language other than English. To determine
98
whether students fulfilled these three criteria, each student answered three screening questions
that were placed on the last page of the self-assessment checklist.
The students were not included who were not eligible to be part in the study or who did
not give their consent that their test discourse as well as other data (e.g., their grades, their
instructor’s perception of their speaking ability) could used for the study. These students,
however, still took the paired test. These students were assigned to test-taker pairs based on their
own and the instructor’s impression of their speaking ability as well as common student pairings
for in-class activities.
In the next sections, I concentrate on the 68 students who were eligible to participate in
the study and who agreed to be audio- and video-recorded. Participating students also had to give
their consent for the speaking ability ratings obtained from the self-assessment checklist and
provided by their instructor, as well as their grades from a second speaking test and from the
final exam, to be included in this study. Next I report how a speaking ability rating was obtained
for each participant and how the participants were assigned to test-taker pairs.
3.3.2
Speaking ability ratings and assignment to test-taker pairs
When the completed screening questionnaire indicated that a student was eligible to participate
in the study and the student also agreed to be part of the study, the student’s responses to the selfassessment statements were evaluated. Depending on the statements that the student checked that
he or she could do in German, the student was classified as a high, mid, or low ability-level
speaker (see guidelines provided in section 3.2.1). In addition, the student’s instructor was asked
for her impression of the student’s speaking ability. Thus, the instructor also provided a high,
mid, or low rating for each student. What speaking ability means for the second-year German
99
instructors was presented in section 3.2.2. Based on the self-assessment checklist and the
instructor perception of students’ speaking ability, two speaking ability ratings per student were
obtained. The two ratings had to be combined to one rating.
For 38 of the 68 students participating in the study, the self-assessment and teacher
ratings matched. For 24 students, the self-assessment and instructor ratings differed by one level.
For six students, one rating, usually the student’s self-evaluation, was a low rating, but the other
rating, usually the teacher’s perception, was a high rating. In the 30 cases in which student and
teacher rating did not agree, the student was assigned the teacher rating of high, mid, or low
speaking ability. When student and teacher ratings agreed, then the student was assigned the
rating from both self-assessment and teacher perception. Appendix D provides a list of all
participants with their self-assessment and teacher ratings as well as the final speaking ability
category assigned. To verify the validity of the assignment to speaking ability levels, the grades
from students’ second speaking test and the final exam were obtained. Section 3.6 briefly
discusses the validity of the speaking ability ratings.
In a second step, the participants were assigned to pairs. To account for acquaintance
effects, it was ensured that the test takers in the dyads knew each other. Thus, only students from
the same section were paired with one another. Moreover, the gender of the members of a dyad
does not seem to have an effect on performance (O’Sullivan, 2002), which is why gender was not
taken into consideration as a potential source of variation in the present study. Within their pair,
test takers can be either of the same or the opposite gender. For the test, the students were
assigned partners who they were familiar and comfortable with. In most cases, students who
chose to sit next to one another in class and worked together on many of the in-class activities
were paired. One instructor therefore described the test-taker pairs as natural pairs, meaning that
100
the student pairs for the speaking test corresponded to common in-class student pairs. Students
who did not have a partner with whom they regularly worked in class were paired together. The
students had to indicate that they had no objection to the partner to whom they had been assigned
for the test.
With the assignment to pairs, six different types of speaking ability combinations
emerged that can be grouped into same (High–High, Mid–Mid, Low–Low), somewhat different
(High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) ability-level combinations. Table 3–3
shows the number of test-taker pairs across course level and ability-level combination.
Table 3–3: Number of test-taker pairs across
course level and ability-level combination
Combination/ Low–Int. High–Int. Total
Course level
High–High
1
3
4
Mid–Mid
3
3
6
Low–Low
2
1
3
High–Mid
3
4
7
Mid–Low
4
4
8
High–Low
3
3
6
Total
16
18
34
Note: Low–Int. = Low-Intermediate (thirdsemester German);
High–Int. = High-Intermediate (fourthsemester German)
As Table 3–3 indicates, 21 test-taker pairs at somewhat different and very different
ability-level combinations were included in the study, whereas 13 same ability-level pairs
participated. In addition, High–High and Low–Low ability-level pairs were represented less in
the sample than other ability-level pairs, such as High–Mid and Mid–Low ability-level pairs.
101
Finally, it is important to note that the two test taker pairs that participated in the paired
test in Fall 2013 were also assigned two speaking ability ratings that were then collapsed into one
rating in the way described in this section. The two pairs that were recruited to participate in the
study were also natural pairs as explained above.
The next section is concerned with the administration of the test and the collection of the
speaking test data.
3.3.3
Administration of the paired speaking test
The paired speaking test, comprising two tasks, a jigsaw task and a discussion task, were given
after the first half of the semester. A couple weeks before the test, the students practiced similar
tasks, that is, a jigsaw task and a discussion task, on different topics (see Appendix C) in class
with the partner they had been assigned to for the test.
The test tasks were administered to each test-taker pair one after the other in one sitting.
The instructors proctored the assessment for the students from their respective sections. The
principal investigator was also present during the tests to audio- and video-record the interactions
(when the students were eligible to participate and had given their permission that the recordings
could be used for the present study).
The test takers were seated at a table across from each other. The instructor and the
principal investigator sat together to one side off the table and observed the test takers. An audio
recording device was placed in the middle of the table between the two test takers. In addition, a
small flip camera was set up in the place where the principal investigator was sitting. The test
takers were thus video-recorded from the side.
102
At the beginning of the assessment, the test takers engaged in a warm-up task. In that
task, the participants asked each other questions to find three things they had in common. The
warm-up task took no longer than 5 minutes and was intended to make the candidates feel at
ease.
The instructor or the principal investigator then provided the candidates with the test
tasks (one after the other), which were printed on paper. For each task, the pairs had 5 minutes to
individually read the instructions and the prompt and to think about what they want to bring
forward to the tasks. If they had questions, the test takers could ask the instructor or the principal
investigator for clarification.
For both tasks, the test takers were not allowed to write out their contributions. However,
during the 5-minute preparation time for the jigsaw task and during the jigsaw interaction, the
test takers were allowed to underline some words in the apartment ads and to write down single
words that would help them remember what preferences in an apartment the partner has or what
apartment options the partner has brought forward.
The instructor and the principal investigator remained silent during the test and did not
intervene in the candidates’ discourse. The time needed for the students to complete the jigsaw
task varied across pairs. Completing the task, that is, discussing the apartments from both lists
and agreeing on one, lasted between 5 to 15 minutes. The participants had 10 minutes to
complete the discussion. The 10 minutes are to be understood as a guideline. When the test takers
had nothing more to say, as evident by long segments of silence in their discourse, the instructor
or the principal investigator stopped the interaction even though the 10-minute time limit had not
yet been reached. When test takers were still talking after 10 minutes, they were given a couple
more minutes but the interaction was then stopped.
103
To avoid order effects, the order in which the dyads took the tasks was counterbalanced.
That is, half the pairs in each of the different dyad groups (High–High, Mid–Mid, Low–Low,
High–Mid, Mid–Low, High–Low) were randomly assigned to complete the jigsaw first, whereas
the other half started with the discussion.
After the test, the instructor evaluated the performance of each individual student based
on categories, such as accuracy, fluency, pronunciation, and vocabulary knowledge. Each student
was given an individual grade that was later combined with the grade from the second speaking
test at the end of the semester.
Finally, the data obtained from the two test-taker pairs in the previous semester (in fall
2013) was also gathered as described in this section. However, only the principal investigator
(but not the students’ instructor) was present during the test. In addition, the students were not
given a grade for the test, and they did not practice with similar tasks prior to the test.
Having presented the procedures that were carried out to collect the speaking test data, I
turn in the next sections to the transcription of the gathered speech data and the analysis of the
data.
3.4
Transcription of data
The audio-recorded data were transcribed using the notational system of CA taken from
Atkinson and Heritage (1984). The transcript notations reflect Jefferson’s transcription
conventions. They are explained in Appendix E. The transcription software Transana was used to
facilitate transcribing and analyzing the data.
The principal investigator transcribed all of the interactions. In line with Lazaraton
(2002), ten Have (2007) and others, the transcripts were created in as much detail as possible to
104
represent not only what was said but also how it was said. Even though the transcripts were
detailed representations of the recordings, not every single detail could be captured in the
transcripts (ten Have, 2007). A more complex transcript would have been too difficult to follow
(Ochs, 1979; Clayman & Gill, 2013). Thus, the transcript is a detailed but selective
representation of the test discourse (Ochs, 1979). As the L2 discourse was transcribed, the
transcription included characteristics of this type of discourse (Ochs, 1979), that is, pause
lengths, self-interruptions, soft voice, and non-verbal sounds, to name a few.
The spoken words were rendered in standard orthography. When speech deviated
noticeably from the standard model, the orthography was modified as well, for example, in case
of deviations in pronunciation of the German personal pronoun ‘ich’ (I) as ‘isch’ or ‘ick’. As ten
Have (2007) suggested, the speech data is presented in the original language (German) with a
word-by-word gloss in the next line. When the word-by-word gloss did not sound natural in
English, a free translation into English was provided under the gloss. In addition, non-verbal
information from the video recordings was not added to the transcripts. However, nonverbal
behavior was described when appropriate and necessary to understand the sequential features at
talk. Furthermore, each participant in the study was assigned an initial (e.g., AS, RO) that was
used in the transcripts. The initials were invented and do not represent the initials of the
participants’ real names.
The next section is concerned with the analysis of the data.
3.5
Data analysis
Both the transcript and the recording were taken into consideration for the data analysis, given
that they are connected to one another (Galaczi, 2004). The video recordings were also used for
105
the analysis of the data. They helped to differentiate between the speakers, if their voices are very
similar. Also, body language such as nodding and gestures helped in describing and
understanding the interactions between the two takers and thus in analyzing interactional
competence. Non-verbal cues were helpful to disambiguate information in the audio.
In this section, I describe how the data were analyzed to answer the research questions in
this study.
3.5.1
Building collections (Research Question 1)
According to CA methodology, research questions and hypotheses about data are usually not
constructed prior to the conversation analysis. Since CA is a data-driven approach, conversation
analysts begin with the analysis of the data and a theory developed based on the findings from
the analysis (Liddicoat, 2011).
An analysis in CA should begin with “unmotivated looking” (Psathas, 1995, p. 45). This
notion implies that the researcher approaches the data with an open mind and without a
predetermined opinion about what the data represent. This way, new phenomena can be
discovered instead of searching for occurrences of already known devices of social interaction
(ten Have, 2007).
However, unmotivated looking does not mean that the researcher approaches (or has to
approach) the data from a completely neutral stance (e.g., Lazaraton, 2002; Liddicoat, 2011; ten
Have, 2007). In line with Lazaraton (2002), ten Have (2007) and others, the data in the present
study were examined without any preconceived ideas about the data, but only with the broad
analytic CA categories (turn-taking, action sequencing, repair, turn design) in mind. Following
ten Have’s (2007) data exploration strategy, the principal investigator worked through a number
106
of transcripts, analyzed the structure of the interactions and specified practices and actions in the
context of the four main CA organizations mentioned above.
In addition, as pointed out elsewhere in this dissertation, intersubjectivity or mutual
understanding has been understood as the basis for interactional competence, which is why the
principal investigator worked through the data to discover phenomena that reveal how test takers
achieve, maintain, or restore intersubjectivity in talk-in-interaction.
During the iterative data exploration, some phenomena had emerged that were tagged for
further analysis. The phenomena that were located in the test discourse are actions that signal
potential understanding or production problems and thus may threaten intersubjectivity. The
phenomena are:
•
word searches that forced the searching party to revert to the first language (L1);
•
delays in turn uptake that interrupted the progressivity of the interaction;
•
instances of clarification requests; and
•
instances of clarification without a prior request to clarify.
Based on the phenomena that emerged from the analytic data exploration, a research
question evolved. Since the located phenomena can be analyzed further within the repair
framework (Schegloff et al., 1977) of CA, the research question explicitly states that salient
mechanisms of repair are analyzed to learn how intersubjectivity is maintained in the present test
discourse. The research question is as follows:
RQ1: What mechanisms of repair are prominently used in the paired test discourse of an
intermediate-level German speaking test to maintain intersubjectivity?
After the phenomena listed above had been identified, the principal investigator built
collections of comparable instances for each phenomenon from the gathered data. Finding
107
similar instances in the data helps to better understand the phenomenon of interest (Liddicoat,
2011). Thus, following Hutchby and Wooffitt’s (2008, pp. 89–90) suggested analysis procedure,
similar instances of each phenomenon were looked for in a small portion of the corpus, and each
phenomenon was described with respect to its sequential context, that is, the turns preceding and
following the phenomenon.
Then, more instances of each phenomenon were sought in the entire data set to determine
whether other instances would confirm the initial analysis. This process led to a refinement of the
initial description of the individual phenomenon because some instances did not clearly match
the original account of the phenomenon under investigation. They were analyzed under the
premise that they would provide an insight into how participants accomplish patterns of
interaction that depart from an established pattern and thus also contribute to a better
understanding of the phenomenon as such (Clayman & Gill, 2013). The data analysis resulted in
several collections of phenomena from the data set, which included varying accounts of how a
phenomenon is accomplished in talk-in-interaction. In line with Liddicoat (2011), variation was
understood as a relevant analytic tool, so that instances that deviate from the rule might be
explained (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Schegloff, 1968).
Finally, it should be noted that building collections assumes that the particulars of each
case are analyzed first before they are combined in collections (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008).
Thus, the collections are based on case-by-case analyses.
3.5.2
Quantification (Research Question 2)
The data investigated in this study stem from paired test interactions between test takers who
were identified as speakers of similar or different speaking ability. The paired test discourse was
108
also gathered from two different test tasks, that is, a discussion task and a jigsaw task. Research
Question 2 examines how the procedures of repair identified earlier are distributed across tasks
and across ability-level combinations in the pair. The research question is as follows:
RQ2: What procedures of repair are used in the different tasks and the various abilitylevel combinations?
To answer this research question, all instances of the various parts of the repair
procedures found were tallied across tasks and across ability-level combinations. Next to
presenting raw frequency totals per category (task and ability-level combination), relative
frequencies as proportion were also calculated. Because of the high number of ability-level
categories (High–High, Mid–Mid, Low–Low, High–Mid, Mid–Low, High–Low), it seemed
more useful to provide percentages to allow for comparisons of frequencies across categories (all
ability-level combinations including the two task categories) (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1990).
3.5.3
Single case analysis (Research Question 3)
With the third research question, the relationship between test takers’ speaking ability and
interactional competence is investigated in more detail. The research question is as follows:
RQ3: How are procedures of repair that are jointly constructed in test discourse involved
in the co-construction of the test takers’ language ability identities at the discourse level?
The assumption is that analyzing how both speaking ability and interactional competence
are displayed at the micro level may provide a more detailed picture of their relationship. This
research question is tackled by an in-depth analysis of extended, singular sequences of talk-ininteraction. In comparison to the analysis carried out to answer Research Question 1, the
emphasis is here not on finding recursive instances of the same phenomenon in the data to be
109
able to build collections. Rather, the interactional organization of fragments from three test
interactions is investigated to explicate how conversational resources, such as practices of repair,
allow test takers to position themselves as more or less competent language users. The three
single cases provide a better understanding of the machinery that constructs the speaking ability
identities in the test discourse.
3.6
Requirements of reliability and validity
This section is concerned with the reliability and validity of the data analysis. In addition, to what
extent the speaking-ability ratings assigned to the participants at the beginning of the study are
verified is discussed in this section as well.
To satisfy requirements of reliability, the transcripts were compared against the
recordings two times to ensure that the transcripts were an adequate representation of the
recordings. In addition, the validity of the analysis was enhanced by basing the interpretations
made during the analysis on Sacks et al.’s (1974) proof procedure. According to that procedure,
the next turn shows whether the participant interprets an utterance in same the way as the analyst.
Thus, how the interactants respond to one another’s utterances proves the analyst’s interpretation
right or wrong. Moreover, claims about the interactional organization of particular phenomena
were made by taking into account counterexamples that depart from the initial account of the
phenomenon but contribute to a better understanding of the phenomenon. Finally, the analyst’s
interpretations of the test discourse relate only to what is displayed in the interaction. An
interpretation of the interactions detached from the test discourse with the researcher’s own
experiences brought to the analysis was avoided.
110
To verify the validity of the speaking-ability ratings assigned to the participants, the
grades from a second speaking test and from the final exam were gathered. These grades,
together with the speaking-ability ratings for each participant, can be found in Appendix D. The
list in Appendix D shows that the performance of most students on the second speaking test was
rated with the letter grades A and B. This test does not seem to discriminate well among the
students and does not give much indication whether the assignment of speaking-ability ratings to
individual participants is justified. The final exam grades are more informative in that respect.
The list of participants with their respective speaking-ability ratings and test grades in Appendix
D shows that the high ability-level speakers are the participants who obtained the highest grades
on both the second speaking test and the final exam. However, the differentiation between mid
ability-level and low ability-level speakers is not always clear-cut. Taking into consideration the
final exam grades of mid and low ability-level speakers may suggest that some participants may
have been assigned a rating that is either too low or too high.
3.7
Summary
This chapter described the methodological procedures for the present study. The goal of the
study was to analyze how intersubjectivity is maintained in the peer-to-peer test discourse.
Thirty-four test-taker pairs, who were in their second year of German instruction at the time of
data collection, participated in a paired speaking test comprising two tasks, a jigsaw task and a
discussion task.
A conversation analysis was conducted to identify the conversational resources (which
turned out to be practices of repair) deployed to maintain intersubjectivity in the test discourse.
The study also investigated the impact of the test task and the ability-level combination in the
111
test-taker pair on the use of repair. A quantitative analysis was carried out to determine the
frequency distribution of the practices of repair across tasks and ability-level combinations. To
obtain a better understanding of the relationship between practices of repair and speaking ability
identities, both of which are co-constructed in the test discourse, another conversation analysis
was conducted. Segments from three test interactions were investigated to discover how practices
of repair are involved in constructing speaking ability identities in talk-in-interaction.
In the next chapter, I move to an analysis of the test discourse. I analyze what
interactional procedures are used to maintain mutual understanding between the participants.
112
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE TEST DISCOURSE
The focus of this chapter is to investigate how the test-taker pairs participating in an
intermediate-level German speaking test maintain intersubjectivity or mutual understanding in
the co-constructed test discourse. In accordance with Young (2008), I also consider
intersubjectivity in talk-in-interaction the basis for interactional competence. Conversation
analysts have found that intersubjectivity is established and sustained in the sequential
organization of turns in talk-in-interaction. Each subsequent turn displays the speaker’s
understanding of the previous turn (Heritage, 1984a). However, the ordinary system of the
sequential organization of turns-at-talk displays not only understandings, but also
misunderstandings. Repair mechanisms therefore play a crucial role in sustaining
intersubjectivity (Schegloff, 1992a). The emphasis in this dissertation in general and in this
chapter in particular is placed on identifying procedures of repair in the present test discourse.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the repair mechanisms that emerged from the data
analysis for this study. The construct of interactional competence in the context of a paired
speaking test will thus be broadened by a crucial element, namely mechanisms of repair as the
conversational resources that are used to maintain intersubjectivity.
When conversationalists talk together, they may encounter problems of speaking,
hearing, and understanding. For such problems, speakers have repair mechanisms available to
them to address and resolve such trouble. Both parties, that is, the speaker and the hearer, are
able to address trouble in talk and to initiate repair. Repair sequences can be initiated by ‘self’,
which refers to the speaker of the trouble source, or by ‘other’, which is the other participant in
113
the interaction. Similarly, repairs can be made by either ‘self’, the speaker of the trouble-source
talk, or ‘other’, the hearer of the talk (Schegloff et al., 1977).
In addition, Schegloff (1997b, 2000a; Schegloff et al., 1977) emphasized that repair as a
whole may prompt a sequence and that the repair sequence is composed of several parts, such as
the repair initiation that indicates a problem with the immediately preceding talk, the repair
outcome that displays a solution for or abandonment of the problem, and the actual trouble
source or the segment of talk that causes the problem. Thus, looking at the sequential
organization of repair (e.g., the various parts of a repair sequence or the procedures that trigger
repair initiations and/or the repair proper) that includes both the speaker and hearer perspective
will provide an in-depth picture of how trouble is resolved and intersubjectivity is maintained.
Finally, as mentioned elsewhere in this dissertation, scholars within CA–SLA, a strand
within second language acquisition (SLA) that draws on the epistemology and methodology of
conversation analysis (CA), argue that second language (L2) interactional competence or
interactional procedures, such as mechanisms of repair of turns-at-talk, develop over time
(Hellermann, 2008; Pekarek Doehler, 2010, 2012, 2013). That is, these procedures become more
complex and diversified the more they are deployed in recurrent practices. In line with previous
CA–SLA research, this study attempts to identify differences in the repair procedures used with
respect to what repairable the participants orient to or how the participants project potential
trouble. The way some test-taker pairs included in this study co-construct practices of repair may
be more advanced, for example, in terms of a higher adaptability to the partner or projectability
of next actions or trouble, compared to other pairs. Thus, these higher-order practices of repair
may be an indication of increased interactional competence. Since the data analyzed in this study
include the discourse of a cross-section of second-year learners of German, differences in the co-
114
construction of repair can be expected. Overall, identifying the more complex procedures of
repair used in the discourse of the present study potentially allows us to place them on a scale,
which may be beneficial for the development of scales or rubrics for the assessment of
interactional competence.
In sum, this chapter attempts to answer the following research question:
What mechanisms of repair are prominently used in the paired test discourse of an intermediatelevel German speaking test to maintain intersubjectivity?
a) What is the sequential organization of the procedures used to co-construct repair?
b) Which of the repair procedures identified in the test discourse can be described as more
or less complex procedures of interactional competence in co-constructing repair and
maintaining intersubjectivity?
It is important to note that for the findings of the conversation analysis presented in this
chapter, it was not of interest which of the test-taker pairs deployed the instances of repair or in
which task the repair mechanisms were produced. The impact of contextual features (task and
ability-level combination in the pair) on the co-construction of repair is presented in chapter 5.
To maintain intersubjectivity in the test discourse, test takers deployed conversational
resources, which can best be described on the basis of Schegloff et al.’s (1977) repair framework.
From the conversation analysis conducted for this dissertation project, the following repair
mechanisms emerged as most prominent instances of repair from the data analysis: (a) repair
initiations launched by the hearer and repaired by the trouble-source speaker (other-initiated selfrepair), (b) forms of repair initiated and repaired by the trouble-source speaker (self-initiated self-
115
repair), and (c) instances of repair in conjunction with word-search activities (self-initiated otherrepair). The procedures of repair identified are approached in the context of Schegloff et al.’s
(1977) repair framework with respect to whether ‘self’ or the ‘other’ initiates and/or makes the
repair. Chapter 4 turns to each procedure of repair in the order laid out here. That is, first,
instances of other-initiated self-repair are presented and discussed. Then, the chapter orients to
instances of self-initiated self-repair found in the data set. The following section is devoted to
word search activities, including the various forms of other-repair provided in response to the
self-initiated word search scenarios. Finally, the major findings are summarized.
4.1
Other-initiated self-repair
In talk-in-interaction, when a hearer does not adequately understand the previous turn, he or she
may initiate repair in the next turn. To indicate a problem of hearing, understanding, or
comprehension, Schegloff et al. (1977) found that recipients use various procedures to locate the
trouble source. For example, they may repeat segments of the trouble-source turn or supply a
comprehension check. Schegloff (2000a) also points out that other-initiated repair engenders a
repair sequence, which is composed of parts, such as an initiation and a repair outcome (a
solution or an abandonment of the problem). In addition, in instances of other-initiated repair,
Schegloff (2000a; Schegloff et al., 1977) highlights that the trouble-source speaker usually
orients to the repair initiation in the turn following the repair initiation and self-repairs the
problem.
As was pointed out earlier, other-initiated repair activities are notable in the present data
set. These conversational resources were deployed to draw the partner’s attention to some trouble
with the goal to maintain intersubjectivity. This section looks at other-initiated repair as one
116
repair procedure that emerged from the data analysis. Since repair activities are known to consist
of parts, all elements of the repair sequence were analyzed, including the repair initiation, the
trouble causing the repair initiation as well as the response to the repair initiator.
In this section, the repair initiators that were found in the data set are presented and
discussed first. In conjunction with procedures of repair initiation, trouble sources were
examined as well. Then, forms of self-repair in response to other-initiated repair are presented,
before the findings are summarized.
4.1.1
Repair initiators
Open-class repair initiators
In a seminal paper, Schegloff and colleagues (1977) argued that forms of repair initiations by the
other follow a natural ordering based on their strength to locate a repairable. On one end of the
scale are the open-class repair initiators (Drew, 1997), such as ‘huh?’ or ‘what?’. With such
initiators, recipients merely indicate that they have detected some trouble in the previous turn
without specifically locating the repairable. Open-class repair initiators are therefore the weakest
type of repair signal initiated by others (Schegloff et al., 1977).
The analysis of the data shows that hearers deploy open-class repair initiators when, for
example, they did not attend to what the partner was saying. In these scenarios, hearers are aware
that the interlocutor uttered something, but they did not grasp it well enough to repeat portions of
the utterance in their repair initiation. Video recordings of test-taker interaction revealed that
recipients’ use of open-class repair initiators, such as ‘hm?’ and ‘huh?’, may be due to looking at
their instructions sheet, probably re-reading the prompt or the discussion questions, and thus not
paying attention to what their interlocutor was saying. Excerpt 4.1-1 shows how an interlocutor’s
117
(here: HA) lack of attention results in a problem of hearing and thus in deploying an open-class
repair initiator.
Excerpt 4.1-1: DIS:IntI:M-M:HA-MO (the test)
01 MO:
 02 HA:
03 MO:
04 HA:
05
06 MO:
07 HA:
ahm (1.7) kaptel what was the one we just took (.5) vier? ((H is not looking at M))
chapter
(.7) hm?
the test
.h oh (.) ahm (.5) ja .hh ahm (1.2) .h ja ich weiß nicht dass (.2) ahm (1.2) .h das=
yes
yes I know not that
that
yes I don’t know that
=hamburg wa:r die (.2) medienzentrum=
was the
media center
hamburg was the media center
=ja=
yes
=von deutschland .hh das war el- (.2) das (.2) das war sehr interessant (.5) .h[h ]
of germany
that was
that that was very interesting
of germany that was very interesting
Inattention is not the only cause of hearing trouble. A test taker may also utter his or her
contribution too softly, making it difficult for the partner to understand what the other is saying
(see Excerpt 4.1-2).
Excerpt 4.1-2: JIG:IntII:H-L:MG-TM (Balkon oder Garten)
01 MG:
 02 TM:
03 MG:
=uhm gibt’s ein balkon? (1.0) °oder ahm (2.7) oder ei- ein garten°
is there a balcony
or
or
a yard
(2.0) (°uh hm?°)=
=oh sorry uhm (2.0) gibt’s EIN BALkon oder <garten>=
is there a balcony or
yard
In Excerpt 4.1-2, TM displays in line 2 that he did not hear what MG was saying in line 1.
In addition to launching the open-class repair initiator ‘hm?’, TM points the index finger of his
118
right hand to his right ear, indicating that he did not hear MG’s question. The volume of MG’s
voice has become softer over the course of her utterance, making it difficult for TM to grasp
MG’s request. In line 3, MG adjusts her speech: she speaks more loudly and more slowly to
ensure that TM hears her question.
In addition, in the data set, additional forms of open-class repair initiators were identified,
such as requesting that the interlocutor repeat the utterance or letting the partner know explicitly
that he or she does not understand. Even though these forms are not explicitly mentioned in
Schegloff et al. (1977), they seem to have a function similar to the traditional open-class repair
initiators, in that they do not give any indication of the difficulty nor of what in the prior turn is
causing the trouble (Drew, 1997; Svennevig, 2008). The repeat request may signal a hearing,
understanding or comprehension problem. However, the procedure deployed to let the partner
know that one does not understand clearly indicates an understanding or comprehension issue. A
repeat request may be found in Excerpt 4.1-3.
Excerpt 4.1-3: DIS:IntI:M-L:AL-SH (repeat it)
01 AL:
 02 SH:
03 AL:
04 SH:
05 AL:
06 SH:
07 AL:
>wie oft sie die zeitung
ah lesen,<
how often you the newspaper
read
how often do you read the newspaper
(1.0) .h °ah° (1.5) isch °or=no° ick (1.5) °°(
I
I
(3.2)
hhuhu=
=pt wie oft,
how often
.shih hhuh[hh]
[zei]tung lesen. [.h]
newspaper read
119
) can you repeat it?°°
Here, AL’s question how often SH reads the newspaper may have been uttered too
quickly for SH to follow. Based on what SH thinks might have been AL’s question, SH tries to
provide an answer. However, SH’s turn is characterized by filled pauses and silences. Finally,
SH gives up and asks AL in English and with a soft voice to repeat his utterance (line 2). Another
form of a repeat request may be found in the discourse between WL and JR (Excerpt 4.1-4).
Excerpt 4.1-4: JIG:IntI:L-L:WL-JR (einmal)
01 JR:
02
03
 04 WL:
05 JR:
06
°ja° (1.2) schöne (.5) kostet (.7) vierhundert (.7) siebenund (.) neunzig euro pro=
yes
nice
costs
four hundred
seven and ninety
per
yes nice costs four hundred ninety seven euro per
=(.2) pro person
per
per person
(2.2)
ah einmal
once
ah (1.2) schöne (.5) kostet (.5) vierhundert (.2) siebenun:dneunzig euro (.) pro=
nice
costs
four hundred
seven and ninety
per
nice costs four hundred ninety seven euro per
=person (.7) °ah° (2.2) es ist ah (.7) neu (.2) renoviert (1.5) °ah°
it is
new
renovated
person it is newly renovated
As can be seen in line 4, WL produces a numeral (‘einmal’), which means ‘once’ in
German. WL most likely intends to say ‘noch einmal’ (once more) to indicate to JR to repeat the
previous turn or parts thereof. He may be using it to signal trouble hearing, understanding of
specific lexical items, or comprehending of the entire turn. It remains unclear what the repairable
really is.
After presenting examples of repeat requests, Excerpt 4.1-5 provides another type of
repair initiator, namely an example of a repair initiating procedure that is used to explicitly signal
to the partner that one does not understand.
120
Excerpt 4.1-5: DIS:IntII:M-M:AS-RO (verstehe nicht)
01 AS:
02
03 RO:
04 AS:
05 AS:
06 RO:
07 AS:
 08 RO:
09 AS:
(…) leute: (.2) .h möchten (.5) halten h. .h die (1.2) zeitung,
people
would like
hold
the
newspaper
people would like to hold the newspaper
(2.0)
halten °sie°,
hold she
hold it
(.7) ü- über (.2) eine computer, (1.7) °uh° lesen,
over
a
read
over reading a computer
(1.7)
like
ick
I
hh[h ]
[verst]ehe (.) n- nicht
understand
not
don’t understand
hh. sorry(h) hh. .h
As can be seen in Excerpt 4.1-5, RO says outright that he does not understand (‘verstehe
(.) n- nicht’) (line 8) what AS was saying in her previous talk. The way RO displays his inability
to understand or comprehend makes it difficult for AS to identify the repairable that causes him
trouble.
In sum, the open-class repair initiators, as identified by Schegloff et al. (1977), were
found in the data of the present study. In addition to the classical open-class repair initiators (e.g.,
‘hm?’) (Schegloff et al., 1977), the test-taker pairs included in this study also produced repeat
requests and a structure, ‘verstehe nicht’, to explicitly indicate incomprehension. These forms
function similarly to the classical open-class repair initiators ‘hm?’, ‘huh?’, or ‘excuse me?’, in
that they do not give any indication as to what the repairable is or what within the trouble-source
turn is causing difficulty for the hearer. This section also showed that open-class repair initiators
are launched due to problems of hearing, understanding, or comprehension of the partner’s talk.
121
Next to open-class repair initiators, the test takers in this study also repeated parts of the troublesource turn to display trouble. Partial repetitions as repair initiators will be presented next.
Repetitions
In addition to open-class repair initiators, more powerful other-initiated repair initiation was also
deployed in the interactions. In comparison to open-class repair initiators, partial repetitions with
or without a question word are procedures that direct the trouble-source speaker more
specifically to the repairable, and thus are interactionally of somewhat higher value (Schegloff et
al., 1977). The repetitions are characterized by an upward intonation contour (Kim, 2002). An
example for a repetition with a question word as repair initiator may be found in Excerpt 4.1-6.
Excerpt 4.1-6: DIS:IntI:H-M:DA-JA (denke was)
01 JA:
02
 03 DA:
04 JA:
.h ahm (2.2) .h ah ah (1.2) ah (.2) du denkst ah die zeitung
in zukunft?
you think
the newspaper in future
(2.7)
denke ich was?
think I what
do I think what
ah ahm (.7) denkst du ah die zeitung
in zukunft.
think you the newspaper in future
do you think the newspaper in future
As can be seen in this excerpt, DA uses a partial repetition of JA’s turn (‘denke ich’) in
combination with a question word (‘was?’) (line 3). With this construction, DA targets a
particular word (‘zukunft’) that she did not hear or whose meaning she does not know.
Interlocutors may also use partial repetitions without a question word to initiate repair (see
Excerpts 4.1-7 and 4.1-8).
122
Excerpt 4.1-7: DIS:IntII:H-L:MG-TM (traditionell)
01 MG:
02
 03 TM:
04 MG:
05 TM:
mm like mm zeitungen sind traditionell? I mean,
newspapers are traditional
(1.7)
(plition:)?
traditionell=
traditional
=oh traditionell ja .h [ahm]
traditional yes
Excerpt 4.1-8: DIS:IntII:L-L:NH-ST (Zukunft)
01 ST:
02
 03 NH:
04
05 ST:
uhm (1.5) denkst du dass=ah (1.2) uhh (2.2) wird es in zukunft (.2) noch=
think you that
will it in future
still
=zeitungen geben?
newspapers give
do you think that there will still be newspapers in the future
zudunkt?
future ((mispronounced))
(1.2)
uh zukunft, (1.5) uhh (.7) wird=es:=ah (.5) zeitungen geben?
future
will it
newspapers give
future will there be newspapers
In Excerpt 4.1-7, for example, TM misheard the adjective ‘traditionell’ (traditional) in
MG’s utterance. With a rising intonation, TM produces the word he believes he heard
(‘(plition:)?’), indicating that this is the word that provides him difficulty. The scenario in
Excerpt 4.1-8 is similar. Here, NH does not hear the word ‘zukunft’ (future) correctly, which
may suggest that he does not know the meaning of this noun. By reproducing the word he thinks
he has heard (‘zudunkt’) with a rising intonation, he indicates that he has trouble mapping word
meaning to the sounds ST has uttered.
The few examples presented show that repetitions are predominantly used to display
problems of hearing and understanding of specific lexical items. For the test takers who initiate
123
repair by deploying a repetition, the issue oftentimes lies in a string of sounds that the partner
utters, which cannot be mapped on to a known lexical entry in their mental lexicon.
In addition, partial repetitions were also deployed when the speaker did not comprehend
what the partner is trying to convey or why the partner is bringing up a certain point. The issue
here is not so much one of lexical understanding but overall comprehension, as can be seen in
Excerpt 4.1-9.
Excerpt 4.1-9: JIG:IntI:H-L:KL-EH (billigest)
01 KL:
02 EH:
 03 KL:
04 EH:
05
=mhm okay so uhm (1.0) so welche wohnung möchtest du?
which apartment would like you
which apartment would you like
uhm meine (1.2) billigest uhm wohnung ist
my
cheapest
apartment is
bill- billigest? uh uhm du uh bill-=
cheapest
you
=ja uh I uhm ich habe ein (.7) uhm billig wohnung aber ich uhm=
yes
I have a
cheap apartment but I
=ka- ich ke- (.) uhm
I
This excerpt shows that EH does not respond to KL’s question asking what apartment she
would like. Instead, EH starts talking about her cheapest apartment (line 2). EH’s response does
not seem to align with KL’s initial questioning action, which is why KL repeats a part of EH’s
utterance (‘billigest’) with a rising intonation to indicate that he does not understand what EH is
trying to say. Thus, the problem addressed here is not a lexical issue but an overall problem of
comprehending why the partner produces such an utterance.
Also, hearers may be uncertain of what was said in prior talk and thus initiate repair to
elicit the missing or unclear information from the partner, as DA does in Excerpt 4.1-10.
124
Excerpt 4.1-10: JIG:IntI:H-M: DA-JA (zweihundert)
01 JA:
02 DA:
03 JA:
04 DA:
05 JA:
06 DA:
07 JA
08 DA:
09 JA:
 10 DA:
11 JA:
hm: (1.2) ah=h hübsch- hübsche ah kleine ist billig
pretty pretty
small is cheap
ja=
yes
=ahm ah dreihundert fünf- ah fünfzig ah euro (.5) ahm [und] ahm ah es hat=
three hundred five
fifty
and
it has
[und]
and
=ah küche und bad
und [klei]ne balkon ahm and zehn minuten ah=
kitchen and bathroom and small balcony
ten minutes
[ja ]
yes
=zu fuß zu bus ahm ah nach berlin mitte
by foot to bus
to berlin center
okay in der nähe
von die uni?
in the proximity of the university
okay near the university
mhm
für dich? oh das ist gut (1.2) mm zweihundert was?
for you
that is good
two hundred what
ah ah ah dreihundert
three hundred
In lines 1 through 7 of Excerpt 4.1-10, JA presents an apartment to DA. JA talks about
the price of the apartment, the rooms of the apartment and a bus stop in walking distance. DA
likes the apartment but she has forgotten how much the rent is. DA believes that the rent must
have been two hundred something Euros. Thus, in line 10, DA initiates repair (‘zweihundert
was?’) to elicit from JA the exact amount of the rent for the apartment.
Repetitions may also be used to indicate problems of reference. As Excerpt 4.1-11
indicates, when engaging in the jigsaw task, test takers may not make clear what apartment they
refer to when they present it to their partner.
125
Excerpt 4.1-11: JIG:IntI:M-M:HA-MO (eins)
01 HA:
02 MO:
03 HA:
04 MO:
 05 HA:
06 MO:
ah was möchtest du: (.5) ahm für die apartment
what would like you
for the
what would you like for the apartment
(1.0) ahm (.5) .h (2.7) ick möchtest du OR (.5) well
I would like you
((laughs))
ja .h ah ich mag (1.0) eins
yes
I like
one
(.7) eins?=
one
=°eins°=
one
As can be seen in Excerpt 4.1-11, HA asks MO what she wants their apartment to be like
(line 1). MO does not respond to HA’s question, but states that she likes ‘eins’ (one) (line 4),
which seems to be causing some confusion for HA, who stays quiet for 0.7 seconds and then
initiates repair (‘eins?’). It can be assumed that MO refers to apartment number one on her
instruction sheet. Since HA has ads for four apartments that are numbered 5 through 8, she may
not understand what MO means when she utters that numeral, also given that MO’s response
does not conform with HA’s initial question from line 1.
To summarize, in the present data set, partial repetitions (with or without a question
word)—the second strongest form of other-initiated repair in locating the repairable according to
Schegloff et al. (1977)—were used to display trouble in prior talk. The analysis revealed that
partial repetitions were launched not only to indicate problems of hearing and understanding of
specific lexical items, but also to display reference issues, for example, in the jigsaw task, when
the speaker does not clearly indicate to the partner what apartment he or she is talking about.
Next to open-class repair initiators and partial repetitions, candidate understanding
(Kurhila, 2006) as another form of repair initiation emerged from the data analysis. A speaker
126
uses this form to indicate a possible understanding of the prior turn. Forms of candidate
understanding found in this data set are presented in the next section.
Candidate understanding
Another prominent form of other-initiated repair deployed in the test discourse were forms of
candidate understanding (Kurhila, 2006), which is the strongest type of other-initiated repair in
locating the trouble source (Schegloff et al., 1977). With such repair initiators, the recipient
articulates his or her interpretation of the previous turn. The speaker of the trouble source either
confirms or rejects the interpretation; the trouble source speaker may also give an explanation.
With the speaker providing an interpretation of the partner’s previous utterance, candidate
understandings may be considered a more advanced interactional resource.
The three types of candidate understanding that Kurhila (2006) found in her data set for
Finnish were also detected in the data of the present study: (a) understanding checks that signal
uncertainty; (b) summary-based comprehension checks; and (c) expansions that further develop
what was said in the previous turn.
Hearers use understanding checks to clarify their understanding of the prior turn. They
are marked by uncertainty; that is, some contain interrogative pronouns (e.g., ‘welch-’, which)
and/or the utterance-final particle ‘oder’ (or), as can be seen in Excerpt 4.1-12.
Excerpt 4.1-12: DIS:IntII:H-L:MG-TM (welche Zeitungen)
01 MG:
02
=ja (1.2) °°(that's) okay°° uhm (1.5) warum denkst du ahm (.7) zeitungen=
yes
why think you
newspapers
yes why do you think newspapers
=(9.2) sind jetzt hier. (.2) °°mm°°
are now here
are here now
127
 03 TM:
(6.2) welche:: zeitungen od[er:?]
which newspapers or
what newspapers or
A characteristic of understanding checks is rising intonation. The particle ‘oder’ (or) may
also occur within the turn. An example may be found in Excerpt 4.1-13.
Excerpt 4.1-13: JIG:IntII:H-H:DE-JD (oder?)
01 DE:
02 JR:
03 De:
 04 JR:
uhm ja uh eins ist neben uh die u bahn
yes one is next to
the subway
mhm
uhm aber (.) ich weiß nicht uh wie nahe die universität es ist=
but
I know not
how close the university it is
but I don’t know how close the university is
=es ist nicht oder? du weißt nicht
it is not or you know not
it is not or you don’t know
However, interrogative pronouns or utterance-final particle may also not necessarily be
deployed. Instead, only a word or a phrase, especially a prepositional phrase, with a rising
intonation contour was produced as an understanding check (see Excerpt 4.1-14). This form of
repair initiation has also been referred to as an appendor question (Sacks, 1992). Appendor
questions are phrasal constructions that are grammatically tied to the preceding trouble-source
turn for which they offer a candidate understanding (see also Schegloff, 1997a).
Excerpt 4.1-14: DIS:IntII:M-L:MA-SC (for diese Gehiste)
01 SC:
02 SC:
03 MA:
(…) (.5) ah (.2) um (.2) ah .hh ahh z- zeitung ist ahh (.2) ver-=
newspaper is
=important=ah (1.5) gut (.5) ah for (.) gehiste? .hh
good
for history
°°ja°°
yes
128
04 SC:
05 MA:
 06 MA:
07 SC:
 08 MA:
09 SC:
ah:m (1.5) .hh [i:ck] icke (.) möchte:: (.) uhh (.5) ah:m zeitung
lesen? .h ah
I
I
would like
newspaper read
I would like to read newspaper
[ja ]
yes
fo::r (.) diese: historik?
this history
ja
yes
[kur]s?
course
[ja ]
yes
In addition to understanding checks, comprehension checks were also found in the
present data. With comprehension checks, recipients summarize or paraphrase the proposition in
the previous turn. They include turn-initial particles and tokens that display understanding, such
as affirmative particles (‘ja’), news receipt tokens (‘ah’, ‘oh’), and the particle ‘so’. Excerpts 4.115 and 4.1-16 include examples of comprehension checks.
Excerpt 4.1-15: DIS:IntI:H-M:KA-EL (nicht kaufen)
01 EL:
02
03
04
 05 KA:
ja und ahm ich lese (.7) mehr ahm (1.5) zeitungen wenn (.5)=
yes and
I read more
newspapers when
=ahm (1.5) wenn (.5) es ahm lies (1.5) liest (.5) ahm (.5) in der ca↑fe (.5)=
when
it
read
reads
in the café
=oder in (2.0) der lob↑by (1.0) aber isch ahm (.7) ich nicht kaufen:,
or in
the lobby
but I
I not buy
(…) but I don’t buy
(4.0)
ah du du kaufst die zeitungen ↑nicht,=
you you buy the newspapers not
ah you don’t buy the newspapers
Excerpt 4.1-16: JIG:IntII:M-M:AS-RO (mit Möbeln)
01 RO:
ich oh ahm ich (.) ich möchte: a:hm (5.2) ahm (.7) eine wohnung mit (1.0)=
I
I
I would like
an apartment with
129
02
 02 AS:
=möbeln (.7) a:h
furniture
oh (1.0) °ahm° (.5) ja diese (.5) wohnung (.5) oh ↑mit möbeln,=
yes this
apartment
with furniture
In expansions, the third type of candidate understanding, identified in the data, recipients
articulate a proposition that has not been mentioned before but is based on prior talk. An
expansion is forward-oriented and helps the initiator to complete his or her understanding of the
previous turn. The previous turn may be grammatically incomplete or unclear in its references.
An example may be found in Excerpt 4.1-17.
Excerpt 4.1-17: DIS:IntII:H-M:SE-AM (Freunde)
01 SE:
02 AM:
03 AM:
04 SE:
05
 06 AM:
07
(1.0) ich ah (2.2) ich findet (1.2) artikel:[:en] (.7) ah von
meinen freunden?
I
I find
articles
from/of my
friends
[hm]
ja? (.2) .hh so=
yes
=so (.5) ahm (1.7) wenn ich (.7) über (.5) ein thema hören .h ich (.7) wird (.2)=
when I
about a topic hear
I
will
so when I hear about a topic I will
=suchen auf die der internet.
search on the the
search the internet
mhm (.2) und du=ah email deine freundin auch über ein artikel das du findet?=
and you email your friend also about an article that you find
=das ist gut,
that is good
In line 1, SE points out that her friends direct her to specific news articles. The way she
has phrased her turn may be confusing, since she makes it sound as if she finds articles about her
friends. Then she adds in line 3 that she searches for information online when she hears
something. AM initiates an expansion in line 6. He develops SE’s propositions from lines 1 and 3
further by stating that SE writes an email to her friends about an article she finds. Thus, he
130
concludes that both sides; that is, SE and her friends, let one another know about news articles
they find.
In sum, the instances of candidate understanding (understanding checks, comprehension
checks, expansions) produced by the test-taker pairs included in this study mostly correspond to
the instances of candidate understanding Kurhila (2006) identified in her research on interactions
between native and nonnative speakers of Finnish. It should be noted, however, that in the
present data set instances of understanding checks, which are characterized by a rising intonation
contour, an interrogative pronoun and/or the utterance-final particle ‘or’ (Kurhila, 2006), were
mostly produced without the interrogative pronoun or the ‘or’-particle and simply launched in
form of a word or a short phrase (for example, a prepositional phrase) with rising intonation. This
form of understanding check found in the test discourse of this study appears to be simpler than
the type Kurhila (2006) describes.
This section on candidate understanding concludes the descriptions of other-initiated
repair initiators identified in the test discourse. In combination with the types of repair initiators
in the previous sections, the trouble sources that triggered the repair initiations were also
identified. Test takers orient mainly to individual lexical items or phrases due to problems of
hearing, understanding, comprehension, and reference. In addition, reading the instructions sheet
may interfere with the hearer’s full attention to speaker talk, leading to a repair initiation. The
trouble source I turn to now is not a lexical item, but the entire action in the previous speaker’s
turn.
131
Orienting to an action-as-a-whole as the repairable
As shown in the previous sections, the test-taker pairs in the present study initiated repair mainly
because of an unknown reference or because of unknown or misheard lexical items. Students’
orientation to lexical problems is not an uncommon phenomenon. Hellermann (2011), for
example, found that beginning learners of English accomplish repair initiations in response to
lexical trouble. Much more rare are repair initiations for whole actions (Hellermann, 2011;
Robinson & Keveo-Feldman, 2010). The following two examples from the data of the present
study show that test takers may also view an action-as-a-whole as the repairable. Previous
research found that open-class repair initiators, such as ‘huh?’ or ‘wie bitte?’ (excuse me), and
rising-intonational repetitions of a sentential turn constructional unit (TCU) (full repeats) are
used to orient to an entire action as the repairable (Drew, 1997; Robinson & Keveo-Feldman,
2010). The following example (Excerpt 4.1-18) shows how an open-class repair initiator is used
to signal trouble with an entire action in the preceding turn.
Excerpt 4.1-18: DIS:IntII:H-M:RB-HE (Freizeit)
01 RB:
02
03 HE:
04
05
06 RB:
07
08 HE:
mm ich denke: die deutschen (.2) haben nicht so viel zeit für (1.2) uhm=
I think the germans
have not so much time for
=zeitungen (.5) und so weiter.
newspapers and so on
uh ick well glaube dass .hh ich den↑ke (1.7) die deutsche und amerikanern (1.5)=
I
believe that
I think
the germans and americans
=ahm hast keine freizeit (2.0) aber (2.2) ahm (.7) sie (1.5) internet (.7) uh serven=
have no free time
but
they
surf
have no free time but they surf the internet
=mehr.
more
ja (.5) .hh ahm ich denke (1.5) online zeitungen sind (1.2) °uh° (2.2)=
yes
I think
newspapers are
=mehr gleich für al[le
]=
more equal for all
[°mhm°]
132
09 RB:
10 HE:
 11 RB:
12 HE:
13 RB:
14 HE:
15 RB:
16
=weil
sie sind frei.
because they are free
ja (1.0) hast du ein freizeit?
yes
have you a free time
yes do you have free time
(3.2) °wie bitte°?
excuse me
hast du ein freizeit im morgens abends,
have you a free time in the mornings evenings
do you have free time in the mornings evenings
.h ahm (.7)
die woche=
the week
=im
abends (.5) or am abends (.5) ich lese ahm (.7) online zeitungen (.)=
in the evenings
on the evenings
I read
newspapers
=wie (.7) ahm (.7) yahoo oder (.5) der spiegel? (1.2) °ja,°=
like
or
the mirror ((German news magazine))
RB begins her discussion with HE by pointing out that she thinks that the Germans do not
have much time to read newspapers. HE further develops this thought and says that both the
Germans and Americans do not have free time, but they surf the Internet (probably in the little
time they have available). In line 6, RB confirms HE’s observation and presents a new thought:
She argues that online newspapers are equally available to everyone because they are free. After
affirming what RB has said in line 10, HE asks RB whether she has free time. That question
leads RB to deploy an open-class repair initiator (‘wie bitte?’) after remaining silent for about
three seconds. It is not the case that RB did not hear or understand what HE was saying. Rather,
the issue seems to be that HE’s question is sequentially and topically incoherent with what has
been discussed thus far. By posing her question, HE abruptly moves the conversation from an
abstract level on media use to a more personal level oriented to the amount of available leisure
time that RB has. The fact that HE does not continue developing the original topic by adding
another argument, but rather poses a question out of the blue on a different topic instead, shows
that HE’s contribution does not fit in the sequential context of the conversation. The abrupt shift
133
in topic in combination with the newly initiated sequence would have caused less trouble if HE
had announced or marked that shift turn-initially (Drew, 1997). A similar scenario can be
observed in the discourse between GA and AR (Excerpt 4.1-19).
Excerpt 4.1-19: JIG:IntII:M-M:GA-AR (nicht sagen)
01 AR:
02 GA:
 03 AR:
04 GA:
05 AR:
06 GA:
hm (1.7) sollen wir es=ah (1.7) ah (2.7) wollen
should we it
want
(1.0) ah (.5) isch mag nicht sagen
I like not say
I’d rather not say
(1.7) wie bitte?
excuse me
oh eh it it (.5) ahm (.) es sagen nicht i- it doesn’t (.7)
it say not
it doesn’t say
uh
ah was ist deine ah lieblings: ahm apartment
what is your
favorite
This extract was taken from the end of GA and AR’s conversation. Until this point, GA
and AR have talked about a variety of living options. The apartment they have just talked about
seems to be a suitable option for AR, which is why he asks GA if they should take it (line 1).
AR’s question itself may lead to confusion; it seems that an important verb is missing, ‘nehmen’
(to take). Instead of initiating repair or providing a type-conforming action, which would be a
‘yes’- or ‘no’-response, including an optional explanation as to why ‘yes’ or why ‘not’, GA
utters that she would rather not say. It seems that she refuses to give a response to AR’s question.
After a 1.7-second pause, AR deploys an open-class repair initiator (‘wie bitte?’) in line 3.
Similar to the interaction between RB and HE (Excerpt 4.1-18), GA’s utterance does not match
sequentially with AR’s prior talk. As was mentioned previously, first and second pair parts of an
adjacency pair build on one another; they need to match (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). However, in
134
the interaction between GA and AR, GA’s response, which is the second pair part, does not
relate to AR’s question, the first pair part. AR therefore challenges GA’s action-as-a-whole and
launches an open-class repair initiator. Thus, in contrast to RB and HE’s interaction in Excerpt
4.1-18, where HE abruptly introduces a new topic, GA produces a referentially non-fitting
response to AR’s question (Excerpt 4.1-19).
In addition, despite HE’s sudden shift in topic in Excerpt 4.1-18, RB is still able to orient
to HE’s question after HE self-repaired her utterance. However, in Excerpt 4.1-19, the repair
sequence remains unresolved between GA and AR and intersubjectivity cannot be restored. Even
after GA’s self-repair, AR is unable to draw a connection between GA’s response and his initial
question. Thus, GA’s self-repair in line 4 does not resolve the misunderstanding, which is why
she starts an entirely new sequence (line 6).
In sum, the two excerpts from the data show that open-class repair initiators are not only
used to repair problems of hearing or understanding but they are also used when a turn does not
connect referentially with the prior turn. The recipient may very well hear and understand what
was said, but the difficulty arises from the prior turn as a whole or from the perceived lack of fit
between prior and current actions (Drew, 1997; Robinson & Keveo-Feldman, 2010). Difficulty
with a peer’s action seems to be a type of higher order trouble (Robinson & Keveo-Feldman,
2010). The fact that the test takers project their partner’s action as the repairable suggests that
they have obtained a broader orientation to language and thus a greater interactional competence
(Hellermann, 2011).
135
Summary
In sum, the repair initiators found in the data set of the present study correspond to the forms of
other-initiated repair signals that Schegloff and colleagues (1977) and Kurhila (2006) identified
in their data. That is, the test-taker pairs included in this study also launched open-class repair
initiators, partial repetitions, and forms of candidate understanding (understanding checks,
comprehension checks, and expansions) to display a problem in the preceding turn. Thus, the
test-taker pairs produced repair initiators that are fairly weak interactionally, such as the openclass repair initiators when used to display understanding or comprehension difficulties. Openclass repair initiators have been described as interactionally weak indicators for trouble because
they do not point to the repairable in the previous turn, making it difficult for the trouble-source
speaker to identify the problem and to repair (see Schegloff et al., 1977). However, the data
analysis also revealed that the participants deployed much stronger repair initiators in locating
the trouble source, such as forms of candidate understanding, which indicate a participant’s
interpretation of the prior turn.
In contrast to classical CA studies analyzing repair (Schegloff et al., 1977) and the CA
research conducted between native and nonnative speakers (Kurhila, 2006), open-class repair
initiators in the form of repeat requests and a repair-initiating structure making not-understanding
explicit emerged from the data analysis of nonnative speaker test discourse in this study. In
addition, the understanding checks produced in this data set oftentimes included single words or
short phrases uttered with a rising intonation, but without the turn-initial interrogative pronouns
or the turn-final particle ‘or’, which are characteristic features of understanding checks. Thus, the
understanding checks produced by the test-taker pairs in this study seem to be much plainer
structurally than the repair mechanisms Kurhila (2006) identified as understanding checks in her
data set.
136
With respect to the repairables test takers orient to, the analysis showed that trouble with
individual lexical items caused the participants in the present study to launch a repair initiator.
The trouble with specific lexical items came about because of non-hearing, not-understanding, or
insufficient reference information. It should be noted that test takers also initiated repair due to
sequential inconsistencies in talk-in-interaction. That is, test takers were found to deploy openrepair initiators and full repeats to orient to an action-as-a-whole because prior and current action
do not seem to match referentially. Turning to a whole action as the repairable can be considered
a higher order resource of interactional competence (Hellermann, 2011).
Overall, the repair initiators signal that there is a problem of hearing or understanding.
They thus indicate that mutual understanding between the interlocutors may be at stake. How the
test takers repair the trouble and get the interaction back on track is discussed next. Thus, the
next section is concerned with forms of self-repair in response to the partner’s repair initiation.
4.1.2
Self-repair in response to repair initiations by the other
The previous section showed that repair initiators are launched by recipients due to a variety of
different problems encountered in the previous turn, such as mishearing, non-hearing, lack of
attention, not knowing specific lexical items, or the inability to locate a reference. Given these
various trouble sources, it is important to note that nonspecific open-class repair indicators, such
as ‘huh?’ or ‘what did you say?’ as well as full and partial repeats, including repetitions in
combination with question words, first and foremost signal problems of hearing, not problems of
understanding or comprehension (Svennevig, 2008). In the following example, Excerpt 4.1-20,
we can see how the trouble-source speaker interprets and treats a hearing repair initiator as an
indicator signaling hearing trouble, although an understanding problem appears to be the actual
137
trouble source. It should be noted that for Svennevig (2008), understanding problems include
issues regarding referents and implicatures in the wording. Understanding problems in the data of
the present study also refer to issues related to lexical meaning.
Excerpt 4.1-20: DIS:IntI:H-M:DA-JA (denke was); replicated from Excerpt 4.1-6
01 JA:
 02 DA:
03 JA:
 04 DA:
.h ahm (2.2) .h ah ah (1.2) ah (.2) du denkst ah die zeitung
in zukunft?
you think the newspaper in future
(2.7) denke ich was?
think I what
do I think what
ah ahm (.7) denkst du ah die zeitung
in zukunft.
think you the newspaper in future
do you think the newspaper in future
°zu-° (1.0) oh ah (5.7) was bedeutet °°zukun[ft°°,]
what means
what does zukunft mean
In Excerpt 4.1-20, DA initiates repair in line 2 in response to JA’s question of whether
she thinks that there will be newspapers in the future. DA’s repair initiator, a partial repetition
with a question word (‘denke ich was?’, do I think what?), targets the word ‘zukunft’ (future). It
is a hearing repair initiator, which JA interprets and treats as such, because he merely repeats his
initial question. However, it becomes apparent in the following turn that DA’s difficulty goes
beyond a hearing issue (line 4); DA does not know the meaning of the noun ‘zukunft’. Thus, JA
as the speaker of the trouble-source turn has to deal with an understanding issue, rather than a
hearing problem.
Svennevig (2008) argues that there is a preference for construing a problem in
conversation first as a hearing problem. Understanding and acceptability problems are usually
not addressed in the first initiation of repair. However, they will be brought to the trouble-source
speaker’s attention in a second and third repair initiation if the trouble cannot be resolved after
138
the first repair initiation. Thus, it may happen that the trouble-source speaker’s response to the
initiated repair does not resolve the recipient’s trouble. In this case, the recipient launches
another repair initiator, which is a stronger initiator compared to the one that was originally
deployed (Schegloff, 2000a; Schegloff et al., 1977). Such multiple other-initiations of repair do
occur in the data of the present study. An example can be taken from Excerpt 4.1-21.
Excerpt 4.1-21: DIS:IntI:L-L:WL-JR (wichtig)
01 WL:
 02 JR:
03 WL:
04
05
 06 JR:
07 WL:
08 JR:
09
warum die zeit- (1.2) die zeitungen (.5) a:h (1.2) wichtig,
why the time
the newspapers
important
(2.0) einmal,
once
h. ah (1.0) ↑huh .h ah warum=eine (.5) warum=si=dei (.5) sind zeitungen .hh=
why a
why
are newspapers
why are newspapers
=°wichtig°? (1.2) ahhh=h. (1.2) .h warum (4.2) hm (.2) .h (5.2)=
important
why
=warum l::iest man (1.2) ein.
why reads one
a
why does one read one
(.7) online (.5) artikel?
article
(.7) ah (.) ein zeitung.
a newspaper
(.7) °°uhm°° (2.7) f=ah (.7) ick lese (1.0) zeitung
für (1.2) sport (3.7)=
I read
newspaper for
sports
=für sport (1.7)°°ah°° und du?
for sports
and you
This excerpt shows that JR launches a nonspecific repair request in line 2 (‘einmal’).
WL’s remedy for JR’s trouble is not entirely successful, as JR deploys another, more specific and
more powerful repair initiator, an understanding check, in line 6 (‘online artikel?’). With this
initiator, JR checks his understanding of WL’s response to the original repair initiator. In the end,
the two repair initiators suffice to resolve the trouble.
139
Svennevig (2008) observed in his data that hearing repair initiators may give rise to an
anticipation and preemption of understanding or acceptability problems. For example, speakers
of the trouble-source turn may be able to provide a background check (e.g., ‘Do you know what
that is?’) to preempt a potential understanding repair initiation from their interlocutor. Also, by
means of self-repair, the speaker of the trouble-source turn may be able to address a potential
understanding problem directly after the first repair initiation. In the following sections, I show
examples in which the test takers treat hearing repair initiations as understanding problems and
try immediately to solve the problem of understanding to avoid further repair initiations.
Modified repetitions
In the test discourse, test-taker pairs took the opportunity to self-repair to preempt the initiation
of a second repair initiation. As was mentioned earlier, open-class initiators and repetitions with
or without question words often display hearing problems (Svennevig, 2008). It is therefore not
uncommon that speakers of the trouble-source turn attempt to self-repair and resolve the problem
by repeating the trouble source or the entire trouble-source turn. Previous research found that
trouble-source speakers rarely produce a turn or portions of a turn that are identical to the initial
trouble source (Schegloff, 2004). They usually replace, drop, or add words from the original
utterance to make it more accessible to the recipient. Revising a trouble source to make it more
appropriate to the hearer suggests that interlocutors treat the repair initiation as a problem of
understanding or alignment, rather than as a hearing problem (Schegloff, 2004). Such
adjustments facilitate comprehension. In line with Schegloff’s (2004) observations, the test-taker
pairs in the present study also did not simply repeat their initial utterance when other-initiated
repair occurred; rather, they made their utterances more appropriate to the hearer, for example,
140
by simplifying the syntax of the original contribution and by providing example responses, as
can be seen in Excerpt 4.1-22.
Excerpt 4.1-22: DIS:IntI:M-L:AL-SH (repeat it); replicated from Excerpt 4.1-3
01 AL:
02 SH:
03 AL:
04 SH:
 05 AL:
06 SH:
 07 AL:
08 SH:
 09 AL:
>wie oft sie die zeitung
ah lesen,<
how often you the newspaper
read
how often do you read the newspaper
(1.0) .h °ah° (1.5) isch °or=no° ick (1.5) °°( ) can you repeat it?°°
I
I
(3.2)
hhuhu=
=pt wie oft,
how often
.shih hhuh[hh]
[zei]tung lesen. [.h]
newspaper read
[.h] hhh yup haha .hh=
=jeden tag oder: die woche die wochenende zeitung
.hh
every day or the week the weekend
newspaper
In this example, AL, who is the speaker of the trouble-source turn, drops the subject
(‘sie’, you) from his initial question to simplify the syntax of the sentence. AL’s modified
utterance comprises a time specification (‘wie oft’, how often), a verb in the infinitive (‘lesen’, to
read), and an object (‘zeitung’, newspaper) (lines 5 and 7). AL also provides a few example
responses (line 9) that align with his questioning action. AL may have listed the examples as
possible options for SH to use in her response. In addition, a test taker may also add a new
question to make the initial question more accessible for his or her partner (see Excerpt 4.1-23).
Excerpt 4.1-23: DIS:IntI:L-L:WL-JR (wichtig); replicated from Excerpt 4.1-21
01 WL:
warum die zeit- (1.2) die zeitungen (.5) a:h (1.2) wichtig,
why the time
the newspapers
important
141
02 JR:
 03 WL:
04
05
(2.0) einmal,
once
h. ah (1.0) ↑huh .h ah warum=eine (.5) warum=si=dei (.5) sind zeitungen .hh=
why
a
why
are newspapers
=°wichtig°? (1.2) ahhh=h. (1.2) .h warum (4.2) hm (.2) .h (5.2)=
important
why
=warum l::iest man (1.2) ein.
why reads one
a
why does one read one
WL, in Excerpt 4.1-23, repeats his original question in line 3 after JR has asked WL to
repeat it. Within the same turn, WL adds another question (‘warum l::iest man’, why does one
read?); this question is similar in meaning to the initial question, but it is shorter and does not
contain the potentially problematic adjective ‘wichtig’ (important).
Moreover, after repair initiations, the original speakers were found to add one or two
lexical items to the repeated trouble-source turn to make the proposition more comprehensible
and more coherent with respect to the previous talk. An example for such a repair procedure is
seen in Excerpt 4.1-24.
Excerpt 4.2-24: JIG:IntI:M-L:MI-CN (vier)
01 CN:
02 MI:
 03 CN:
das wird
gut ah:m aber (2.7) so (.) du liebst du=ah vier (.5) de
that will be good
but
you love you
four
(1.5) uh (.5) was ist vier (.5) uh was ah was du hast sagen (.5) gesagen
what is four
what what you have say
said
what is four what did you say
ja uh: (.2) liebst du:: ah vier (1.0) zimmer vier
yes
love you
four
room four
yes do you love four room four
In this example, CN inquires of MI whether he likes ‘vier’ (four, line 1). CN is talking
about apartment number four, which does not seem to be clear to MI, since he initiates repair
asking what the partner means by ‘vier’ (line 2). In line 3, CN repeats his question (also
142
switching verb and subject for the repetition) and then adds ‘zimmer vier’ (room four) to indicate
that he is talking about one of the apartments on his instruction sheet, namely apartment number
four. Adding this piece of information is crucial as it sets CN’s question in perspective to a
reference point.
In addition to adding lexical items to the repairable when it is repeated, test takers
substituted specific lexical items for more suitable ones which fit the context better (see Excerpt
4.1-25).
Excerpt 4.1-25: JIG:IntII:H-H:DE-JD (rufen)
01 DE:
02 JD:
 03 DE:
gut ah s:- sollst du uhm (.) rufen? oder
good
should you
shout or
was?
what
uh sollst du uhm die wohnung uhm (2.0) uh die wohnung anrufen oder
should you
the apartment
the apartment call
or
In Excerpt 4.1-25, DE appears to want to ask JD if he could call (line 1). There are two
issues with DE’s request: (1) it is unclear whom JD should call; and (2) the verb ‘rufen’ implies
shouting or requesting someone to come, but it does not mean calling someone on the phone. JD
launches the interrogative ‘was?’ (what?), which functions as a nonspecific repair initiator in this
context. The interrogative targets the entire preceding turn, not only the object of the utterance
(Schegloff, 1997a). After JD launched this repair initiator (‘was?’, what?), DE repeats his request
but also changes the original verb ‘rufen’ to ‘anrufen’ (to call on the phone) and adds ‘die
wohnung’ (the apartment), meaning the landlord, as the phone call recipient.
In sum, the test takers whose interactions are presented here come across as
interactionally competent interlocutors who project an understanding problem and undertake
143
actions to resolve trouble by not merely repeating the trouble source but by simplifying the
syntax of the original question, providing example responses to the initial question, adding words
that the partner may be more familiar with, dropping a potentially difficult lexical item from the
questioning action, substituting lexical items for more appropriate and context-adequate items,
and providing additional information. Even though interlocutors are able to anticipate potential
trouble of understanding and undertake means to resolve the trouble, they cannot necessarily
preempt further repair initiators by their partner. Other repair initiators may still be launched, as
the interaction between WL and JR in Excerpt 4.1-21 shows. Next to modified repetitions, other
forms of self-repair that attempt to repair an understanding rather than a hearing problem were
also found. I turn to these forms of self-repair in the next section.
Other forms of self-repair in response to hearing repair initiators
In the test discourse analyzed, trouble-source speakers may attempt to repair trouble displayed
with a hearing repair initiator by means other than modified repetitions. The forms of self-repair
that are presented and discussed in this section are also attempts to resolve trouble in
understanding rather than hearing, even though a hearing repair initiator, such as a partial
repetition or an open-class repair initiator, was deployed. Such other forms of self-repair may
include clarifying a repairable, providing words that are semantically similar to the ones in the
trouble-source turn (Excerpt 4.1-26), translating problematic German lexical items into English,
giving clues to clarify the content of prior talk or the meaning of a lexical item in the previous
turn (4.1-27), reformulating questions (4.1-28), and adjusting responses. In this section, some
examples of self-repair are shown and discussed.
144
As Excerpt 4.1-26 shows, the trouble-source speaker may provide semantically similar
lexical items to resolve the trouble the partner has encountered.
Excerpt 4.1-26: DIS:IntI:H-L:PA-GR (Verlagswesen)
01 PA:
02 GR:
03 PA:
04 GR:
 05 PA:
06 GR:
07
08 PA:
09 GR:
 10 PA:
=welche:: (.7) verlagswesen (.7) <°liest du°>
which
publishing
read you
what publisher do you read
verlagswe[sen] hahahaha [.h]
publishing
[ahh]
[n]achrichten
news
oh [ahm ]
[welche] (.7) agency °°I don't know the word for that°°
which
oh ahm
(2.2)
((laughter))
ich weiß nicht was du fragt hh.
I know not what you ask
I don’t know what you are asking
ah (1.5) welche printmedien (.5) liest du bei an dem internet
which print media
read you at on the
what print media do you read on the internet
In this example, the repairable is the lexical item ‘verlagswesen’ (publishing industry).
PA uses this noun in his question (line 1), but GR does not seem to know the meaning of the
word. In line 2, GR therefore deploys a hearing repair initiator (a repetition) that targets the
unknown word. Anticipating that GR is encountering an understanding problem, PA initiates two
instances of self-repair in lines 3 and 5. He first provides a different noun ‘nachrichten’ (news),
which GR is more likely to know and which still fits in the context of the original question. In
line 5, PA gives an English word (‘agency’) that is supposed to summarize best what he means
by ‘verlagswesen’. Even though PA is unable to avoid a second repair initiator by GR (line 9), he
145
has still attempted to preempt the second repair initiation by taking the opportunity to self-repair
his original question.
In the test discourse, participants were found to provide cues to help the partner
understand the meaning of a word, as can be seen in Excerpt 4.1-27.
Excerpt 4.1-27: JIG:IntI:L-L:MA-SC (wohnen)
01 SC:
02 MA:
 03 SC:
04 MA:
 05 SC:
=uh (.2) wohin uhh (.5) wohin (.5) möchest (.) du (.5) im berlin (.5)=
where to
where to
would like you
in the
where to in berlin would you like
=im im
berlin ah wohnen (.) wohnen
in the in the
live
live
wohnen? (.7) u::hm (3.0)
live
in (.2)
in
ja
yes
berlin mitte?
berlin center
In this excerpt, taken from a jigsaw interaction, MA seems to have trouble with the
lexical item ‘wohnen’ (to live, line 2). SC provides a cue, ‘berlin mitte’ (a Berlin neighborhood
that is mentioned in the ads), which signals MA that SC is asking about places or neighborhoods
to live in Berlin.
Furthermore, speakers may also reformulate the original questioning action to make it
more precise and explicit. TL in Excerpt 4.1-28 reformulates his initial question in response to
his partner’s repair initiation.
146
Excerpt 4.1-28: JIG:IntI:M-L:TL-SN (zwei schöne)
01 TL:
02
03 SN:
 04 TL:
05
06
07
so: die helle wohnung oder die schöne wohnung oder die swei schöne (.2)=
the light apartment or the nice apartment or the two nice
=zwei schöne
two nice
schwei schöne?
two nice
ah ah welche welche wohnung (.2) ah wir (.7) ah (.5) wei- wa- welche (.)=
which which apartment
we
which
=wohnung (4.0) welche habst or (.5) tch tch tch tch ja ahm (.5) uh s- s- sie haben=
apartment
which have
yes
you have
=ein (.) wohnung in (2.2) ja wa- was wollen (.5) a::h (.5) tch tch °°one two or=
an apartment
yes
what want
=three°°
Initially, TL wants to inquire from SN which of the three apartments he presented in
previous talk she prefers. He has labeled the apartments ‘die helle wohnung’ (the light
apartment), ‘die schöne wohnung’ (the nice apartment) and ‘die swei schöne’ (the two nice)
(lines 1 and 2); these labels are snippets from the apartment ads on his instructions sheet. The
references remain unclear to SN; what becomes apparent during their conversation is that TL
forgot that he has different ads from SN. However, he assumes that SN knows what apartments
he is referring to. After SN’s repair initiation, TL reformulates his question (lines 4–7); it now
contains the question words (‘welche’, which; ‘was’, what) and a modal verb ‘wollen’ (to want),
both of which are used to explicitly elicit from SN which apartment she likes best. TL also
changes the labeling of the apartments; he is now referring to the apartments by number (‘one
two or three’) (line 6).
In comparison to the examples of self-repair presented so far, the trouble-source speaker
may not repair after a repair initiation but rather abandon the sequence and initiate a new
sequence, as is seen in an interaction between AL and SH in Excerpt 4.1-29.
147
Excerpt 4.1-29: DIS:IntI:M-L:AL-SH (Angst)
01 AL:
02 SH:
03 AL:
04
05 SH:
06 AL:
07 SH:
08 AL:
09 SH:
 10 AL:
und w- was machst on icon? (.7) du,
and what do
you
and what do you do on icon
(1.5) hausaufgaben,
homework
hm
(.7)
.shih (.7) und du? haha .hh
and you
a[h ] hausaufgaben und=ah (1.2) lesen meinen grad
(.7) für meine=
homework and
read my
degree (grade) for my
[hh.]
=kurse (1.2) du hast viele angst vor eu- euer grad
von diese kurse?
courses
you have many fear of
your degree (grade) of this courses
are you concerned about your grade for this course
(.7) ha .hh hm (6.7) °°repeat it°° ((laughter))
was ist or:: (.) ahm (.7) >favorierte< zeitung.
what is or
favorite
newspaper
AL says that he uses ICON, the university’s course management system, to do his
homework and to look up his grades (line 6). In the same turn, he asks SH if she is worried about
her grade for the German course they are currently taking (line 8). SH asks him to repeat what he
has just said (line 9). Instead of self-repairing his original question, AL introduces a new
questioning action (‘was ist or:: (.) ahm (.7) >favorierte< zeitung.’) (line 10).
In sum, hearing repair initiators, such as open-class repair initiators and partial and full
repetitions, may be launched first when trouble is encountered, even though the problem is one
of understanding or comprehension rather than hearing. The data analysis revealed that the
participants included in this study may respond to a hearing repair initiator under the forethought
that an understanding problem is at stake and thus provide modified repeats (see previous
section) and various forms of self-repair that aim at solving a problem of understanding, as was
shown in this section. However, instances were also found in which a hearing repair initiator was
148
treated as a signal for a hearing problem, and potential understanding problems were ruled out
right away. Examples of this phenomenon are shown in the next section.
Offering repair of hearing
Thus far, I have shown examples of test takers who were successful in anticipating potential
problems of understanding in talk-in-interaction. Oftentimes, test takers were able to preempt
further repair initiators by their partner, in that they projected a problem of understanding instead
of a hearing problem, which was initially signaled. In this section, I present instances in which
test takers were unable to project that their partner has encountered an understanding problem.
For example, occurrences were found in which the trouble-source speaker’s response to the
partner’s repair initiation is a mere repetition of the repairable, without any adjustment or
modification, as can be seen in Excerpt 4.1-30.
Excerpt 4.1-30: JIG:IntI:L-L:WL-JR (die dritte)
01 WL:
02
03 JR:
04 WL:
05 WL:
 06 JR:
07 WL:
(2.0) ah (1.7) sehr billig .hh ah h. (2.2) pt (2.0) °hm° (2.0) °pt° (2.5) °ja=ah°=
very cheap
yes
=welches möchtest (.5) du?
which would like
you
which one would you like
(1.7) <ich möchte:> uh (4.2) dir [wohn-] (1.5) dir ah (.7) dritten (.5) wohnung
I would like
you live
you
third
apartment
I would like your third apartment
[dir ]
you
(3.2) die=ah (.2) dritte[n?]
the
third
[dr]itten (.2) uhm
third
ah (2.2) was ist die=ah name
what is the name
149
The trouble source in this excerpt is an insufficiently provided reference to an apartment
in an interaction between WL and JR elicited by the jigsaw task. From WL’s perspective, it is
unclear which apartment JR exactly means when he lets WL know that he prefers ‘dir ah (.7)
dritten (.5) wohnung’ (your third apartment) (line 3). WL’s repetition of the trouble source
displays a hearing problem, which JR also interprets and treats as one. Repeating the repairable
to confirm that the partner is hearing correctly, as JR is doing, may account for a hearing issue,
but the problem is not one of hearing, but rather one of reference. WL therefore further
investigates what apartment JR means by asking what the apartment is called (line 7).
In another scenario, Excerpt 4.1-31, the trouble-source speaker does not repeat the
repairable, as shown in Excerpt 4.1-30 above, but instead produces an affirmative token ‘ja’ (yes)
(line 8) to confirm or acknowledge that the partner’s repetition (line 7) of the previous turn is
correct. The trouble-source speaker does not seem to anticipate a problem of comprehension.
Excerpt 4.1-31: JIG:IntI:M-L:MN-JO (wir kann kaufen)
01 MN:
02 JO:
03
04
05
06 MN:
07 JO:
 08 MN:
09 JO:
ah (
) <was musstest du ah haben>
what had
you have
ah ich ick möchte
ah ein (.7) ah ein (.2) patio oder badenzimmer (.5)=
I I would like a
a
patio or bathroom
=ahm (.7) for die=a:h schöne wetter (.2) ah (1.0) sonn ah (.7) und=ah (.7) ein=
the
beautiful weather
sun
and
an
=aldis (.7) ich kenn=a:h (.7) ick kann lauf ah lauf- (.2) zu laufen (.5) ahm (1.0)=
aldi
I know
I can walk walk
to walk
=und=a:h (1.0) ah: (.2) essen:: (1.5) <utensils> (1.2) und=a:h (.5)
and
eat
and
°wir kann kaufen°
we can buy
wir kann kaufen? (.2)
we can buy
°ja°
yes
JA: hh. aber nicht viel geld f- h
yes
but not much money
150
In line 6, MN provides a turn completion (‘wir kann kaufen’) (line 6) after JO runs into
trouble and searches for words. In the following turn, JO repeats the entire turn completion with
a rising intonation contour, indicating a problem with MN’s previous turn (line 7) (Robinson &
Keveo-Feldman, 2010). It may be that MN’s completion of JO’s turn does not match
referentially with how JO wanted his turn to be completed. MN construes JO’s repetition as an
indicator for a hearing issue and thus confirms the correctness of the repetition by uttering an
affirmation token (‘ja’, yes) in line 8. Interestingly, despite MN’s rather short and unhelpful
response, JO takes up MN’s completion and comments that they will not have much money to
buy lots of things during their stay in Germany. Thus, JO apparently does not see the need to
deploy another stronger repair initiator. He may have understood MN’s utterance after he
deployed the repair initiator and thus did not ask for further help from MN.
In addition, instances were found that indicate that interactants may be unaware of or
even ignore a repair initiation, whereas the hesitancy in producing the repair initiator may also
play a role in why a repair initiation may go awry (see Excerpt 4.1-32).
Excerpt 4.1-32: DIS:IntII:M-M:AS-RO (verstehe nicht); replicated from 4.1-5
01 AS:
02
03
04
05
06
 07 RO:
so(h) zeitung:: uh (2.7) s- (.5) jetzt (.5) uhm (1.7) leuten lesen .h (.2) °sometime°=
newspaper
now
people read
=or manchmal hh. (1.0) °something° (.2) ahm (3.2) mm (1.2) und (.2) .hh (.2)=
sometimes
and
=zeitung:=h. (3.5) jetzt (1.2) printed ha=hh. .h weil
ah (.7) .h (.2) leute: (.7)=
newspaper
now
because
people
=lieber
letz- (.) or zeitung (.5) ahm und (3.2) un (.7) leute: (.2) .h möchten=
preferably last
newspaper
and
people
would like
=(.5) halten h. .h die (1.2) zeitung,
hold
the
newspaper
(2.0)
halten °sie°,
hold she
hold it
151
08
09 AS:
10
11 AS:
12 RO:
13 AS:
 14 RO:
(.7)
ü- über (.2) eine computer, (1.7) °uh° lesen,
over
a
read
(1.7)
like
ick
I
hh[h ]
[verst]ehe (.) n- nicht
understand
not
don’t understand
As can be seen in Excerpt 4.1-33, RO initiates repair, a partial repeat (‘halten °sie°,’) in
line 7, which AS seems to disregard or may not have heard as she continues with her turn in line
8. A few turns later, in line 14, RO triggers an understanding initiator (‘verstehe (.) n- nicht’),
which AS turns to. The issue with RO’s original repair initiator (‘halten °sie°,’) may be that it
was produced in a hesitant manner. The second part of the partial repeat (‘°sie°’) is uttered with a
soft voice, making it difficult for AS to hear. In addition, the fact that RO produces the repair
initiator with a continuing intonation contour instead of a rising intonation may have signaled to
AS that RO wants to continue with his turn. With a silence of 0.7 seconds after RO launched his
repair initiation, AS opens up the option for RO to continue with his contribution, in the
transition space of his turn. RO does not take that opportunity, so that AS takes the floor again.
Overall, it may be that AS did not recognize RO’s utterance as a repair initiation.
Finally, treating a hearing repair initiator as such and repeat the trouble-source turn
without any modifications may also turn out successful, as in Excerpt 4.1-33.
Excerpt 4.1-33: JIG:IntII:H-L:MG-TM (Balkon oder Garten); replicated from Excerpt 4.1-2
01 MG:
 02 TM:
=uhm gibt’s ein balkon? (1.0) °oder ahm (2.7) oder ei- ein garten° (2.0)
is there a balcony
or
or
a yard
(°uh hm?°)=
152
03 MG:
04 TM:
=oh sorry uhm (2.0) gibt’s EIN BALkon oder <garten>=
is there a balcony or
yard
=hm au ah kleine balkon uhm (2.5) hm (2.0) es:: sage nicht a:h (.5) garten
little balcony
it say not
yard
little balcony it doesn’t say yard
This excerpt shows that the trouble-source speaker MG repeats the repairable (line 3) in
response to TM’s repair initiation in line 2. A repetition was all that was needed to maintain
intersubjectivity. MG realizes (‘oh sorry’) that she has spoken too softly. She therefore repeats
the trouble-source turn more loudly in line 3.
In sum, the analysis showed that participants may not project hearing repair initiations as
signals for trouble other than hearing, for example, understanding or reference. In such a case,
test takers may merely repeat parts of the repair initiation turn or confirm the correctness of the
speaker’s turn that includes the repair initiation. In line with previous CA research (Schegloff et
al., 1977), the data also indicate that the hearer who initiated the repair indicator may launch a
stronger repair initiator, since the first one could not contribute to resolve the trouble. As a result,
multiple initiations are deployed (e.g., Excerpts 4.1-30 and 4.1-32) (Schegloff, 2000a), with the
second repair initiator being more specific, in that it indicates that an understanding or
comprehension problem is present. However, it became apparent that after one unsuccessful
repair initiation a second repair initiator is not necessarily launched (see Excerpt 4.1-31). Finally,
interpreting a hearing repair initiator as a signal for a hearing problem and repeating the trouble
source may turn out to be the right means to maintain intersubjectivity (see Excerpt 4.1-33).
Summary
Overall, similar to Svennevig’s (2008) findings on mechanisms of repair, the interlocutors
included in this study were also found to first launch an other-initiated repair signal that displays
153
a hearing problem (e.g., partial repeats, open-class repair initiators), even though a problem of
understanding or comprehension is the actual cause for the deployment of the repair initiator.
The data analysis revealed that the trouble-source speaker may project a problem of
understanding and attempt to resolve the trouble accordingly, for example, by means of modified
repetitions and other forms of self-repair (e.g., translating lexical items into English,
reformulating the initial action, providing semantically similar words to the ones used in the
trouble-source turn, etc.).
However, instances were also found in which test takers interpreted a hearing repair
initiator as a signal for a hearing issue even though an understanding problem was the cause for
the repair initiation. That is, the participants may not be able to project a potential problem of
understanding and thus are unable to preempt further repair initiations.
4.1.3
Summary
In this section on other-initiated repair activities, I looked at all parts of the other-initiated repair
sequence, that is, the repair initiation and the actual repair, including the trouble source that
triggers the repair initiation. The types of repair initiators produced by the test takers were
shown, as well as how the trouble-source speaker resolved the trouble to maintain mutual
understanding.
The data analysis revealed that the test-taker pairs in the present study deployed openrepair initiators and partial repeats (Schegloff et al., 1977) as well as candidate understandings
(understanding checks, comprehension checks, expansions) (Kurhila, 2006) to display trouble in
the preceding turn. In contrast to open-class repair initiators, forms of candidate understanding
154
are considered the strongest type of other-initiated repair in locating the trouble source
(Schegloff et al., 1977).
The repair initiators identified in the data set also occur in native speaker discourse
(Schegloff et al., 1977) and native–nonnative speaker interactions (Kurhila, 2006). However, in
addition to the widely used repair initiators, somewhat distinct repair signals were found in the
present data set. For example, repeat requests (‘einmal’, ‘repeat it’) and more explicit repair
initiators that display problems of understanding (‘verstehe nicht’) were detected. These forms of
repair initiation appear to be specific to the test discourse analyzed in this study. In addition, it
should be noted that some understanding checks were not produced, as described by Kurhila
(2006), for example. The test-taker pairs deployed understanding checks comprising of one or
two words only, oftentimes without turn-initial interrogative pronouns or the turn-final particle
‘or’, making the understanding checks appear plainer and simpler structurally. However, the
understanding checks found in the test discourse were still uttered with a rising intonation
contour, which is a major characteristic of this repair procedure (Kurhila, 2006).
With respect to the trouble source, repair procedures occurred that oriented to hearing
trouble and lexical trouble but also to sequential inconsistencies between actions in talk-ininteraction and thus to an action-as-a-whole as the repairable. Orienting to whole action trouble
can be considered a higher order interactional procedure in contrast to procedures of repair that
orient to lexical item trouble (Hellermann, 2011).
In addition to the analysis of the repair initiators, this section also examined how the test
takers included in this study responded to initiations of repair by the partner and what means
were used to maintain intersubjectivity. In line with Svennevig’s (2008) findings, the test takers
in the present study launched a hearing repair initiator (e.g., an open-class repair initiator, a full
155
or partial repetition) first even though an understanding or comprehension problem might have
been at stake. The analysis showed that test takers may interpret hearing repair initiators as
signals of hearing trouble and repair the trouble by repeating the trouble source. However,
despite the hearing problem that is displayed, test takers may also anticipate that the partner has
encountered an understanding problem and thus repair their original contribution in ways to
make it more accessible to the partner, for example, by modified repetitions, clarifications,
translations of problematic German lexical items, to name a few.
Making these adjustments in the talk suggests that the speaker has some understanding
about the degree of shared knowledge between himself or herself and the other participant. In
addition, adjusting potentially problematic utterances and thus making them more accessible to
the partner shows that the speaker attempts to minimize the perceived gap of shared knowledge
in the interaction (Nguyen, 2011). Sacks et al. (1974) speak of “recipient design” (p. 727) to refer
to the “talk by a party in a conversation [that] is constructed or designed in ways which display
an orientation and sensitivity to the particular other(s) who are the co-participants” (p. 727).
Thus, the test takers who tailor their contributions to the partner’s knowledge may have a higher
context-sensitivity than those who do not adjust their utterances based on the partner’s (lack of)
knowledge, which has been made visible in the interaction, for example, by launching a repair
initiation. All in all, the data suggest that the forms of self-repair produced in the present study
differ with respect to context-sensitivity and recipient design. Thus, procedures of self-repair that
are better designed to the recipient may be considered more complex interactional resources in
maintaining intersubjectivity.
156
After looking at other-initiated repair activities that were repaired by the speaker of the
trouble-source turn, the next section is devoted to instances of self-initiated self-repair. In these
procedures, the trouble-source speaker initiates the repair and also tries to solve the trouble.
4.2
Self-initiated self-repair
In addition to activities of other-initiated self-repair, mechanisms of repair, where the original
speaker both initiates repair and solves the trouble, also turned out to be salient in the analyzed
test discourse. The interactional work that is accomplished with these conversational resources is
to maintain intersubjectivity in the test discourse. The data analysis revealed that the original
speaker may initiate and provide repair when the partner delayed the uptake of the next turn and
when the partner’s contribution indicated that he or she must have misunderstood the original
speaker’s previous turn. The former repair procedure has been referred to in the CA literature as
transition space repair (Schegloff et al., 1977) and the latter is known as third position repair
(Schegloff, 1992a). Even though both procedures are activities of self-initiation and self-repair
(from the trouble-source speaker’s perspective), they differ from one another structurally and
sequentially.
In this section, I first present and discuss instances of transition space repair before I turn
to occurrences of third position repair. Since both procedures are initiated and repaired by the
same speaker, they do not engender a repair sequence as instances of other-initiated self-repair
discussed in the previous sections. That is, these two procedures of repair are not composed of
parts. Nevertheless, they are triggered by the partner’s behavior, that is, delaying the next turn
and producing a turn that signals a misunderstanding of the previous speaker’s turn. Thus, I
discuss instances of transition space repair and third position repair against the background of
157
delayed turns-at-talk and misunderstanding of prior talk in L2 speaker interaction. Major findings
are provided in a summary.
4.2.1
Transition space repair
Forms of self-initiated self-repair emerged as prominent procedures of repair from the data
analysis. The analysis showed that test takers may stay silent after the speaker’s utterance, even
though the present speaker’s turn is possibly complete and he or she has selected the partner to
speak next, for example, by addressing a question. The original speaker may take the floor again
and repair the initial utterance. An example for this repair procedure may be found in Excerpt
4.2-1.
Excerpt 4.2-1: DIS:IntI:L-L:WL-JR (Zeitung existiert)
01 WL:
 02
03 WL:
04
05 JR:
06
07 JR:
hm (.2) pt .hhh (1.5) worm (1.0) warum die=ah zeitung
existiert?
(why)
why the newspaper exist
why does the newspaper exist
(1.5)
worn insisiert die zeitung (.2) die zeitungen,
(why) (exist)
the newspaper
the newspapers
why does the newspaper the newspapers exist
(.5)
°°hm°°
(4.2)
ich denke die uh (.) >in zunk-< (.5) zukunft uh (1.7) die zeitung
(…)
I think the
in
future
the newspaper
As can be seen in line 1 of Excerpt 4.2-1, WL directs a question at his partner JR and
closes the turn. JR, however, does not take the turn; rather, he remains silent for 1.5-seconds (line
2). Due to JR staying silent, the transition space of WL’s turn (the space immediately following
WL’s TCU) is substantially extended. By producing the silence and withholding talk, JR
158
provides WL with the opportunity to talk more or to initiate transition space repair (Schegloff et
al., 1977). WL opts for the latter. Within the transition space, WL repairs his initial turn from line
1 by means of a repetition (line 3). After WL’s transition space repair, JR still does not take the
floor. He delays the turn uptake even further by five tenth of a second in line 4 and by another
4.2 seconds in line 6. WL does not initiate another transition space repair but gives JR time to
take the turn and to respond to the initial question.
As was shown, WL initiates transition space repair because JR delays in taking the next
turn. Delays are understood as inter-turn silences (including forms of hesitation, such as nonlexical perturbations, in- and out-breathing, etc.) that may appear after a possibly complete TCU
(Wong, 2004). Compared to immediate adjacency and turn terminal overlap commonly found in
English native speaker conversations (Jefferson, 1986), delays in interaction create a looser form
of alignment between current and next turns (Schegloff, 2000a; Wong, 2000, 2004) and do not
seem to be uncommon in interactions that include L2 speakers (Wong, 2000).
However, Pomerantz (1984) showed that failing to give a coherent response is also
prevalent in native speaker talk, for example, when the reference of the speaker’s question
remains unclear, the speaker and hearer do not share the same knowledge, or the hearer does not
agree with the speaker’s utterance. Pomerantz (1984) observed that these problems are resolved
by clarifying the reference, providing more information, or modifying what has been asserted. In
addition, Gardner (2004) who analyzed delays in native–nonnative speaker interactions found
that nonnative speakers produced silences after questions to avoid disagreements. Gardner’s
(2004) data show that this practice of delaying a response, which causes the speaker to expand on
his or her initial question, is related to sequence organization rather than to repair.
159
In line with Wong (2000, 2004), the inter-turn delays in the L2 speaker talk produced in
the present study seem to be due to problems of language processing. It seems that it could be
either delayed understanding or delayed production or a combination of both that caused the
delays in turn uptake. In the test discourse analyzed in the present study, the original speaker
appears to project a problem of hearing or understanding when the partner delays to take the next
turn, as seen in Excerpt 4.2-1. When JR does not provide a response to WL’s question, WL
repeats the question (line 3) anticipating that JR has encountered a hearing problem. Thus, the
expansions following the delays can be considered here as a form of self-repair in transition
space deployed to maintain mutual understanding.
As was pointed out, delays may occur because the partner who produces the delay does
not understand what the original speaker was asking or saying in the first place. Such a scenario
can be taken from Excerpt 4.2-2.
Excerpt 4.2-2: JIG:IntII:M-L:DV-LA (Wohnung)
01 LA:
02
 03 DV:
 04 LA:
 05 DV:
06 LA:
=hje .shih .shih ahm (.7) welche uh wohnung (.2) uh sollen wir ah (.5) ah (.5)=
which
apartment
shall we
=wahlen
choose
(2.5) uh (.2) uh (1.2)
ahm (1.5) ah (.) welche ah ah apartment ah sollen wir
which
shall we
A[:H AHA
]
[entscheiden] entscheiden=
decide
decide
At the beginning of this excerpt, LA asks DV what apartment they should take. As
becomes apparent from line 3, DV does not respond. The silences and two ‘uhs’ that DV
produces may indicate word search activity (Schegloff, 1979). However, LA projects that DV
160
has encountered a problem of understanding and thus initiates transition space repair in line 4. He
substitutes the German word ‘wohnung’ (line 1) with the English equivalent ‘apartment’,
anticipating that this word may have been problematic for DV and been the reason why he did
not respond to LA’s question. Once LA utters ‘apartment’, DV loudly exclaims ‘A:H AHA’ (line
5), indicating that he now understands what LA is asking. Interestingly, DV did not initiate repair
in second position (in the turn following LA’s question) even though a lexical item in the
previous turn was unknown to him.
That a delay may occur because of a problem of production can be seen in Excerpt 4.2-3.
Excerpt 4.2-3: DIS:IntI:H-H:CH-KR (wollten wir)
01 CH:
02
 03 KR:
 04 CH:
 05 KR:
06
07
=das internet uhm (.5) pt .h was denkst du: (.5) tch tch tch (1.0) uh::: (2.0)=
the
what think you
the internet what do you think
=<wu:rde wi:r> (1.0) zeitungen (1.7) in eine jahre? (.5) in fünf jahre?
became we
newspapers
in a years
in five years
mm::=hh. (.5) .hh
or woll- [wollten wir]
wanted we
[ich BI:N ] nicht sicher a:ber (.) .h (1.2) <ich denke:: (1.2) das (1.2)=
I am
not sure but
I think
that
=zeitungen: (.7) ah uhm hh. (.2) .hh wird hh. (1.7)=
newspapers
will
=nicht so (.5) populer: (1.2) sein (.7) in (1.2) uh:: fünf jahren.>
not so
popular
be
in
five years
not be so popular in five years
In this excerpt, CH initiates the question whether there will still be newspapers in five
years. KR does not respond as such. Her turn in line 3 is characterized by silence and non-lexical
perturbations. The non-lexical sound ‘mm::’ that KR produces may indicate that she is thinking
about the question and what to say next. As can be seen in line 4, CH takes the floor again within
the transition space of her initial turn and tries to initiate repair. However, it seems as if KR does
161
not accept CH’s repair to the initial question, as KR interrupts the turn that CH has just initiated.
The interruption leads to some overlapping talk (lines 4–5), which KR tries to resolve quickly by
increasing the volume of her voice (Schegloff, 2000b). Clearly, KR intends to emerge as the sole
speaker to be able to respond to CH’s question. Thus, this excerpt shows that it may be not so
much a matter of not understanding that made KR delay in articulating the next turn. Rather, she
may have been thinking how she can adequately respond to CH’s question.
However, next to understanding and production issues, test takers may also remain silent
after the partner’s question because they have to find the requested information on the
instructions sheet first to be able to answer the question. This practice is found particularly in the
jigsaw task. An example is shown in Excerpt 4.2-4.
Excerpt 4.2-4: JIG:IntII:H-M:MT-BE (Bahnhof)
01 MT:
02
03 BE:
04
05 MT:
06
07 BE:
08
okay (.2) uhm (1.0) wie weit (.5) uhm (1.5) ist (.2) uhm (1.7) wie weit ist den=
how far
is
how far is the
=bahnhof?
train station
u:hm
(2.0)
or (.5) ein u bahn
a subway
(4.5)
es is (.5) uh (.2) es sagt keins über ein u bahn aber es ist nur zwanzig minuten zu=
it is
it says none about a subway but it is only twenty minutes by
=fuß zur
humboldt uni- (.) universität
foot to the
university
After MT asked BE how far the train station is from the apartment they are currently
discussing, BE produces a filled-pause (‘u:hm’) and a silence (lines 3–4). It does not seem to be
the case that BE delays the uptake of the next turn because he did not understand the question or
because he cannot come up with the right words for a response. Instead, the video recording of
162
this episode indicates that the delay must have been due to BE searching for the required
information on the instructions sheet for the test. Nevertheless, MT initiates transition space
repair in line 5, saying that a subway station would work as well. MT may project that BE has
trouble understanding the word ‘bahnhof’ (train station) or that BE does not find any information
on the distance between the train station and the apartment. In the ads for the jigsaw task,
information about train stations was not provided. The ads only indicate whether bus or subway
stops are close to the individual apartments. Thus, it may be that MT initiates transition space
repair to give BE a better cue what information MT is asking for.
Thus far, I presented examples of transition space repair that was triggered by a partner
who delayed to take the next turn. In case of delays in the partner’s talk, test takers may also
continue with their talk and not initiate repair in the transition space, as in Excerpt 4.2-5.
Excerpt 4.2-5: DIS:IntI:H-M:DA-JA (brauche keine Zeitung)
01 DA:
 02 JA:
 03 DA:
04
05
06 JA:
ah warum denkst du: (.5) .h ah (2.0) ah leuten sagt ich brauche keine zeitung.
why think you
people say I need
no newspaper
why do you think people say I don’t need a newspaper
.hh=hmm
ich denke dass ah weil ich .h ah (1.2) höre höre: (.5) um
mich? und leuten=
I think that because I
hear hear
around me and people
I think that because I listen around myself and people talk
=sprechen über: die zeitung
.hh so (1.5) ich brauche nicht (1.2) ah
speak about the newspaper
I need
not
(…) so I don’t need
=das zeitung oder internet oder tevau weil
(.5) [al]les sprechen über,
the newspaper or
or TV because
all speak about
[ja]
yes
As can be seen in this episode, JA breathes in first and then utters a non-lexical sound
(‘.hh=hmm’) after DA’s question about why people say that they don’t need newspapers.
163
Especially the sound ‘hmm’ that he lets out may be an indication that he is thinking about the
question and/or a possible answer. In contrast to the other examples discussed earlier, DA does
not initiate transition space repair but continues with her talk. It seems as if she does not give JA
enough time to produce an answer. However, since JA does not take the turn he was offered, DA
has the option to talk further (Sacks et al., 1974).
In sum, the analysis showed that delays are prevalent in the test-taker interactions
included in this study, most likely due to problems with respect to producing the next turn, not
understanding the previous turn (or parts thereof, such as a specific lexical item), and searching
for requested information. In these cases the hearer remains silent or produces non-lexical
perturbations and sounds but does not take the offered turn or initiate repair (in case of a problem
of understanding or comprehension). The original speaker may anticipate a problem of hearing or
understanding and initiate transition space repair, that is, the speaker may take the floor again
and repair his or her original utterance within the transition space of the original turn. Forms of
self-repair found in the data are rewordings (see Excerpt 4.2-3), translations, repetitions (see
Excerpt 4.2-1), and clarifications by adding more information or adjusting the previous
information given (see Excerpt 4.2-4). However, test takers may also continue with their talk
instead of initiating transition space repair in the case of delays (see Excerpt 4.2-5).
After discussing transition space repair as a form of self-initiated self-repair in
conjunction with the partner delaying the uptake of the next turn, another form of self-initiated
self-repair, also referred to as third position repair, was identified in the present data set and is
presented and discussed in the next section. Third position repair differs from transition space
repair in its sequential organization. In instances of repair in third position, the partner responds
to the original speaker’s action, but with the partner’s response the original speaker becomes
164
aware of a divergence of understandings between himself or herself and the partner. Realigning
understanding between both partners can be accomplished, in that the trouble-source speaker
initiates repair and clarifies the misunderstanding in the position after the partner’s response that
displays the misunderstanding.
4.2.2
Third position repair
Having presented instances of self-initiated self-repair (transition space repair) triggered by a
partner who delays the uptake of the next turn, I now show an instance of another form of selfinitiated self-repair that was prominent in the present test discourse: third position repair
(Schegloff, 1992a). In instances of third position repair, the hearer’s response clearly signals to
the original speaker that the hearer must have misunderstood the speaker’s previous turn. As
pointed out earlier in this dissertation, each subsequent turn in a conversation reveals the current
speaker’s understanding or misunderstanding of prior talk, most commonly the immediately
preceding turn (Schegloff, 1992a). The misunderstood speaker can undertake action to repair the
misunderstanding by initiating repair in the third position, that is, after the partner’s response
(second position) to an earlier utterance (first position). By resolving the misunderstanding,
mutual understanding can be maintained. How third position repair is initiated by speakers in the
present study can be taken from the episode in Excerpt 4.2-6.
Excerpt 4.2-6: JIG:IntI:H-L:KL-EH (billigest); replicated from Excerpt 4.1-9
01 KL:
 02 EH:
=mhm okay so uhm (1.0) so welche wohnung möchtest du?
which apartment would like you
which apartment would you like
uhm meine (1.2) billigest uhm wohnung ist
my
cheapest
apartment is
165
03 KL:
04 EH:
05
 06 KL:
07 EH:
bill- billigest? uh uhm du uh bill-=
cheapest
you
=ja uh I uhm ich habe ein (.7) uhm billig wohnung aber ich uhm ka- ich ke- (.)=
yes
I have a
cheap apartment but I
=uhm
uh huh uhm wo uh was ist dein uh lieblings uh wohnung?
where what is your
favorite
apartment
uhm ich möchte
das uhm wohnung in der langen stra:ße
I
would like the
apartment in the long street
This episode shows a small sequence of the interaction between KL and EH as they are
searching for an apartment in Berlin. Until this point in their conversation, KL and EH have
discussed a variety of different apartment options. In line 1, KL asks EH what apartment she
would like. EH must have misunderstood KH’s question as she starts talking about the cheapest
apartment she has (line 2). In line 3, KL initiates repair by repeating ‘billigest’ (cheapest),
indicating that he does not comprehend why EH is bringing up the cheapest apartment. EH’s
attempt to provide clarification in response to KL’s repair initiation (line 4) is not successful. In
line 6, KL initiates a third position repair (after the trouble source turn in line 1 and EH’s
response in line 2). KL repairs the trouble source by modifying his initial question such that he is
now asking EH to tell him what her favorite apartment is.
The third position repair that KL produces in Excerpt 4.2-6 consists of two components: a
brief confirmation or acceptance token (‘uh huh’) in response to what EH has said and the actual
repair in the form of a reformulation of the trouble source ‘was ist dein uh lieblings uh
wohnung?’). The third position repair procedures found in the discourse of this study include
either some sort of confirmation or acceptance of the partner’s turn (e.g., ‘ja’, ‘ja ja’, ‘das ist
okay’) and the repair proper, or just the actual repair. Repair-initiating components (Schegloff,
1992a), such as ‘no’, ‘nein’, ‘oh no’, or ‘oh nein’, were not found in the third position repair
procedures.
166
In addition, the data analysis revealed that third position repair may also be initiated when
the partner understood the initial question but encountered trouble producing a response that
aligns with the original speaker’s questioning action. The non-alignment of question and
response led the original speaker to repair his or her contribution, as in the interaction between
WL and JR in Excerpt 4.2-7.
Excerpt 4.2-7: JIG:IntI:L-L:WL-JR (Name)
01 WL:
ah (2.2) was ist die=ah name
what is the
name
02 JR:
ahh=
03 WL: =die namen
the name
04 JR: (5.5) es: (1.2) ah (.7) wa:r (1.5) drei (.) zehn minuten ah
it
was
three ten minutes
it was thirteen minutes
05 WL: ah (.7) was heißt es (.) like (.2) uhm
what is called it
what is it called
06 JR: uh (.7) ja (.5) ich weiß nicht
yes
I know not
yes I don’t know
07 WL: hm
08 JR: ich weiß nich[t ]
I know not
I don’t know
09 WL:
[hha]haha
In this excerpt, WL asks JR for the name of the apartment that JR likes (line 1). As can be
seen from the sound stretches and the pauses in line 4, JR searches for some unavailable lexical
items to respond to WL’s question (Schegloff, 1979). By saying that it (the apartment) is thirteen
minutes away from some place, JR provides one characteristic of the apartment. Thus, instead of
giving the name for the apartment, he begins to describe what the apartment has to offer to
differentiate it from other apartments. However, JR’s response does not align with WL’s
167
question. WL therefore anticipates an understanding problem and initiates repair in line 5. He
rephrases his initial question and now asks what the apartment is called (‘ah (.7) was heißt es (.)
like (.2) uhm’). WL thus tries to make his question more accessible to JR to elicit a better fitting
response from JR. However, JR does not attempt to redo his response given the revised
questioning action from WL. Rather, he states that he does not know (lines 6, 8). Thus, there is
no indication in JR’s talk that he now better understands what WL is asking. It seems that JR did
not know the apartment name the first time WL asked for it.
To summarize, in line with the findings from English native speaker interactions
(Schegloff, 1992a), the test takers included in this study also use third position repair when a
sequence is going off track, as shown in Excerpt 4.2-6. With this procedure it is possible to
retrieve the hearer’s response to allow another better fitting response to take its place. This is
accomplished, in that the original speaker redoes his or her prior turn, so that the next turn
position can be redone. Third position repair is used when it is clear that the speakers’
understandings of what is going on in the sequence diverge. However, the analysis also showed
that the hearer may understand what the speaker is asking but be unable to produce an
appropriate response, which may signal to the original speaker that his or her initial contribution
was misunderstood (Excerpt 4.2-7).
Once the point of divergence of understandings is reached, intersubjectivity is threatened
and a breakdown is close. Third position repair allows the speakers to realign their
understandings. According to Schegloff (1992a), repair in third position is the last available
opportunity in the repair organization apparatus to clarify misunderstandings, so that
intersubjectivity can be maintained.
168
4.2.3
Summary
In sum, two forms of self-initiated self-repair, transition space repair and third position repair,
have been presented and discussed in this section. The analysis showed that in case of the
partner’s delay in taking the next turn, the original speaker may initiate repair in the transition
space, the place after his or her possibly completed turn. The data in this study suggest that the
original speaker anticipates that the partner has encountered a hearing or an understanding
problem when he or she repairs his or her initial utterance in the transition space (especially since
the partner did not explicitly indicate a problem of understanding, for example, by launching a
repair initiator). However, production trouble may also cause inter-turn delays.
This section also showed that the original speaker may repair his or her initial utterance
because the partner’s response displays a misunderstanding of or a non-alignment with the
original speaker’s utterance. Realigning both partners’ understandings by means of repair in the
third position, that is, in the position after the partner’s response to the original utterance, is
crucial in restoring intersubjectivity.
Moreover, like the other-initiated self-repair discussed earlier, the forms of self-repair
that arise due to delays in turn uptake and to misunderstandings can also be differentiated with
respect to how they are designed to the recipient (Sacks et al., 1974). Some test takers repeat
their contributions rather than adjust their utterances to make them more accessible to the
partner. Other test takers, however, anticipate that there may be a gap in shared knowledge
between themselves and their partners and thus attempt to design their utterances in ways to
make them better understood.
In addition, the misunderstanding or non-alignment of actions that is repaired by the
trouble-source speaker in the third position sheds light on the degree of shared knowledge
169
between the two participants. To maintain intersubjectivity, the trouble-source speaker is forced
to make his or her initial utterance more accessible to the partner.
The next section is concerned with word search activities, another form of self-initiated
repair. However, the word search instances where the speaker repairs the trouble by himself or
herself are not at the center of attention in the analysis. Rather, the next section focuses on word
search activities that include the partner in some way, for example, by inviting him or her to
participate in the word search. The partner may also complete the speaker’s turn or correct a
lexical suggestion the speaker made based on a self-oriented word search.
4.3
Word search activities
Next to the forms of other- and self-initiated self-repair discussed in the previous sections, word
search activities also turned out to be prominent procedures to maintain intersubjectivity in the
present data set. The data analysis revealed that speakers may display hesitancy in producing an
utterance that suggests that they have difficulty finding the relevant linguistic items necessary to
make themselves understood by the co-participant. Thus, the word search interrupts the speaker’s
talk and may potentially cause the partner problems of understanding. The word search that the
speaker engages in to repair the problems in formulating talk can be considered part of the repair
organization. To be precise, a word search can be understood as a form of self-initiation of repair
(Kurhila, 2006). The non-lexical speech perturbations (e.g., sound stretches and ‘uh’) within
trouble-source turns, which signal the possibility of repair initiations (Schegloff et al., 1977),
may occur in conjunction with word search sequences (Goodwin, 1987; Goodwin & Goodwin,
1986). Especially ‘uh’ or a pause, launched in the place of a next-due element, are the non-
170
lexical speech perturbations commonly used to initiate repair on the next-due item (Schegloff,
1979), suggesting that a word search is in progress.
In this section, I turn to word search activities that involve both the speaker and the
interlocutor to resolve the trouble of searching for a word. The word search activities identified
in this study include procedures that prevent problems of lexical understanding, allow the
speakers to adjust to each other’s knowledge, and make the degree of shared knowledge between
the speakers visible. Three types of word search activities turned out to be most salient in the
data: (a) word searches that occur in combination with so-called word search markers (e.g.,
’what’s the word’) and that are directed at the partner, requesting him or her to provide the
lexical item being sought; (b) corrections from the partner after the speaker suggested a German
word that emerged from a just-completed self-directed search; and (c) turn completions provided
by the partner when a word search is in progress, with the goal of driving the interrupted turn
toward the next possible completion. Instances for each of these word search activities are
presented and discussed in the order they are outlined here. For each word search activity, I look
at both the speaker’s and the hearer’s behaviors in the word search sequences. I also discuss how
each of these procedures helps to maintain intersubjectivity, which may be at stake due to the
word search that is underway. Finally, major findings are summarized.
4.3.1
Word search markers
Brouwer (2003) points out that a word search is often displayed by means of a word search
marker, such as ‘what’s it called’ or ‘what’s her name again?’. The word search marker can be
seen as an explanation for not having produced the next-due lexical item. The use of such a
171
marker is an indication for the partner that the speaker has run into trouble with the production of
an item (Brouwer, 2003).
However, when a word search marker is produced, the word search activity may already
be underway as the non-lexical speech perturbations in speakers’ talk suggest (Brouwer, 2003).
Brouwer (2003) also highlights that even though word search markers may take the form of a
question, they do not necessarily bring about an answer from the other speaker, which should not
be surprising, since Schegloff et al. (1977) observed that self-repair is preferred over other-repair
or help by a co-participant.
Often word search markers are uttered with a lower volume, suggesting that a speaker is
self-repairing the trouble, that is, “doing thinking” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986) by himself or
herself without including the interlocutor in the word search. Thus, deploying an explicit word
search marker in itself cannot be considered a help request. Rather, as Brouwer (2003) points out,
speakers have to encourage their partners to participate in the word search if they want help with
the searching process; speakers therefore have to engage the hearers in specific interactional
work, for example, by providing information about the searched-for item or specifically
addressing the interlocutor. Bodily conduct (e.g., shifting one’s gaze, gesturing) also helps to
involve the partner in the word search. For example, in a widely cited paper, Goodwin and
Goodwin (1986) report that speakers direct their gaze to the recipient at the beginning or in the
middle of the word search to invite their partner to help in the search process. If, however, the
speaker’s gaze is withdrawn from the recipient, it can be assumed that he or she engages in a
self-directed or solitary word search.
In addition, Kurhila (2006) suggests that it is common that both self-directed and otherdirected word searches occur during a search sequence. She argues that it is often the case that a
172
self-directed search precedes an other-directed word search; that is, the speaker first tries to selfrepair the trouble, and if this fails, the speaker invites the recipient to participate in the word
search and requests the other to repair. It seems that when involving their partner into the word
search, speakers consider their interlocutor as the knowing recipient (Goodwin, 1987) who may
be able to provide the searched-for item. Once the participants reach mutual understanding the
word search can be considered completed (Kurhila, 2006).
In this section, I concentrate on word searches with word search markers, where the
speaker who initiates the word search invites the hearer to participate in the search process. Selfdirected or solitary searches are not included in the analysis. First, I examine how an invitation to
the partner to participate in the word search is extended. Then, I investigate how the partner
recognizes the word search and how the word search sequence is solved.
Other-directed specific word search initiations with word search markers
As mentioned earlier, the data analysis focused on word searches that are directed at the
interlocutor and include a word search marker, in either German or English, such as ‘wie sagt
man X’ (how does one say X) and ‘what’s the word for X’ (and variations of these). In line with
Goodwin and Goodwin’s (1986) observation, the test takers in this study also gazed at the partner
to invite him or her to participate in the search process.
Grammatical searches where the speaker is oriented to linguistic units within a word do
not occur in the present data set. The word search activities, that is, other-directed word search in
combination with word search markers, were lexical searches rather than grammatical searches
(Kurhila, 2006). In addition, to make the search specific and to provide the partner with some
information about the item being sought (Brouwer, 2003) the speakers included in this study
173
predominantly uttered the English equivalent of the searched-for German word. Speakers may
also suggest a German word that emerged from their self-directed search. These word
suggestions were uttered with uncertainty (e.g., with a rising intonation). Thus, hearers were
invited to search for the German equivalent of an English word or asked to confirm or repair a
German word the speaker suggested. Excerpt 4.3-1 shows an example of an other-directed word
search activity that includes the English equivalent of the German word being sought.
Excerpt 4.3-1: DIS:IntI:H-L:PA-GR (easy)
 01 GR:
02 PA:
03 GR:
04 GR:
05 PA:
06 GR:
nein uh (1.2) how do you say easy
no
ah °like (.5) like° [ich denke leicht]
I think
[(
)]
leicht? okay
°ja°
yes
ah es ist so nicht leicht aufs als die internet
it is so not easy on the than the
it is not as easy like on the internet
Here, speaker GR initiates a word search, which is first self-directed but then oriented to
his partner PA. That is, GR first tries to think of the German word on his own, as the filled pause
(‘uh’) and the 1.2-second silence in line 1 indicate. The self-repair seems to be unsuccessful. GR
therefore approaches PA for help. When GR asks PA ‘how do you say easy’, he directs his gaze
at PA and keeps looking at him while PA searches for the German word. After PA has provided
the German equivalent of the adjective easy (‘leicht’) in line 2, GR deploys a brief confirmation
check (line 4). GR accepts PA’s word suggestion and uses the adjective ‘leicht’ in his next turn,
as can be seen in line 6.
174
The word search marker that GR uses for the search is an interrogative word search
marker (Kurhila, 2006). Another word search marker found in the test discourse of this study is ‘I
don’t know’ or the German equivalent ‘ich weiß nicht’. If other-directed, this marker seems to
function similarly to interrogative markers, as can been in Excerpt 4.3-2. In contrast to the
episode presented in Excerpt 4.3-1, Excerpt 4.3-2 shows a word search activity where the
speaker suggests a German lexical item based on a just completed self-directed search.
Excerpt 4.3-2: DIS:IntII:M-L:AW-DN (kaufe)
01 DN:
02
03 AW:
 04 DN:
(.5) ich denke:: (.5) die artikel ist (1.5) wichtig (1.0) ich denke (.7) zeitung ist=
I think
the article is
important
I think
newspaper is
=ein (2.7) °ah gosh° (3.7)
a
ja
yes
sein=ah (1.7) keine (.5) mm (1.2) kaufe? (.2) °I don't know°
be
no
buy
don’t buy I don’t know
As can be seen in line 4 of Excerpt 4.3-2, after a self-directed word search, DN produces
the German lexical item ‘kaufe’ (to buy). After searching for the word on his own, he utters it
with a rising intonation contour, which indicates that he is uncertain whether this is the right
word. Then DN includes his partner AW in the word search. He does that by adding an ‘I don’t
know’ marker to his word suggestion. DN also directs his gaze at AW at the moment when he
completes his self-directed word search and suggests the lexical item that emerged from the
search.
In addition, DN utters the ‘I don’t know’ marker with a soft voice compared to the
surrounding talk, which is not an uncommon feature of word search markers found in the present
data. Instances that include a softly spoken word search marker and/or lexical cue (usually the
175
English equivalent of the German word sought) were also found in the word search sequences of
other test-taker pairs. Brouwer (2003) pointed out that word search markers uttered with a softer
volume indicate that the speaker is engaged in a self-directed search. However, DN in the
example just presented and other speakers as well clearly include the partner by gazing at him or
her, even though the word search marker is produced at a softer volume. In general, word search
sequences appear to be characterized by uncertainty markers, not only by uttering search markers
more softly but also by producing the lexical and word suggestions with a rising intonation
contour, as is also evident in DN’s word search (see line 4 of Excerpt 4.3-2).
It should be noted that instances that include a German word suggestion in combination
with a word search marker occur rarely in the present data set. In the few instances where they
occur, the suggested word with a rising intonation contour precedes an ‘I don’t know’ token. The
majority of word search activities including word search markers were made specific to the
partner by adding the English word for the searched-for German item. Either word search
marker, interrogative marker and ‘I don’t know’/‘ich weiß nicht’ token, was used in both
positions, preceding or following the English word.
Thus far, I have presented examples of other-directed, specific word search initiations in
combination with a word search marker, such as ‘what’s the word for X’ or ‘I don’t know X’.
Nonspecific word search requests directed at the partner rarely occur in the data of the present
study. One example can be found in Excerpt 4.3-3.
Excerpt 4.3-3: DIS:IntII:L-L:NH-ST (Zeitung)
01 NH:
uhm (.7) ja (.5) uh ick denke: dass (.5) uhm (2.7) würde:: (.5) ein zeitung=
yes
I think that
would
a newspaper
yes I think that a newspaper would
176
02
03
 04
 05
06
07
=.h in: (.7) uhh weil (4.7) uh (2.0) der internet ist gut für:: (3.0) hh. (4.0)=
because
the
is good for
=für uh kleines (.5) teit seit (.5) uhm (.5) ab- (1.0) aber: .hh uh zeitungen (.7) is=
for
short
time
but
newspapers
=(.) besser für::.h ah (1.2) lange seit ge- weil (.5) uhm (.5) pt (2.0) es ist=
better for
long (time)
because
it is
=mehr::: (20.0) ick weiß nich hhaha .hh (1.0) uhm (28.0) ist der:: (.5) uh (2.2)=
more
I know not
is the
(…) I don’t know is the
=jahre (.5) uh (.7) das der in- (.) das uh internet is .h (.2) uh (.2) besser (2.5)=
years
the the in the
is
better
=dann uh (.) die seitung
than
the newspaper
Here, NH responds to ST’s initial question whether or not there will still be newspapers
in the future. NH seems to be arguing that newspapers are long lasting whereas the Internet is
not. Trying to go into more detail and giving reasons, NH runs into trouble (lines 4–5), as marked
especially by the 20-second silence. The video recording shows that NH puts on a “thinking
face” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986), which suggests that he is searching for words on his own
during that long silence. Attempts to self-repair, however, seem to fail. He therefore gazes at ST
and utters ‘ick weiß nich’ (I don’t know), inviting ST to participate in his word search. ST
returns NH’s gaze, but ST is unable to help as NH’s request is not specific enough. NH would
need to provide more information about the searched-for-word(s) than merely deploying the ‘I
don’t know’ marker if he wants NH to other-repair (Brouwer, 2003). Since both NH’s attempt to
self-repair and his initiation of other-repair fail, he continues searching for words on his own,
which leads into another long silence of 28 seconds (line 5). Eventually, NH is able to add to his
initial contribution.
To summarize, word searches that include a word search marker may be extended to the
partner. The word-searching party may gaze at the partner to signal that he or she is invited to
participate in the word search. Besides interrogative word search markers, such as ‘what’s the
177
word’ or ‘wie sagt man’ (how does one say), the test takers included in this study also used an ‘I
don’t know’/‘ich weiß nicht’ token for word search markers. Whereas interrogative word search
markers were also found in previous CA research on word search sequences (Kurhila, 2006), the
‘I don’t know’/‘ich weiß nicht’ token seems to be rather specific to the discourse in the present
study. In addition, an other-directed word search has to be specific if the partner is supposed to
be assisting with the search (Brouwer, 2003). In this study, speakers mostly uttered the English
equivalent of the German word being sought to give the partner a cue what the searched-for
lexical item is. By providing the English equivalent of the unavailable German word, the speaker
ensures understanding on the partner’s end. Thus, falling back to English helps to maintain
intersubjectivity since both speakers know English (cf. Firth & Wagner, 1997).
In the next section, I examine how the partner responded to the invitation to help with the
word search and how the trouble could be solved.
Responses to the speaker’s word search initiations
The other-directed, specific word search initiations accompanied by word search markers that
were discussed in the previous section open up a slot for the recipient to respond to the repair
request. In the data set of the present study, word searches can be differentiated in terms of
whether or not the hearer actually provides a response as requested. In addition, the types of
response provided differ as well as the reasons for a non-response.
If the hearer responds to the request to repair, the data of the present study reveal that the
response may include (a) the German word as requested (see Excerpt 4.3-4), (b) an ‘ich weiß
nicht’/‘I don’t know’ token indicating inability to repair (Excerpt 4.3-5), or (c) an affirmative
token (‘ja’, ‘hm’) that suggests recognition of the missing word but also an inability or
178
unwillingness to engage in the word search activity (Excerpt 4.3-6). An affirmative token may
also be delivered to confirm that the provided German lexical item is correct (Excerpt 4.3-7).
In the majority of other-directed word search activities in the data set of the present study,
the hearer responds in line with the speaker’s word search initiation and request to repair. In
contrast, a non-response to the speaker’s word search initiation is rather rare. Nevertheless,
instances of a non-response did occur in the data. For example, due to inattention, inability or the
unwillingness to respond, a hearer may ignore the repair request (Excerpt 4.3-8). In addition, the
speaker may self-repair after the request for other-repair has been launched (Excerpt 4.3-9); or
the speaker may withdraw from the initial invitation to include the recipient into the word search
(Excerpt 4.3-10). Examples of the recipient’s potential responses to the speaker’s word search
initiation are provided and discussed in this section.
As mentioned, the hearer may attend to the partner’s word search and respond to the
request to repair by providing the searched-for German word being sought, as is the case in
Excerpt 4.3-4.
Excerpt 4.3-4: JIG:IntII:M-M:GA-AR (expensive)
01 GA:
02
 03 AR:
04 GA:
.h ahm h. ich habe wier (.5) aber h. (.7) sie sind nicht sehr gut für ahm (.2) pt (.2)=
I have four
but
they are not very good for
=distance (.7) .h (1.2) und sehr (.5) ahm (1.2) ah (1.2) was bedeutet ah expensive
and very
what means
(…) what does expensive mean
ah teuer
expensive
ja
yes
179
In this example, GA is telling her partner that she has ads for four apartment but they are
not very good because they are far away. She also wants to add that all of the apartments are
expensive, but she is unable to produce the word in German, which AR provides in line 3.
In contrast, hearers may also be unable to help out with the word search, simply because
they do not know the lexical item, as can be seen in the interaction between DA and JA in
Excerpt 4.3-5.
Excerpt 4.3-5: JIG:IntI:H-M:DA-JA (furniture)
 01 DA:
02 JA:
03 DA:
04 DA:
=ich will nicht ah (1.5) wie sagt man furniture?
I want not
how says one
I don’t want
how does one say furniture
(1.0) m:: (1.0) [>ich weiß nicht<]=
I know not
I don’t know
[ja
]
yes
=.hhh ah ich will (.) nicht dies kaufen hh
I want not this buy
I don’t want to buy this
JA openly admits that he is unable to help. When asked by DA how one says ‘furniture’
(line 1), JA is attentive and gazes at DA, both of which may be an indication of his willingness to
repair. After a self-directed word search, JA says that he does not know (‘ich weiß nicht’) what
‘furniture’ means in German (line 2).
In addition, instances occurred where the hearer does not respond to the request to repair
per se. That is, the hearer did not provide the German word sought but also did not indicate that
he or she does not know; rather, the partner merely confirms receipt of information and indicates
that he or she recognizes the searched-for word, like AS in Excerpt 4.3-6.
180
Excerpt 4.3-6: DIS:IntII:M-M:AS-RO (change)
01 RO:
02
 03
 04 AS:
05 RO:
for for (2.0) viele jahr or viele jahre ahm sie sind (.2) or (.5) sie ah (.2) die=
many year or many years
they are
or
they
the
for many years they
=zeitung lesen un:d (1.7) ne- h. (1.0) ne- (.7) sie: (1.2) möcktor (.5)=
newspaper read and
they
would like or
read newspaper and they would like or
=sie möchten: (.2) nicht (1.2) a:hm (3.2) °uh° change? I- [I-] (.7) was i[s] chan-=
they would like not
what
[mm]
[ja]
yes
=ja (.5) uhm (.7) sorry uhm (.7) pt .hh tch tch
yes
In this episode, RO invites AS to participate in his search for the German word for
‘change’, but AS does not provide this item. As can be seen from line 4, AS simply lets out ‘mm’
and the affirmative token ‘ja’ to indicate that she understands what RO is trying to convey.
Overall, it seems as if she is trying to disengage from RO’s word search. Thereupon, RO appears
to drop his word search (line 5).
Since both AS and RO are English native speakers, when AS is asked to help with the
search for the German word, she may not consider it necessary to get involved in the search
activity because RO has already provided the missing word in English. A gap in understanding
because of the missing German item did not occur.
It may also be that AS is unable to name the German word and does not want to admit
that she is not as knowledgeable (Goodwin, 1987) as RO may think. Thus, saving face may also
be a reason that AS makes herself unavailable for RO’s word search activity. Overall, it seems
that displaying understanding is a way for the interlocutor to disengage from the search activity
and to move the conversation forward.
181
In addition, an affirmative token (e.g., ‘ja’) may also be deployed in the word search
scenarios where interlocutors search for a German word and suggest one immediately after the
self-directed search, but they are uncertain whether or not the produced lexical item is correct.
The affirmative token delivered by the partner may indicate that the partner accepts the word as
correct but also that he or she understands what the other is trying to convey. An example for
such a scenario may be found in Excerpt 4.3-7.
Excerpt 4.3-7: DIS:IntII:M-L:CO-TR (old people)
01 TR:
02
03 CO:
04 TR:
05
 06 CO:
07 TR:
isch denke::: die printmedien existieren für den alte menschen.
I think the print media exist
for the old people
(2.5)
waru[m? ]
why
[(°al-] alte°) .hh ah (.5) alt=menschen nicht a::h .h (3.0) internet machen?=
old
old people not
do
old people don’t do internet
=(.) I don’t know yes
ja
yes
ahh .hhh a::h (2.5) .hh
In line 4 of this episode, TR appears to be uncertain about the phrase ‘internet machen’
(to do Internet) that he produced after he completed a word search. With his utterance in line 4,
TR probably intended to say that older people do not use the Internet. CO, however, does not
correct TR, but produces an affirmative token (‘ja’) in line 6 to display acceptance and
understanding of TR’s contribution.
Thus far, I showed how hearers respond to the partner’s request to participate in the word
search. Instances of not responding to the request also occurred. They are presented and
discussed below. The reasons for a non-response seem to vary. For example, it may be that the
182
hearer does not attend to the speaker’s word search request, does not hear the request or is
unaware of such a request, as can be seen in Excerpt 4.3-8.
Excerpt 4.3-8: DIS:IntII:M-L:AW-DN (kaufe); replicated from Excerpt 4.3-2
01 DN:
02
03 AW:
 04 DN:
 05 AW:
(.5) ich denke:: (.5) die artikel ist (1.5) wichtig (1.0) ich denke (.7) zeitung ist=
I think
the article is
important
I think
newspaper is
=ein (2.7) °ah gosh° (3.7)
a
ja
yes
sein=ah (1.7) keine (.5) m (1.2) kaufe? (.2) °I don’t know°
be
no
buy
don’t buy I don’t know
a:h (1.0) ja ahm (1.0) ich denke dass=ah (.5) die internet ist=ah (2.0) ist schnell
yes
I think that
the
is
is fast
In this excerpt, AW seems to ignore DN’s word search initiation and request for help.
AW is looking down at his instructions sheet and does not seem to attend to DN’s talk. In line 5,
AW does not relate to DN’s word search activity. Rather, AW initiates an action of his own
without responding to the repair request.
Another reason why the hearer does not respond to the request to participate in the word
search is because the speaker repairs the trouble himself or herself. An example for such a
scenario may be found in Excerpt 4.3-9.
Excerpt 4.3-9: DIS:IntI:H-L:PA-GR (in my opinion)
01 PA:
02 GR:
 03 PA:
[junge leu]te (.7) denkt dass (.) sie brauchen keine zeitung
das: uh (.5) das=
young people think that they need
no newspaper that
that
young people think that they don’t need a newspaper that
[.shih
]
=stimmt nicht <in my opinion> °how do you say that° uh (1.2) ich glaube dass=
is right not
I believe that
is not right in my opinion how do you say that I believe that
183
 04
=stimmt nicht
is right not
is not right
In Excerpt 4.3-9, PA launches a search for the expression ‘in my opinion’, in which he
includes his partner GR. In line 1, while PA talks, both PA and GR look down at their
instructions sheets. However, when PA asks his question in line 3 (‘<in my opinion> °how do
you say that°’), he looks up and directs his gaze at GR, inviting GR to be part of the word search.
However, GR keeps looking down at the sheet in front of him; he does not return PA’s gaze, and
thus it seems as if he does not want to engage in the word search. PA then withdraws his gaze
and puts on a “thinking face” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986). The pause of 1.2 seconds may be an
indication that PA is “doing thinking” (Brouwer, 2003). After the silence, PA utters ‘ich glaube’
(I believe) and seems to have resolved his problem on his own without outside help; he repairs
the trouble he has initiated. PA had not engaged in any thinking at the point when he included
GR in the word search. Therefore, one could argue that GR allowed PA time to think about the
problem himself and to self-repair, which is preferred over other-repair (Schegloff et al., 1977).
Usually the speaker engages in a solitary search before he or she directs attention to the partner
to ask for help (Hosoda, 2000; Kurhila, 2006). In this episode, PA deploys an other-directed
word search first but then turns it into a self-directed search. However, it may also be that GR
does not want to engage in the word search because he does not know the German equivalent of
‘in my opinion’. GR’s gesture, throwing both arms in the air, when PA takes up his turn again
after the 1.2-second pause, may be an indication of GR being an unknowing rather than a
knowing participant (Goodwin, 1987).
Another word search activity between GR and PA (Excerpt 4.3-10) turns out to be rather
unsuccessful, which does not seem to be due to the hearer’s unwillingness or inability to help
184
with the word search. Rather, the speaker seems to withdraw the invitation he had initially
extended to the recipient to participate in the word search.
Excerpt 4.3-10: DIS:IntII:H-L:PA-GR (odd)
01 PA:
 02 GR:
 03
04 PA:
05
06 GR:
[das
]
the
[ICH DEN]KE dies- diese grafik ist ahm (1.2) a:h (.7) mm (1.0) wie sagt man odd
I
think
this this graphic is
how says one
I think this graphic is how does one say odd
(.5) uhm (.7) aber [e- es] hat zeitung
und ich brauche keine zeitung [und ]
but
it has newspaper and I need
no newspaper and
[( )]
[haha]
dies=ah=
this
=on the e:: r::: .hh a:h ja ((knocks on table))
yes
As can be seen in line 2 of Excerpt 4.3-10, GR interrupts his turn and seems to be
searching for a word, as the silences and the filled pauses indicate. The word search remains selfdirected, as GR’s gaze is withdrawn from PA. Shortly after GR starts to engage in the selfdirected word search, PA looks up from the instructions sheet and gazes at GR. GR must have
caught PA’s attention (Kurhila, 2006). When uttering ‘wie sagt man’ (how does one say), GR
looks down at his instructions sheet again, but as soon as he adds ‘odd’ he directs his gaze at PA,
including PA in the word search. PA puts on a “thinking face” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986) and
starts thinking. In the meantime, GR again withdraws his gaze from PA and after a brief period
of thinking he continues talking (line 3), without waiting for PA’s input regarding the word
search he originally initiated. It seems that GR has dropped the word search altogether.
In sum, the responses to other-directed word searches initiated by a word-search marker
vary, that is, the partner may supply the requested word, indicate that he or she does not know
185
the German word being sought, acknowledge that he or she recognizes the word being sought
without engaging in the word search, confirm the correctness or display understanding of the
German word that emerged from the self-directed word search, not respond to the word search at
all (neither verbally nor nonverbally), or not be able to respond because the initial invitation to
participate in the word search has been withdrawn.
Summary
This section focused on word search activities that are directed at the partner and are
accompanied by so-called word search markers (e.g., ‘wie sagt man X’ or ‘what’s the word for
X’, etc.). In most word search activities, the speaker provided the English equivalent of the
searched-for German word to give the partner a cue what lexical item is being sought. Falling
back to the first language (L1) in connection with a word search may prevent potential
understanding problems, which may otherwise arise because of an unknown lexical item. Thus,
including the partner in the word search activity and providing the English word as a cue for the
German word being sought may be considered a practice that maintains intersubjectivity in talkin-interaction (cf. Firth & Wagner, 1997).
In combination with a word search marker, speakers may also produce a German word
that they are uncertain about and request the partner to confirm the correctness of that lexical
item, to display understanding of that word, or to provide some form of repair. This practice
allows both speakers to adapt to each other’s potentially different knowledge of the searched-for
lexical item.
The analysis also showed that help from the partner is not a given. The partner may be
unable or unwilling to provide the German word being sought. However, interlocutors who do
186
not engage in the word search in some way or the other cannot be said to be less interactionally
competent than those who are willing and able to provide the searched-for German lexical item.
There may be reasons that interlocutors do not supply the searched-for word. Since the English
equivalent is provided as lexical cue for the word search and both speakers know English, the
speaker who is invited to help with the search for the German word may find it unnecessary to
engage in the search. In addition, the speaker who is invited to help with the search may not
know the word and may want to save his or her face and not admit that he or she does not know.
Overall, it seems that no matter how the partner responds to the speaker’s repair initiation
(e.g., by providing the lexical item sought, admitting that one does not know, or acknowledging
comprehension and thus moving the conversation forward, or not reacting at all), the interaction
can easily proceed. As most word search initiations directed at the partner include the English
equivalent of the searched-for German word, mutual understanding can be maintained in these
word search sequences.
After presenting and discussing other-directed specific word searches with word search
markers, the next section is devoted to corrections that are provided in response to a word search.
In the present data set, instances were found in which the trouble-source speaker searches and
suggests a lexical item that is corrected by the partner.
4.3.2
Corrections
Similar to the word search activities that are extended to the partner to invite him or her to assist
with the word search, this section is also concerned with a form of self-initiated other-repair. In
this section, instances of correction in conjunction with a self-initiated word search are presented
and discussed. In comparison to the word search activities discussed in the previous section, the
187
word searches shown here do not include a word search marker. In addition, the trouble-source
speaker does not necessarily invite the partner to participate in the word search.
In line with the instances of self-initiated other-repair presented in the previous section,
the data shown in this section also include self-directed word searches where the trouble-source
speaker suggests a word that results from the self-directed word search. For example, the speaker
who searches for a word may produce the English equivalent of the German word being sought
or a German word. The German word may be produced with uncertainty, that is, with a rising
intonation contour. The partner may correct the speaker’s word choice by exchanging the
possibly erroneous German word with an alternative (which can be a lexical item, a grammatical
feature, or the correct pronunciation of the word). With the correction, the partner displays his or
her knowledge of the lexical item. Both speakers’ understanding of the lexical item can thus be
adjusted and intersubjectivity maintained. Instances were also found where the English
equivalent of the searched-for German word emerged from an unsuccessful solitary word search.
The English word is not produced with uncertainty, and the partner does not correct it by
replacing the English word for the German equivalent. As both speakers know English, mutual
understanding can be maintained when the English equivalent is provided in case the German
word is unknown.
Other-repair as such is considered dispreferred (Schegloff et al., 1977). At the same time,
Schegloff et al. (1977) point out that other-repair may occur frequently in interactions among
speakers of lower speaking ability. However, in line with previous research conducted on native
and nonnative speaker interaction (e.g., Hosoda, 2000; Kurhila, 2001, 2006), the instances of
other-repair identified in this study are consistently provided in response to speaker trouble, such
as a word search.
188
In this section, I first turn to instances of self-initiated other-repair where the repairable,
an incorrect German lexical item, is isolated from the surrounding talk and is dealt with explicitly
in a side sequence. I also show instances of corrections where the repair is included in the
sequentially relevant next action. Then, I present occurrences of interlocutors not correcting the
English equivalent that emerged from a solitary word search. A summary with the major findings
is given.
Exposed and embedded corrections
In this section, I concentrate on the word search activities where the partner corrects the German
word that emerged from the word-searching speaker’s solitary word search. It seems that the
correction allows the speakers to adapt to each other’s knowledge of the German lexical item.
These instances of other-repair in response to a word search were provided in the form of
exposed corrections (Jefferson, 1987). In an exposed correction, both speakers specifically orient
to correcting the lexical item, a grammatical feature, or the pronunciation of a word. That is, a
side sequence (Jefferson, 1972) emerges, which gives interactional value to the correction. One
exemplification of an exposed correction may be found in Excerpt 4.3-11.
Excerpt 4.3-11: JIG:IntI:H-M:DA-JA (pro Monate)
01 JA:
02
03
 04 DA:
(...) ah=i- ah ick würde gern ah in der nähe
ah .h ah wohnen
I would like
in the proximity
live
I would like to live near
ahm die humboldt ah uni?
.hh ah und ahm (.5) ich habe
the
university
and
I have
ahm ah vierhundert ah euro .h ahm (1.2) ah per mont? (2.2) ahm=
four hundred
month
=pro monate?
per months
189
05 JA:
06 DA:
07 JA:
08 DA:
09 JA:
10
monate
months
u:nd=
and
=dankeschön
thank you
ja
yes
ahm ah an- ah ich brauche ahm (.5) die uni
un- or ahm ahm (.5)
I need
the university
der u bahn und ah der bus .hh ah in (1.2) ahm
the subway and the bus
In line 3 of this excerpt, JA mispronounces the German expression ‘pro monat’ (per
month) by saying ‘per mont’. JA’s utterance is very similar to the English equivalent of this
expression. DA corrects JA’s pronounciation and suggests ‘pro monate?’ in line 4. DA utters the
phrase with a rising intonation contour indicating uncertainty whether this is really the word JA
means. JA repeats ‘monate’ in line 5 and thus confirms that this is the word he has in mind. As
becomes apparent, a repair sequence has emerged from the trouble-source turn. After thanking
DA for her help (line 7), JA continues his contribution and adds that he needs a subway or bus
stop close to the apartment.
Instances were also found where a speaker first quietly says the English equivalent to
himself or herself before he or she suggests the German word, as can be taken from Excerpt 4.312.
Excerpt 4.3-12: DIS:IntI:H-H:CH-KR (sein)
01 CH:
 02 KR:
03 CH:
(...) ja (.5) zeitungen (1.0) kann billig (.7) uh (.5) °to be?° (.5) werden=
yes
newspapers
can cheap
become
=sein?
be
sein.
be
190
Here, CH searches for the German equivalent of ‘to be’ (line 1). She proposes ‘werden’
(to become), but KR corrects C and provides the correct form (‘sein’, to be), which CH repeats in
line 3 to confirm the correction. Similar to Excerpt 4.3-11, KR, the second speaker, corrects the
suggested German word with an alternative German lexical item (line 2), and CH, the trouble
source speaker, orients to the correction and repeats the new lexical item (line 3).
It should be noted that the video recording of this scenario between CH and KR shows
that CH does not gaze at KR before KR provides the repair. Thus, CH does not explicitly invite
KR to participate in the word search (Brouwer, 2003; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986). When nonverbal behavior, in particular eye gaze (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986), is taken into consideration
to signal to the partner that he or she is included in the word search, then not all corrections in
conjunction with a word search found in the present data set were invited. That is, a correction
was provided when the trouble-source speaker gazed at the partner to signal a help request but
also when the trouble-source speaker did not use eye gaze as a non-verbal signal to ask for
assistance with the word search.
In addition, as can be seen in Excerpt 4.3-12, KR utters her correction with uncertainty,
that is with a rising intonation contour. Schegloff et al. (1977) speak of modulated exposed
corrections when they are displayed with uncertainty. Gaskill (1980) argues that exposed
corrections are displayed in a modulated fashion because other-repair is in principle dispreferred.
However, as seen in Excerpt 4.3-12, CH confirms and thus aligns with KR’s correction (line 3),
although CH did not explicitly ask KR to provide the correction. Thus, other-repair in this
interaction may not necessarily be dispreferred. Now the fact that KR utters her correction in a
modulated fashion may be because she does not know for sure whether the word she suggests is
the right translation of the repairable ‘to be’.
191
In comparison, unmodulated exposed corrections were also deployed, as can be seen in
Excerpt 4.3-13. In this excerpt, LT and SN talk about the money SN has available to rent an
apartment.
Excerpt 4.3-13: JIG:IntI:M-M:LT-SN (Misten)
01 SN:
02 LT:
03 SN:
 04 LT:
05 SN:
 06 LT:
07 SN:
08 LT:
09
(1.2) °°ah°° .hh a:hm (2.2) ick habe:: kein (1.2) limit?
I have no
ah
(.7) an (1.2) ah mista?
(rent)
mistens,
(rent)
ja misten (.) [°ja°]
yes (rent)
yes
[si]e sie hat viele: geld (.) ja
you you has many money yes
you have lots of money yes
ja (.) °viele ge[ld°]
yes many money
yes much money
[hm] okay .h und a:hm (1.5) pt .h so: a:hm habst (.5) ah hat (.7) du
and
have
has
you
ein auto oder nicht ah no kein auto
a car or not
no car
This excerpt shows that LT corrects SN in line 4. LT utters his correction ‘mistens’ of
SN’s ‘mista’ in an assertive manner. Both ‘mistens’ and ‘mista’ are non-words in German. The
test takers most likely search for the German word ‘Miete’ (rent). However, after SN has
confirmed LT’s correction in line 5, LT deploys a comprehension check (‘sie sie hat viele: geld
(.) ja’). Even though, LT was certain about his correction at first, he now makes sure that he has
understood SN correctly, namely that SN has enough money to rent an apartment.
As was mentioned, the repair sequence is completed with the trouble-source speaker
confirming the correction made by the partner. The trouble-source speaker confirms the
192
correction by repeating the corrected item (see Excerpt 4.3-11, Excerpt 4.3-12) or by providing
an affirmation token (‘ja’, yes) (see Excerpt 4.3-13), possibly in combination with a repetition. In
addition, the trouble-source speaker may also ignore the partner’s correction, as can be taken
from Excerpt 4.3-14.
Excerpt 4.3-14: JIG:IntII:H-L:MG-TM (Nähe)
01 TM:
ahm (3.0) wie: ah (2.7) uh s- s- sagt es uh humboldt univer- university (1.7) uhm
how
says it
02
nähe?
proximity
03 MG: in der nähe?=
in the proximity
near
 04 TM: =>es ist< es ist nähe:
humboldt university?
it is it is proximity
05 MG: ahm (.5) pt (.) das sagt nicht uhm
that says not
that doesn’t say
In this excerpt, TM is uncertain about the lexical item ‘nähe’ (proximity) that emerged
from a self-directed word search in line 1. MG substitutes ‘nähe’ to ‘in der nähe’ (near) (line 3),
but TM does not accept MG’s suggestion. Instead of using the expression ‘in der nähe’ (near), as
MG suggested, TM continues to use the noun ‘nähe’ as an adjective.
In addition to the exposed correction discussed, embedded corrections (Brouwer,
Rasmussen & Wagner, 2004; Jefferson, 1987; Kurhila, 2001) also occurred in the present data
set. In comparison to exposed corrections, a separate repair sequence does not emerge in an
embedded correction. The substitution of the lexical item does not interrupt the ongoing
conversation, as the hearer embeds the correction within the next relevant turn. Similarly to the
exposed correction, the embedded correction is used to realign the speakers’ knowledge of a
193
lexical item and to maintain intersubjectivity. As can be seen in Excerpt 4.3-15, instead of
orienting to the correction, the focus is on doing the next action.
Excerpt 4.3-15: JIG:IntI:H-M:KA-EL (sekunde)
01 KA:
02
 03 EL:
04
05 KA:
06 EL:
kei:n balkon aber zentral und (.7) vierhundertsiebenundneunzig euro pro person
no balcony but central and
four hundred seven and ninety
per person
(…) four hundred ninety seven euro per person
(3.0)
ich denke: (.5) deine (.7) sekunde (.7) idee was die °beste°
I think
your
second
idea was the best
(2.0)
die=ah (1.2) die zweite (mit) wohnung?
the
the second with apartment
ja ich (.2) denke
yes I
think
In this excerpt, EL points out that KA’s second apartment sounds best. The issue with this
statement is that EL does not produce the numeral ‘zweite’ (second) but the German noun
‘sekunde’ (second), which is used to measure and indicate time. In English, there is one word for
the two concepts; in German, there are two. The fact that EL used the noun ‘sekunde’ may have
confused KA; the 2-second silence in line 4 may be an indication for her confusion. However,
there may be a reference issue at play as well. It may be unclear to KA what apartment ‘deine
(.7) sekunde (.7) idee’ (your second idea) exactly refers to. Would that be the second apartment
KA presented or the second apartment listed on her instructions sheet? KA initiates an
understanding check to clarify her understanding (line 5). At the same time, she replaces
‘sekunde’ with the correct expression ‘zweite’. EL does not orient to the replaced lexical item in
the correction. Rather, EL responds to the understanding check (line 6). Thus, as becomes
apparent here, overt corrections may be “sidestepped” (Wong, 2005, p. 160) and the
194
knowledgeable speaker may not exhibit his or her knowledge openly. By placing more emphasis
on communication, linguistic asymmetry may be downplayed (Wong, 2005).
In sum, the data analysis revealed that a correction in response to a potentially erroneous
German lexical item may be provided as an exposed correction, that is, in a side sequence, with
both speakers orienting to the repairable. In the turn following the correction, the trouble-source
speaker usually confirms the correction by repeating the item or uttering an affirmative token.
Speakers may also ignore the correction. In addition, not all trouble-source speakers gaze at the
partner to invite him or her to participate in the word search. Whereas research from native–
nonnative speaker interactions indicate that corrections from the native speaker are provided only
upon a non-verbal signal (an eye gaze) from the nonnative speaker (Hosoda, 2000), the
participants included in this study corrected their partner both when such a signal was and when
it was not given. In addition, the analysis showed that the test takers in this study may also make
the correction less explicit and embed the repaired item in the next relevant turn. Both exposed
and embedded corrections are employed to correct the partner’s knowledge and to adjust to each
other’s knowledge. The realignment of knowledge helps to maintain mutual understanding
between the two test takers.
The next section looks at instances of non-correction after a self-directed word search has
been completed and the English equivalent of the searched-for German word is uttered.
Non-corrections
Whereas participants in this study may correct the partner overtly or include the repaired item in
their next relevant action to make the correction less explicit, they may also ignore the troublesource speaker’s self-initiated repair and not correct. Similarly to the word search activities with
195
word search markers, speakers who engage in self-directed word search may provide the English
equivalent of the searched-for German word when the search turns out unsuccessful. As can be
seen in Excerpt 4.3-16, it may occur that the hearer does not correct the English lexical item that
emerged from the trouble-source speaker’s word search.
Excerpt 4.3-16: DIS:IntI:H-L:PA-GR (get)
01 PA:
02 GR:
 03
04 PA:
05 GR:
=l- liest du zeitungen? (.7) [oder] [zeitschriften?]
read you newspapers
or
magazines
do you read newspapers or magazines
[ah ] [n- nein
] ich habe mein nachrichten=
no
I have my news
=am
die internet (.5) ahm (4.5) get hh=
on the the
I get my news on the internet
=hahaha [.hh ]
[uhm] haha ah (.5) okay .h uhm
In line 3 of Excerpt 4.3-16, GR searches for a verb to close the turn he started in line 2 in
response to PA’s question (line 1). The silences and the non-lexical perturbations in GR’s turn
indicate that he is searching for a word. GR does not involve PA in the word search. The search
seems to end unsuccessfully because GR does not produce the searched-for German word at the
end of the search, but rather its English equivalent ‘get’. As can be seen, PA does not repair GR’s
word choice and substitute the German word for the English word. Rather, the interaction
proceeds without the correction. One reason that the partner PA does not correct the English item
in GR’s talk may be because he is unable to help as he does not know the German equivalent.
Another reason may be that PA does not see the necessity to repair the lexical item as he and GR
are both English native speakers. In addition, despite the fact that GR’s unsuccessful selfdirected word search resulted in the production of the English equivalent of the German word
196
being sought, mutual understanding has been reached between GR and PA as they know both
languages, English and German. Furthermore, as was argued earlier, producing the English
lexical item may avert potential understanding problems and thus maintain intersubjectivity
between the speakers.
In sum, instances were found in which the partner did not provide the correction even
though the trouble-source speaker produced an erroneous item, mostly the English equivalent of
the German word, after a word search.
Summary
To summarize, the partner may provide a correction when the speaker’s word search did not turn
out successful and an erroneous German lexical item was produced. The analysis showed that
corrections are not only provided upon a non-verbal signal (e.g., eye gaze) from the troublesource speaker. That is, the partner may provide a correction even though the trouble-source
speaker did not explicitly invite the partner to participate in the word search. The data analysis
also revealed that the corrections are given as exposed corrections, that is, both speakers orient to
the repairable within a side sequence that emerged. The repaired item may also be embedded in
the partner’s relevant next action. Exposed and embedded corrections allow the speakers to
realign their knowledge of the searched-for lexical item.
Finally, the partner may let the English equivalent of the searched-for German word slide
and not provide a substitution for the English lexical item produced. Producing the English
lexical item may prevent potential understanding problems and thus maintain intersubjectivity
between the two speakers, who both are English native speakers. In addition, substituting the
197
partner’s English word for the searched-for German word may not be considered necessary as
mutual understanding has been reached with the production of the English lexical item.
The next section is concerned with turn completions that are produced when the partner’s
turn has come to a halt due to a self-directed word search.
4.3.3
Turn completions
This section is devoted to turn completions that are produced in conjunction with a word search
activity. The analysis showed that the participants included in this study may continue the current
speaker’s turn, as it is disrupted due to the current speaker’s word search activity. In CA, turns in
talk-in-interaction are understood to be realized toward a possible completion point. The possible
completion of a turn constructional unit (TCU) may be found and projected in the directional
structure of the TCU. That is, hearers are able to project the possible completion of the partner’s
TCU currently underway. This projection is crucial for turn-taking and change of speakership
(Lerner, 1989). In addition, conversation analysts speak of the progressivity in the turn’s talk
toward the next possible completion. Progressivity requires the fulfillment of both serial and
sequential adjacency, that is, a speaker’s talk should be continuous to the next transition
relevance place (TRP) and show continued syntactic progress. However, serial adjacency may be
delayed (e.g., by laughing or pausing) and sequential adjacency may be disrupted (e.g., by word
repetition), both of which may occur as part of a word search activity (Lerner, 1996).
If the progressivity of the current speaker’s turn is disrupted (i.e., by searching for a
word), both the current speaker and the hearer have the possibility to continue the turn toward
possible completion. Lerner (1996) points out that specifically the current speaker’s word search
opens up the possibility for the hearer to continue the halted TCU. That is, the word search
198
provides the hearer with conditional entry (Lerner, 1996) to the current turn to contribute to the
search by making a word suggestion. Hearer contributions may include providing a single word,
completing the disrupted TCU, or beginning an entirely new turn that aids in advancing the
halted turn. The slot opening up after the hearer’s contribution is reserved for the original
speaker, who either accepts or rejects the suggested words (Lerner, 1996).
Projecting the continuation of the partner’s turn requires a high degree of shared
knowledge between the two speakers. In addition, by confirming or rejecting the completion, the
word-searching speaker also assesses the degree of mutual understanding between himself or
herself and the partner who completed the turn. Mutual understanding can thus be ensured.
In this section, I first look at the types of turn completions provided in the test discourse
of this study. Then, I investigate how the trouble-source speaker recognizes the completion. The
findings are summarized.
Types of turn completions
The data analysis showed that the turn completions in the present data set may be produced in a
“try-marked” (Sacks & Schegloff, 1979) fashion, that is, as a confirmable guess. Sacks and
Schegloff (1979) define a try-marker as a recognitional form with a rising intonation, followed
by a brief pause for the interlocutor to recognize the guess. An example for a try-marker may be
found in Excerpt 4.3-17.
Excerpt 4.3-17: DIS:IntII:H-H:NA-OT (benutzen)
01 NA:
uhm was denkst du uh (.5) über (.2) die papier uh für die zeitung (1.5) uhm=
what think you
about the paper
for the newspaper
what do you think about the paper for the newspaper
199
02
03 OT:
04 NA:
 05 OT:
=hh. (.5) pt sollen (.2) wir (1.2) uh so viel papier, (.7)
should
we
so much paper
°hm°
uhm (3.2) uh=
=benutzen?
use
In line 4 of Excerpt 4.3-17, NA searches for an appropriate verb to finish her questioning
action from lines 1 and 2. The filled pauses (‘uhm’, ‘uh’) and the 3.2-second silence in NA’s talk
indicate that she is searching for the relevant next word in her question. Based on the syntax of
the turn that NA has produced thus far, the missing word can only be a verb. NA’s partner OT
suggests the verb ‘benutzen’ (to use), which fits in the final position of NA’s initial question. OT,
however, utters the verb with a rising intonation contour, suggesting that she is unsure whether or
not the proposed verb is acceptable.
Not all turn completions found in the data of the present study include try-markers in the
classical sense, that is, with a rising intonation. Rather, interlocutor guesses are also spoken in a
softer volume compared to the surrounding talk, as can be seen in line 2 of Excerpt 4.3-18.
Excerpt 4.3-18: DIS:IntII:M-L:AW-DN (ist gut)
01 AW:
 02 DN:
ah ich denke dass ah .hhh (.7) die zeitung:: a::hm (1.2) pt is:t=a::h (4.5) ahm (.2)
I think that
the newspaper
is
°ist gut° (1.7)
is good
Turn completions may also be offered more confidently as an “assuredly correct
completion” (Lerner, 2004, p. 235), like AS does in line 3 of Excerpt 4.3-19.
200
Excerpt 4.3-19: JIG:IntII:M-M:AS-RO (U Bahn und S Bahn)
01 RO:
02
 03 AS:
a:h nicht weit vo::n (.5) der s ba:hn oder:: a:hm (1.5) die=ahm (2.7) pt tch tch
not far from
the train or
the
°what is it° a:hm (.5)
u bahn und s bahn und .h (.) uh fu:ß ist gut
subway and train and
foot is good
In line 1 of Excerpt 4.3-19, RO summarizes what AS has said in the previous turn, but
RO gets stuck (line 2). AS helps and provides the missing information, as can be seen in line 3.
In comparison to the other two excerpts discussed earlier (Excerpts 4.3-17 and 4.3-18), AS
completes RO’s turn in an assertive manner, most likely because she provided that information
before. Turn completions may be used to complete the partner’s turn by providing information
that was mentioned earlier in the conversation but that the partner may have forgotten and is now
searching for, like RO in Excerpt 4.3-19.
It should be noted that the turn completions may include one-word items, oftentimes the
head of a noun or an adjective phrase. Verbs were also provided as the next-due item of the
halted turn (see Excerpt 4.3-17). Recipient contributions may also be longer (see Excerpt 4.3-19).
In these instances, the hearer may even drop the speaker’s halted TCU and produce an entirely
new TCU, in which elements of the original partner’s talk may be repeated but predominantly
new elements are added (Lerner, 1996), as can be seen in Excerpt 4.3-19.
To summarize, in line with previously conducted research on turn completions (Lerner,
1996), the test-taker pairs included in this study also continued the partner’s turn toward next
possible completion when the partner was searching for a word and his or her turn thus came to a
halt. The analysis showed that turn completions may be produced in an uncertain but also in an
assertive manner. To be able to complete the partner’s turn, the degree of mutual understanding
between the speakers needs to be high. In the next section, I investigate how the trouble-source
201
speaker recognized the turn completion provided by the partner and how intersubjectivity is
maintained.
Reactions to turn completions
As shown in the previous section, the speakers participating in this study may continue the
partner’s halted turn to possible completion. This section turns to the reactions to such a
completion. Lerner (1996) points out that the speaker usually confirms the hearer’s suggested
turn completion. The data analysis revealed that the speaker, whose turn has been contributed to
by the hearer, may repeat the suggested lexical or grammatical item and/or provide an
affirmation token (‘ja’). Mutual understanding can thus be maintained. Participant TM in Excerpt
4.3-20 uses all of these features in combination to indicate that he accepts his partner’s word
suggestion.
Excerpt 4.3-20: DIS:IntII:H-L:MG-TM (als)
01 TM:
02
03 MG:
 04 TM:
=ja uhm hhh. (3.2) die ah (.2) die=a:h internet ist=ah (1.0) pt uh schnell uh (1.0)
yes
the
the
is
fast
ahm schneller, (1.0) ahm (4.0)
faster
uh als u[h]
than
[oh] ja [als]
yes than
As can be seen in Excerpt 4.3-20, TM wants to point out that the Internet is faster
compared to something else, but he seems to be stuck, as the silences in line 2 indicate. His
partner MG contributes to TM’s disrupted turn by suggesting ‘als’ (than) as the next-due
grammatical item to advance the turn (line 3). In line 4, TM confirms MG’s contribution by
202
means of a change-of-state token (‘oh’) (Heritage, 1984b), an affirmation token (‘ja’) and a
repetition of the provided item (‘als’).
The original speaker may also reject the turn completion produced by the hearer (Lerner,
1996). The rejection may comprise a negation token (‘nein’ or ‘no’) and a correction (see
Excerpt 4.3-21), or simply a correction.
Excerpt 4.3-21: DIS:IntII:H-M: JN-RY (Sport)
01 JN:
02 RY:
03 JN:
 04 JN:
ick=finde (2.2)
I find
sport [oder:,]
sports or
[(
)]
nein politik.
no politics
As can be seen in line 4 of Excerpt 4.3-21, JN rejects RY’s completion, as the negation
token ‘nein’ indicates. In the same turn, JN corrects RY. JN reads the newspaper for political
news but not for sports, as RY had guessed. It should be noted that the hearer who provides the
completion may project a correct next-due item syntactically, but the item may still be rejected
and corrected, as is in the case in Excerpt 4.3-21, simply because it does not fit semantically or it
is not what the trouble-source speaker wanted to say initially.
In addition, a few instances were found in the present data set in which the original
speaker ignores the hearer’s contribution and continues with the turn he or she initiated prior to
the hearer’s turn completion (see Excerpt 4.3-22 and 4.3-23). Lerner (1989, 2004), who calls this
phenomenon a delayed completion, highlights that this reaction may be due to the speaker
feeling interrupted by the hearer. Regaining the turn may therefore lead to overlapping talk of
speaker and hearer (Lerner, 1989), as can be seen in the episode provided in Excerpt 4.3-23.
203
Excerpt 4.3-22: DIS:IntII:M-L:AW-DN (ist gut); replicated from 4.3-18
01 AW:
02 DN:
 03 AW:
04
05
ah ich denke dass ah .hhh (.7) die zeitung:: a::hm (1.2) pt is:t=a::h (4.5) ahm (.2)
I think that
the newspaper
is
°ist gut° (1.7)
is good
is (1.0) es w:ill existiert aber ah (.7) nicht so (.5) nicht so viel (.7) ahm (2.2) die
is
it will exist but
not so
not so much
the
internet=ah (1.2) ist die future (1.5) ah ich denke. ((knocks on table)) (1.0) ahm
is the
I think
(1.0) und du, ((knocks on table))
and you
Excerpt 4.3-23: DIS:IntI:M-L:TL-SN (Zeitung)
01 SN:
 02 TL:
 03 SN:
für (.2) .shih (.7) pt (.) für (1.2) ah (.7) s::
for
for
internet oder (.2) [die zeitung.]
or
the newspaper
[for der
] ah ↑zeitung.
for the
newspaper
In sum, the turn completions that include the partner’s understanding of the troublesource speaker’s incomplete turn may be accepted, rejected and/or corrected, or even ignored by
the word-searching speaker. In case of a rejected and/or corrected turn completion or a delayed
completion, the trouble-source speaker clarifies the partner’s understanding of his or her initial
contribution and thus gets the interaction back on track.
Summary
This section showed that the participants included in this study may project the possible
completion of the partner’s currently underway TCU when this TCU comes to a halt due to the
speaker engaging in a self-directed word search activity. This finding is in line with findings of
previous CA research on turn completions (Lerner, 1996, 2004). This section also showed that
204
the test takers may provide turn completions in an uncertain manner as try-markers or more
confidently as assuredly correct completions. Completing the partner’s turn presumes a fairly
high degree of mutual understanding between the speakers. In addition, the suggested
completions may be confirmed by affirmation tokens (e.g., ‘ja’) or repetitions. The partner’s
understanding of the trouble-source speaker’s incomplete turn is thus confirmed. The
completions may also be rejected and corrected or simply be ignored. In this case, the troublesource speaker attempts to clarify the partner’s understanding of his or her initial contribution, so
that mutual understanding can be restored.
4.3.4
Summary
The last three sections were devoted to word search activities, which proved to be salient
procedures used to maintain mutual understanding in the test discourse. Speakers engage in a
word search when they have trouble producing a specific lexical item. A word search interrupts
the speaker’s talk and may put intersubjectivity at risk. A word search, which is a form of selfinitiated repair, is usually displayed through pauses, non-lexical speech perturbations and/or
word search markers uttered by the speaker of the trouble-source turn. The word search activities
are first and foremost self-directed. However, the partner may be included in the search, if the
speaker is unable to resolve the trouble by himself and herself. Only word search activities that
involved both speaker and hearer were presented and discussed.
One word search activity that was found in the data was a type of word search that
includes a word search marker (e.g., ‘how do you say X’) and involves the partner to solve the
trouble by means of a non-verbal signal (an eye gaze). Since most other-directed word search
initiations included the English equivalent of the searched-for German word as a lexical cue to
205
make the search specific for the partner, intersubjectivity could be maintained. By providing the
English equivalent of the searched-for German lexical item, trouble-source speakers may avert
potential understanding trouble that may otherwise emerge due to unknown lexical items.
Furthermore, the analysis showed that the partner included in the word search may disengage
from the trouble-source speaker’s search. For example, the partner may say that he or she does
not know the word or acknowledge comprehension of what the speaker is trying to convey
without providing the searched-for item. As most word search initiations directed at the partner
include the English equivalent of the searched-for German word, the interaction could continue
no matter how (or if) the partner accepted to participate in the word search. Thus, mutual
understanding could usually be maintained when the English equivalent of the searched-for
German word was provided as a lexical cue in these word search sequences.
In addition, corrections were found in the discourse between test takers after a selfdirected word search was completed and a word supplied. The analysis revealed that recipients
may correct an erroneous German lexical item that the trouble-source speaker suggested after the
search. The partner who provides the correction may do so regardless of whether he or she was
invited (by means of a non-verbal signal) to participate in the word search. In contrast to exposed
corrections, in which both interlocutors specifically orient to the trouble source, embedded
corrections do not disrupt the ongoing talk, as the repaired item is included in the next action.
Exposed and embedded corrections allow the speakers to realign their knowledge of the
searched-for lexical item. Furthermore, instances were also found in which an English lexical
item emerged from an unsuccessful solitary word search. However, the partner may not
substitute the English word for the German equivalent. The partner may not find it necessary to
206
suggest the German equivalent of the English word, as mutual understanding has been reached
with the production of the English lexical item.
Finally, turn completions were discussed as responses to word search activities. The data
anslysis showed that when a turn is disrupted due to a word search, the partner may complete the
trouble-source speaker’s turn. Continuing the other’s turn requires from the partner to project the
possible completion of the other person’s turn. It also requires a good understanding of what the
trouble-source speaker has said so far. Thus, mutual understanding between both speakers must
be given for a speaker to complete the partner’s turn. After the completion, a slot opens for the
original speaker to confirm or reject the completion. Thus, the trouble-source speaker’s response
suggests the degree of shared understanding between the speakers. By comfirming the partner’s
completion, the speaker also confirms the partner’s understanding of the trouble-source speaker’s
initial contribution. When rejecting and/or correcting or ignoring a completion, the troublesource speaker refuses to accept the partner’s interpretation and understanding of his or her initial
contribution. In this case, the trouble-source speaker has to clarify the partner’s understanding of
the trouble-source turn, so that intersubjectivity can be maintained.
4.4
Summary
Chapter 4 identified the mechanisms of repair that are prominently used in the paired test
discourse of an intermediate-level German speaking test to maintain intersubjectivity. In that
respect, it was of interest to show how the procedures of repair are sequentially organized in the
test discourse. In addition, the question was also whether particular procedures of repair used to
accomplish ‘maintaining intersubjectivity’ can be described as more or less interactionally
207
complex, for example, in terms of turn design, orienting to trouble, resolving trouble, anticipating
trouble.
The chapter presented and discussed the findings from a conversation analysis conducted
on the paired test discourse. Three procedures of repair turned out to be particularly prominent
procedures to maintain intersubjectivity in the data set. These procedures of repair are: (a) otherinitiated self-repair, where the hearer initiates repair and the speaker repairs the trouble source in
the turn following the repair initiation; (b) self-initiated self-repair, where the trouble-source
speaker initiates repair and solves the trouble, either in the spot following the completed TCU
that holds the repairable (transition space repair) or after the partner’s utterance that displays a
misunderstanding of an earlier turn (third position repair); and (c) self-initiated other-repair,
where both speaker and hearer are involved in the speaker’s word search activity.
The procedures of repair presented were described with respect to its various parts,
including the repair initiation, repair proper, and trouble source. In response to repair initiators,
delays in turn uptake, and perceived misunderstandings, forms of self-repair (e.g., repetitions,
modified repetitions, clarifications, translations) were deployed to maintain intersubjectivity. In
combination with word search activities, test takers provided the English equivalent of the
searched-for German word, either as a cue for the partner who was invited to participate in the
word search or as the result from a solitary word search. In either case, falling back to the L1
when a word search is underway may avert potential understanding trouble and thus maintain
intersubjectivity. In addition, exposed and embedded corrections of erroneous German lexical
items, which emerged from a self-directed word search, allowed the speakers to realign their
knowledge of the searched-for German word. Furthermore, the analysis showed that completing
the partner’s turn when it came to a halt due to the speaker’s word search requires a high degree
208
of shared knowledge between both speakers. With the trouble-source speaker’s response to the
partner’s turn completion, the degree of mutual understanding between both speakers was made
visible. That is, the partner’s understanding of the trouble-source speaker’s initial contribution
(as displayed by the turn completion) was confirmed or rejected. In case of a rejected turn
completion, intersubjectivity was maintained when the trouble-source speaker clarified the
partner’s understanding of his or her incomplete turn.
Finally, the data analysis revealed that forms of self-repair, either other-initiated or
caused by inter-turn delays or misunderstandings, can be differentiated with respect to recipient
design and context-sensitivity. That is, forms of self-repair that are modified in a way to be more
accessible to the partner may be considered more complex interactional resources to maintain
intersubjectivity. In contrast, repetitions suggest that the speaker has only very little
understanding about the degree of shared knowledge between himself or herself and the other
participant. Thus, anticipating and trying to solve problems of understanding, even though a
hearing problem is displayed or because the partner does not take the next turn may be
indications of an advanced projectability of trouble and thus of higher interactional competence.
In addition, in contrast to procedures of repair that orient to lexical item trouble, turning to a
whole action as the repairable may be considered evidence of higher context sensitivity.
Furthermore, forms of candidate understanding may be regarded as a stronger type of otherinitiated repair in locating the trouble source than open-class repair initiators or partial repetitions
of the repairable.
In the next chapter, the contextual features, such as task and ability-level combinations in
the pairs, are taken into consideration in the co-construction of repair.
209
CHAPTER 5 EFFECTS OF TASK AND ABILITY LEVEL
In chapter 4, I identified and described procedures of repair that emerged from a conversation
analysis and turned out to be salient in the co-constructed test discourse. Test takers deployed
these procedures to maintain mutual understanding in the interaction. As intersubjectivity is
understood as the basis for interactional competence, practices of repair that are mostly deployed
in talk-in-interaction to sustain intersubjectivity can thus be considered one major component of
the construct of interactional competence.
Chapter 5 is devoted to the impact of the test task and speaking ability-level combination
in the test-taker pairs on the co-constructed procedures of repair. Previous research found that
elements of the test situation (e.g., the task) and test-taker and interlocutor characteristics (e.g.,
language ability or proficiency) may influence the paired or group oral test discourse (Galaczi,
2014; Gan, 2010; Nakatsuhara, 2013; van Moere, 2007), which may result in an interaction that
compromises the reliability and validity of the test. Investigating the impact of the test task and
test takers’ speaking ability on the jointly constructed test discourse promises a better
understanding of the co-construction and structural organization of peer-to-peer test talk in the
present data set.
From an interaction–abilities approach (Bachman, 1990) or a mainstream communicative
language testing perspective (Harding, 2014), section 5.1 looks at the impact of the task and the
speaking ability level of the members in the pair on interactional competence, that is, the coconstructed procedures of repair that were identified in chapter 4. Across tasks and ability-level
combinations, I present the frequency distribution of the individual components of the repair
sequence or only the repair proper if a repair sequence does not emerge as such. The findings of
210
the analysis provide an insight into the impact of the task on interactional competence in the
present test setting. In addition, the data also shed light on the extent to which speaking ability
corresponds with interactional competence.
In the second part of chapter 5, I attempt to investigate the interlocutor effect in more
detail. Some language testers have pointed out that macro categories, for example, a speaker’s
language ability or proficiency, are traditionally considered stable and fixed (Brown &
McNamara, 2004; Lazaraton & Davis, 2008; McNamara, 2001; McNamara & Roever, 2006).
These scholars, however, stipulate that these categories should rather be described as emerging
from the talk-in-interaction. They argue that participants’ language ability or proficiency is coconstructed in the test talk and is displayed in the discourse itself.
Investigating how both speaking ability and interactional competence are co-constructed
in sequentially organized talk may provide a more detailed picture of their relationship. Merely
understanding speaking ability from a macro level perspective without investigating the test
discourse itself may obscure the speaker’s actual speaking ability that is constituted and
displayed in the test talk. In addition, approaching speaking ability as an evolving resource from
the actual interaction that is adapted to the contextual domain in which the interaction is set
would also comply with a moderate interaction-based approach to test construct definition
(Chalhoub-Deville, 2003; Mislevy, 2012).
Thus, in section 5.2, I identify the means, specifically the practices of repair, by which the
test takers position themselves as proficient or competent in the test discourse. Section 5.3
summarizes the major findings of both analyses.
211
5.1
Impact of task and speaking ability in the test-taker pair on interactional competence
After identifying instances of repair, which are deployed as interactional procedures to maintain
mutual understanding between peers (see chapter 4), this section examines how the procedures
found are distributed across tasks (discussion task and jigsaw tasks) and across ability-level
combinations of test-taker pairs (similar and different ability-level combinations). To be precise,
the following research questions are answered:
What procedures of repair are used in the different tasks and the various ability-level
combinations?
a) What are the range and frequency of these procedures in a discussion task and in a jigsaw
task?
b) What are the range and frequency of procedures produced by pairs where both members
of the pair are at the same level of speaking ability and in pairs where the members are at
different levels of speaking ability?
c) What procedures are produced predominantly by the higher or lower ability-level partner
in the different ability-level combinations?
Changes in both co-constructed test performance (instances of repair produced) and
context (task and ability-level combination in the pair) can be expected to interrelate in the
present test setting in some way, which would be consistent with previous research on paired and
group second language (L2) speaking tests (e.g., Galaczi, 2014; Nakatsuhara, 2013; van Moere,
2007). In this section, I identify some trends in how the range and frequency of the interactional
competence procedures change with respect to differences in task characteristics and varying
212
speaking ability levels in the test-taker pairs. Both raw and proportional frequencies are
presented.
It is important to note that 21 pairs at somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and
very different ability-level combinations (High–Low) were included in the study and 13 pairs at
similar ability levels (High–High, Mid–Mid, Low–Low). The distribution of participating pairs is
slightly skewed toward somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations, which
may be reflected in the findings.
First, this section presents and discusses the frequency distribution of other-initiated
repair instances (repair initiators and responses to repair initiations), followed by instances of
transition space repair and third position repair, and finally by word search instances (including
turn completions and corrections). A summary with the main findings is presented.
5.1.1
Other-initiated self-repair
As procedures to maintain intersubjectivity in the test discourse, instances of other-initiated selfrepair were prominent in the data of the present study. In section 4.1, occurrences of otherinitiated self-repair were presented and discussed. In these instances, a hearer initiates repair
when he or she encounters a problem in prior talk. In the turn following the repair initiation, the
trouble-source speaker repairs the problem that the hearer has brought to the original speaker’s
attention (Schegloff et al., 1977). Schegloff (2000a) points out that a repair sequence emerges
from the repair initiation.
Overall, 82 other-initiated repair sequences were found in the entire data set. Thirty-five
sequences occurred in the discussion and 47 in the jigsaw. In this section, the number and
213
distribution of the various types of repair initiation and forms of self-repair across tasks and
ability-level combinations are presented.
First, I look at two repair initiators, open-class repair initiators and forms of candidate
understanding (understanding checks, comprehension checks, expansions), as they belong to
opposing ends of a continuum in locating the trouble source (Schegloff et al., 1977). That is,
open-class repair initiators are considered the weakest interactional resource and forms of
candidate understandings the strongest procedure in locating the repairable. Then, I show in what
tasks and how frequently the participants oriented to an action-as-a-whole as the repairable.
Section 4.1.1 showed that open-class repair initiators may be used to turn to an entire action as
the trouble source. Making use of this practice of repair may be an indication of a broader
orientation to language (Hellermann, 2011). Finally, the range and frequency of the various
forms of self-repair in response to other-initiated repair are examined across tasks and abilitylevel combinations, before the major findings are summarized.
Open-class repair initiators
Open-class repair initiators, such as ‘hm?’, ‘huh?’, or ‘wie bitte?’ (‘excuse me?’), are weak repair
initiators, as they do not give any indication of the trouble source (Schegloff et al., 1977). They
usually signal problems of hearing (Svennevig, 2008). Table 5–1 depicts the number and
distribution of the classical open-class repair initiators (e.g., ‘hm?’, ‘huh?’, ‘wie bitte?’).
214
Table 5–1: Frequency distribution of open-class repair initiators
Ability-level combination
Course level Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
9.1% (n=1)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
9.1% (n=1)
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
18.2% (n=2) 9.1% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
9.1% (n=1)
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
9.1% (n=1)
9.1% (n=1)
High-Int.
18.2% (n=2) 9.1% (n=1)
High–Low
Low-Int.
Total
63.6% (n=7) 36.4% (n=4)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
Table 5–1 shows that eleven instances of open-class repair initiators, such as ‘hm?’,
‘huh?’ or ‘wie bitte?’, were found in the entire data set. Seven instances of open-class repair
initiators occurred in the discussion and four in the jigsaw. Except for the High–High and the
Low–Low ability-level pairs, open-class repair initiators were produced across the various
ability-level combinations. However, this procedure was mainly deployed at somewhat different
(High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) ability-level combinations. In addition, in
the majority of instances in the somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations,
the higher ability-level partners launched the open-class repair initiators.
In addition to the open-class repair initiators, repeat requests (‘repeat please’, ‘einmal’)
and understanding repair initiators (‘verstehe nicht’) were found. These forms of repair initiators
appear to have a function similar to the traditional open-class repair initiators, in that they do not
indicate what in the prior turn is causing the trouble. The frequency distribution of repeat
requests and understanding repair initiators can be found in Table 5–2.
215
Table 5–2: Frequency distribution of repeat requests and understanding repair initiators
Ability-level combination
Repeat requests (n=6)
Discussion
Jigsaw
Course level
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
17% (n=1)
50% (n=3)
High-Int.
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
33% (n=2)
High-Int.
High–Low
Low-Int.
Total
50% (n=3)
50% (n=3)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
Understanding repair initiators
(n=2)
Discussion
Jigsaw
50% (n=1)
50% (n=1)
100% (n=2)
0% (n=0)
Repeat requests, such as ‘einmal’ (once, or rather once more) and ‘repeat it’ or ‘can you
repeat it’ occurred in both the discussion and the jigsaw. Like conventional open-class repair
initiators, they do not specifically indicate to the partner what the repairable is. Table 5–2
indicates that a total of six repeat requests were produced in the data. Of these six instances, four
repeat requests were in the form of ‘einmal’ (‘once’ or rather once more) and were deployed by
Low–Low ability-level pairs. One occurrence was found in the discussion and three in the
jigsaw. In addition, a repeat request in English, ‘repeat it’ and ‘can you repeat it’, was deployed
twice at the Mid–Low ability level. Overall, low ability-level speakers in interaction with other
low- or mid-level speakers produced the repeat requests. A closer look at the individual pairs that
launched the repeat requests reveals that each form was produced by only one pair. That is, the
same Low–Low ability-level pair deployed the repair request ‘einmal’ once in the discussion and
three times in the jigsaw, and the same Mid–Low ability-level pair produced the ‘repeat it’
216
request twice in the discussion. Thus, the fact that either repeat request is deployed in the
interactions of only one pair makes the procedure of repeat requests appear quite idiosyncratic.
In addition to repeat requests, another type of an open-class repair initiator that displays
an understanding or comprehension problem, such as ‘verstehe nicht’ (don’t understand) or
‘weiß nicht, was du fragst’ (don’t know what you are asking), was found only in the discussion
data. This repair initiator was produced twice (see Table 5–2). It was launched as second repair
initiator in a multiple repair initiation sequence in the discussion of two pairs, a Mid–Mid abilitylevel pair and a High–Low ability-level pair. That this form of repair initiation was deployed in
the discussion only and at only two ability-level combinations may suggest that it is a rare
procedure to maintain intersubjectivity.
In sum, the quantitative analysis showed that open-class repair initiators predominantly
occur in the discussion and jigsaw of pairs at somewhat different and very different ability-level
combinations. However, more different ability-level pairs than same ability-level were included
in the study. In addition, other forms of open-class repair initiators, such as repeat requests and
understanding repair initiators (‘verstehe nicht’), were used very distinctively by specific pairs.
After looking at the range and frequency of open-class repair initiators, the next section turns to
the number and distribution of forms of candidate understanding across tasks and ability-level
combinations.
Candidate understanding
As was pointed out in section 4.1.1, candidate understanding (Kurhila, 2006) is the strongest type
of other-initiated repair in locating the trouble source, as the recipient articulates his or her
interpretation of the previous turn and thus points the trouble-source speaker directly to the
217
repairable (Schegloff et al., 1977). Table 5–3 shows the frequency distribution of the occurrences
of understanding checks and comprehension checks.
Table 5–3: Frequency distribution of understanding checks and comprehension checks
Understanding checks (n=19)
Course level Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
10.5% (n=2)
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
10.5% (n=2)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
5.3% (n=1)
Low–Low
Low-Int.
5.3% (n=1)
High-Int.
5.3% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
10.5% (n=2) 10.5% (n=2)
High-Int.
10.5% (n=2)
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
5.3% (n=1)
High-Int.
5.3% (n=1)
5.3% (n=1)
High–Low
Low-Int.
10.5% (n=2)
5.3% (n=1)
Total
47.4% (n=9) 52.6% (n=10)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
Ability-level combination
Comprehension checks (n=14)
Discussion
Jigsaw
7.1% (n=1)
7.1% (n=1)
21.4% (n=3)
7.1% (n=1)
7.1% (n=1)
14.3% (n=2)
7.1% (n=1)
7.1% (n=1)
42.9% (n=6)
21.4% (n=3)
57.1% (n=8)
As Table 5–3 indicates, understanding checks, which as one form of candidate
understanding are used to clarify one’s understanding of the previous turn, were deployed nine
times in the discussion and ten times in the jigsaw. They are almost evenly distributed across the
two tasks, suggesting that this procedure is produced in a consistent manner in both the
discussion task and jigsaw task. However, in the discussion, understanding checks were
produced primarily at somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations. In the
jigsaw, they were deployed across a wider range of speaking ability combinations and occurred
more in the interactions of similar ability-level pairs.
In comprehension checks, another form of candidate understanding, interlocutors
summarize their understanding of the partner’s previous contribution. Six instances of
218
comprehension checks were found in the discussion and eight in the jigsaw. Thus,
comprehension checks were produced to a similar extent across the two tasks. As Table 5–3
shows, comprehension checks were hardly, if at all, produced in the discussion by pairs who are
at the same ability level (High–High, Mid–Mid, and Low–Low). In the somewhat different
(High–Mid and Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) ability-level combinations, test-taker
pairs deployed comprehension checks more frequently when engaging in the discussion task.
In comparison, the majority of comprehension checks in the jigsaw occurred at two
ability-level combinations. Three instances of this procedure were produced between Mid–Mid
ability-level speakers at the high-intermediate level (fourth-semester German) and another three
at the Mid–Low level of low-intermediate level (third-semester German) speakers. Thus, pairs at
only two ability levels used comprehension checks. Looking closely at the individual pairs that
produced the comprehension checks in the jigsaw, it becomes apparent that the three instances
deployed at the Mid–Low ability level were produced in the discourse of one pair alone. The
three comprehension checks were even launched by the same mid-level speaker. Similarly, the
three occurrences of comprehension checks found at the Mid–Mid ability level were produced by
only one pair as well. Here, one instance was initiated by one partner, the other two by the other.
In sum, even though comprehension checks were deployed in similar number in the
discussion and the jigsaw tasks, they were used differently across ability-level combinations.
They mainly occurred at somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations in the
discussion and predominantly at two very specific ability-level combinations (Mid–Mid, Mid–
Low) in the jigsaw.
Expansions are the third form of candidate understanding. The number and distribution of
expansions across both tasks and all ability-level combinations is presented in Table 5–4.
219
Table 5–4: Frequency distribution of expansions
Ability-level combination Course level
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
High–Low
Low-Int.
Total
Discussion Jigsaw
10% (n=1)
10% (n=1)
20% (n=2) 10% (n=1)
20% (n=2)
30% (n=3)
50% (n=5) 50% (n=5)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
In expansions, recipients further develop the partner’s previous contribution. Like the
understanding and comprehension checks, expansions were produced in both the discussion and
the jigsaw (see Table 5–4). In the discussion, expansions were deployed only at the highintermediate level (fourth-semester German). In the jigsaw, however, expansions were produced
at both the high- and low-intermediate level (fourth and third-semester German, respectively).
Expansions were found fives times in each task, particularly at the High–Mid and the High–Low
ability-level combinations. Thus, the data suggest that even though expansions were produced in
both tasks, they were not produced frequently and are therefore not well distributed across the
various ability-level combinations. Expansions were mainly produced at two ability-level
combinations, which may indicate that this procedure is very distinctively used.
To summarize, all forms of candidate understanding were produced to a similar extent in
number in both the discussion and the jigsaw task. Understanding checks were produced mostly
at somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations in the discussion but across
220
the entire range of speaking ability combinations (including the same ability-level combinations)
in the jigsaw. Similarly, comprehension checks were deployed predominantly at somewhat
different and very different ability-level combinations in the discussion. In the jigsaw, however,
comprehension checks were used by only two pairs, who were at two ability-level combinations.
In addition, expansions in both tasks were deployed for the most part at two ability-level
combinations, indicating that this procedure may be fairly idiosyncratic in its use as well.
After investigating the number and distribution of repair initiators in this section, the
focus now shifts to a procedure of repair that is oriented to the entire action of the previous turn
as the trouble source.
Orienting to an action-as-a-whole as the repairable
Section 4.1.1 showed that test takers may use open-class repair initiators (e.g., ‘wie bitte?’) or
rising-intonational full repeats to turn to an action-as-a-whole as the repairable (Drew, 1997;
Robinson & Keveo-Feldman, 2010). In comparison to other trouble sources, such as lexical
trouble, reference issues, or hearing problems, identifying a whole action as problematic appears
to be a type of higher order trouble (Robinson & Keveo-Feldman, 2010). Test takers who project
the partner’s action as the repairable may orient to language in a wider sense and may thus have
obtained a greater interactional competence (Hellermann, 2011). Table 5–5 depicts the number
and distribution of test takers’ orientation to an action-as-a-whole as the repairable across tasks
and ability-level combinations.
221
Table 5–5: Frequency distribution of entire action trouble
Ability-level combination
Course level Discussion Jigsaw
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
20% (n=1)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
40% (n=2) 20% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
20% (n=1)
High-Int.
High–Low
Low-Int.
Total
40% (n=2) 60% (n=3)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
As can be seen from Table 5–5, test takers oriented to an action-as-a-whole in both the
discussion task and the jigsaw task. Two instances were found in the discussion and three in the
jigsaw. This procedure of repair occurred rarely in the test discourse analyzed in this study.
Turning to a whole action as the repairable was accomplished by only a handful of pairs.
For example, this procedure was detected three times at the High–Mid ability level
between high-intermediate level (fourth-semester German) students. At this ability level, it was
produced twice in the discussion and once in the jigsaw. Each time, it was the higher ability-level
participant who initiated an open-class repair initiator (‘wie bitte?’, excuse me?) to display that
the action the partner has produced does not sequentially match the previous talk.
At first glance, the data may suggest that there is a tendency for high ability-level
speakers to be more prone to display incoherence between current and previous actions when
interacting with a mid-level speaker. However, orienting to an entire action in the previous turn
was also accomplished in the jigsaw interactions of a Mid–Mid and a Mid–Low level pair. That
222
is, a mid and a low ability-level participant also turned to whole action trouble. In the Mid–Mid
level pair, the open-class repair initiator ‘wie bitte?’ (‘excuse me?’) was produced to display
trouble with the entire action in the preceding turn. The low ability-level speaker in the Mid–Low
ability-level pair, however, deployed a full repeat with a rising intonation contour to orient to
trouble caused by a sequentially incoherent action that was put forth by the partner.
Thus, turning to a whole action as the repairable is a rarely occurring practice of repair.
The few instances found in the present data set suggest that this procedure is not necessarily tied
to the speaking ability combination in the pair or to the ability level of the speaker who initiates
the repair. However, which pairs initiate repair to indicate an action-as-a-whole as trouble source
may be contingent on the task. There may be a trend suggesting that high-level speakers in High–
Mid ability-level pairs orient to an entire action as trouble source in both the discussion and
jigsaw task, whereas mid-level speakers in Mid–Mid ability-level pairs and low-level speakers in
Mid–Low ability-level pairs are more inclined to turn to whole action trouble in the jigsaw.
This section presented the number and distribution of repair initiators (open-class repair
initiators and forms of candidate understanding) as well as of test takers orienting to an action-asa-whole as the repairable. The next section focuses on forms of self-repair in response to the
partner’s repair initiation.
Forms of self-repair after repair initiations by the other
Section 4.1.2 showed that trouble-source speakers when responding to hearing repair initiators
(e.g., open-class repair initiators or repetitions) may repeat the trouble source and adjust it by
dropping, adding, or changing elements of the trouble source turn (Schegloff, 2004). The data
analysis revealed that in addition to the modified repetitions, the original speakers may also
223
respond by means of other methods, for example, by clarifying, explaining, reformulating
questions, adjusting responses, and translating problematic lexical items. The use of these
various forms of self-repair, including modified repeats, suggests that the trouble-source speaker
has projected that the partner has encountered a problem of understanding, even though a hearing
repair initiator was displayed (Svennevig, 2008). By adjusting and clarifying his or her initial
utterance, the trouble-source speaker makes his or her contribution more accessible to the partner
to facilitate understanding. Thus, the trouble-source speaker is aware of a potential gap in shared
knowledge between himself or herself and the partner. As was pointed out in chapter 4,
procedures of self-repair that are better designed to the recipient and are more context-sensitive
may be considered more complex interactional resources in maintaining intersubjectivity.
Table 5–6 shows the range and frequency of the procedures that were constructed in ways
to make utterances more accessible to the partner. These procedures are modified repetitions and
other adjustments of the problematic talk that were deployed in response to other-initiated
hearing repair initiators, that is, open-class repair initiators, partial and full repeats, and repeats
with question words.
224
Table 5–6: Frequency distribution of modified repetitions and other forms of self-repair
(adjustments, clarifications) orienting to understanding trouble
Modified repetitions (n=9)
Ability-level
combination
Course level
Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
22.2% (n=2)
Low–Low
Low-Int.
11.1% (n=1)
High-Int.
22.2% (n=2)
11.1% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
22.2% (n=2)
11.1% (n=1)
High-Int.
High–Low
Low-Int.
Total
66.7% (n=6)
33.3% (n=3)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
Adjustments, clarifications (n=16)
Discussion
Jigsaw
12.5% (n=2)
6.3% (n=1)
6.3% (n=1)
6.3% (n=1)
6.3% (n=1)
25% (n=4)
6.3% (n=1)
12.5% (n=2)
6.3% (n=1)
6.3% (n=1)
43.75% (n=7)
6.3% (n=1)
56.25% (n=9)
As can be seen in Table 5–6, modified repeats were produced less frequently than other
forms of self-repair used to repair a problem of understanding after a hearing repair initiation. In
the discussion task, modified repeats were launched six times; three instances were found in the
jigsaw task. Due to the small number of occurrences, modified repeats are not as well distributed
across the various ability-level combinations as other forms of self-repair.
In contrast, other forms of self-repair (e.g., clarifications, translations of problematic
German lexical items) that attempt to repair an understanding problem even though a hearing
repair initiator was displayed were produced seven times in the discussion and nine times in the
jigsaw. Except for the High–High ability-level pairs, attempts to repair problems of
understanding rather than hearing occurred across all ability-level combinations in both the
discussion and the jigsaw. That no instances were found at the High–High ability-level
225
combination is due to the fact that hardly any open-class repair initiators or repetitions to initiate
repair were produced by speakers at this ability level.
When combining the instances of modified repeats and the other forms of self-repair
produced in the entire data set, it becomes apparent that these instances were produced across a
wide range of ability-level combinations, which may suggest that the ability level of the
members in the pair does not play a major role in projecting potential problems of understanding
or comprehension when a hearing repair initiator has been launched.
In addition, repetitions or affirmation tokens were also produced in response to a hearing
repair initiator, even though a lexical understanding or comprehension problem was at stake.
Thus, instances as such suggest that the trouble-source speaker was unable to project a potential
understanding or comprehension problem and thus treated the displayed trouble of hearing as a
hearing problem. In these cases, the trouble-source speaker was unable to tailor his or her
contributions to the partner’s knowledge or lack thereof. Table 5–7 shows the number and
distribution of repetitions and affirmations after hearing repair initiations.
226
Table 5–7: Frequency distribution of repetitions or affirmations
after a hearing problem was displayed
Ability-level combination
Course level Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
12.5% (n=1)
High-Int.
12.5% (n=1)
Low–Low
Low-Int.
12.5% (n=1)
High-Int.
25% (n=2)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
12.5% (n=1)
High-Int.
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
25% (n=2)
High-Int.
High–Low
Low-Int.
Total
12.5% (n=1) 87.5% (n=7)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
As can be taken from Table 5–7, instances of repetition and affirmation as response to
hearing repair initiators mainly occurred in the jigsaw; only one occurrence was found in the
discussion. In the jigsaw, they were mainly deployed at somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–
Low) ability-level combinations and at the Low–Low ability level.
In addition to the forms of self-repair presented in Tables 5–6 and 5–7, in two instances,
the partner’s repair initiation was ignored. In one instance, the trouble-source speaker initiated an
entirely new sequence and did not repair the trouble. One instance was found where the troublesource speaker broke down while trying to repair the trouble. Also, in six instances, the test
discourse indicated that a mere repetition of the repairable turned out to be sufficient, since an
actual hearing problem was at stake, as was displayed by the hearing repair initiator.
To summarize, modified repeats and other forms of self-repair (e.g., translations of
potentially problematic lexical items, clarifications, reformulations of questions), both of which
were used to make a problematic utterance more accessible to the partner even though hearing
227
trouble was displayed, occurred in a consistent manner across tasks and ability-level
combinations. The majority of self-repair after a hearing repair initiator oriented to the repairable
as a problem of understanding rather than hearing.
Summary
Most repair procedures discussed in this section (e.g., orienting to the whole action as trouble
source, launching open-class repair initiators, checking understanding or comprehension,
responding to other-initiated repair by means of modified repeats) occurred in both the
discussion task and the jigsaw task. However, asking the partner to repeat the previous turn by
displaying incomprehension (‘verstehe nicht’, don’t understand) was found in the discussion data
only.
The analysis also indicates that forms of self-repair used to repair an understanding
problem after a hearing repair initiator was deployed were evenly distributed across the various
ability-level combinations. Understanding checks when produced in the jigsaw also occurred
across all ability-level combinations. The majority of procedures analyzed, however, seem to be
relatively distinctively used, that is, they were deployed in the discourse of pairs at particular
ability-level combinations or were even used by specific pairs only. Such procedures, for
example, are launching the open-class repair initiators ‘einmal’ and ‘verstehe nicht’, checking
comprehension, giving expansions, and orienting to the whole action as the repairable.
In addition, with regard to test takers’ ability level in the pair, the quantitative analysis
revealed that the ability level may have an effect on the initiation of some procedures, but not
necessarily on all. For example, open-class repair initiators, such as ‘hm?’, ‘huh?’, ‘wie bitte?’,
were launched mostly by the higher ability-level partner in the somewhat different and very
228
different ability-level combinations. The repeat requests, such as ‘einmal’ and ‘repeat it’, appear
to be produced mainly by the low ability-level speaker in interaction with other low- or mid-level
speakers. However, checking understanding and providing modified repeats and other forms of
adjustments and modifications as response to other-initiated repair, all of which may be
considered interactionally fairly advanced procedures, are deployed across various ability-level
combinations and are initiated by speakers at different ability levels (high, mid, low).
In addition, the data analysis suggests that orienting to an action-as-a-whole as the
repairable does not seem to be tied to the speaking ability combination in the pair or to the ability
level of the repair-initiating speaker. However, there seems to be an interplay between abilitylevel combination and task, because the lower ability-level pairs (Low–Low, Mid–Low) turned
to an entire action only in the jigsaw, whereas higher ability-level pairs (High–Mid) made use of
this repair procedure in both the discussion and the jigsaw.
After looking at the number and distribution of instances of repair initiation and repair in
sequences of other-initiated self-repair in this section, the next section turns to instances of selfinitiated self-repair, particularly occurrences of transition space repair and third position repair.
5.1.2
Self-initiated self-repair
In addition to forms of other-initiated self-repair discussed in the previous chapter, forms of selfinitiated self-repair were also prevalent in the present data set. As was shown in section 4.2, the
original speaker may initiate and provide repair in the transition space of his or her initial turn
when the partner delayed the uptake of the next turn. This structure has been referred to as
transition space repair in the CA literature (Schegloff et al., 1977). In addition, the conversation
analysis of the present study also revealed that the original speaker may initiate repair when the
229
partner’s contribution indicated that he or she must have misunderstood the previous turn. This
procedure of repair is known as third position repair (Schegloff, 1992a).
This section looks at the number and distribution of both practices of repair across tasks
and ability-level combinations. The range and frequency of transition space repair across tasks
and ability-level combinations is presented first, followed by the number and distribution of third
position repair. The major findings are summarized.
Transition space repair
As was pointed out in section 4.2.1, the test takers included in this study may delay taking the
next turn, even though the current speaker’s turn was possibly complete and the current hearer
was selected as next speaker. Due to the delay, the original speaker may anticipate a problem of
hearing, lexical understanding, or comprehension and therefore take the floor again to initiate
repair in the transition space, which is the spot after his or her just possibly completed turn. Table
5–8 shows the number and distribution of transition space repair in both the discussion task and
the jigsaw task and across the various ability-level combinations in the test-taker pairs.
230
Table 5–8: Frequency distribution of transition space repair
Ability-level combination
Course level Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
2.6% (n=1)
High–High
Low-Int.
2.6% (n=1)
High-Int.
7.7% (n=3)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
2.6% (n=1) 5.1% (n=2)
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
2.6% (n=1) 2.6% (n=1)
High-Int.
7.7% (n=3) 5.1% (n=2)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
7.7% (n=3) 12.8% (n=5)
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
5.1% (n=2) 5.1% (n=2)
High-Int.
10.3% (n=4) 10.3% (n=4)
High–Low
Low-Int.
2.6% (n=1) 7.7% (n=3)
Total
41% (n=16) 59% (n=23)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
As can be seen in Table 5–8, of the 39 instances of transition space repair produced in the
entire data set, 23 occurrences were found in the jigsaw, whereas 16 were detected in the
discussion. In addition, transition space repair was mostly produced in the discourse of somewhat
different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) ability-level pairings. For both
tasks combined, ten instances were found in the ability-level pairs whose members are at fairly
similar speaking ability (High–High, Mid–Mid, Low–Low), whereas 29 instances of transition
space repair were produced in the discourse of somewhat and very different ability-level pairs.
Particularly high-intermediate level (fourth-semester German) participants at the Mid–
Low and High–Low ability level produced transition space repair the most. In these highintermediate level pairings, it was either the higher or the lower ability-level speaker who
provided the repair in both the discussion and the jigsaw. In the low-intermediate (third-semester
German) level pairs, only the higher ability-level partner was found to launch transition space
repair in either task.
231
The majority of transition space repair are rewordings, translations, and clarifications of
parts of the trouble-source turn. Only a small number of self-repairs were repetitions. Six
repetitions were found in the entire data set: three in the discussion and three in the jigsaw. They
were produced at various ability levels. In the discussion, two instances of repetitions were found
at the Mid–Low and one at the Mid–Mid ability level. In the jigsaw, the three repetitions
occurred at the Mid–Low, High–High, and Low–Low ability levels. Similarly to the otherinitiated self-repairs, the self-repairs in transition space were mostly produced in a way to make a
potentially problematic lexical item or utterance more accessible to the partner, with the goal to
facilitate understanding and to maintain intersubjectivity.
In addition, the high number of transition space repair produced in the test discourse
indicates that this practice is a common procedure in response to a partner delaying the uptake of
his or her turn. Only four instances were found where the original speaker did not repair her
initial turn in the transition space but continued to talk when the partner delayed the uptake of the
next turn. Two instances occurred in the discourse of a High–Mid ability-level pair when
engaging in the discussion task. Each time, it was the higher-level participant who did not initiate
repair but continued with her talk. Another two were found in Low–Low and Mid–Mid ability
level interactions.
To summarize, the data analysis showed that transition space repair is commonly used
when the partner delays his or her uptake of the next turn. Very rarely do original speakers
continue with their talk. In the majority of cases, original speakers anticipate a problem of lexical
understanding or comprehension and thus repair a potentially problematic utterance in transition
space in a way to make it more accessible to the partner. Somewhat more instances of transition
space repair were produced in the jigsaw than in the discussion. The analysis also revealed that
232
transition space repair in conjunction with the partner delaying the turn uptake occurred more
often in the somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations. In addition, both
the higher and the lower ability-level speaker in the somewhat different and very different ability
level combinations initiated transition space repair.
In comparison to transition space repair, third position repair was produced infrequently
in the present data set. I turn to third position repair in the next section.
Third position repair
In contrast to transition space repair, the speaker does not delay, but takes his or her turn after the
original speaker has completed his or her turn. However, the partner’s utterance indicates that the
partner must have misunderstood the previous turn. In the position following the misunderstood
turn, the original speaker initiates repair and attempts to repair the misunderstanding. Table 5–9
depicts how third position repair varies across tasks and ability-level combinations and how
frequently the procedure was produced in both the discussion and the jigsaw task and across the
different test-taker ability-level combinations.
233
Table 5–9: Frequency distribution of third position repair
Ability-level combination
Course level Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
28.6% (n=2)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
14.3% (n=1)
High-Int.
14.3% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
High–Low
Low-Int.
14.3% (n=1) 28.6% (n=2)
Total
14.3% (n=1) 85.7% (n=6)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
In comparison to transition space repair discussed in the previous section, Table 5–9
shows that instances of third position repair were produced rather infrequently in the test
discourse. As can be seen in Table 5–9, one instance was produced in the discussion and six in
the jigsaw. The one instance in the discussion was deployed by a High–Low ability-level pair.
The six instances of third position repair found in the jigsaw were produced at various abilitylevel combinations, such as Mid–Mid, Low–Low, High–Mid, and High–Low.
In the somewhat different (High–Mid) and very different (High–Low) ability-level
combinations, the higher ability-level speaker initiated the third position repair. However, not
only high ability-level speakers produced instances of third position repair. The procedure was
also initiated by low and mid level speakers who were paired with a similar ability-level partner.
In sum, third position repair is not as widely used to maintain intersubjectivity as
transition space repair. Third position repair mostly occurred in the jigsaw and was produced by
234
pairs across various ability-level combinations, including lower ability levels, such as Low–Low
and Mid–Mid pairings.
Summary
To summarize, transition space repair was used more frequently to maintain intersubjectivity
than third position repair. When the partner delays to take the next turn, the original speaker
usually tries to preempt further trouble and to maintain intersubjectivity by repairing the original
utterance in the transition space. The majority of self-repairs, which are clarification, translation,
and rewordings, were constructed in a way to minimize the potential gap in shared knowledge
between the speakers. Transition space repair was produced in both tasks. However, somewhat
more occurrences were found in the discourse elicited by the jigsaw. More instances of transition
space repair were also found at somewhat different (High–Mid and Mid–Low) and very different
ability-level (High–Low) combinations. However, more pairs at these ability levels were
included in the study, which may be one of the reasons that more instances were found at
somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations. Both higher and lower abilitylevel speakers initiated repair in the somewhat different and very different ability-level
combinations.
In contrast, third position repair was produced a lot less in the test discourse. It mainly
occurred in the jigsaw but was produced across various ability-level combinations, that is, not
only at high-ability level combinations (High–Low and High–Mid) but also at mid and low
ability levels (Mid–Mid and Low–Low).
Third position repair and transition space repair are forms of self-initiated self-repair. The
next section is devoted to word search activities, which are understood as forms of self-initiated
235
repair. However, instead of the trouble-source speaker, it is the partner who repairs the trouble or
is invited to repair.
5.1.3
Word search activities
As was pointed out earlier, word search activities turned out to be prominent in the present test
discourse. Section 4.3 showed that the participants included in this study may have difficulty in
producing the next relevant linguistic item. Non-lexical speech perturbations (e.g., ‘uh’ or a
pause) usually initiate repair and indicate to the partner that a word search is underway
(Schegloff, 1979). A word search can be considered forms of self-initiated repair (Kurhila,
2006). Searching for an unavailable lexical item interrupts the speaker’s turn and may have an
effect on mutual understanding in the interaction.
For the analysis, word search activities that include the partner in the search process were
examined. The word search activities identified in this study include procedures that prevent
problems of lexical understanding that may otherwise arise due to the unavailable lexical item,
allow the speakers to realign their knowledge, and make the degree of shared knowledge
between the speakers visible. Section 4.3 presented and discussed three forms of word search
activities: (a) other-directed specific word searches in combination with so-called word search
markers (e.g., ‘what’s the word’) that ask the partner to provide the lexical item being sought; (b)
corrections provided by the partner after the trouble-source speaker suggested a German word
that emerged from a just completed solitary search; and (c) turn completions provided by the
partner while a word search is in process, with the intention to continue the current speaker’s
halted turn to next possible completion. These procedures, all of which were produced in
236
combination with the partner’s word search, may be considered means to maintain
intersubjectivity.
In this section, the number and distribution of each word search activity (and its parts)
listed above are presented and discussed. I first turn to the word search markers, then to the
corrections, and finally to the turn completions. The major findings are summarized in a
summary section.
Word search markers
As was laid out in section 4.3.1, word search activities may occur in combination with so-called
word search markers, such as ‘what’s it called?’ or ‘wie sagt man?’ (how does one say?). The
marker indicates that the speaker has run into trouble producing the next due item. However, the
word search may have already been in process, before the marker is launched (Brouwer, 2003).
Non-lexical speech perturbations (e.g., sound stretches and ‘uh’) and pauses usually signal that a
word search is underway (Schegloff, 1979).
Brouwer (2003) also points out that deploying a word search marker cannot be
considered a help request. That is, a word search marker, especially when uttered with a softer
volume, can be understood as being part of a self-directed word search activity that does not
include the other. The marker then signals the partner that a word search is in process and that
the current speaker is self-repairing the trouble. However, a word search, accompanied by a word
search marker and initially self-directed, may be extended to the partner to obtain his or her help
with the search. The trouble-source speaker may provide a non-verbal signal, such as an eye
gaze, to include the interlocutor to participate in the word search. In the majority of word search
activities found in the test discourse of the present study, the partner was invited to participate in
237
the word search. Of the 23 word search activities that included a word search marker, six were
self-directed and 17 were directed to the partner.
In addition, Brouwer (2003) also emphasizes that the repair-initiating speaker has to
make specific what lexical item he or she is searching for to obtain help from the partner. That is,
the trouble-source speaker has to provide some sort of a cue. In the present study, of the 15 otherdirected specific word searches accompanied by word search markers that were produced, 13
word searches were extended to the partner by supplying an English word for the German
equivalent that was being sought. Falling back to the L1 facilitates understanding between the
interlocutors, since the speakers included in this study are native English speakers. In the other
two word search activities, the speaker suggested a German word that he or she was uncertain
about, as indicated by the rising intonation contour.
In addition, two instances of nonspecific other-directed word search were found. With
these, the speaker tries to include the partner into the word search activity, but the search remains
nonspecific, so that the partner is unable to help. Other-directed nonspecific word search
activities were found in both the discussion and the jigsaw, each time at the high-intermediate
level. In the discussion, such a procedure was produced at the Low–Low ability level; in the
jigsaw, it was deployed in the interaction between a high- and a low-level speaker, where the low
ability-level speaker initiated the word search.
In the following sections, I show how the types of word search markers (interrogative and
‘ich weiß nicht’/‘I don’t know’ markers) vary and how frequently they were used across tasks
and ability-level combinations. The partner’s response to the invitation to participate in the word
search is also examined.
238
Other-directed specific word search markers
In Table 5–10, the number and distribution of the other-directed word searches are presented
across tasks and ability-level combinations. The forms of other-directed word search activities
are differentiated with respect to the type of word search marker used.
Table 5–10: Frequency distribution of other-directed word search markers: interrogatives and
‘ich weiß nicht’/‘I don’t know’ markers
Interrogative (n=11)
Ability-level
combination
Course level
Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
9.1% (n=1)
18.2% (n=2)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
9.1% (n=1)
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
High–Mid
Low-Int.
9.1% (n=1)
9.1% (n=1)
High-Int.
9.1% (n=1)
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
High–Low
Low-Int.
36.4% (n=4)
Total
72.7% (n=8)
27.3% (n=3)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
‘ich weiß nicht’/‘I don’t
know’ marker (n=4)
Discussion
25% (n=1)
Jigsaw
25% (n=1)
50% (n=2)
100% (n=4)
0% (n=0)
As can be seen in Table 5–10, fewer instances of an other-directed specific word search
(with either word search marker) were produced in the jigsaw than in the discussion. That is, not
taking the type of word search marker into account, three specific word search activities directed
to the partner were found in the jigsaw, whereas 12 were produced in the discussion.
In addition, the pairs with members at similar ability levels (High–High, Mid–Mid, Low–
Low) initiated fewer other-directed specific word search activities with a word search marker
than pairs who were at somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–
239
Low) ability-level combinations. Thus, five instances of a specific word search activity directed
to the partner were found in the discourse of pairs at similar ability-level combinations, whereas
twice as many occurrences were detected at different ability-level combinations.
As can be seen in Table 5–10, eight instances of specific interrogative word search
markers directed at the other were found in the discussion data of this study. Of these eight
occurrences, two instances included a ‘wie sagt man X’ (how does one say X) marker, two a
‘how do you say X’ marker, and one each of a ‘how do you say that’, ‘was is X’ (what is X),
‘what’s the word for X,’ and ‘wie heißt X’ (what is X called) marker. These markers were used
by pairs at somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) abilitylevel combinations and at the Mid–Mid ability level.
Table 5–10 shows that interrogative word search markers were hardly deployed in the
jigsaw. Merely three instances of this procedure could be identified. In the jigsaw, two of the
three word search activities were found in the discourse of test-taker pairs at the Mid–Mid and
High–Mid ability levels. The interrogative word search markers used were ‘wie sagt man X’
(how does one say X), ‘was heißt X’ (what is X called), and ‘was bedeutet X’ (what does X
mean).
In addition, in both the discussion and jigsaw task, the lower ability-level partner in the
somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations usually deployed an otherdirected word search in combination with an interrogative word search marker.
Table 5–10 also indicates that in comparison to interrogative word search markers, ‘ich
weiß nicht’/‘I don’t know’ markers were used rather infrequently. This marker was deployed in
the discussion and between high-intermediate (fourth-semester German) level speakers only. Of
the four instances that occurred, one occurrence each was found in a High–High and a High–Mid
240
interaction; two instances were produced between speakers at the Mid–Low ability level. At the
somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) ability level, the lower ability-level speaker initiated
the word search.
In sum, other-directed word search activities accompanied by an interrogative word
search marker were produced in both the discussion and jigsaw task, but the procedure was less
prominent in the jigsaw than in the discussion. Due to the small number of occurrences in the
jigsaw, the procedure is less consistent across ability-level combinations in this task. The few
times this procedure was produced, however, it occurred in the discourse of pairs at the Mid–Mid
and High–Mid ability-level combinations. In the discussion, interrogative word search markers
were deployed at these ability levels as well. Also, the lower ability-level speaker usually
initiated the word search in the somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations
in both the discussion and the jigsaw. In addition, initiating a word search with an ‘ich weiß
nicht’/‘I don’t know’ marker is very specific to the task (discussion), the ability-level
combination (High–High, High–Mid, Mid–Low), and the course level (high-intermediate).
After investigating the number and distribution of the word search initiations, the focus
now shifts to the responses to other-directed specific word search initiations.
Responses of other-directed word search initiations
The other-directed specific word search initiations that occur in combination with word search
markers open up a slot for the hearer to respond to the repair request. As discussed earlier, the
partner may provide the German word being sought, indicate that he or she does not know the
searched-for lexical item, or disengage from the word search activity altogether by providing an
affirmative token. Forms of a non-response were also detected.
241
Table 5–11 shows how two responses, that is, providing the searched-for German word
and launching an ‘ich weiß nicht’/‘I don’t know’ token are distributed across tasks and abilitylevel combinations.
Table 5–11: Frequency distribution of instances of searched-for word provided and ‘ich weiß
nicht’/‘I don’t know’ token
Searched-for word provided
(n=5)
Ability-level
combination
Course level
Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
20% (n=1)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
20% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
20% (n=1)
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
High–Low
Low-Int.
40% (n=2)
Total
80% (n=4)
20% (n=1)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
‘ich weiß nicht’/ ‘I don’t know’
token (n=4)
Discussion
Jigsaw
25% (n=1)
25% (n=1)
25% (n=1)
25% (n=1)
50% (n=2)
50% (n=2)
Table 5–11 shows that out of the 15 other-directed specific word search initiations with
word search markers, five were responded to, in that the German lexical item was provided. Four
such instances occurred in the discussion: two at somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and
another two at very different (High–Low) ability-level combinations. One occurrence was found
in the jigsaw, at the Mid–Mid ability level. That only one instance was found in the jigsaw can be
explained with the overall small number of other-directed word search initiations launched in the
jigsaw. Overall, providing the German equivalent in response to a word search occurred in both
242
tasks and was mainly produced at somewhat different and very different ability-level
combinations, in which usually the higher-level speaker provided the German word sought.
In four instances, when the partner was asked to participate in the word search and to
supply the German equivalent to an English word, the partner responded that he or she did not
know how to say the searched-for word in German. Two instances of this response occurred in
the discussion at the Mid–Mid and High–Mid ability-level combinations; the other two
occurrences were produced in the jigsaw at same ability-level combinations (Mid–Mid, High–
Mid). At the High–Mid ability level, both the high and the low ability-level speaker were found
to respond to a word search initiation with an ‘ich weiß nicht’ token.
Instances were also found where the partner disengages from the word search or does not
respond to an other-directed word search. The frequency distribution of these two types of
responses can be seen in Table 5–12.
Table 5–12: Frequency distribution of disengagements from word search and non-responses
Acknowledgment but no help
provided (n=3)
Ability-level
combination
Course level
Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
33.3% (n=1)
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
33.3% (n=1)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
33.3% (n=1)
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
High–Low
Low-Int.
Total
100% (n=3)
0% (n=0)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
243
Non-response (n=3)
Discussion
Jigsaw
33.3% (n=1)
66.7% (n=2)
100% (n=3)
0% (n=0)
Table 5–12 shows that in two instances produced by pairs at similar speaking ability
levels (High–High, Mid–Mid), the hearer did not respond to the request for other-repair per se
but merely produced an affirmative token (‘ja’, ‘hm’) to indicate that he or she recognizes the
searched-for word. In the instances mentioned, the trouble-source speaker provided the English
equivalent of the searched-for German word to make explicit to the partner what lexical item he
or she was searching for. Another instance of this procedure was found at the Mid–Low ability
level. Here, the partner uttered a form of confirmation or affirmation, but this occurrence is
different from the two instances just mentioned. In this instance, the word search-initiating test
taker provided a German word. By means of an affirmative token (‘ja’, yes), the partner
confirms, if not that the word is used correctly, that he understands what the other is trying to
convey. All three instances have in common that the partner disengages from the word search but
indicates understanding of what the speaker is trying to convey.
Finally, with respect to the three instances of non-response indicated in Table 5–12, it
should be noted that all three instances differ in how the non-response came about. One word
search initiation was detected in the discussion between a mid and low ability-level student at the
high-intermediate (fourth-semester German) level, where the interlocutor did not respond to the
word search initiation, either verbally or non-verbally. Furthermore, two other word search
activities did not properly include the partner in the word search, even though the search was
initially other-directed. In one instance in the discussion at the high-low ability level, the word
search-initiating partner self-repaired before the interlocutor could even assist with the word
search. In the other instance that occurred in the interaction of the same pair, the repair-initiating
member abandoned the word search and thus the partner who was initially invited to participate
in the word search did not get the chance to fully engage in the word search.
244
To summarize, the data analysis revealed that the partner responded to the word search
initiation in the majority of cases. However, the partner may not always be able or willing to
provide the German word being sought. The distribution of the responses to other-directed
specific word search initiations (with a word search marker) does not seem to suggest that pairs
at specific ability-level combinations are more prone to respond to the repair initiation in a
particular way compared to pairs at other ability-level combinations.
Summary
The majority of word search initiations with word search markers were directed to the partner. In
addition, most of these repair initiations were specific, in that the word search-initiating speaker
provided the English equivalent of the searched-for German word as a cue for the partner. In
addition, mainly interrogative word search markers were used. The ‘ich weiß nicht’/‘I don’t
know’ marker occurred infrequently in the test discourse.
Furthermore, hardly any word search activities with markers were launched in the jigsaw.
They occurred in the discussion. With respect to the distribution of word search initiations (with
markers) across ability-level combinations, the data analysis revealed that twice as many repair
initiations were found in the somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different
(High–Low) ability-level combinations. This finding may be due to the higher number of pairs at
these ability levels that were included in this study.
Finally, as of the other-repair requested, the partner may not necessarily provide the
searched-for German word or may be unable or unwilling to do so. It is impossible to say (also
because of the small number of instances found) which ability-level pairs are more inclined to
provide the German word being sought or to disengage from the word search activity.
245
Similar to this section, the next section is also concerned with a form of self-initiated
other-repair, namely with corrections.
Corrections
In addition to word search activities with word search markers discussed in the previous section,
corrections provided by the partner after a completed self-directed word search were also salient
in the present data set. As was shown in section 4.3.2, the partner is not explicitly invited to
participate in the word search. Rather, the current speaker engages in a solitary search and
suggests a German lexical item in an uncertain manner (e.g., with a rising intonation). The
partner may correct the word that emerged from the self-directed word search by exchanging the
possibly incorrect German word with an alternative lexical item.
Different forms of correction were salient in the data set. In exposed corrections, both
speakers orient to correcting a lexical item or a grammatical feature in a side sequence (Jefferson,
1987). In contrast, in embedded corrections, the correction is placed within the next relevant
action; a repair side sequence does not open up (Brouwer, Rasmussen & Wagner, 2004;
Jefferson, 1987; Kurhila, 2001). Both exposed and embedded corrections allow the speakers to
realign their understanding of a particular lexical item.
In addition, non-corrections also occurred. That is, when the speaker’s word search turns
out unsuccessful and the English equivalent of the searched-for German word is produced, the
partner may let the English word slide and not substitute it with the German word. Deploying the
English equivalent of the searched-for German word ensures mutual understanding between the
two speakers, who both know English. Translating the produced English word into German may
not be considered necessary.
246
In this section, the distribution of the exposed and embedded corrections across tasks and
ability-level combinations is examined first. Then, I turn to the range and frequency of instances
of non-corrections. A summary of the major findings is provided.
Exposed and embedded corrections
This section is devoted to the exposed and embedded corrections found in the present data set.
Table 5–13 depicts the number and distribution of exposed and embedded corrections.
Table 5–13: Frequency distribution of exposed corrections and embedded corrections
Exposed corrections (n=6)
Ability-level
combination
Course level
Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
16.7% (n=1)
High-Int.
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
High-Int.
High–Mid
Low-Int.
16.7% (n=1)
High-Int.
16.7% (n=1)
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
33.3% (n=2)
High-Int.
16.7% (n=1)
High–Low
Low-Int.
Total
33.3% (n=2)
66.7% (n=4)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
Embedded correction (n=3)
Discussion
Jigsaw
33.3% (n=1)
33.3% (n=1)
33.3% (n=1)
100% (n=3)
As can be seen in Table 5–13, six occurrences of exposed corrections were found in the
entire data set. Two instances occurred in the discussion and four in the jigsaw. In the discussion,
exposed corrections were found in the interactions between speakers at the High–High and the
Mid-Low ability level. In the jigsaw, four instances of exposed corrections were found at the
somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) ability-level
247
combinations. In the somewhat and very different ability combinations, it was usually the higher
ability-level partner who provided the correction in either task. In addition, three instances of
embedded corrections were produced in the entire data set. The occurrences were predominantly
found at somewhat different (High–Mid) but also at very different (High–Low) ability-level
combinations. Most of the time, the higher ability-level partner deployed the embedded
correction. All embedded corrections occurred in the jigsaw. Overall, exposed and embedded
corrections were deployed rarely.
Non-corrections
In comparison to exposed and embedded corrections, non-corrections were produced more
frequently across tasks and ability-level combinations. As was pointed out in section 4.3.2, the
trouble-source speaker suggests the English equivalent of the searched-for German word, which
the partner does not correct by replacing it with the German item sought. The number and
distribution of non-corrections after self-directed word search activities can be taken from Table
5–14.
248
Table 5–14: Frequency distribution of non-corrections
Non-correction (n=55)
Course level
Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
1.8% (n=1)
1.8% (n=1)
High–High
Low-Int.
1.8% (n=1)
High-Int.
7.3% (n=4)
9.1% (n=5)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
1.8% (n=1)
9.1% (n=5)
High-Int.
1.8% (n=1)
Low–Low
Low-Int.
3.6% (n=2)
1.8% (n=1)
High-Int.
5.5% (n=3)
1.8% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
14.5% (n=8)
High-Int.
10.9% (n=6)
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
3.6% (n=2)
10.9% (n=6)
High-Int.
5.5% (n=3)
5.5% (n=3)
High–Low
Low-Int.
1.8% (n=1)
Total
43.6% (n=24) 56.4% (n=31)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
Ability-level combination
As can be seen in Table 5–14, 24 instances of non-correction after a self-directed word
search were found in the discussion and 31 in the jigsaw. Non-corrections are also well
distributed across the various ability-level combinations. In the discussion, twice as many noncorrections occurred at the somewhat and very different ability-level combinations than at the
same ability-level combinations. In the jigsaw, the non-corrections are more evenly distributed
across same ability-level combinations and different ability-level combinations.
Summary
In sum, the distribution of the exposed and embedded corrections across tasks and ability-level
combinations shows that these two procedures were rarely used in the test interactions. Both
exposed and embedded corrections were predominantly deployed in the jigsaw and by pairs at
somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) ability-level
249
combinations. In the different ability-level combinations, the higher ability-level partner usually
produced the exposed and embedded corrections.
In addition, the hearer did not correct the partner by substituting the English word with a
German item in the majority of self-directed word searches that turn out unsuccessful and that
force the word-searching speaker to provide the English equivalent of the searched-for German
word.
The next section is devoted to turn completions, another form of word search activity.
Turn completions may be provided when a speaker’s turn comes to a halt because of the current
speaker’s word search.
Turn completions
As was laid out in section 4.3.3, shared knowledge between the speakers must be given for one
speaker to complete the other particpant’s turn. With a turn completion, the partner suggests one
word or several words after the interlocutor’s turn has come to a halt due to a word search
activity (Lerner, 1996). Providing turn completions presume that the partner has understood the
previous talk and is able to project the next relevant words to complete the turn initially started
by the other. Turn completions may make visible the degree of mutual understanding between
the speakers. There, turn completions were of two types: “try-marked” (Sacks & Schegloff,
1979) completions (a confirmable guess) and so-called “assuredly correct completions” (Lerner,
2004, p. 235).
In this section, I first look at the number and distribution of try-marked turn completions
and then at assuredly correct turn completions before I turn to the responses to the completions.
The findings are summarized.
250
Try-marked and assuredly correct turn completions
Table 5–15 depicts the number and distribution of the two types of turn completion, try-marked
and assuredly correction turn completions, identified in section 4.3.3.
Table 5–15: Frequency distribution of turn completions: try-marked completions and assuredly
correct completions
Try-marked turn completions
(n=13)
Ability-level
combination
Course level
Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
7.7% (n=1)
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
7.7% (n=1)
High-Int.
7.7% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
7.7% (n=1)
High-Int.
7.7% (n=1)
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
30.8% (n=4)
7.7% (n=1)
High-Int.
7.7% (n=1)
7.7% (n=1)
High–Low
Low-Int.
7.7% (n=1)
Total
76.9% (n=10)
23.1% (n=3)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
Assuredly correct turn
completions (n=18)
Discussion
5.6% (n=1)
5.6% (n=1)
16.7% (n=3)
5.6% (n=1)
Jigsaw
16.7% (n=3)
5.6% (n=1)
11.1% (n=2)
5.6% (n=1)
16.7% (n=3)
66.7% (n=12)
5.6% (n=1)
5.6% (n=1)
33.3% (n=6)
Table 5–15 shows that a total of 13 turn completions (ten in the discussions and three in
the jigsaw) were produced as a try-marker. In the discussion, turn completions were launched as
try-markers across all ability-level combinations except for Mid–Mid level pairings.
Interestingly, low-intermediate (third-semester German) level speakers produced the majority (7
of 10) of try-marked turn completions in the discussion. Four of these seven completions were
produced at the Mid–Low ability level. In addition, in the discussion, the try-marked completions
were predominantly produced at somewhat different and very different ability-level
251
combinations. In these ability-level combinations, it was usually the higher ability-level partner
who projected the completions of the partner’s turn.
In comparison, of the three try-marked turn completions found in the jigsaw, two were
produced at the high-intermediate level and one at the low-intermediate level. All three
completions were deployed in the discourse of speakers at somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–
Low) or very different (High–Low) speaking ability combinations. At these ability-level
combinations, the higher ability-level partner usually provided the turn completion.
Table 5–15 also shows that 18 occurrences of turn completions were produced in a
confident manner. Of these 18 assuredly correct completions, 12 instances were found in the
discussion and six occurrences in the jigsaw. In the discussion, the confidently produced
completions were deployed across all ability-level combinations except for Low–Low and Mid–
Low ability-level combinations. At the High–Mid ability level, the mid ability-level partner
projected the possible completion of the partner’s turn. At the High–Low ability level, it was
predominantly the high ability-level partner who provided the turn completions.
The six turn completions in the jigsaw were mainly produced by pairs at Mid–Mid, Low–
Low, and High–Low ability levels. At the High–Low ability-level combination, the high abilitylevel speaker provided the completions. In addition, the instances of confidently produced turn
completions in both the discussion and the jigsaw task mainly occur in the discourse of highintermediate (fourth-semester German) level participants.
Responses to turn completions
Thus far, we have seen how the two types of completions identified in the present data set vary
across tasks and ability-level combinations. In this section, the distribution of the various forms
252
of response to turn completions is examined. In section 4.3.3, the data analysis revealed that turn
completions may be confirmed, rejected and corrected, or ignored (delayed completion). Table
5–16 depicts the number and distribution of various responses speakers provided after the partner
moved a halted turn to its possible completion.
Table 5–16: Frequency distribution of confirmations and
acknowledgements
Ability-level combination
Course level Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
9.5% (n=2)
High–High
Low-Int.
4.8% (n=1)
High-Int.
14.3% (n=3)
14.3% (n=3)
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
4.8% (n=1)
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
4.8% (n=1)
High-Int.
4.8% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
9.5% (n=2)
High-Int.
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
14.3% (n=3)
High-Int.
9.5% (n=2)
4.8% (n=1)
High–Low
Low-Int.
4.8% (n=1)
Total
76.2% (n=16) 23.8% (n=5)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
As Table 5–16 indicates, of the 31 turn completions, the partner confirmed 21
completions. In the discussion, 16 instances of confirmation were found; in the jigsaw, five were
confirmed. The lower number of confirmations produced in the jigsaw can be explained by the
fact that fewer turn completions were provided in the jigsaw than in the discussion. Whereas the
confirmations in the discussion occurred across all ability-level combinations, the ones in the
jigsaw were deployed at Mid–Mid and High–Low ability-level combinations only.
Turn completions were also rejected and corrected or simply ignored. Table 5–17 shows
the number and distribution of rejections and corrections as well as delayed completions where
253
the trouble-source speaker completed his or her turn without acknowledging the partner’s turn
completion.
Table 5–17: Frequency distribution of rejections and corrections and delayed completions
Rejections and corrections (n=6)
Ability-level
combination
Course level
Discussion
Jigsaw
High-Int.
High–High
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Low–Low
Low-Int.
16.7% (n=1)
High-Int.
16.7% (n=1)
16.7% (n=1)
High–Mid
Low-Int.
High-Int.
Mid–Low
Low-Int.
16.7% (n=1)
High-Int.
16.7% (n=1)
High–Low
Low-Int.
16.7% (n=1)
Total
50% (n=3)
50% (n=3)
Note: High-Int. = High-Intermediate (fourth-semester German);
Low-Int. = Low-Intermediate (third-semester German)
Delayed completions (n=4)
Discussion
Jigsaw
25% (n=1)
25% (n=1)
25% (n=1)
25% (n=1)
75% (n=3)
25% (n=1)
In comparison to confirmations, considerably fewer turn completions were rejected and
corrected. As Table 5–17 indicates, three instances of rejections and corrections were found in
the discussions at the High–Mid and High–Low ability-level combinations. In addition, three
turn completions were rejected and corrected in the jigsaw, at the Low–Low, High–Mid, and
Mid–Low ability-level combinations. Thus, rejected and corrected turn completions occurred in
both tasks and were mainly produced at the somewhat different and very different ability-level
combinations.
In addition, four instances of delayed completions were found only at the Mid–Low and
High–Low ability-level combination in the discussion. In these instances, the original speaker did
254
not accept the partner’s turn completion, but ignored it and continued with his or her utterance. It
was usually the low ability-level partner who provided the delayed completion.
Summary
In sum, try-marked turn completions were produced in both the discussion task and the jigsaw
task. However, they were used less in the jigsaw than in the discussion. In both tasks, the higher
ability-level speaker usually provided the try-marked completions in the somewhat different
(High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) ability level combinations. In addition,
mainly low-intermediate (third-semester German) level students produced try-marked turn
completions in the discussion task.
Furthermore, compared to try-marked turn completions, marginally more assuredly
correct completions were produced in the entire data set. In comparison to the jigsaw, assuredly
correct turn completions were provided in the discussion more frequently. In addition, it seems
that confidently produced completions are somewhat more evenly distributed across the similar
ability-level combinations on the one side and the different ability-level combinations on the
other. Also, in comparison to try-marked turn completions, confidently produced completions in
both tasks were produced mostly in high-intermediate (fourth-semester German) level pairs.
In addition, the trouble-source speaker usually confirms the turn completion provided by
the partner. Confirmations were produced across all ability-level combinations. In both tasks,
completions were also rejected and corrected or simply disregarded. Such discursive behavior
was observed in the interactions between somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very
different (High–Low) ability-level combinations.
255
Summary
This analysis of word search activities showed that the majority of word search related
procedures discussed in this section were deployed in both the discussion and in the jigsaw.
Exceptions are the ‘ich weiß nicht’ word search marker, which was deployed only in the
discussion, and the embedded correction, which was produced only in the jigsaw.
However, only a few procedures, such as non-corrections, ‘ich weiß nicht’/‘I don’t know’
tokens as response to an other-directed word search as well as rejections and corrections after
turn completions, were produced relatively evenly across the two tasks. Other word search
related procedures, such as other-directed word search initiations with an interrogative word
search marker or try-marked and assuredly correct turn completions, were produced in both the
discussion task and the jigsaw task, but occurred more frequently in the discussion than in the
jigsaw.
With respect to the word search related procedures produced across pairs, the majority of
these procedures, such as word search initiations with word search markers, try-marked turn
completions as well as exposed and embedded corrections, mainly occurred at somewhat
different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) ability-level combinations. In
general, word search initiations, turn completions, and corrections were produced less frequently
at similar ability-level combinations. It needs to be kept in mind, however, that more test-taker
pairs at somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations were included in the
study (21 vs. 13 pairs in the similar ability-level combinations), which may be why more word
search related procedures were produced at these ability levels. In comparison, non-corrections
and assuredly correct completions (in the discussion) were produced relatively evenly across the
various ability-level combinations.
256
In addition, the data suggest that mostly the lower ability-level partner in the somewhat
different and very different ability-level combinations initiated other-directed word searches to
include the interlocutor in the word search activity. The higher ability-level partner in the
somewhat different and very different ability-level combinations for the most part provided the
German lexical item, produced try-marked completions as well as exposed and embedded
corrections when the partner was searching for a word to continue with the turn. However, either
the higher or the lower ability-level partner deployed assuredly correct completions.
Furthermore, confidently produced turn completions were mainly produced by high-intermediate
level (fourth-semester German) speakers, whereas turn completions provided as confirmable
guess were predominantly launched by low-intermediate level (third-semester German) speakers
(especially in the discussions).
5.1.4
Summary
This section presented the frequency distribution of the identified procedures of repair across
tasks and ability-level combinations in the test-taker pair. The quantitative analysis was
conducted to shed some light on the impact of the test task and the test-taker ability-level
combination on the repair procedures, which were predominantly used to sustain intersubjectivity
in the interactions.
With respect to the procedures of repair produced in the discussion and the jigsaw task,
the following observations were made:
•
There seem to be no major qualitative differences in repair use across tasks. That is,
the majority of repair procedures occurred in both the discussion and the jigsaw task.
257
•
However, there are quantitative differences in the production of repair across tasks.
For example, other-directed specific word searches with markers and forms of turn
completion were deployed more frequently in the discussion, whereas third position
repairs and exposed and embedded corrections mainly occurred in the jigsaw task.
•
In comparison, procedures such as candidate understandings, transition space repairs,
non-corrections, and adjustments made in response to other-initiated repair were
produced similarly in number in both the discussion and jigsaw task. In general, these
repair procedures were used considerably in the entire data set.
With respect to the ability-level combinations, the following findings were obtained from
the quantitative analysis:
•
High–High ability-level pairs engaged in hardly any repair work. It seems that these
pairs generally encountered less trouble speaking to, hearing, and understanding each
other in their interactions.
•
The test-taker pairs at somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different
(High–Low) ability-level combinations deployed repair procedures more in
comparison to same ability-level combinations (High–High, Mid–Mid, Low–Low).
This trend may be due to the differences in speaking ability between the members of
the pairs, but it may also be attributed to the higher number of somewhat different and
very different ability-level pairs included in this study.
•
Some procedures (when occurring in a specific task) were produced relatively evenly
across the same and different ability-level combinations, such as the modified repeats
and adjustments made in response to other-initiated repair, the assuredly correct
258
completions produced in the discussion, the non-corrections in the jigsaw, and the
understanding checks in the jigsaw.
•
A number of practices of repair were very infrequently used and by only a few pairs
at specific ability-level combinations. These procedures are repeat requests,
understanding repair initiators, comprehension checks in the jigsaw, expansions,
orientations to the whole action as the trouble source, and exposed and embedded
corrections.
The following observations were made with respect to whether the higher or the lower
ability-level partner in the different ability-level pairs initiates repair or provides the repair
proper:
•
It became evident that the low ability-level partner was more prone to initiate word
searches and to invite the partner to participate in the word search. In comparison, the
higher ability-level partner was more inclined to provide the word being sought.
•
The higher ability-level speaker usually projected the completions of the partner’s
turn and corrected the partner’s word choice that emerged from a word search
activity.
•
The higher ability-level participant usually displayed that the partner’s action does not
sequentially match the previous talk. Thus, higher ability-level speaker was more
inclined to orient to an entire action as the repairable than his or her lower abilitylevel partner.
•
The higher ability-level speaker was also the partner who initiated third position
repair.
259
In sum, the findings from the data analysis suggest that the same types of repair
procedures are used to maintain intersubjectivity in both the jigsaw task and the discussion task.
In addition, the co-construction of some repair procedures may be attributed to the higher or
lower ability level of a test taker in the pair.
However, it remains unclear how the various procedures of repair relate to the speaking
ability-level combinations in the test-taker pairs. For the most part, it seems to be impossible to
explain why some repair procedures were produced more evenly across a variety of different
ability-level combinations, whereas other repair procedures were deployed infrequently and by
pairs at specific ability levels. Thus, the relationship between procedures of repair used to
accomplish ‘maintaining intersubjectivity’ and the speaking ability-level combinations in the
test-taker pairs appears to be variable and rather obscure. A fixed pattern of repair use does not
seem to exist in either of the ability-level combinations.
This trend may be explained with the sample of students included in the study. The
participants’ speaking ability in the present study does not seem to exceed the A-level, the basic
user level, according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
Thus, despite perceived differences in speaking ability as reflected in the high, mid, and low
ability-level ratings assigned to participants, the second-year students included in this study may
still be considered very similar in their speaking ability when compared against a standardized
proficiency scale, such as the CEFR or the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages (ACTFL) Guidelines. Hence, in comparison to other studies (e.g., Galaczi, 2004,
2014; Gan, 2010) where test-taker pairs at different proficiency levels (e.g., level B1 vs. C2 on
the CEFR in Galaczi’s (2004, 2014) research) produced different interactional features in the test
260
discourse, specific and differential patterns of repair use at the various speaking ability-level
combinations were not found in the present data set.
To better grasp this relationship between speaking ability and repair, it may be beneficial
to look closer at the test discourse and investigate how speaking ability is displayed in talk-ininteraction. Thus, instead of labeling participants as high, mid, or low ability-level speakers, we
include the test takers’ speaking ability identities as they emerge from the peer–interaction into
the analysis. Investigating both speaking ability and procedures used to maintain intersubjectivity
at the discourse level may provide a better understanding of their relationship. Hence, in the next
section, I investigate the relationship between the test takers’ speaking ability identities and the
procedures of repair, both of which are co-constructed in the test discourse.
5.2
Language ability identities and the role of repair
Based on teacher perceptions and test-taker self-evaluations, the test takers participating in the
present study were classified as high, mid, or low ability-level speakers before they were
assigned a partner. That such an a priori categorization of speaking ability exists is a common
assumption in language testing research. In language testing, test discourse is usually analyzed
on the basis of such prior constructs of language proficiency or language ability. However, from
a poststructuralist perspective to applied linguists, language proficiency or language ability is
considered co-constructed in the discourse itself (McNamara, 2001). Thus, it can be argued that
the test takers’ language abilities, or rather speakers’ language ability identities, emerge from the
jointly constructed and mediated test discourse (e.g., Brown & McNamara, 2004; Lazaraton &
Davis, 2008; McNamara, 2001; McNamara & Roever, 2006). Such an approach is in line with
conversation analysts, who point out that interactants do not necessarily orient to specific social
261
attributes in an activity, making the particular attribute or feature irrelevant to the activity being
studied. Instead, they conceptualize social identities as dynamic phenomena that emerge from
and are changed in talk-in-interaction (e.g., Goodwin, 1987; Richards, 2005; Schegloff, 1992b,
1997c). In addition, it is evident that an interactional competence approach to language testing in
which resources evolve from the actual interaction and are adapted to the test situation (Mislevy,
2012) embraces the notion of co-constructed language ability identities in test discourse.
As pointed out elsewhere in this dissertation, language ability identity is understood as
jointly created product in social interaction. It is local, context-sensitive and negotiable. In
addition, speakers’ language ability identities may shift from one turn to the other (Antaki &
Widdicombe, 1998; Lazaraton & Davis, 2008; Ochs, 1993; Park, 2007).
Having investigated the impact of a priori language ability identities on co-constructed
test discourse (see section 5.1), I now look at the constitution of language ability identities at the
micro level. I assume that the relationship between language ability, as displayed in coconstructed discourse, and the practices of repair identified in this study can be described more
precisely when both activities are examined at the discourse level. Using conversation analysis
conventions, I analyze the means, specifically the practices of repair, by which “doing being”
(Wong & Olsher, 2000, p. 114) competent or proficient is displayed in the test discourse. Thus,
this section answers the following research question:
How are procedures of repair that are jointly constructed in test discourse involved in the coconstruction of the test takers’ language ability identities at the discourse level?
a) What are the practices of repair by which test takers position themselves as proficient or
competent in the paired test discourse of an intermediate-level German speaking test?
262
b) How are projected discourse and language ability identities negotiated in the test
discourse?
Like Park (2007), I also approach language ability identity co-construction through an
analysis of social interaction, including the sequential organization of talk (Schegloff & Sacks,
1973) and participation (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2004). Sequential organization implies that when
an action put forward by a speaker, a response is expected that will be an action that paired with
the first action. The notion of participation refers to coordinated or aligned behavior between
interlocutors, suggesting that speaker and hearer orient to one another’s actions.
With respect to identity construction in talk-in-interaction, Park (2007) points out that
with the notion of participation, particular emphasis is put on the hearer as active co-participant
who is understood to be co-constructing identity with the current speaker. In addition, when
engaging in sequentially organized interaction, it is understood that the participants assume
discourse identities (Zimmerman, 1998), such as speaker, listener, questioner, answerer, and so
forth. It is evident that discourse identities are reciprocal. That is, one participant undertakes a
particular identity when initiating an action; the partner’s corresponding reciprocal identity is
projected (Zimmerman, 1998). With respect to the present study, it is worth noting that
reciprocal discourse identities may be invoked, for example, when an unequal knowledge
distribution is in place (Drew, 1991), that is, when one participant knows more than the other in
terms of language use.
Thus, discourse identities emerge from the sequential organization of talk. The
participants do not only orient to the actions underway but also to the invoked identities within
these activities. Through the alignment of discourse identities, the sequential order of talk and
263
intersubjectivity can be maintained. It should be noted that the co-participants may ratify or
revise the projected identities (Zimmerman, 1998).
Finally, the incidental discourse identities that participants take on in talk-in-interaction
may invoke the asymmetrical alignment of dichotomous language ability identities (that is, more
competent vs. less competent or more proficient vs. less proficient) (Lazaraton & Davis, 2008;
Park, 2007). With respect to the discourse identities that emerge from sequentially organized
talk, language ability identity can be explained by looking at how speakers position themselves
in talk-in-interaction or what roles they attribute to themselves, also in relation to their partner in
interaction (Davies & Harré, 1990; see also Lazaraton & Davis, 2008; Park, 2007).
In this section, I employ conversation analytic conventions to show in three single case
analyses from my data set that (a) the members of the pair co-construct their language ability
identities in the test discourse, that is, the speakers position themselves as competent language
user in relation to their partners, (b) the invoked discourse and thus language ability identities
may be negotiated and shift in interaction, and (c) the practices of repair that were found salient
in the test discourse (see chapter 4) contribute to the constitution of test-taker discourse identities
and thus language ability identities. The major findings from the analyses are summarized in a
final section.
5.2.1
Test-taker pair ML and KN
In this section, I analyze the interaction between ML and KN, two male low-intermediate level
students who differ in major ways in their speaking ability. ML was identified as a high abilitylevel speaker and KN as a low ability-level speaker. As can be seen at the discourse level as well
(see Excerpt 5.2-1), ML speaks more accurately and fluently than KN, whereas KN’s talk is
264
characterized by delays in turn uptake. In comparison to KN, ML also extends his turns at talk
and generally talks more than KN. The test discourse also reveals that ML self-selects his turns,
initiates the topics and asks most of the questions. KN is invited to respond to these questions but
does not initiate questions himself.
Thus, ML clearly dominates the interaction. However, ML’s leading role derives from
KN’s rather passive discursive behavior. Because of KN’s low initiative in participating in the
interaction, ML has to contribute more to better involve KN in the conversation. Encouraging
KN to talk more and to participate is imperative as the jigsaw task requires KN and ML to
discuss the apartments from both their lists and to agree on one apartment. Following Galaczi
(2004), the interaction between ML and KN can probably best be described as an asymmetric
interaction with a low conversational dominance pattern. Storch (2002) has identified this type of
discourse as an expert/novice pattern of interaction.
Because of the major differences in speaking ability, mutual understanding seems to be
constantly at risk in the interaction between ML and KN. As the stronger participant, ML
projects in KN a participant who is in need of help. Excerpt 5.2-1 shows that by doing being
supportive, ML is able to sustain mutual understanding with KN and to move the task along. His
supportive discursive conduct also allows ML to position himself as the more competent speaker
(cf. Lazaraton & Davis, 2008). The interaction replicated in Excerpt 5.2-1 stems from ML and
KN’s jigsaw interaction. The bolded parts in the transcript allow the reader to better follow the
analysis of this sequence.
265
Excerpt: 5.2-1: JIG:IntI:H-L:ML-KN
14
ML:
15
KN:
16
17
ML:
18
19
20
KN:
ML:
21
22
KN:
KN:
23
24
ML:
25
KN:
26
27
ML:
KN:
28
ML:
29
30
31
32
33
KN:
34
35
ML:
KN:
uhm (1.0) pt haben sie:: uhm wohnungen mit uh diese (.5) criteria?
have you
apartments with these
do you have apartments with these criteria
(2.0) ja (.5) a:h (2.2) uhm (1.2) ick (1.0) ma:g uhm (1.0) °°tch tch tch=
yes
I
like
=tch°° (2.0) .hh (2.0) pt (4.5) was magst du?
what like you
what do you like
uhm (1.0) uh welche wohnungen uhm (1.0) hast du mit uhm balkon
which apartments
have you with balcony
what apartments do you have with balcony
und uhm supermarkt.
and
supermarket
mhm
uhm welche (1.0) [un uh] wie viel kostet,
which
how much costs
how much does (it) cost
[(uhm)]
ah fff ts a:h (.5) °°f- uh°° (.) funt .hh funfhundert (.5) uh (4.7) dreißig
five hundred
thirty
euro pro p- p- pro person °person°
per
per
ja okay
yes
uhm (2.2) das ist nicht so gut,
that is not so good
uh[m]
[f]ür du.=
for you
=ja ich habe uhm (1.0) pt ick ick w- uh (.5) will uhm (.7) nur for
yes I have
I I
want
only
vierhundert uhm euro uhm pro monat .h uhm aber ick könnte (.5) ahm
four hundred
per month
but I could
(1.0) mehr als uhm aber ahm (.5) pt .h (.5) ich uhm (2.7) pt ich sehe uhm
more than but
I
I see
(1.0) pt öffentliche verkehrsmittel in der nähe
vor uhm (1.0) hast du
public
transport
in the proximity
have you
uh (1.2) u bahn oder s bahn oder uh busse,
subway or train or
busses
pt ahhh (4.5) s bahn °uh°
train
okay=
=stop [in ] der nähe uh[m]
in
the proximity
266
36
ML:
(…)
51
ML:
52
53
54
55
KN:
ML:
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
KN:
KN:
ML:
63
64
65
66
67
KN:
ML:
68
KN:
69
70
ML:
KN:
71
ML:
72
KN:
73
ML:
[°°ja°°]
yes
[uh] uhm wo ist uh deine (.) wohnung?
where is
your
apartment
hm (.7) uh keine supermarkt uhm (2.0) uh willst du: uhm (2.0) andere=
no supermarket
want you
other
no supermarket do you want other
=dinge?
things
(3.0)
uhm::
uh ist das uh nur supermarkt und balkon oder ist (1.0) uhm oder
is that only supermarket and balcony or is
or
willst du uh andere? uhm °also°
want you other
also
(4.0)
°hm::::°
(11.0)
uh
(8.0)
uhm ick ick will uhm (1.0) pt weniger: als uh four hundert im
I I
want
less
than
hundred in the
monat uh uh euro pro monat .h uhm ick will: uhm (.7) öffentliche
month
per month
I want
public
verkehrsmittel und ich will uhm (.5) eine wohnung uhm in der nähe
transport
and I want
an apartment in the proximity
uhm berlin mitte.
berlin center
okay=
=uhm was sind deine (1.0) wille (1.2) °(ja)°
what are your
will
yes
ahm (2.0) tch tch tch tch (2.0) hh uhm (7.0) beste lage uhm=
best location
=mhm
uh hhh. hatte uhm (.7) tch tch tch tch s- uh (.5) supermarket in der nähe
had
in the proximity
ja
yes
uhm (2.0) hh. un:d ahm tch tch tch tch tch (4.5) und große balkon uhm=
and
and big balcony
=hm
Prior to the sequence replicated in Excerpt 5.2-1, KN has said that he would like an
apartment with a balcony and a supermarket nearby. Now, ML asks whether KN actually has ads
267
for apartments with these two characteristics (line 14). In line 15, KN affirms ML’s question, and
it seems that he wants to add which of the apartments he likes ‘ick (1.0) ma:g’ (I like). However,
the pauses, the breath intake, and the filled pauses in KN’s turn indicate that KN must be
encountering a problem of production. He may be searching for words. KN offers the floor to
ML by asking what he likes, which has the effect of avoiding further delay.
ML seems to anticipate that KN does not understand his initial question, which is why
ML initiates repair in third position to retrieve KN’s response and to elicit a response that is
matched to his initial question. When the participants’ understandings diverge, third position
repair can realign their understandings and thus maintain intersubjectivity (Schegloff, 1992a). In
line 17, ML initiates repair in third position and reformulates his question, specifying the criteria
he was talking about in his original question. ML is now asking what apartments with balcony
and supermarket KN has. KN utters a continuation token (‘mhm’) that indicates attention
(Schegloff, 1982) and signals ML to continue talking (Goodwin, 1986). Thus, KN passes on the
opportunity to take the floor. In an attempt to repeat the question, most likely to make clearer
what he is trying to ask, ML cancels his questioning action and initiates a new question (‘wie viel
kostet’).
In addition to third position repair, ML also initiates repair in transition space when KN
delays the uptake of the next turn (see lines 51–73). As pointed out earlier, KN has stated that he
is interested in renting an apartment with a balcony that has a supermarket nearby. ML is now
asking if there are any other things KN would like to have in an apartment (line 51). What may
be confusing to ML is that KN has indicated only two things he looks for in an apartment.
According to the task, each participant should state three preferences.
268
At the end of the sequence presented in Excerpt 5.2-1, ML is trying to elicit what else KN
prefers to have in the apartment in addition to a balcony and a supermarket near the apartment.
As can be seen in the turns that follow line 51, KN does not take his turn even though ML’s turn
is possibly complete and ML’s question addresses KN directly, selecting him to speak next. Two
repairs in the transition space (lines 55–56, 62–67) are necessary before KN takes the floor and
responds to ML’s question.
Thus, both the non-alignment between KN’s response and ML’s question as well as KN’s
non-responses signal to ML that KN does not understand what ML is trying to convey. ML
projects that KN needs to be supported, so that their understandings can be realigned and
intersubjectivity sustained. Thus, ML aligns to KN’s understanding problem (that ML projects)
by providing support, that is, third position and transition space repair, both of which contribute
in clarifying the potential misunderstandings. Through the incidental undertaking of supportproviding and support-receiving identities in their sequential organization of talk, KN and ML
invoke an asymmetrical alignment of language ability identities. That is, supporting his partner
KN puts ML in the position of the more competent speaker, while KN comes across as the less
competent participant in this interaction.
The interaction that I turn to next includes two participants who are at similar speaking
ability levels. In comparison to ML and KN’s interaction, one speaker negotiates the discourse
identity that her partner has of her.
5.2.2
Test-taker pair AS and RO
This section is devoted to an interaction between AS (female) and RO (male), who were
identified as mid-level speakers, that is, as speakers whose ability level is similar to each other
269
and in mid-range compared to other test takers included in this study. Both AS and RO were
high-intermediate level students at the time of the data collection. The conversation analysis
shows that both AS and RO position themselves as not particularly linguistically competent
speakers. As can be seen in Excerpt 5.2-2, they are able to convey what they intend to say, but
their talk is not particularly fluent or accurate. The utterances of both speakers are characterized
by turn-internal delays, indicating word search activity. Both also fall back to English when they
have problems expressing what they are trying to say (e.g., lines 61–62, 76, 99). However,
interactionally, AS is able to position herself as the more competent speaker during her
interaction with RO, as Excerpt 5.2-2 indicates. This excerpt stems from the second half of their
discussion.
Excerpt 5.2-2: DIS:IntII:M-M:AS-RO
60
AS:
61
62
63
64
65
66
RO:
67
AS:
68
69
70
AS:
RO:
71
AS:
so(h) zeitung:: uh (2.7) s- (.5) jetzt (.5) uhm (1.7) leuten lesen .h (.2)
so newspaper
now
people read
°sometime° or manchmal hh. (1.0) °something° (.2) ahm (3.2) mm (1.2)
sometimes
und (.2) .hh (.2) zeitung:=h. (3.5) jetzt (1.2) printed ha=hh. .h weil
ah
and
newspaper
now
because
(.7) .h (.2) leute: (.7) lieber letz- (.) or zeitung (.5) ahm und (3.2) un (.7)
people rather last
newspaper
and
leute: (.2) .h möchten (.5) halten h. .h die (1.2) zeitung,
people
would like hold
the
newspaper
(2.0)
halten °sie°,
hold she
hold it
(.7) ü- über (.2) eine computer, (1.7) °uh° lesen,
over
a
read
(1.7)
like
ick
I
hh[h ]
270
72
RO:
73
74
75
AS:
RO:
AS:
76
77
78
79
RO:
AS:
RO:
80
AS:
81
82
RO:
83
84
85
AS:
86
RO:
87
88
AS:
RO:
89
90
AS:
91
92
93
RO:
RO:
94
AS:
95
96
RO:
[verst]ehe (.) n- nicht
understand
not
hh. sorry(h) hh. .h
no es=en=is (.5) ah=
=try to answer the questions (2.0) ( ) (.5) hh. .h (1.2) warum (1.5) du
why
you
why do you
(.2) denken (.2) dass (.5) or (1.7) ja dass zeitung (.7) jetz (.5) printed.
think
that
yes that newspaper now
think that newspapers are printed now
oh [okay
]
[((laughs))]
a:hm (.5) well h. ((knocks on table)) (.2) die (.5) alter (.7) älte[r?]
the
age
older
[ja]: di[e=
yes the
[ah=
=ältern]
older
=leuten] ah
people
(1.0) ah (2.7)
lieber halte[n]
rather hold
[j]a=
yes
=hh [.hh] (.) [h.]
[ja ] [da]s is uhm (.7) un:d hehe (.7) ah (.5) sie kann nicht (.) die
yes
that is
and
they can not the
internet (.2) a:h (1.5) ((knocks on table)) machen (.2) °nein° (.7) [ah]
do
no
[ja] (.2)
yes
[ver]stehen
understand
[(ve-)]
ja versteh:e[n]
yes understand
[al]te[n]
old
[a]hm
(.7)
271
97
AS:
98
RO:
99
RO:
100
AS:
101
102
RO:
AS:
103
RO:
104
AS:
105
RO:
106
107
108
109
AS:
RO:
leuten [ni]cht verstehen (.7) die internet hh. [.h ] und=
people not
understand the
and
people do not understand the internet and
[ja]
[ja n-]
yes
yes
=technology: sin[d ]
are
[lie]ben .h [or]
love
[ah] (1.2) ah (.2) ((knocks on table)) (.7)
lesen (1.5) jetz=
read
now
=ja de (.7)
yes
im hand .hh
in the hand
for for (2.0) viele jahr or viele jahre ahm sie sind (.2) or (.5) sie ah (.2) die
many year many years they are
they
the
zeitung lesen un:d (1.7) ne- h. (1.0) ne- (.7) sie: (1.2) möckt- or (.5) sie
newspaper read and
they
would like
they
möchten: (.2) nicht (1.2) a:hm (3.2) °uh° change? I- [I- ] (.7) was i[s ]=
would like not
what is
[mm]
[ja]
=chan- ja (.5) uhm (.7) sorry uhm (.7) pt .hh tch t[ch ]
The sequence in Excerpt 5.2-2 begins with AS pointing out that people prefer to read
newspapers because they can hold them in their hands (lines 60–64). RO encounters a problem
with AS’s utterance, as can be seen in line 66. Rather hesitantly, RO repeats a part of the troublesource turn (‘halten °sie°,’). It is unclear whether RO initiates repair or not. The repeat does not
include a rising intonation contour, which is a common characteristic of partial repeats when they
are deployed as repair initiators (Kim, 2002). Repair initiation or not, AS ignores RO’s utterance,
which may be due to RO’s hesitant behavior initiating repair. AS continues with her talk but is
then forced to stop because RO launches an understanding repair initiator in line 72 (‘verstehe (.)
n- nicht’). Now AS orients to RO. She apologizes (line 73), explains in English what she is trying
272
to do (namely, ‘to answer the questions’), and provides the question in German that she has been
trying to answer (lines 75–76).
It can be argued that RO’s repair initiation communicates that AS is responsible for the
repair-related trouble (Robinson, 2006), including that mutual understanding is at risk. AS may
view the other-initiated repair as a means to convey that she has bypassed the option to selfrepair. RO and AS may also understand AS’s failure of self-repair as an indication of lacking
competence or language ability (Robinson, 2006). By apologizing (line 73), AS takes responsibly
for the trouble displayed by RO. Thus, she understands that the responsibility belongs to her (cf.
Robinson, 2006). Interestingly, in response to AS’s apology, RO produces a negation token
(‘no’) in line 74, which suggests that RO disagrees with AS taking responsibility for the trouble
on her own. It seems that both partners feel responsible for the trouble. RO and AS do not further
negotiate trouble responsibility but turn to the resolution of the trouble and the progressivity of
the interaction.
Despite the fact that AS first ignored RO’s potential repair initiation, she comes across as
a supportive interlocutor. She explicitly points out what she is doing instead of merely clarifying
some lexical items, such as the verb ‘halten’ (to hold), which appears to be problematic for RO.
AS’s supportive behavior continues throughout the sequence: After AS clarifies what she is
trying to do and RO indicates understanding with a change-of-state token (‘oh okay’) (Heritage,
1984b) in line 77, RO takes the floor and builds on AS’s initiated topic. He adds that it is older
people who prefer the newspaper to the Internet. RO’s doubt of whether ‘älter?’ (older) (line 79)
is really the right word is dispelled by AS, who provides an affirmation token and a repetition of
the item (‘ja: die ältern’) (line 80, 82). Then, RO gets stuck; he searches for an appropriate verb,
as can be taken from the speech perturbations and pauses in his turn in line 84. He has delivered
273
the subject for his contribution, but an appropriate verb is missing. By providing the phrase
‘lieber halten’ (line 85), AS continues RO’s turn that has come to a halt because of RO’s selfdirected word search. In the following turn, RO again encounters a problem (lines 88–89). He is
trying to express that older people do not know how to use the Internet, but he is missing the verb
to complete his utterance. After a brief solitary word search in line 89, RO comes up with the
verb ‘machen’ (to do) that does not seem to be the right word for him, as the negation token
‘°nein°’ indicates (line 89). In the following turn, AS corrects RO’s word choice and supplies a
better suited verb (‘verstehen’, to comprehend) (line 91).
AS comes across as a supportive interlocutor in this sequence as she clarifies her prior
contribution, confirms the correctness of a specific lexical item in RO’s talk, continues RO’s
turn, and corrects a word after RO’s unsuccessful word search. The discourse identities of
support-providing–support-accepting or knowing–unknowing that emerge from the sequential
organization of RO and AS’s interaction invoke an asymmetry of more competent/less competent
language ability identities. By doing being supportive, AS positions herself as the more
competent interlocutor in relation to her partner RO (cf. Lazaraton & Davis, 2008).
It should be noted that RO does not revoke the asymmetry of language ability identities
that has been given rise to by AS’s other-repair. Rather, the support-providing–support-accepting
discourse identities sustain throughout this sequence. Interestingly, at the end of their
conversation (lines 105–109), RO and AS take on requestor–requestee identities due to RO’s
word search initiation (cf. Park, 2007). By gazing at AS, RO addresses the word search to her
and thus marks the word search as other-directed rather than self-directed. Thus far, RO has not
explicitly sought help from AS, but by inviting her to participate in his word search he does. It
may be that RO considers AS who supported him in the course of this sequence as a knowing
274
speaker (Goodwin, 1987), meaning a participant who knows more about language use than he
does.
However, now AS is unwilling or unable to provide the German equivalent of the English
word ‘change’. AS lets out a non-verbal sound ‘mm’ and the affirmative token ‘ja’ (line 108) to
show that she understands what RO is trying to convey, but she does not engage in RO’s search.
By requesting AS to participate in his word search, RO assumes a requestor discourse identity
and projects a requestee identity to AS (Park, 2007). However, AS disengages from the word
search and thus does not take on the reciprocal identity that she was projected to assume based
on the RO help request. It seems that AS now revokes the asymmetrical alignment of more
competent/less competent language ability identities that was established between her and RO.
To summarize, AS is able to position herself as the more competent speaker in her
interaction with RO, whereas RO comes across as comparatively less competent speaker. The
other-repair that AS provides emerges from AS and RO’s interaction and is reflected in the
incidental undertaking of knowing–unknowing identities. These discourse identities invoke an
asymmetrical relationship of language ability identities (more competent vs. less competent)
between the two speakers. The knowing–unknowing identities sustain almost throughout the
entire sequence, until AS disengages from an other-directed word search that RO has initiated.
AS who has taken on a knowing discourse identity negotiates the present discourse identities of
RO and herself at the end of the sequence.
In the interaction that I discuss next, one speaker resists the partner’s projected discourse
identity of him as the unknowing participant needing help.
275
5.2.3
Test-taker pair MG and TM
MG and TM, two high-intermediate level students at the time of data collection, produced the
interaction presented in this section. MG, the female speaker, was identified as a high abilitylevel speaker, whereas TM, a male speaker, was categorized as a low ability-level speaker. This
initial impression of the speaking ability differences in the two speakers is corroborated in the
co-constructed test discourse (see Excerpt 5.2-3). Even though turn-internal delays are prevalent
in both speakers’ talk, and both MG and TM self-repair their utterances, Excerpt 5.2-3 also
shows that MG is doing being accurate, as her talk shows instances of subject-verb agreement
and the correct use of case, for example.
This section is devoted to one instance that occurs in MG and TM’s talk. Toward the end
of the sequence presented in Excerpt 5.2-3, MG provides a turn completion to advance TM’s turn
as TM engages in a solitary word search. TM, however, does not accept MG’s support, which
would have positioned TM as less competent speaker (cf. Park, 2007).
Excerpt 5.2-3: DIS:IntII:H-L:MG-TM
01
TM:
02
03
MG:
04
05
06
TM:
MG:
07
TM:
08
09
MG:
okay ahm (1.5) .hh (.5) ich liese ich liese nicht a:h (.5) zeitungen ahm
I read I read not
newspapers
I read I do not read newspapers
.hh l- leistest du zeitungen?
read you newspapers
do you read newspapers
ah nein ah ich (1.0) ah (2.0) lese (1.0) die nachrichten (.2) ahm (1.0) °im
no
I
read
the news
in the
internet°?
hm
°°(ja im)
internet°° [(°so°)]
yes in the
[°uhm° ] welche m:: welche a:h .h (.5) ah iwhich
which
internet ahm (.5) site?
ahm (2.0) mei:n (.2) >lieblingswebsite< ist (.2) bbc. (.5) °so ah°=
my
favorite website is
BBC
276
10
11
TM:
MG:
12
TM:
13
14
MG:
TM:
15
16
MG:
17
18
19
20
TM:
MG:
TM:
21
22
23
24
25
MG:
TM:
26
27
28
29
MG:
TM:
MG:
TM:
30
MG:
31
32
33
TM:
34
35
MG:
TM:
=°°hm°°
°ja° (.5) [was meinst]
yes
what mean
[meine
] ist=uh cnn(h) .hh (.5)
my
is
CNN
u:hm (1.5)
.h ahm (.7) tch (.2) denkst du:: a:hm (.5) zeitungen: .h ah (1.0) .h ein
think you
newspapers
a
zukunft haben h.?
future have
do you think newspapers will have a future
uhm (4.5) ja: aber (1.0) dein zukunft is nicht so or ja no sein zukunft ist
yes but
your future is not so yes his future is
nicht so gut? (.5) mm=
not so good
=mhm
(sie) (3.5)
zu viele papier. ahm (1.7) hm tch (.2) .hh ahm hh. te te te te (5.7) di- uh
too many paper
die bbc ahm (.7) tch .h uh::: du den:kst: u::h or denkst du uhm .hh or=ah
the BBC
you think
think you
(1.5) °okay° .h warum (.2) ahm (2.0) warum (.7) du=ah (1.0) die bbc ah
why
why
you
the BBC
(.5) ahm besuchen.
visit
why do you visit the BBC
ahm (2.0) ah
anstatt=a::h (1.0) eine amerikische (.5) uhm .h
instead
an American
ah
uh nwebsite.=
=nachrichten.
news
ja uhm (.) uh (.2) bbc ist (.2) uh (.2) frei (.2) ja uhm (.2) .hh und (.5)
BBC is
free
yes
and
°°like°° new york times oder (.5) like (1.0) große uhm (.7) zeitungen uh
or
big
newspapers
kostet (.2) geld,
costs
money
j[a]
yes
[u]hm (1.0)
bbc hab
habe kein habst hat
keine pa- pay wall.
BBC have have no have have no
277
In lines 22–23 of Excerpt 5.2-3, TM asks MG why she reads the news on the BBC
website. Following MG’s 2-second delay in turn uptake, TM takes the floor again and initiates
transition space repair by clarifying his initial question (line 25). He adds ‘anstatt=a::h (1.0) eine
amerikische (.5) uhm .h’, intending to ask why MG visits a British news website and not an
American site. But then TM gets stuck with his utterance. In line 26, MG utters a change-of-state
token ‘ah’ (Heritage, 1984b) to indicate that she understands what TM is asking. MG then
completes TM’s turn by providing the noun (‘website’) that is still missing to make the utterance
possibly complete (line 28). TM does not confirm or accept MG’s suggestion. Rather, TM
disregards MG’s word suggestion and continues his prior turn by uttering ‘Nachrichten’ (news)
(line 29). TM’s turn continuation (‘Nachrichten’) is a delayed completion (Lerner, 1989, 2004)
that eliminates the sequential meaning of MG’s contribution. The delayed completion suggests
that TM may feel interrupted by MG and thus attempts to regain his turn (Lerner, 1989). It is
evident that TM resists MG’s turn completion that would ascribe an unknowing participant
identity to him (cf. Park, 2007) and position him as less competent.
That TM ignores the turn completion provided by MG is not surprising. As can be seen in
Excerpt 5.2-3, interactionally speaking, a somewhat asymmetrical interaction pattern (Galaczi,
2004) emerges from TM and MG’s discursive behavior. That is, throughout this sequence, TM
dominates the interaction with his questioning actions about MG’s media use and whether
newspapers will still exist in the future (see lines 1–2, 7–8, 14–15, 22–23). MG settles for the
position of the co-participant who reacts and responds to TM’s questions. It seems as if the two
speakers establish interviewer–interviewee identities with TM taking the role of the interviewer
and MG the position of the interviewee. All action sequences in this excerpt are structured in a
278
similar fashion, following a pattern of initiation, response and occasional evaluation before the
next question is initiated. TM puts himself in interactional control of this sequence.
In sum, as was hinted at in the previous section, discourse identities may be negotiated in
the sequentially organized talk. That is, the speakers do not necessarily align to their projected
discourse identities. As shown in the analysis, TM does not assume the identity of the unknowing
speaker that MG projects to him. Rather, TM reject MG’s attempt to provide support (e.g., by
means of a turn completion to progress the turn) and thus resists to MG’s action that attributes to
him the identity of an unknowing participant, which would also position him as the less
competent speaker. That TM does not align to his projected discourse identity in the sequential
talk may be explained with TM’s relatively dominant discursive behavior in this sequence and
with MG feeling comfortable in the role of the respondent.
5.2.4
Summary
Case analyses were conducted in this section to analyze how test takers’ speaking ability is
displayed in the test discourse and how practices of repair interrelate with the construction of
language ability identities. The findings from the micro analysis suggest that practices of repair
deployed to maintain intersubjectivity (e.g., third position repair, transition space repair, otherrepair due to a word search activity) may give rise to asymmetrical discourse identities in the test
takers (e.g., support-providing–support-receiving, knowing–unknowing, requestor–requestee).
By doing being supportive, the speaker who provides the repair is usually able to position
himself or herself as the more competent or proficient participant in the test discourse. The
analysis also showed that a repair initiation by the other may communicate a failure in the
279
trouble-source speaker to take the opportunity to self-repair, which may lead to a positioning of
that speaker as less competent or less proficient.
In addition, discourse identities and, thus, language ability identities may be negotiated
and may therefore shift in talk-in-interaction. That is, speakers may resist their partners’
ascribing a specific discourse identity to them, such as an unknowing or a requestee identity. In
that respect, the a priori speaking ability ratings may not necessarily be displayed in the jointly
constructed test discourse.
5.3
Summary
The first part of this chapter focused on the influence of the test task and ability-level
combination in the test-taker pairs on the repair procedures co-constructed in the paired test
discourse. The quantitative analysis identified some trends in the impact of task and ability level
on the repair procedures produced. For example, the majority of repair procedures used to
maintain intersubjectivity occur in both the jigsaw task and the discussion task. In addition, the
co-construction of some repair procedures may be due to the higher or lower ability level of a
test taker in the pair. However, the repair use in the various ability-level combinations seems to
be rather variable. A fixed pattern of repair use in the various ability-level combinations could
not be detected (except for the fact that High–High ability-level pairs were found to produce
hardly any repair in comparison to pairs at other ability levels).
The second part of this chapter looked more closely at the co-construction of language
ability identities in the paired test discourse and the role of practices of repair in positioning test
takers as competent or proficient. The analysis showed that the participant who provides support
is able to position himself or herself as the more competent speaker. In addition, language ability
280
identities may be negotiated by both the speaker who is projected to be in need for help and the
speaker who is projected to be able to provide support. It became apparent that the speaking
ability ratings assigned to participants may not necessarily be reflected in the co-constructed test
discourse.
The next chapter draws together the findings from chapters 4 and 5. I further discuss the
presented results and lay out the conclusions that can be drawn from the study.
281
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION
This study investigated the construct of interactional competence in an intermediate-level
German paired test setting. The purpose of the study was to broaden the construct of interactional
competence in the context of a paired speaking test by focusing on the mechanisms of repair as
the interactional resources employed by the learners to accomplish ‘maintaining
intersubjectivity’. In line with the conceptualization of interactional competence in second
language acquisition (SLA) (Young, 2008, 2011), intersubjectivity, or mutual understanding, is
understood as the basis for interactional competence. The practices of repair emerged from an
inductive analysis of the test discourse. The methodological framework for the data analysis was
conversation analysis (CA), a method that analyzes the sequential organization of talk-ininteraction.
This study also examined the impact of the test task (jigsaw task vs. discussion task) and
the different combinations of ability levels in the test-taker pairs (same ability vs. weak/strong
combination) on the co-construction of the conversational resources used to maintain
intersubjectivity. Frequency distributions were created to obtain a better understanding of the
impact of task and ability-level combination on the co-construction of the repair procedures. The
rationale behind this analysis is the general understanding of language testers that both the
resources that the participants bring to the test interaction and the context in which the interaction
is set have an influence on the co-constructed test performance.
In single case analyses, the study also provided a detailed picture of the relationship
between language ability identities and the procedures of repair, both of which are co-constructed
at the discourse level. The assumption was that the relationship between speaking ability and
282
conversational resources to maintain intersubjectivity may be better described when both
components are analyzed at the discourse level.
In this chapter, I summarize the major findings of the study. I outline the study’s
implications and contributions for language testing. Then, I address the limitations of the study
and suggest directions for future research.
6.1
6.1.1
Major findings
Research Question 1
From a conversation analysis, three procedures of repair emerged as particularly prominent to
accomplish ‘maintaining intersubjectivity’ in the test discourse. In chapter 4, the procedures of
repair were described with respect to their various parts, including the repair initiation, the repair
proper, and the trouble source. Research Question 1 is as follows:
What mechanisms of repair are prominently used in the paired test discourse of an intermediatelevel German speaking test to maintain intersubjectivity?
a) What is the sequential organization of the procedures used to co-construct repair?
b) Which of the repair procedures identified in the test discourse can be described as more
or less complex procedures of interactional competence in co-constructing repair and
maintaining intersubjectivity?
283
The procedures of repair identified in the data set are briefly described in this section. I
also discuss how these procedures were used to accomplish ‘maintaining intersubjectivity’ in the
test discourse.
Other-initiated self-repair
In line with previous research on repair (Kurhila, 2006; Schegloff et al., 1977), the analysis
showed that the hearer may draw the speaker’s attention to a trouble source that the speaker
repairs in the turn following the repair initiation. The repairable may be a lexical item, a
misheard word, or an entire action that does not sequentially match with the prior talk. The
hearer may initiate repair in various ways; for example, by means of full or partial repetitions of
the trouble source; so-called open-class repair initiators (e.g., ‘hm?’, ‘huh?’), which are
nonspecific in locating the repairable; or forms of candidate understanding (e.g., understanding
checks, comprehension checks, expansions), which are interpretations of the trouble source and
thus very specific in locating the trouble.
Partial and full repetitions, as well as open-class repair initiators, are also referred to as
hearing repair initiators (Schegloff, 2004; Svennevig, 2008). That means that they signal a
hearing problem even though an understanding problem may be the cause for the repair
initiation. In line with Svennevig (2008), the participants in the present study launched a hearing
repair initiator first, regardless of the trouble source, which may have been a misheard word, an
unknown lexical item, or an entire action that does not fit in the sequential organization of the
talk.
In response to the repair initiation, the trouble-source speaker may interpret the hearing
repair initiator as such and repeat the repairable or provide an affirmation token to repair the
284
hearing trouble that the hearer signaled. The trouble-source speaker may also anticipate a
problem of lexical understanding or comprehension and re-construct his or her original
contribution to make it more accessible to the hearer (e.g., by translating problematic lexical
items, substituting potentially problematic words, providing clues to clarify the content of prior
talk or the meaning of a lexical item).
All in all, intersubjectivity may be maintained between the speakers, in that the speaker
who encounters trouble makes the partner aware that trouble has occurred in the other speaker’s
turn. The trouble-source speaker may repair the trouble that was located.
Self-initiated self-repair
The trouble-source speaker may repair and solve potential trouble, either in the spot following
the completed turn constructional unit (TCU) that holds the repairable (transition space repair)
(Schegloff et al., 1977) or after the partner’s utterance that displays a misunderstanding of an
earlier turn (third position repair) (Schegloff, 1992a).
The conversation analysis revealed that the partner may delay the uptake of the next turn
even though the original speaker’s turn is possibly complete and the hearer was selected to speak
next. The inter-turn delay may indicate that the hearer has encountered some sort of trouble with
the speaker’s turn. Thus, the original speaker may anticipate trouble in hearing or understanding
and provide repair in the transition space of his or her turn, which has been extended due to the
inter-turn delay. Similar to other-initiated self-repair, forms of self-repair triggered by inter-turn
delays may be designed in ways to better align to the recipient’s knowledge (e.g., by
clarifications, reformulations, translations of the original utterance). The transition-space repair,
however, is deployed under the premise that a problem of hearing or understanding may have
285
occurred. The partner who delays the turn uptake does not indicate what causes the delay. Interturn delay may also arise due to other problems, such as the need to search for a lexical item or
for information. Thus, transition space repair is deployed under the assumption that shared
knowledge between the speakers may not be given and that intersubjectivity may be at risk.
In addition to self-repair caused by inter-turn delays, the speaker may also repair his or
her initial utterance in the third position because the partner’s response displays a
misunderstanding or a non-alignment with the original speaker’s utterance. Realigning both
partners’ understandings by means of repair in the third position, that is, in the position after the
partner’s response to the original utterance, is crucial in restoring intersubjectivity. Thus, in
contrast to the trouble that the hearer indicates directly by means of repair initiators, the trouble
may also be indicated indirectly by a turn that signals misunderstanding of a previous turn.
Word search activities
The conversation analysis detected various forms of word search activities that included the
partner who was invited to participate in the search or repaired the trouble, for example, by
correcting the lexical item that emerged from a solitary word search or by completing a turn that
came to a halt due to a word search activity.
The analysis showed that participants when encountering lexical trouble may utter a word
search marker (e.g., ‘what’s the word?’) and involve the partner to help with the word search
upon a non-verbal signal (an eye gaze). In such cases, the word search was usually also made
specific, in that the speaker searching for the word provided a lexical cue, usually the English
equivalent of the searched-for German word. The analysis also revealed that the partner who was
invited to participate in the word search may or may not assist with the word search, that is, the
286
partner may provide the searched-for German lexical item, admit that he or she does not know
the lexical item being sought, acknowledge comprehension of what the speaker is trying to
convey without engaging in the word search, or not react to the invitation to participate in the
search (which may be because the initial invitation to participate in the word search has been
withdrawn).
Overall, no matter how the partner responded to the speaker’s repair initiation, the
interaction proceeded without problems. As most word search initiations directed at the partner
include the English equivalent of the searched-for German word, mutual understanding is not
seriously at stake in case of a non-response from the partner. In addition, by falling back to the
first language (L1), the word-searching speaker has taken means to prevent potential
understanding problems that may otherwise arise because of an unknown lexical item. Thus,
providing the English word as a cue for the German word being sought in an other-directed word
search activity may be considered a procedure that maintains intersubjectivity in talk-ininteraction.
In addition, the analysis also revealed that a word search may not be accompanied by a
word search marker. Rather, the word search may be self-directed. The solitary word search as
such may turn out unsuccessful, in that an erroneous German lexical item is uttered. Speakers
may also be uncertain about the German lexical item that evolved from the self-directed search.
The analysis showed that the partner may correct the speaker’s word choice by replacing the
possibly erroneous German word with an alternative. In addition, the partner may not overtly
correct a lexical item but rather substitute the lexical item in passing in the next-relevant action.
Corrections may be provided even though the trouble-source speaker does not explicitly invite
the partner to participate in the word search, for example, by giving a non-verbal signal (an eye
287
gaze). Corrections, which the word-searching speaker usually confirms, allow the participants to
adjust to each other’s knowledge.
In addition, instances were found where the speaker engages in a solitary word search,
which seems to turn out unsuccessfully as he or she utters an English instead of a German word.
As was pointed out earlier, providing the English equivalent of the searched-for German word
helps to maintain intersubjectivity as both members of the pair know English. Using the English
word when the German equivalent is unknown may avert potential understanding problems. That
the English word is considered a natural part of the discourse can be taken from the fact that the
partner may let the English word slide and not provide the equivalent German word.
The participants may also continue the partner’s turn to possible completion when it came
to a halt due to the partner engaging in a self-directed word search activity. Turn completions
may be confirmed, rejected and corrected, or ignored. As was pointed out, turn completions
presume a high degree of shared knowledge between both speakers. Turn completions can only
be provided when the speaker completing the partner’s turn has understood the previous talk and
is able to project the next relevant word to continue the incomplete turn. Turn completions make
visible the degree of mutual understanding between the speakers. They may also put
intersubjectivity to the test, given that the partner responds to the completion by confirming or
rejecting the completion.
More and less complex procedures of repair to maintain intersubjectivity
In line with previous research by scholars working within CA–SLA (an approach within SLA
that draws on CA methodology), procedures that test takers deployed in the test discourse may be
described as more or less complex with respect to locating the trouble source (Schegloff et al.,
288
1977), orientating to types of trouble (Hellermann, 2011), and recipient design (Sacks et al.,
1974).
In locating the trouble source, the test takers in the present data set deployed nonspecific
open-class repair initiators (e.g., ‘huh?’, ‘hm?’) that do not indicate what the repairable actually
is. However, the test takers also located trouble more specifically by initiating repair with
understanding checks, comprehension checks, and expansions. Being able to locate trouble
specifically may be an indication of a further developed interactional repertoire (Brouwer &
Wagner, 2004).
In addition, similar to Hellermann’s (2011) findings, the test takers in this study mostly
oriented to lexical trouble but in a few instances also to entire action trouble. Turning to
inconsistencies in sequential organization and indicating when actions do not referentially
connect suggest a broader orientation to language and a greater interactional competence
(Hellermann, 2011).
Finally, the data analysis revealed that self-repair, either other-initiated or caused by
inter-turn delays, can be differentiated with respect to how well they are designed to the recipient
(Sacks et al., 1974). That is, forms of self-repair that are modified in a way to be more accessible
to the partner may be considered a more complex interactional resource in maintaining
intersubjectivity than repetitions that suggest that the speaker has only very little understanding
about the degree of shared knowledge between himself or herself and the other participant.
6.1.2
Research Question 2
Another part of the study was devoted to the impact of the task and ability-level combination in
the test-taker pair on the co-construction of repair procedures. Research Question 2 is as follows:
289
What procedures of repair are used in the different tasks and the various ability-level
combinations?
a) What are the range and frequency of these procedures in a discussion task and in a jigsaw
task?
b) What are the range and frequency of procedures produced by pairs where both members
of the pair are at the same level of speaking ability and in pairs where the members are at
different levels of speaking ability?
c) What procedures are produced predominantly by the higher or lower ability-level partner
in the different ability-level combinations?
Test tasks
With respect to the test tasks, the frequency distributions of the various repair procedures
revealed that there were no major qualitative differences in repair use across tasks. The majority
of repair procedures occurred in both the discussion task and the jigsaw task. Even though there
were differences in the type of trouble emerging in the tasks, the trouble was approached with the
same kinds of procedures in both the jigsaw task and the discussion task. For example, as pointed
out in chapter 4, the test takers were more likely to encounter reference problems in the jigsaw
than in the discussion task because the partner did not make explicit what apartment he or she
was talking about. In addition, test takers caused delays in turn uptake in the jigsaw because they
had to search for information on their instructions sheet when their partner asked about a
particular apartment. Furthermore, test takers halted their talk in the jigsaw task when they were
searching for specific, previously mentioned information about the various apartments, whereas
lexical searches were more prevalent in the discussion task. Overall, regardless of the trouble
290
source encountered in the discourse, the same types of repair procedures, such as other-initiated
repair, transition space repair, or turn completions, were deployed in both tasks.
However, quantitative differences in repair use were found across tasks. Some of these
differences may be explained by the task characteristics and the design of the tasks. For example,
other-directed specific word search markers and forms of turn completion were deployed more
often in the discussion than in the jigsaw, which may be an indication that word searches are
more prevalent in an open task like the discussion. In an open task, the outcomes are not
predetermined. Thus, the discussion task requires that the participants contribute to the task. In
that respect, test takers have to bring their own thoughts to the task, including the respective
vocabulary items to express these thoughts, which is not the case in the jigsaw task. In the jigsaw
task, a specific goal was given (namely the agreement on an apartment) and particular
vocabulary was provided in the ads, both of which may have made the search for lexical items
less critical.
In contrast, third position repair and embedded corrections mainly occurred in the jigsaw
task. Third position repair is used to clarify a misunderstanding that became apparent in the
partner’s turn in response to prior talk. Since the jigsaw task requires that the speakers agree on
an apartment to complete the task, it may be more pressing to test takers to identify and resolve
misunderstandings that are displayed in the partner’s talk. However, it remains unclear why
embedded corrections, in which corrections are provided in passing, are more prevalent in the
jigsaw.
In addition to the procedures of repair that occurred in either the jigsaw or the discussion
task, a number of procedures, such as candidate understandings, transition space repairs, noncorrections, and adjustments made in response to other-initiated repair, were produced similarly
291
in number in both the discussion and jigsaw task. These procedures seem to be commonly used
procedures in either task.
Thus, the findings suggest that there are more similarities than differences in repair use
across the task types.
Ability-level combination and higher and lower ability-level partner
The findings from the quantitative analysis showed that High–High ability-level pairs produced
hardly any repair. Pairs at this ability-level combination encountered fewer situations in which
they had to maintain intersubjectivity than pairs at the other ability-level combinations. Thus,
High–High level pairs’ abilities in understanding and production may be somewhat more
advanced in comparison to pairs that include mid and/or low ability-level speakers.
In addition, the analysis also revealed that test-taker pairs at somewhat different (High–
Mid, Mid–Low) and very different (High–Low) ability-level combinations deployed repair
procedures more frequently in comparison to same ability-level combinations (High–High, Mid–
Mid, Low–Low). However, the distribution of pairs is slightly skewed toward somewhat
different and very different ability-level combinations because 21 pairs at somewhat different
and very different ability-level combinations participated in the study, compared to only 13 pairs
at similar ability levels. Thus, that somewhat different and very different ability-level pairs
generally deploy a higher number of the various repair procedures may be due to the higher
number of participating pairs at these ability levels and not necessarily due to the type of
discourse that emerged from the interactions between speakers at these ability-level
combinations.
292
Furthermore, specific repair procedures occurred relatively evenly across the same and
different ability-level combinations, such as modified repetitions and adjusted contributions in
response to other-initiated repair. The trend that the majority of test takers anticipate a problem
of understanding rather than hearing (even though a hearing repair initiator is displayed) may be
explained by the test taker sample included in the study. As language learners, the participants
may be more likely to expect to encounter trouble due to problems of lexical understanding and
comprehension rather than hearing.
Other procedures of repair were also evenly produced across the same and different
ability-level combinations, but only in either the jigsaw or the discussion task. For example, noncorrections were deployed in the jigsaw, assuredly correct completions in the discussion, and
understanding checks in the jigsaw. However, these findings can hardly be explained and may be
random effects.
In addition, the findings from the quantitative analysis also showed that a number of
practices of repair were used rather infrequently and by only a few individual pairs at specific
ability-level combinations. For example, repeat requests were deployed by low ability-level
speakers in Low–Low and Mid–Low ability-level combinations. Understanding repair initiators
were produced by a low ability-level speaker paired with a high ability-level speaker and by a
mid ability-level speaker in interaction with another mid ability-level speaker. That particularly
low or mid ability-level speakers specifically ask for repetitions and indicate non-understanding
seems to be plausible. It can be assumed that they are more likely to encounter trouble in
understanding than high ability-level speakers, for example. However, the fact that repeat
requests and understanding repair initiators are produced by only a couple of pairs indicates that
these two procedures are not very common resources in maintaining intersubjectivity.
293
Moreover, expansions and embedded corrections are both deployed in the interactions of
a few High–Mid and High–Low ability-level pairs. In addition, comprehension checks are
produced rarely in the jigsaw and predominantly at two ability levels only, namely Mid–Mid and
Mid–Low. The reasons for these trends are unclear.
In addition, the analysis revealed that lower ability-level speakers in somewhat and very
different ability-level combinations are more prone to initiate word searches that are extended to
the partner. In contrast, the higher ability-level partner was more inclined to provide the
searched-for German lexical item, to complete the partner’s halted turn (due to a word search
activity that is underway), to initiate third position repair, and to turn to whole action trouble.
Thus, the higher ability-level partner seems to be more able to help in case of word search
activities, to clarify misunderstandings, and to indicate trouble that occurs due to the sequential
misfit of current and prior talk.
Finally, there seems to be an interesting interplay in place between task and ability-level
combination in terms of students orienting to whole-action trouble. That is, high-level speakers
in High–Mid ability-level pair combinations turn to a whole action as the trouble source in both
the discussion task and the jigsaw task, whereas mid- and low-level speakers in Mid–Mid and
Mid–Low ability-level pairs are more likely to orient to whole-action trouble in the jigsaw task
only. In the jigsaw task, non-fitting actions and sudden changes in topic may be more noticeable
but also less preferred since the speakers work toward a goal.
Thus, even though some trends in the co-construction of procedures of repair may be
attributed to the higher or lower ability level of a test taker in the pair, the relationship between
the ability-level combination in the pair and the use of repair seems to be variable. The various
ability-level combinations are not characterized by the use of specific repair procedures, so that
294
the ability-level combinations could be differentiated based on the repair used to maintain
intersubjectivity.
6.1.3
Research Question 3
As became apparent in the previous section, analyzing the relationship between the
conversational resources co-constructed in talk-in-interaction and test takers’ speaking ability
based on a priori speaking ability ratings may not be very informative. How speaking ability is
perceived on a macro level may differ from students’ language ability identities that are
displayed at the micro level. Rather than assign a priori speaking ability ratings to test takers, it
may be beneficial to investigate how test takers co-construct their language ability identities in
the interaction and how language ability is made visible in the test discourse. Analyzing both
language ability and the procedures used to maintain intersubjectivity at the discourse level may
provide a better understanding of their relationship. Three case analyses were conducted to
analyze how language ability identities are jointly constructed and how they interrelate with the
procedures of repair. Research Question 3 is as follows:
How are procedures of repair that are jointly constructed in test discourse involved in the coconstruction of the test takers’ language ability identities at the discourse level?
a) What are the practices of repair by which test takers position themselves as proficient or
competent in the paired test discourse of an intermediate-level German speaking test?
b) How are projected discourse and language ability identities negotiated in the test
discourse?
295
The findings from the conversation analysis suggest that practices of repair (e.g., third
position repair, transition space repair, corrections and turn completions in combination with
word search activities), which are deployed to maintain intersubjectivity, may give rise to
asymmetrical discourse identities in the test takers (e.g., support-providing–support-receiving,
knowing–unknowing, requestor–requestee). By doing ‘being supportive’, the speaker who
provides the repair is usually able to position himself or herself as the more competent or
proficient speaker in the test discourse. The analysis also showed that the discourse identities
and, thus, the language ability identities may be negotiated. That is, speakers may resist their
partners’ ascribing a specific discourse identity to them, such as an unknowing or a requestee
identity. For example, speakers may ignore a turn completion provided by the partner and thus
eliminate the sequential meaning of the partner’s contribution; or speakers may not participate in
a word search activity even though they were invited to help with the search. Thus, in line with
the research conducted by Lazaraton and Davis (2008), the discourse identities and the
corresponding language ability identities are in constant flux in the test discourse of the present
study.
The conversation analysis also showed that the speaking ability ratings that were assigned
to test takers prior to the test did not necessarily capture the language ability identities that the
test takers jointly constructed in the test discourse. Hence, the macro level speaking ability
ratings may be misleading in places and not provide meaningful information about the
relationship between test takers’ speaking ability and the co-construction of procedures of repair
to maintain intersubjectivity.
296
6.2
6.2.1
Implications of the findings and contributions of the study
Interactional competence
An important contribution of this study is to link the assessment of interactional competence with
the conceptualization of and previous research on interactional competence and development in
SLA and CA–SLA. This study conceptualized interactional competence with respect to
intersubjectivity or mutual understanding rather than collaborative or symmetrical interaction, as
is common in language testing (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Galaczi, 2004, 2008; May, 2009,
2011). In line with the conceptualization of interactional competence in SLA, intersubjectivity
was considered the basis for interactional competence (Young, 2008, 2011). Intersubjectivity
implies that speakers create a shared context when they orient to each other’s contribution as
they move from one turn to the next. Thus, by defining interactional competence in terms of
mutual understanding, this study attempted to broaden the scope of interactional competence in
language testing.
In addition, this study focused on the interactional resources used in the test discourse to
accomplish ‘maintaining intersubjectivity’. The procedures of repair (forms of self-repair and
other-repair in combination with the partner’s word search) that were identified as the resources
to maintain intersubjectivity may contribute to a more comprehensive definition of the construct
of interactional competence in paired speaking language testing. Thus far, interactional
competence has been defined with respect to resources of topic development, turn taking, and
interlocutor support (back-channeling) (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Galaczi, 2004).
Moreover, in line with CA–SLA research on interactional development, procedures of
repair were identified that can be described as more or less complex interactional resources; for
example, with respect to how specific a trouble source is located (specific repair initiation vs.
297
nonspecific repair initiation), what kind of trouble is oriented to (whole action trouble vs. lexical
trouble), and how well a contribution is tailored to the partner’s knowledge during self-repair
(making the trouble source turn more accessible to the partner vs. repeating the trouble source
turn). Such differentiations of interactional resources may give an indication of the extent to
which a test taker’s interactional competence is developed. Knowledge about more or less
developed interactional resources may inform the development of scales or rubrics for the
assessment of interactional competence.
The present study also revealed that reverting to the L1 when lexical trouble occurs may
be considered a beneficial repair practice that allows test takers to maintain intersubjectivity. As
the members of the pair know both German and English, switching between the two languages
may also come natural to them. However, second language (L2) teachers usually do not value
students using the L1 in the classroom. Rather, students are taught communication strategies
(e.g., circumlocution or the use of all-purpose words) to avoid communication breakdowns in
monologic talk without having to fall back to the L1. As this study showed, using the L1 to
sustain mutual understanding between peer–interlocutors can be viewed as a natural and
advantageous practice in talk-in-interaction. Thus, language teaching and testing professionals
may have to rethink the value of the L1 in peer interactional settings.
In addition, the repair procedures that were identified in the test discourse may also be
helpful for instruction. Instructors could show students what repair procedures may best be used
to maintain mutual understanding.
Finally, in agreement with Firth and Wagner (1997), Kasper (2006), and others, this study
showed that lower ability-level students are also interactionally competent speakers as they orient
to each other’s contributions and attempt to maintain intersubjectivity.
298
6.2.2
Test-taker pairs
With respect to assigning test takers to pairs, it may be favorable to pair test takers who are at
different speaking ability levels. The quantitative analysis suggested that to maintain
intersubjectivity test-taker pairs at somewhat different (High–Mid, Mid–Low) and very different
(High–Low) ability-level combinations deployed repair procedures more frequently than pairs at
same ability-level combinations (High–High, Mid–Mid, Low–Low). Thus, even though the
partners were at different speaking ability levels, they were able to maintain mutual
understanding in talk-in-interaction.
As was pointed out elsewhere, it should be noted that despite perceived differences in
speaking ability, the participants included in this study may still be considered very similar in
their speaking ability when compared against a standardized proficiency scale, such as the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). With respect to their
speaking ability, it can be assumed that the majority of test takers are at the basic user level, the
A-level, according to the CEFR. While other studies (e.g., Galaczi, 2004, 2014; Gan, 2010)
showed that same ability-level test-taker pairs across different proficiency levels (e.g., level B1
vs. C2 on the CEFR) vary in the production of interactional features in the test discourse, fixed
patterns of repair use at the various speaking ability-level combinations were not found in the
present data set. This trend may be explained with the fact that the speaking ability of the
majority of test takers in the present study may best be described as A-level speaking ability
following the CEFR. Hence, basing the assignment to pairs on test takers’ speaking ability
ratings may provide very little insight into how participants co-construct repair procedures to
maintain intersubjectivity.
Furthermore, this study suggested that the a priori ability level ratings (high, mid, or low)
assigned to test takers do not necessarily agree with the language ability identities that test takers
299
co-construct in the test discourse itself. Assigning test takers to pairs based on macro level
speaking ability ratings may obscure the participants’ actual ability that is co-constructed in the
test discourse. In addition, the language ability identities constructed in the discourse are in
constant flux and may change from one turn to the next. Therefore, it seems impossible to predict
what language ability identities emerge from a test discourse or whether test takers align to one
another in interaction; for example, whether they accept or reject the discourse identities that are
attributed to them.
Overall, it can be argued that speaking ability as a category does not provide much insight
into how test takers may best be paired. Therefore, it may be better to assign test takers randomly
or have test takers select their partners themselves. However, this conclusion that speaking
ability level of the partners does not matter has to be qualified by noting that it was controlled for
acquaintance effects in the present study. It is unclear what the speaking ability level effect
would be if the participants were paired with a partner they do not know.
6.2.3
Paired tasks
The study revealed that there are no noteworthy qualitative differences in repair use in the
discussion task and the jigsaw task. Despite major differences in task characteristics, the
discussion task and the jigsaw task appear to be similar practices, in that they elicit the same
repair procedures to accomplish ‘maintaining intersubjectivity’. This finding agrees with Young
(2000, 2013), who points out that not every discursive practice is unique. Even though
interactional competence is considered local, interactional resources may be shared across
different practices, which is also the case in the present study. Thus, the jigsaw task and the
discussion task have a similar impact on the co-constructed procedures of repair. Since the
300
performances elicited from the two test tasks can be expected to be similar with respect to the
repair procedures produced, one rating scale or rubric should suffice to assess the test
performances elicited from both tasks.
6.3
Limitations of the study
As explained in chapter 3, a self-assessment checklist was used to help students assess their own
speaking ability. It turned out that some participants were uncertain whether or not they can do
an activity as described on the checklist and thus indicated that they ‘can’ and ‘cannot’
accomplish the activity. Such a ‘maybe’ option was not incorporated in the speaking ability
rating but might have had an effect on the student’s speaking ability rating if it had been taken
into consideration.
Test takers were assigned a speaking ability rating based on students’ self-assessment and
their instructor’s perception. It is important to note that four instructors gave speaking ability
ratings for their respective students. Even though all instructors consider fluency an important
component of speaking, they may differ in their perceptions of a student’s speaking ability. What
may still be a mid level speaker for one instructor may already be a low level speaker for the
other instructor and vice versa. Thus, instructor assignments to high, mid, and low ability level
groups might have not always been clear-cut.
The validity of the assigned speaking ability ratings was verified with the grades from a
second speaking test and from the final exam. While the second speaking test grade turned out to
be less informative (because the test did not discriminate well between the test takers),
comparing the speaking ability ratings with the final exam grade confirmed that some mid and
low ability-level test takers might have been evaluated as too high or too low in their speaking
301
ability. All in all, the speaking ability level ratings that were assigned may not have been that
distinct and clear in places. However, the present study was conducted in a classroom-based
setting, where student and teacher perceptions are dealt with on a daily occurrence.
In addition, occurrences of the procedures of repair that were identified in chapter 4 were
quantified to obtain the frequency distribution of the various procedures across tasks and abilitylevel combinations. It should be noted that conversation analysts are reluctant to quantify
exemplars (Schegloff, 1993). However, Heritage (1999) points out that in recent years
conversation analysts have started to ask questions about the distribution of interactional
practices across different populations.
Finally, due to the oftentimes small number of occurrences of the various types of repair
procedures detected in the data set, only raw and proportional frequencies could be presented.
With such small numbers of instances, it is difficult to run meaningful statistical analyses. The
frequency distributions cannot provide any indication whether the task and the ability-level
combination in the pair have an effect on differences in repair use. Merely trends of their
relationship could be reported.
6.4
Recommendations for future research
This study refined the procedures of repair that are used to accomplish ‘maintaining
intersubjectivity’. Since ‘maintaining intersubjectivity’ may not necessarily be relevant in every
interaction, the construct of interactional competence should be broadened even further, for
example, by analyzing how mutual understanding between speakers is achieved in the test
discourse. Rather than focus on how (potential) misunderstandings are resolved to maintain
302
intersubjectivity, salient interactional resources could be identified that are used to interpret the
partner’s contributions on a turn-by-turn basis and allow for a smooth interaction.
In addition, the analyses in this study revealed that forms of self-repair after the partner’s
hearing repair initiation differ with respect to how the repair is designed to the recipient. That is,
hearing repair initiations may be oriented to, in that the trouble source is repeated or an
affirmation token provided. The hearing repair initiator is thus understood as a signal for a
hearing problem. However, the analysis also showed that test takers may anticipate a problem of
understanding or comprehension and thus repair their initial contribution in a way that makes it
more accessible to the partner. These various forms of self-repair could be differentiated further
with respect to turn design or linguistic format, for example. Since the quantitative analysis
showed that the majority of test takers seem to have a fairly good awareness of the degree of
shared knowledge between themselves and their partners, procedures used to make an utterance
more accessible to the partner may be further refined and inform the development of rating
scales.
In line with the CA–SLA approach to interactional development, individual students’ test
performances could be tracked over an entire semester (or even a longer time period) and may
thus provide an insight in the development of students’ interactional repertoire, not only with
respect to repair but also in terms of turn-taking and action sequencing, for example. The
developmental stages may be relevant for the refinement of the construct of interactional
competence and for the improvement of rating scales.
It should be noted that the repair procedures found in the present data set are similar (if
not the same) to the ones that the participants may use in their L1 English. It may be that the
participants transfer the repair practices from the L1 to the L2. Investigating the extent to which
303
repair procedures are used in both the L1 and L2 may shed light on the role of the L1 in the
development of students’ interactional competence in the L2. In that respect, it may also be
interesting to examine whether, and if so, how the repair procedures are transferred from the L1
to the L2 when the two languages are more distant than English and German, for example, when
English is the L1 and an Asian language (e.g., Japanese or Chinese) is the L2.
Furthermore, the paired speaking test tasks in this study were presented on paper, which
is not very timely. With more language courses going online or hybrid, it would be worthwhile to
investigate whether ‘maintaining intersubjectivity’ is accomplished with the same identified
interactional resources in an online or hybrid environment.
Finally, as the findings from the present study suggest, the jigsaw task and the discussion
task used in the present study elicit the same conversational procedures to maintain
intersubjectivity, even though quantitative differences were found between the two tasks. In
contrast, there seem to be more differences than similarities in the co-construction of repair
between the different test-taker pairs. Thus, the participants’ discursive behavior appears to be
rather complex and variable. Participant behavior in peer-to-peer test discourse therefore
deserves further research. In that respect, it may be beneficial to look at the differences in
interaction between one test taker and different partners. SLA researchers, such as He and Young
(1998), argue that interactional competence is local and thus different in every interaction.
However, participants may have preferred interactional resources (Chalhoub-Deville, 2003) that
they use in interaction with others. How participants adapt to different interaction partners given
their preferred conversational resources may shed more light on the use of interaction resources
in peer-interactions and on the assignment of test takers to pairs.
304
6.5
Final thoughts
This study attempted to incorporate research from SLA and CA–SLA to better understand one
aspect of interactional competence; namely, how test takers maintain intersubjectivity in an
intermediate-level German paired speaking test setting. I believe that conceptualizing
interactional competence in terms of mutual understanding and considering CA–SLA findings on
interactional development may help language testers to refine the construct of interactional
competence and to construct rating scales that are based on learners’ developmental stages of
interactional competence. I also hope that this study can give some impulses to the
implementation of paired speaking tests, for example, regarding the assignment of test takers to
pairs.
305
REFERENCES
Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.) (1998). Identities in talk. London, England: Sage.
Atkinson, D. (Ed.) (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. London,
England and New York, NY: Routledge.
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a
sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 169–
188.
Atkinson, M. J., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation
analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2006). Generalizability: A journey into the nature of empirical research in
applied linguistics. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. Chapelle, & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and
generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 165–208). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Bachman, L. F. (2007). What is the construct? The dialectic of abilities and contexts in defining
constructs in language assessment. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner, &
C. Doe (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 41–71). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa
Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1981). A multitrait–multimethod investigation into the
construct validity for six tests of speaking and reading. In A. S. Palmer, P. J. M. Groot, & G. A.
Trosper (Eds.), The construct validation of tests of communicative competence (pp. 149–165).
Washington, DC: TESOL.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and
developing useful language tests. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language
assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., Lynch, B. K., & Mason, M. (1995). Investigating variability in tasks and rater
judgements in a performance test of foreign language speaking. Language Testing, 12(2), 238–
257.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech
genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
306
Berry, V. (2007). Personality differences and oral test performance. Frankfurt/Main, Germany:
Peter Lang.
Berwick, R., & Ross, S. (1996). Cross-cultural pragmatics in oral proficiency interview
strategies. In M. Milanovic & N. Saville (Eds.), Performance testing, cognition and assessment:
Selected papers from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Cambridge and Arnhem
(pp. 34–54). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press and University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage.
Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better
performance. Language Testing, 26(3), 342–366.
Brouwer, C. (2003). Word searches in NNS: NS interaction: Opportunities for language
learning? Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 534–545.
Brouwer, C., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation.
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 29–47.
Brouwer, C., Rasmussen, G., & Wagner, J. (2004). Embedded corrections in second language
talk. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 75–92). London,
England: Continuum.
Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency.
Language Testing, 20(1), 1–25.
Brown, A. (2005). Interviewer variability in oral proficiency interviews. Frankfurt/Main,
Germany: Peter Lang.
Brown, A., & Hill, K. (1998). Interviewer style and candidate performance in the IELTS oral
interview. In S. Woods (Ed.), Research Reports 1997, Volume 1 (pp. 173–191). Sydney,
Australia: ELICOS.
Brown, A., & McNamara, T. F. (2004). “The devil is in the detail”: Researching gender issues in
language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 524–538.
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cafarella, C. (1997). Assessor accommodation in the V.C.E. Italian Oral Test. Australian Review
of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 21–41.
307
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In
J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2–27). London,
England: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
Carroll, D. (2000). Precision timing in novice-novice L2 conversations. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 11(1), 67–110.
Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Disfluencies or interactional
achievements? In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 201–220).
London, England: Continuum.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child's development of interactional development in a Swedish L2
classroom. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45–62.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A
pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 5–
35.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (1995). Deriving oral assessment scales across different tests and rater
groups. Language Testing, 12(1), 16–33.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (1997). Theoretical models, assessment frameworks and test construction.
Language Testing, 14(3), 3–22.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future
trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369–383.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2009). Content validity considerations in language testing contexts. In R.
W. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions, and applications (pp. 241–
263). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. & Deville, C. (2005). A look back at and forward to what language testers
measure. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning
(pp. 815–831). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chapelle, C. (1998). Construct definition and validation inquiry in SLA research. In L. F.
Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language
testing research (pp. 32–70). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clayman, S., & Gill, V. (2013). Conversation analysis. In J. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 120–134). London, England: Routledge.
308
Csépes, I. (2009). Measuring oral proficiency through paired-task performance. Frankfurt/Main,
Germany: Peter Lang.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9–19.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43–63.
Davis, L. (2009). The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment. Language
Testing, 26(3), 367–396.
Deville, C., & Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2006). Old and new thoughts on test score variability:
Implications for reliability and validity. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. Chapelle & P. Duff (Eds.),
Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 9–25).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Dings, A. (2007). Developing interactional competence in a second language: A case study of a
Spanish language learner (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Douglas, D. (1994). Quantity and quality in speaking test performance. Language Testing, 11(2),
125–144.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing language for specific purposes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Drew, P. (1991). Asymmetries in knowledge in conversational interactions. In I. Markovà & K.
Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue (pp. 29–48). Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69–101.
Ducasse, A. M. (2010). Interaction in paired oral proficiency assessment in Spanish.
Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation to interaction.
Language Testing, 26(3), 423–443.
Együd, G., & Glover, P. (2001). Oral testing in pairs - a secondary school perspective. ELT
Journal, 55(1), 70–76.
ffrench, A. (2003). The change process at the paper level. Paper 5, Speaking. In C. Weir & M.
Milanovic (Eds.), Continuity and innovation: Revising the Cambridge proficiency in English
examination 1913–2002 (pp. 367–446). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
309
Filipi, A. (1994). Interaction in an Italian oral test: The role of some expansion sequences.
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 119–136.
Firth, A. (2009). Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the
workplace and (some) implications for SLA. IRAL, 47(1), 127–156.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse , communication , (some) fundamental concepts in
SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment:
Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 800–819.
Foot, M. C. (1999). Relaxing in pairs. ELT Journal, 53(1), 36–41.
Fox, J. (2004). Biasing for the best in language testing and learning: An interview with Merrill
Swain. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(4), 235–251.
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. London, England: Pearson, Longman.
Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. London, England: Hodder Education.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource
book. London, England: Routledge.
Galaczi, E. (2004). Peer–peer interaction in a paired speaking test: The case of the First
Certificate in English (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University,
New York, NY.
Galaczi, E. (2008). Peer–peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in
English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119.
Galaczi, E. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage
interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–574.
Galaczi, E., & ffrench, A. (2011). Context validity. In L. Taylor (Ed.), Examining speaking:
Research and practice in assessing second language speaking (pp. 112–170). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring
students. Language Testing, 27(4), 585–602.
Gardner, R. (2004). On delaying the answer: Question sequences extended after the question. In
R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 246–266). London,
England: Continuum.
310
Gardner, R., & Wagner, J. (Eds.) (2004). Second language conversations. London, England:
Continuum.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gaskill, W. (1980). Correction in native speaker--nonnative speaker conversation. In D. LarsenFreeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 125–137). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Gilbert, (1992). Text and context in qualitative educational research: Discourse analysis and the
problem of contextual explanation. Linguistics and Education, 4(1), 37–57.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.
Goffman, E. (1981a). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.
Goffman, E. (1981b). Footing. In E. Goffman, Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Philadelphia, PA:
University of Philadelphia Press.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and
assessments. Human Studies, 9(2/3), 205–217.
Goodwin, C. (1987). Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology Quarterly,
50(2), 115–130.
Goodwin, C. & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C.
Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interpretive phenomenon (pp. 1–42).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, M., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for
a word. Semiotika, 62(1/2), 51–75.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to
linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The
sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language.
Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 145–166.
Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-toface interaction. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 206–232.
311
Hall, J. K. (1999). The prosaics of interaction: The development of interactional competence in
another language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp.
137–151). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J. K. (2004). Language learning as an interactional achievement. Modern Language
Journal, 88(4), 607–611.
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Developing ‘methods’ for interaction: A crosssectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S.
Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206–243). Bristol,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Harding, L. (2014). Communicative language testing: Current issues and future research.
Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(2), 186–197.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1990). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied
linguistics. New York, NY: Newbury House.
He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. Modern
Language Journal, 88(4), 568–582.
He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R.
Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral
proficiency (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
He, L., & Dai, Y. (2006). A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET–SET group
discussion. Language Testing, 23(3), 470–401.
Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction:
Focus on task openings. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 83–96.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J. (2011). Members’ methods, members’ competencies: Looking for evidence of
language learning in longitudinal investigations of other-initiated repair. In J. K. Hall, J.
Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp.
147–172). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J., & Cole, E. (2009). Practices for social interaction in the language-learning
classroom: Disengagements from dyadic task interaction. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 186–215.
Henning, G. (1983). Oral proficiency testing: Comparative validities of interview, imitation, and
completion methods. Language Learning, 33(3), 315–332.
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
312
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M.
Atkinson & J. Heritage (Ed.). Structures of Social action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1999). Conversation analysis at century’s end: Practices of talk-in-interaction, their
distributions, and their outcomes. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1-2), 69-76.
Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J. (1984). Introduction. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures
of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 1–15). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hosoda, Y. (2000). Other-repair in Japanese conversations between nonnative and native
speakers. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 39–63.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and
applications. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2 ed.). Cambridge, England: Polity
Press.
nd
Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.),
Anthropology and human behavior. Washington, DC: Anthropology Society of Washington.
Hymes, D. H. (1972a). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Hymes, D. H (1972b). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D.
H. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71).
New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
Ishida, M. (2006). Interactional competence and the use of modal expressions in decisionmaking activities: CA for understanding microgenesis of pragmatic competence. In K. BardoviHarlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Volume 11
(pp. 55–79). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2
Japanese during study abroad. In H. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction:
Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–385). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource
Center, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
Itakura, H. (2001). Describing conversational dominance. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1859–
1880.
Iwashita, N. (1996). The validity of the paired interview format in oral performance assessment.
Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 5(2), 51–65.
313
Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 28(3), 171–183.
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–
338). New York, NY: Free Press.
Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9(2-3), 153–184.
Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J.
Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 86–100). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Johnson, M. (2000). Interaction in the oral proficiency interview: Problems of validation.
Pragmatics, 10(2), 215–231.
Johnson, M. (2001). The art of non-communication: A reexamination of the validity of the Oral
Proficiency Interview. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Johnson, M., & Tyler, A. (1998). Re-analyzing the OPI: How much does it look like natural
conversation. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the
assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 27–51). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. Modern
Language Journal, 88(4), 551–567.
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review,
19, 83–99.
Kasper, G. (2008). Discourse and socially shared cognition. In J. Cenoz & N. Hornberger (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 6: Knowledge about language (2 ed.) (pp.
59–77). New York, NY: Springer.
nd
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the
skull or in public view? IRAL, 47(1), 11–36.
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). London, England and New York, NY: Routledge.
Katona, L. (1998). Meaning negotiation in the Hungarian Oral Proficiency Examination of
English. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the
assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 239–267). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
314
Kim, H. (2002). The form and function of next-turn repetition in English conversation. Language
Research, 38(1), 51–81.
Kormos, J. (1999). Simulating conversations in oral-proficiency assessment: A conversation
analysis of role plays and non-scripted interviews in language exams. Language Testing, 16(2),
163–188.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. Modern Language
Journal, 70(4), 366–372.
Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker. Journal of
Pragmatics, 33(7), 1083–1110.
Kurhila, S. (2006). Second language interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. London,
England: Longmans.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton, A. (1992). The structural organization of a language interview: A conversation
analytic perspective. System, 20(3), 373–386.
Lazaraton, A. (1996a). Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: The case of CASE.
Language Testing, 13(2), 151–172.
Lazaraton, A. (1996b). A qualitative approach to monitoring examiner conduct in CASE. In M.
Milanovic & N. Saville (Eds.), Performance testing, cognition and assessment: Selected papers
from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Cambridge and Arnhem (pp. 18–33).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press and University of Cambridge Local
Examinations Syndicate.
Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton, A., & Davis, L. (2008). A microanalytic perspective on discourse, proficiency, and
identity in paired oral assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(4), 313–335.
Lerner, G. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed
completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 167–177.
Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation:
Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff & S.
Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
315
Lerner, G. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis:
Studies from the first generation (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Liddicoat, A. (2011). An introduction to conversation analysis (2 ed.). London, England:
Continuum.
nd
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex performance-based assessment:
Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15–21.
Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task–group interactions. University of Hawai’i Working
Papers in ESL, 8(2), 1–29.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Markee, N. (2004). Zones of interactional transition in ESL classes. Modern Language Journal,
88(4), 583–596.
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied
Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. Modern Language Journal,
88(4), 491–500.
Markee, N., & Seo, M. (2009). Learning talk analysis. IRAL, 47(1), 37–63.
May, L. A. (2000). Assessment of oral proficiency in EAP programs: A case for pair interaction.
Language and Communication Review, 9(1), 13–19.
May, L. A. (2006). An examination of rater orientations on a paired candidate discussion task
through stimulated verbal recall. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 11(1), 29–51.
May, L. A. (2009). Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective.
Language Testing, 26(3), 397–421.
May, L. A. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters.
Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 127–145.
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London, England:
Longman.
McNamara, T. F. (1997). ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose
performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446–466.
McNamara, T. F. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research.
Language Testing, 18(4), 333–349.
316
McNamara, T. F., & Lumley, T. (1997). The effects of interlocutor and assessment mode
variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings. Language Testing,
14(2), 140–156.
McNamara, T. F., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Milanovic, M., & Saville, N. (1996). Introduction. In M. Milanovic & N. Saville (Eds.),
Performance testing, cognition, and assessment: Selected papers from the 15th language testing
research colloquium, Cambridge and Arnhem (pp. 1–17). Cambridge, England: Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press and University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
Mislevy, R. (2012). Modeling language for assessment. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Moder, C. L., & Halleck, G. B. (1998). Framing the Language Proficiency Interview as a speech
event: Native and non-native speakers’ questions. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and
testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 117–146). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice:
Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. Modern Language Journal,
88(4), 501–518.
Mori, J. (2007). Border crossings? Exploring the intersection of second language acquisition,
conversation analysis, and foreign language pedagogy. Modern Language Journal, 91(5), 849–
863.
Mori, J., & Hasegawa, A. (2009). Doing being a foreign language learner in a classroom:
Embodiment of cognitive states as social events. IRAL, 47(1), 65–94.
Mori, J., & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied
completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied
Linguistics, 27(2), 195–219.
Mori, J., & Markee, N. (2009). Language learning, cognition, and interactional practices: An
introduction. IRAL, 47(1), 1–9.
Nakatsuhara, F. (2011). Effects of test-taker characteristics and the number of participants in
group oral tests. Language Testing, 28(4), 483–508.
Nakatsuhara, F. (2013). The co-construction of conversation in group oral tests. Frankfurt/Main,
Germany: Peter Lang.
Nguyen, H. T. (2006). Constructing ‘expertness’: A novice pharmacist's development of
interactional competence in patient consultations. Communication & Medicine, 3(2), 147–160.
317
Nguyen, H. T. (2008). Sequence organization as local and longitudinal achievement. Text &
Talk, 28(4), 501–528.
Nguyen, H. T. (2011). Achieving recipient design longitudinally: Evidence from a pharmacy
intern in patient consultations. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2
interactional competence and development. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters (pp. 173–
205).
Norris, J. M., & Pfeiffer, P. C. (2003). Exploring the uses and usefulness of ACTFL oral
proficiency ratings and standards in college foreign language departments. Foreign Language
Annals, 36(4), 572–581.
Norton, J. (2005). The paired format in the Cambridge speaking tests. ETL Journal, 59(4), 287–
297.
Norton, J. (2013). Performing identities in speaking tests: Co-construction revisited. Language
Assessment Quarterly, 10(3), 309–330.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental
pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on
language and social interaction, 26(3), 287–306.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C.
Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–437). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Ockey, G. J. (2009). The effects of group members’ personalities on a test taker's L2 group oral
discussion test scores. Language Testing, 26(2), 161–186.
O’Loughlin, K. (2002). The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language Testing,
19(2), 169–192.
Olsher, D. (2004). Text and gesture: The embodied completion of sequential actions in spoken
interaction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 221–245).
London, England: Continuum.
Oscoz, A. R. (2003). Jigsaw and free discussion in synchronous computer mediated
communication (S–CMC). (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City,
IA.
O’Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance.
Language Testing, 19(3), 277–295.
318
O’Sullivan, B. (2004). Modelling factors affecting oral language test performance: a large-scale
empirical study. European language testing in a global context: Proceedings of the ALTE
Barcelona Conference, July 2001 (pp. 129–142). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
O’Sullivan, B., Weir, C. J., & Saville, N. (2002). Using observation checklists to validate
speaking-test tasks. Language Testing, 19(1), 33–56.
Park, J.-E. (2007). Co-construction of nonnative speaker identity in cross-cultural interaction.
Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 339–360.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language
and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh & C.
Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126). Baskingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2012). Conversation analysis and second language acquisition: CA–SLA.
In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2013). Social-interactional approaches to SLA: A state of the art and some
future perspectives. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 4(2), 134–160.
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 (pp. 206–243). Bristol,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T. (1994). Review article: Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about secondlanguage learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second
language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating
theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of
social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152–163). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Potter, J., & te Molder, H. (2005). Talking cognition: mapping and making the terrain. In H. te
Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 1–54). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
319
Richards, K. (2005). Introduction. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation
analysis (pp. 1–15). Houndsmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Robinson, J. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational
repair. Communication Monographs, 73(2), 137–161.
Robinson, J., & Keveo-Feldman, H. (2010). Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’
questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(3), 232–259.
Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience
and symbolic behavior control. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition:
Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 183–204). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Rommetveit, R. (1987). Meaning, context, and control. Inquiry: An interdisciplinary journal of
philosophy, 30(1-2), 77–99.
Ross, S. (1992). Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews. Language Testing,
9(2), 173–186.
Ross, S. (1996). Formulae and inter-interviewer variation in oral proficiency interviewer
discourse. Prospect, 11(3), 3–16.
Ross, S. (2007). A comparative task-in-interaction analysis of OPI backsliding. Journal of
Pragmatics, 39(11), 2017–2044.
Ross, S., & Berwick, R. (1992). The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency interviews.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(2), 159–176.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation: Volume I. G. Jefferson (Ed). Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in
conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in
Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of
turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4, Part1), 696–735.
Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6),
1075–1095.
320
Schegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.),
Syntax and semantics, volume 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–286). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Schegloff, E. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and
other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University
Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981: Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 73–91).
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J.
M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150–171).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schegloff, E. (1992a). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of
intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.
Schegloff, E. (1992b). In another context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking
context: Language as an interpretive phenomenon (pp. 191–227). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99-128.
Schegloff, E. (1997a). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse
Processes, 23(3), 499–545.
Schegloff, E. (1997b). Third turn repair. In G. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin & J. Baugh (Eds.),
Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov, Vol. 2: Social
interaction and discourse structures (pp. 31–40). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. (1997c). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165–187.
Schegloff, E. (2000a). When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205–243.
Schegloff, E. (2000b). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation.
Language in Society, 29(1), 1–63.
Schegloff, E. (2004). On dispensability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2),
95–149.
Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the
organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
321
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation
analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38,
165–187.
Shohamy, E. (1983). The stability of oral proficiency assessment on the oral interview testing
procedure. Language Learning, 33(4), 527–539.
Shohamy, E. (1988). A proposed framework for testing the oral language of second/foreign
language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 165–179.
Shohamy, E., Reves, T., & Bejerano, Y. (1986). Introducing a new comprehensive test of oral
proficiency. English Language Teaching Journal, 40(3), 212–220.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stanford University, Stanford Language Center (n.d.). Annual Report to the Committee on
Undergraduate Standards and Policy: Academic Year 2011-2012. Retrieved August 17, 2013,
from: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/lc/language/documents/LCAnnualReport
12.pdf
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.
Svennevig, J. (2008). Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of
Pragmatics, 40(2), 333–348.
Swain, M. (1993). Second language testing and second language testing: Is there a conflict with
traditional psychometrics? Language Testing, 10(2), 193–207.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to
validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275–302.
Taylor, L. (2000). Investigating the paired speaking test format. University of Cambridge ESOL
Examinations Research Notes, 2, 14–15.
Taylor, L. (2001). The paired speaking test format: Recent studies. University of Cambridge
ESOL Examinations Research Notes, 6, 15–17.
Taylor, L., & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2
assessment contexts. Language Testing, 26(3), 325–339.
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. London, England: Sage.
Trevarthen, C. (1977). Descriptive analyses of infant communicative behavior. In H. R. Schaffer
(Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction: Proceedings of the Loch Lomond symposium, Ross
322
Priory, University of Strathclyde, September, 1975 (pp. 227–270). London, England and New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of
primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal
communication (pp. 321–347). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tschirner, E., & Heilenman, L. K. (1998). Reasonable expectations: Oral proficiency goals for
intermediate-level students of German. Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 147–158.
Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E. (1999). Systematic effects in the rating of second-language
speaking ability: Test method and learner discourse. Language Testing, 16(1), 82–111.
van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral
Proficiency Interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 489–508.
van Moere, A. (2007). Group oral tests: How does task affect candidate performance and test
scores? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster University, Lancaster, England.
van Moere, A. (2012). Paired and group oral assessment. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, J. (2004). The classroom and beyond. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 612–616.
Wagner, J., & Gardner, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second
language conversations (pp. 1–17). London, England: Continuum.
Wells, G. (1981). Language as interaction. In G. Wells (Ed.), Language through interaction: The
study of language development (pp. 22–72). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. (Ed.) (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspective.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wong, J. (2000). Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English
conversation. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 244–267.
Wong, J. (2004). Some preliminary thoughts on delay as an interactional resource. In R. Gardner
& J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 114–131). London, England:
Continuum.
323
Wong, J. (2005). Sidestepping grammar. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying
conversation analysis (pp. 159–173). Houndsmills, England: Palgrave macmillan.
Wong, J., & Olsher, D. (2000). Reflections on conversation analysis and nonnative speaker talk:
An interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 111–128.
Yagi, K. (2007). The development of interactional competence in a situated practice by Japanese
learners of English as a second language. Hawai'i Pacific University TESOL Working Paper
Series, 5(1), 19–38.
Young, R. F. (1995). Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language
Learning, 45(1), 3–42.
Young, R. F. (1999). Sociolinguistic approach to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19,
105–132.
Young, R. F. (2000, March). Interactional competence: Challenges for validity. In
Interdisciplinary interfaces with language testing. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting
of the American Association for Applied Linguistics and the Language Testing Research
Colloquium. Vancouver, Canada.
Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction: An advanced resource book. London, England:
Routledge.
Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, volume II (pp. 426–
443). London, England: Routledge.
Young, R. F. (2013). Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: Interactional competence in
academic spoken English. Iberica, 25, 13–38.
Young, R. F., & He, A. W. (Eds.) (1998). Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the
assessment of oral proficiency. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Young, R. F., & Milanovic, M. (1992). Discourse variation in oral proficiency interviews.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(4), 403–424.
Young, R. F., & Miller, E. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL
writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535.
Zimmermann, D. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.),
Identities in talk (pp. 87–106). London, England: Sage.
324
APPENDIX A SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
To be able to assign you to a partner for the paired speaking tasks, we would like you to
complete the following self-assessment checklist. You will see 25 statements about people’s
speaking skills in German. Read each description and ask yourself if you can do in German what
is described. The statements are followed by examples to help you understand what the
statements mean.
Yes, I can
do this
easily and
well
1
2
3
4
5
I can describe aspects of my daily life using phrases and simple
sentences.
• I can describe myself, my family and friends, my college, or my
workplace.
I can describe a familiar experience or event in simple terms using
phrases and simple sentences.
• I can describe what I do during the weekend.
• I can describe what happens at a party with my friends.
I can present information about other people using phrases and simple
sentences.
• I can talk about my friends’ likes and dislikes or their free-time
activities.
• I can give biographical information about others.
I can present basic information about things I have learned using
phrases and simple sentences.
• I can give cultural information based on pictures or photos.
• I can talk about something I learned at school or in the
community.
I can exchange personal information using phrases and simple
sentences.
• I can ask and give a home address, email address, or
someone’s nationality.
• I can ask and tell about family members and their
characteristics, or about friends, classmates, and teachers.
325
I cannot
do this
yet
Yes, I can
do this
easily and
well
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I can exchange information about what I have learned using texts or
pictures.
• I can ask about and identify familiar things in a picture from a
story.
• I can ask about and identify important information about the
weather using a map.
• I can ask and respond to simple questions about dates, times,
places, and events on schedules, posters, and tickets.
I can ask for and give simple directions to go somewhere or do
something.
• I can ask for directions to a place.
• I can tell someone how to get from one place to another, such
as go straight, turn left, or turn right, and where the place is
located (near, in front of, behind).
• I can tell how to prepare something simple to eat.
I can exchange information with other people about what to do, where
to go, and when to meet.
• I can accept or turn down an invitation to do something or go
somewhere.
• I can invite and make plans with someone to do something or
go somewhere.
I can accomplish everyday tasks using simple language.
• I can order a meal in a restaurant.
• I can make a purchase in a store.
I can describe something familiar using a series of sentences.
• I can describe with some details the physical appearance of a
friend or family member.
• I can describe another person’s personality.
• I can describe a school or workplace routine.
I can express my needs, wants, and plans using a series of sentences
with some details.
• I can describe what I need for school or work.
• I can describe what my plans are for the weekend.
• I can describe my summer plans.
I can give a series of instructions.
• I can explain the rules of a game.
• I can give multi-step instructions for preparing a recipe.
326
I cannot
do this
yet
Yes, I can
do this
easily and
well
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I can have a simple conversation on a few of familiar topics.
• I can talk with someone about family or household tasks,
hobbies and interests, or school or work.
I can exchange information about academic topics that are familiar to
me.
• I can ask questions and give information about topics in my
courses.
I can ask and answer questions on familiar topics to keep a
conversation going.
• I can ask additional questions to get more information.
• I can give more information to explain something I did.
• I can ask for and give examples to explain something further.
I can meet my basic needs in everyday situations.
• I can ask for help at school, work, or in the community.
• I can make an appointment or reservation by phone.
• I can arrange for transportation, such as by train, bus, taxi, or
a ride with friends.
I can describe plans and actions with many details.
• I can set a goal and tell how I will accomplish it.
• I can describe my plans for the future, or how to plan and
carry out an event, such as a family reunion.
I can make a presentation on something I have learned.
• I can give a short presentation on a current event, an academic
topic, a famous person or a cultural landmark.
I can express my opinion on familiar topics using a series of sentences.
• I can give a presentation about a movie or song that I like.
• I can express my opinion about an issue on campus or
something in the news.
I can start, maintain, and end a conversation on a variety of familiar
topics.
• I can initiate a conversation about my work or school.
• I can ask for information, details, and explanations during a
conversation.
• I can bring a conversation to a close in an appropriate way.
I can tell a story to entertain my friends.
• I can tell a story or a joke.
• I can summarize the plot of a movie or TV show.
327
I cannot
do this
yet
22
23
24
25
Yes, I can
do this
easily and
well
I cannot
do this
yet
Yes
No
I can tell about personal experiences and give my reaction to them.
• I can describe a childhood or summer experience and how I
felt about it.
• I can describe a social event that I attended and how I felt
about it.
I can discuss and solve problems in everyday situations.
• I can explain problems and request repair services, such as
with Internet connection or car repair.
• I can reschedule an appointment or a date if something comes
up.
I can give and seek personal views and opinions on a variety of
familiar topics.
• I can exchange views and opinions about my favorite celebrity,
or about my favorite sports team and how they are doing this
year.
I can state my opinion and give supporting reasons using connected
sentences with many details.
• I can state whether I agree or disagree with using cell phones
in class and give reasons why.
• I can state whether I agree or disagree with dress codes for
high school students and give reasons why.
• I can state my opinion about recycling on campus and give
reasons why.
Thank you for completing the self-assessment checklist.
Please answer the following questions.
Name: ___________________________________
I am an undergraduate student.
English is my native language.
I am NOT an expert in a language other than English. (I am NOT majoring in
Spanish/French/Chinese/… or speak Spanish/French/Chinese/… with my
family and/or friends.)
328
APPENDIX B TEST TASKS
Jigsaw task
On the following page, you will find a situation. You will have 5 minutes to read and think about
the situation on your own. If you have questions pertaining to the task, you may ask the proctor,
who will clarify them.
After the individual planning period is over, you and your partner will have 10 minutes to work
on the situation. Say as much as you can to come to an agreement with your partner. Try to speak
only in German.
329
Partner A:
You and your friend are going to participate in a summer study abroad program at the
International Language School of Humboldt University in Berlin next summer. You are also
planning to share an apartment in Berlin. Academic Programs International (API), which helps
you organize your stay, requires that you find a place to live in Berlin before you go. You have
just received an email from them with a list of possible apartments from which you can choose.
You have four listings, and your friend has received four different listings. Each of you will need
to look at your own ads, discuss them with your partner, and decide together which of the
advertised apartments you want to rent together for three months during the summer. Your
personal priorities on a place are the following:
•
•
•
You are on a tight budget and don’t want to spend more than 400 euros a month.
You prefer good access to public transportation so you don’t have to spend money on
taxis.
You insist on an apartment that is close to the Humboldt University campus, which is
located in the Berlin neighborhood of Berlin-Mitte.
Your friend will also have preferences and priorities that you will want to take into
consideration.
Talk to your partner and discuss all eight ads. Do not show your ads to your partner. Your goal is
to find a place from your combined lists that you both like. This may require that you make some
compromises. Be reasonable, but do not give in on more than one of your preferences.
You will have 5 minutes to read and plan on your own before you start talking to your partner.
The proctor will tell you when it is time to begin your discussion. When you and your partner
have decided on an apartment, let the proctor know which one you have chosen. Also, keep in
mind that even though the proctor is in the room, he/she will not participate in the conversation
between you and your partner.
330
Listings for Partner A:
1. Schöne, helle 2-Zimmer-Wohnung in der Sonnenstraße in Berlin-Mitte. Neu renoviert.
Küche, Bad mit Dusche. Zentral. U-Bahn um die Ecke. 5 U-Bahn Stationen bis zur
Friedrichstraße. 300 Meter bis zum Supermarkt. Preis: 497 Euro pro Person.
2. Hübsche kleine 2-Zimmer-Wohnung in der Nähe vom Viktoria-Luise-Platz in BerlinSchöneberg. Renoviert. Mit Möbeln. Mit Küche und Bad. Kleiner Balkon. 10 Minuten zu
Fuß zu Bus, S- und U-Bahn. 20 bis 30 Minuten mit U-Bahn/Bus nach Berlin-Mitte. Preis:
350 Euro pro Person.
3. Helle Wohnung in ruhiger Lage für 2 Personen. Mariendorfer Straße in Berlin-Spandau.
2 Zimmer, Küche, Bad, Lift. Kleiner Garten hinterm Haus. Nur 5 Minuten zu Fuß zum
Bäcker und zu Restaurants. Ca. 30 Minuten mit dem Auto nach Berlin-Mitte. Preis: 300
Euro pro Person.
4. Zwei schöne, möblierte Zimmer in der Brunnenstraße zu vermieten. Ältere Dame (66
Jahre) sucht zwei Mitbewohner/innen. Waschmaschine, Spülmaschine, große Küche, Bad
mit Badewanne, kleiner Balkon. 30 Minuten mit S-Bahn nach Berlin-Mitte. 3 Minuten zu
Fuß zur U-Bahn-Station Voltastraße. 15 Minuten Fußweg bis zum Supermarkt. Preis: 378
Euro pro Zimmer.
331
Partner B:
You and your friend are going to participate in a summer study abroad program at the
International Language School of Humboldt University in Berlin next summer. You are also
planning to share an apartment in Berlin. Academic Programs International (API), which helps
you organize your stay, requires that you find a place to live in Berlin before you go. You have
just received an email from them with a list of possible apartments from which you can choose.
You have four listings, and your friend has received four different listings. Each of you will need
to look at your own ads, discuss them with your partner, and decide together which of the
advertised apartments you want to rent together for three months during the summer. Your
personal priorities on a place are the following:
•
•
•
You want the apartment to be fully furnished because you don’t want to buy any
furniture, bedding, or cooking utensils in Berlin.
You insist on having a balcony, patio, or yard because you like to sit outside and enjoy
the nice weather.
You prefer a grocery store in walking distance of the apartment.
Your friend will also have preferences and priorities that you will want to take into
consideration.
Talk to your partner and discuss all eight ads. Do not show your ads to your partner. Your goal is
to find a place from your combined lists that you both like. This may require that you make some
compromises. Be reasonable, but do not give in on more than one of your preferences.
You will have 5 minutes to read and plan on your own before you start talking to your partner.
The proctor will tell you when it is time to begin your discussion. When you and your partner
have decided on an apartment, let the proctor know which one you have chosen. Also, keep in
mind that even though the proctor is in the room, he/she will not participate in the conversation
between you and your partner.
332
Listings for Partner B:
5. Gemütliche Wohnung in der Charlottenstraße. Ideal für 2 Personen. 2 Zimmer, große
Küche, Bad mit Badewanne, Keller. Fleischer und Bäcker in der Reichsstraße (ca. 5
Minuten zu Fuß). U-Bahn-Station Neu-Westend in der Nähe. Ca. 45 Minuten mit der SBahn oder 20 Minuten mit dem Auto nach Berlin-Mitte. Preis: 368 Euro pro Person.
6. Schöne Wohnung ab sofort frei in der Berlichstraße. Zwei schöne große helle Zimmer,
Küche mit Spülmaschine, Bad. Kein Keller, aber schöner Balkon. Mit Möbeln möglich
(für extra 25 EUR im Monat). Ca. 30 Minuten mit der S-Bahn nach Berlin-Mitte. Bus
und S-Bahn Station in der Nähe (ca. 5 Minuten zu Fuß). Preis: 376 Euro pro Person.
7. Beste Lage. Wohnung in der Langen Straße (Berlin-Mitte). 4. Etage. Großer Balkon mit
schönem Blick über Berlin. 2 Zimmer mit Möbeln, Küche, Bad mit Badewanne und
Dusche. Nette Nachbarn. Supermarkt in der Nähe. 20 Minuten zu Fuß zur Humboldt Uni.
Preis: 530 Euro pro Person.
8. Zwei schöne, große Zimmer in Wohngemeinschaft frei. Zwei Studenten (25 und 26
Jahre) suchen zwei Mitbewohner/innen. Moderne Küche, Badewanne, Dusche,
Waschmaschine, Internet, Keller. Kein Garten/kein Balkon. Sehr zentral in Berlin-Mitte.
Nur ca. 15 Minuten zu Fuß zur Humboldt Uni. Bäcker und kleiner Supermarkt in der
Burgstraße (ca. 5 Minuten zu Fuß). Preis: 455 Euro pro Zimmer.
333
Discussion task
On the next page, you will find a short paragraph and a graphic, which are followed by reflection
questions that will help you think about the issue presented. You will have 5 minutes to read the
paragraph, the graphic and the reflection questions and to think about your opinion on the topic.
If you have questions pertaining to the task, you may ask the proctor, who will clarify them.
After the individual planning period is over, you will have 10 minutes to discuss the paragraph,
the graphic and the reflection questions with your partner. Say as much as you can to have a full
discussion of the topic, expressing your opinion and reacting to your partner’s point of view. Try
to speak only in German.
334
Partners A and B:
Die Printmedien stecken in der Krise. Immer weniger Deutsche lesen Zeitung. Die Zahl der
Tageszeitungen in Deutschland sinkt: Die Financial Times Deutschland existiert seit kurzem
nicht mehr, weil sie keiner mehr kaufen und lesen wollte. Es heißt oft, dass die kostenlosen
Online-Artikel der Zeitungen an der Krise Schuld sind. Viele Deutsche, vor allem junge Leute,
nutzen nur noch das Internet, um Nachrichten zu lesen. Wird es in Zukunft noch Zeitungen
geben?
Summary
Newspapers are dying in Germany, whereas the Internet is on the rise to becoming the most
popular source of information. A few years ago, the majority of Germans read newspapers to
stay informed about current events. The new trend, however, is to search for free news articles
on the websites of trusted newspapers.
Reflection Questions
What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages for readers of newspapers and online
articles? If more people read the news online, why are newspapers still printed? Do you think
that we will still have newspapers in the future?
How often do you read the news? Do you tend to read newspapers, or do you prefer to read the
news online? Are both sources equally important to you, or do you prefer one over the other? If
so, why?
Discussion
Discuss your opinion with your partner. Say as much as you can to express your opinion and to
react to your partner’s ideas. Try to speak only in German. Also, keep in mind that even though
the proctor is in the room, he/she will not participate in the conversation between you and your
partner.
335
APPENDIX C PRACTICE TASKS
Jigsaw task
Partner A:
You and your friend are planning a one-week trip to Vienna this fall. Before you go on your trip,
you will find a place to stay. Some friends who have just returned from their trip to Austria have
sent you a list of possible places where you can stay. You have received four listings. Your
friend has received four listings from friends as well, but different ads. Each of you will need to
look at his/her ads, discuss them with each other and then decide together which of the
advertised places you want to stay at during your time in Vienna. Your personal preferences
about a place are as follows:
•
•
•
You prefer to stay in the city center because you want to do lots of sightseeing.
You want free Internet access in the hotel room to be able to stay in touch with your
family and friends at home.
You would like to have free breakfast at the hotel each morning.
Your friend also has preferences and priorities that you will want to take into consideration.
Talk to your partner and discuss all eight ads. Do not show your ads to your partner. Your goal is
to find a place to stay from your combined lists that you both like. This may require that you
make some compromises. Be reasonable, but do not give in on more than one of your
preferences.
You will have 5 minutes to read and plan on your own before you start talking to your partner.
After the individual planning period is over, you and your partner will have 10 minutes to work
on the situation. Say as much as you can to come to an agreement with your partner. Try to speak
only in German. When you and your partner have decided on a hotel, let your instructor know
which one you have chosen.
336
Listings for Partner A:
1. Hotel Schönbrunn: Ein traditionelles Wiener Hotel. Gegenüber vom Schloss Schönbrunn.
Bar, Restaurant, kostenloses kleines Frühstück, kostenfreies Internet. Mit der U-BahnLinie U4 kommt man schnell in die Innenstadt. Preis: 25,79 EUR pro Person pro Nacht.
2. Hotel Fürstenhof: Liegt am Westbahnhof. Kostenloses Internet. Hotelbar.
Frühstücksbüfett von 7:00 bis 12:00 Uhr (15 EUR pro Person). Die U-Bahn-Linien U3
und U6 fahren vom Bahnhof bis zum Stephansdom in der Innenstadt. Preis: 22 EUR pro
Person pro Nacht.
3. Hotel Wien: Ein kleines, familiäres Hotel in der Nähe vom Schloss Schönbrunn. Ruhig,
schöner Blick auf das Schloss. Kostenloses Internet. Pool. Nahe U-Bahn-Linie U4 (ca. 3
Minuten zu Fuß). 10 Minuten mit der U-Bahn ins Zentrum, oder 20 Minuten mit dem
Auto. Preis: 58 EUR pro Person pro Nacht (Frühstück inklusive).
4. Hotel Kraml: Internationales Hotel in der Innenstadt. Kostenfreies Internet,
Frühstücksbuffet (17 EUR pro Person), kleiner Garten, Sauna. Nur wenige Meter bis zu
den U-Bahnhöfen Zieglergasse und Pilgramgasse. 15 Minuten zu Fuß sind es zum
Raimund Theater und zu Museen. Preis: 78 EUR pro Person pro Nacht.
337
Partner B:
You and your friend are planning a one-week trip to Vienna this fall. Before you go on your trip,
you will find a place to stay. Some friends who have just returned from their trip to Austria have
sent you a list of possible places where you can stay. You have received four listings. Your
friend has received four listings from friends as well, but different ads. Each of you will need to
look at his/her ads, discuss them with each other and then decide together which of the
advertised places you want to stay at during your time in Vienna. Your personal preferences
about a place are as follows:
•
•
•
You prefer a hotel that is in walking distance to public transportation.
You would love for the hotel to have a pool or a sauna.
You cannot spend more than 200 EUR for the hotel this whole week because of your
tight budget.
Your friend also has preferences and priorities that you will want to take into consideration.
Talk to your partner and discuss all eight ads. Do not show your ads to your partner. Your goal is
to find a place to stay from your combined lists that you both like. This may require that you
make some compromises. Be reasonable, but do not give in on more than one of your
preferences.
You will have 5 minutes to read and plan on your own before you start talking to your partner.
After the individual planning period is over, you and your partner will have 10 minutes to work
on the situation. Say as much as you can to come to an agreement with your partner. Try to speak
only in German. When you and your partner have decided on a hotel, let your instructor know
which one you have chosen.
338
Listings Partner B:
1. Westend Jugendherberge: Im Zentrum von Wien. Sehenswürdigkeiten, Restaurants,
Kinos und Discos nur wenige Minuten zu Fuß. U-Bahn-Station in der Nähe. 3 Stationen
mit der U-Bahn bis zum Stephansplatz, 4 Stationen bis zum Schloss Schönbrunn. Nur 6-8
Bettzimmer. Toilette und Dusche nicht auf dem Zimmer, nur auf dem Gang. Gratis
Bettwäsche. Waschmaschine. 24 Stunden geöffnet. Internet kostenlos. Frühstück kostet 7
EUR pro Person. Preis: 18,70 EUR pro Person und pro Nacht.
2. Renaissance Wien Hotel: Liegt zwischen dem Schloss Schönbrunn und dem Wiener
Stadtzentrum. U-Bahn-Linien hinter dem Hotel. 7 Minuten mit der U-Bahn ins
Stadtzentrum. Internet kostenlos. Fitnesscenter. Restaurant. Pool. Sauna. Parkplatz.
Flughafenshuttle. Kleines Büfettfrühstück kostenlos. Preis: 45 EUR pro Person pro
Nacht.
3. Wiener Hof Hotel: In der Stadtmitte. Nicht weit weg von allen Sehenswürdigkeiten im
Zentrum. Fahrräder mieten möglich. Hotelbar. Kostenloses Internet. Preis: 68 EUR pro
Person pro Nacht. Frühstück inklusive.
4. Sonjas Apartments: Apartments für bis zu 3 Personen. Küche mit Kühlschrank und
Mikrowelle. Bad. Fernseher. U-Bahn-Station in der Nähe. Nur 2 U-Bahn Stationen bis in
die Altstadt. Preis: 50 EUR für das Apartment pro Tag. Internet inklusive.
339
Discussion task
On the next page, you will find a short paragraph and a graphic, which are followed by reflection
questions that will help you think about the issue presented. You will have 5 minutes to read the
paragraph, the graphic and the reflection questions and to think about your opinion on the topic.
After the individual planning period is over, you will have 10 minutes to discuss the paragraph,
the graphic and the reflection questions with your partner. Say as much as you can to have a
thorough discussion of the topic, expressing your opinion and reacting to your partner’s point of
view. Try to speak only in German.
340
Partners A and B:
Früher sind die Deutschen in der Freizeit regelmäßig spazieren gegangen, sind Auto- und
Motorrad gefahren, sind einkaufen gegangen oder haben sich mit Freunden getroffen. Heute
bleiben immer mehr Deutsche nach der Arbeit zu Hause, schreiben regelmäßig Emails, sehen
fern, relaxen auf der Couch, hören Musik oder surfen im Internet. Aktivitäten draußen in der
Natur sind seltener. Sie sind das Freizeit-Highlight am Wochenende. Insgesamt haben die
Deutschen aber immer weniger Zeit für ihre Freizeitaktivitäten: Vier Stunden und drei Minuten
Freizeit waren es im Jahr 2010. Heute sind es nur noch drei Stunden und 49 Minuten.
Summary
In their leisure time, Germans used to go for walks, go shopping, or meet their friends several
times a week. Today, most Germans stay at home after work: They regularly write emails, watch
TV, listen to music, or surf the Internet in their free time. Germans engage less in outdoor
activities. Overall, they seem to have less leisure time than they used to a few years ago.
Reflection Questions
Do you think that the leisure time activities Americans engage in are different from the ones
Germans like to do? Why do you think the Germans have less and less free time? Will their
leisure time decrease even further in the near future? Why? How much free time do Americans
have?
Why do most people spend less of their free time outside enjoying nature and more time in front
of their computers and with their phones? Will that trend continue or change in the next few
years?
How much free time do you have? What do you regularly do in your leisure time? Why?
Discussion
Discuss your opinion with your partner. Say as much as you can to express your opinion and to
react to your partner’s ideas. Try to speak only in German.
341
APPENDIX D TEST-TAKER PAIRS
AbilityAbility-level
Participant level
Combination
Category
High–High
Mid–Mid
Low–Low
High–Mid
CH
KR
CA
LO
JD
DE
NA
OT
HA
MO
JE
RS
LE
AI
AS
RO
GA
AR
HH
MD
MA
SC
WL
JR
NH
ST
DA
JA
KA
EL
RL
AE
RB
HE
JN
RY
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Mid
High
Mid
High
Mid
High
Mid
High
Mid
Course
level
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
Low–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
High–Int.
342
Selfassessment
Instructor
evaluation
Second
speaking
test grade
High
High
High
Low
Mid
High
High
Mid
Low
Mid
Mid
Low
Low
Mid
Mid
Mid
High
High
High
Mid
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Mid
Mid
Mid
High
Mid
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Mid
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Mid
High
Mid
High
Mid
High
Mid
High
Mid
A
A
A
A–
A
A
A
A
A–
B+
B–
B
A–
A
A–/B+
A–/B+
B
B
B+
B+
C+
C
B+
B+
A
A
A
B+
A
B+
A–
B+
A
A–
A
B+
Final
exam
grade
B+
A
A
B
B–
B
A
A
B
B+
D
D–
C
B
B
A
B
C
B
D
D–
C–
B
B
C
B
B+
C
A–
D–
B+
B+
A
D
B
B–
MT
High
High–Int.
Low
BE
Mid
High–Int.
Low
SE
High
High–Int.
Mid
AM
Mid
High–Int.
High
Mid–Low
AL
Mid
Low–Int.
High
SH
Low
Low–Int.
Low
TL
Mid
Low–Int.
Low
SN
Low
Low–Int.
Low
MN
Mid
Low–Int.
Low
JO
Low
Low–Int.
Mid
MI
Mid
Low–Int.
Mid
CN
Low
Low–Int.
High
AN
Mid
High–Int.
High
EK
Low
High–Int.
Low
AW
Mid
High–Int.
Low
DN
Low
High–Int.
Low
CY
Mid
High–Int.
Low
TT
Low
High–Int.
Low
DV
Mid
High–Int.
Low
LA
Low
High–Int.
Low
High–Low
KL
High
Low–Int.
High
EH
Low
Low–Int.
Low
ML
High
Low–Int.
High
KN
Low
Low–Int.
Low
PA
High
Low–Int.
Mid
GR
Low
Low–Int.
Mid
JH
High
High–Int.
Low
WO
Low
High–Int.
Low
CM
High
High–Int.
High
LI
Low
High–Int.
Low
MG
High
High–Int.
Low
TM
Low
High–Int.
Low
Note: Low–Int. = Low–Intermediate (third-semester German);
High–Int. = High–Intermediate (fourth-semester German)
343
High
Mid
High
Mid
Mid
Low
Mid
Low
Mid
Low
Mid
Low
Mid
Low
Mid
Low
Mid
Low
Mid
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
A
A
A
A–
B+
B
B+
B+
B+
B
B+
B
A–
B+
A–
B
B–
B–
A–
B
A
B+
A
B+
A–
B+
A
B–
A
B
A–
B
A–
A–
A
A–
B
D+
C–
D
B–
C–
C+
F
B–
C
D
D
D+
D
C–
C–
A–
D+
A
F
A
B
A
C
A
F
A
C
APPENDIX E TRANSCRIPTION NOTATION
[ ]
left-hand and right-hand brackets indicate overlapping or silmultaneous talk
=
equal signs indicate latched utterances (no pause or break between utterances)
(1.7)
numbers within parentheses indicate silence (represented in tenths of a second)
(.)
period within parentheses indicates a micropause of less then .2 seconds
.
period indicates a falling intonation contour
?
question mark indicates high rising intonation contour
,
comma indicates continuing intonation
::
colons indicate an extension of the sound preceding them (the more colons, the
longer the stretching)
-
hyphen after a word indicates a cut-off or a self-interruption
oh
underlining indicates emphasized sounds
↑
the up arrow marks a sharp rise in pitch prior to the rise
OH
capital letters indicate increased volume
° °
degree signs indicate quieter or softer talk in comparison to surrounding talk
><
talk between more than and less than symbols indicates that the talk between them
is delivered at a faster pace in comparison to the surrounding talk
<>
talk between less than and more than symbols indicates slowed talk compared to
the surrounding talk
hh.
audible out-breath (the number of ‘h’ indicate the strength of the out-breathing)
.hh
audible in-breath (the number of ‘h’ indicate the strength of the in-breathing)
((laughter))
double parentheses are used to describe some phenomenon of the scene or event
344
(word)
words in parentheses indicate transcriber uncertainty; when used in the gloss, it is
the English equivalent of the German word that the participant most likely meant
to use
(
)
empty parentheses indicate that the transcriber was unable to recover what was
said

arrow in the left-hand margin indicates a phenomenon of interest in the transcript
345