Classroom Discourse

ISSN: 1946-3014 (Print) 1946-3022 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcdi20

Teaching L2 interactional competence: problems

and possibilities

Hansun Zhang Waring

To cite this article: Hansun Zhang Waring (2018) Teaching L2 interactional competence: problems
and possibilities, Classroom Discourse, 9:1, 57-67, DOI: 10.1080/19463014.2018.1434082

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1434082

Published online: 05 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 814

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcdi20
Classroom Discourse, 2018
VOL. 9, NO. 1, 57–67
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1434082

Teaching L2 interactional competence: problems and

possibilities
Hansun Zhang Waring
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This contribution outlines the problems and possibilities of three Interactional competence;
issues with regard to the teaching of L2 interactional competence (IC): interactional practice;
(1) specifying IC, (2) standardising IC, and (3) translating conversation conversation analysis;
analytic (CA) insights into classroom practices. In particular, I argue language teaching
for a shift of discussion from the conceptually treacherous notion
of interactional competence to the CA-based model of interactional
practices, call attention to the partial, and yet useful, nature of our
understanding of such practices as pedagogical objects and of the
developmental trajectories towards their mastery, and finally, make
evident the daunting obstacles to implementing these understandings
in the classroom, while offering illustrative and exemplary exhibits.

Teaching L2 interactional competence (IC) is not simply a matter of designing classroom

activities. It would require a clear understanding of what is there to be taught in the first
place, what the development of IC looks like, and what it would take to render research
findings palatable and usable in the classroom. To that end, I address three issues with regard
to the teaching of L2 interactional competence, beginning with the pre-requisites of (1)
specifying IC, (2) standardising IC and finally, (3) translating conversation analytic (CA)
insights into classroom practices. For each issue, I outline its problems and possibilities.

Specifying interactional competence

Despite the growing currency of the notion ‘interactional competence’ (IC) in applied lin-
guistics (e.g. Kramsch 1986; Hall 1999; Markee 2000; Kasper 2006; Young 2011; Pekarek
Doehler 2017), there seems to be a lack of clarity and agreement with regard to what exactly
constitutes such competence. To begin with, the term competence is rife with controversies,
in part due to its conceptualisation as the opposite of performance in the Chomskyan sense
(Chomsky 1965) – the actual use of language, which is in many ways the essence of interac-
tional competence. Further, the specific notion of interactional competence, as Hall (2018)
notes, is rooted in divergent intellectual traditions that emphasise variability and universality,
respectively, yielding confounding interpretations of what it entails. Despite such hetero-
geneity, what motivates the movement towards interactional competence appears to be a

CONTACT  Hansun Zhang Waring  hz30@tc.columbia.edu

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
58   H. Z. WARING

common interest in capturing and foregrounding what enables successful interaction in the
real-world (e.g. engage in daily interactions, conduct phone inquiries of the availability of
book titles, participate in revision talk during writing conferences and negotiate treaties).
One might argue that one way to arrive at some teachable specificity with regard to what
enables successful interaction is to shift from a discussion of underlying knowledge
and abilities to a search for patterns in observable talk and conduct: from competence to
practices – the methods of interaction that are the manifestations of one’s interactional
competence. Pekarek Doehler and Berger (2016), for example, note that ‘IC involves the
development of “methods” for action’ (2). These methods have been the object of inquiry
for decades of accumulative and robust conversation analytic (CA) research and have been
encapsulated in a model of interactional practices that include turn-taking, sequencing,
overall structuring and repair in Wong and Waring (2010) (see Figure 1).
The model begins with turn-taking practices at its base. This set of practices enables such
foundational interactional needs as constructing a turn, timing a turn, building a (multi-unit)
turn and yielding a turn. The need to time the start of one’s turn by projecting the possible,
not actual, completion of another’s talk, for example, can be challenging for a language
learner. With sequencing practices, participants formulate and deliver social actions such as
fishing, offering, advising or threatening – an area traditionally dealt with in pragmatics but
from a rather different perspective (see Schegloff 1988; Kasper 2006). ESL/EFL learners can
find it surprising, for example, that ‘thank you’ is not always the most appropriate response
to compliments. In fact, in American English, compliments are implemented through such
methods as ‘praise downgrade’ (e.g. Not very solid though. in response to Good shot!) or
‘reference shift’ (e.g. So are you in response to You’re looking good.) (Pomerantz 1978). Moving
further up the diagram, overall structuring practices such as opening and closing are also
integral to the success of any interaction. Failing to recognise a pre-closing signal, for exam-
ple, can yield such awkward moments as overstaying one’s welcome. Finally, any successful
interaction would require one’s ability to address trouble in speaking, hearing or under-
standing through repair practices – practices that cannot be reduced to a list of useful expres-
sions (e.g. ‘Can you repeat that again?’) but entail a complex configuration of elements such
as trouble source, repair initiation and repair outcome.
The question is: does this model capture all the components that make successful inter-
action possible? More specifically, with the goal of teaching L2 interactional competence in
mind, does it apply to languages other than American and British English, and does it account

Figure 1. Model of interactional practices (Wong and Waring 2010).

 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE   59

for variations adaptable to various sociocultural contexts? I would venture to suggest that,
as a heuristic template for examining and documenting interactional practices, it does. It is
true that classic CA findings were based mostly on phone conversations in British and
American English only. The enterprise of CA, however, has grown exponentially over the last
five decades. It is now saturated with studies of interactional practices in a variety of
languages (e.g. Sidnell 2009; Haakana, Laakso, and Lindström 2010; Stivers, Enfield, and
Levinson 2010) and those of multimodal resources beyond talk (e.g. Streeck, Goodwin,
and LeBaron 2011).
In addition, despite evidence to the contrary, there seems to have been a persistent
misconception (one that may have been inadvertently perpetuated through Harvey Sacks’
metaphors of ‘gadgets’, ‘machinery’ and ‘apparatus’) that CA’s interest lies exclusively in ‘blood-
less’, context-free aspects of interaction such as turn-taking, which, ironically, is anything but
bloodless. For anyone who manages to appreciate the monumental significance of Sacks,
Schegloff, and Jefferson’s (1974) classic paper, turn-taking is replete with breathtaking inter-
actional drama near the end of every possibly complete turn, where ‘context-free’ speaks to
the strength of this finding, not its divorce from actual interaction. As Sidnell (2013) writes:
As instances are gathered into a collection, the analyst can begin to describe the practice or
phenomenon in terms of its generic, context-independent properties, moving away from the
particularities of any single case. However, despite this use of collections, the analyst always
remains accountable to each individual case and its particularities. (78)
CA’s interest in context-sensitive conduct is also crystalised in its ‘most general principle’
of ‘recipient design’ – ‘a multitude of respects in which the talk by a party in a conversation
is constructed or designed in ways which display an orientation and sensitivity to the par-
ticular others who are the co-participants’ (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974, 727). Such
context-sensitivity is clearly demonstrated in Curl and Drew (2008), where participants
deploy different forms of requesting (e.g. Can you … vs. I wonder if …) in part depending on
whether the context is ordinary conversation or calls to the doctor. It is not, however, the
institutional context per se that drives the use of specific forms, but rather, features of con-
tingency (i.e. difficulty in fulfilling the request) and entitlement (i.e. right to request).
For instance, participants tend to use the Can you … form in low-contingency and high-
entitlement contexts but I wonder if … in high-contingency and low-entitlement contexts.
In other words, CA takes a radical approach to illuminating contextual specifics – in ways
that are ‘sensitive to the data itself’ (Bolden 2017, #HumansOfLANSI), and these contextual
variations are, I believe, inherently accounted for in such foundational practices as turn-
taking, sequencing and repair.
In sum, while theoretical arguments for interactional competence have played a decisive
role in reconceptualising the field of language teaching, to reap the benefits of such argu-
ments in actual teaching would require greater specification, at the level of visible conduct,
of what such competence entails. One promising venue, as I have argued above, is to shift
the discussion from interactional competence to its observable incarnation – the interac-
tional practices of turn-taking, sequencing, overall structuring and repair, which have been,
and are continuing to be, documented and described in the conversation analytic
literature.
60   H. Z. WARING

Standardising interactional competence

Although the model of interactional practices serves as a useful template for specifying
interactional competence and offers a productive path towards yielding concrete
pedagogical objects in L2 teaching (e.g. recognising and producing a multi-unit turn, a
dispreferred action, a pre-closing), much remains to be discovered with regard to turn-taking,
sequencing, overall structuring and repair. Compared to the exponential growth of conver-
sation analytic studies in institutional contexts over the past decades, relative less attention
has been devoted to advancing our understanding of the foundational infrastructure of
ordinary conversation in English (a point Schegloff made repeatedly on various occasions
that cannot seem to be located in any published source), and let alone in other languages.
In other words, our understanding of the objects of IC teaching is only partial, if not rudi-
mentary. In addition, even with the existing objects that have been documented so far, we
still face the problem of gauging what constitutes greater or less competence in each prac-
tice. In short, we face the problem of establishing standards (see also Huth forthcoming).
In fact, any connection between CA and competence leads us into treacherous conceptual
waters. In particular, competence is a value-laden construct in education and perhaps in a
wide range of workplace environments more broadly, where an individual can be located
on an assessment rubric as more or less competent. This gradient view of competence is
somewhat at odds with the focus of conversation analysis on describing, rather than eval-
uating, the methods and procedures deployed by participants to understand each other
and make themselves understood (Hutchby and Wooffitt 2008). In a rare study on language
assessment, Kasper and Youn (2017) conclude that ‘evaluations of the parties’ conduct are
endogenous to the interaction,’ and this focus on participants’ rather than the analysts’
evaluations, as the authors admit, is ‘an uncommon posture in language assessment’ (23).
In his critical consideration of applying ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EMCA)
to questions of development in adult–child interaction, Forrester (2010) writes:
There is a particular disjunction in equating (external) ‘developmental’ criteria with ‘ethnometh-
odologically informed’ participant criteria. … All too often notions of skill, ability, competence
and achievement … are evaluative analyst-based development constructs, not participant-ori-
ented (member) constructs. … it is unfortunate that competence or skill also often presup-
poses deficiency, ‘development’ lag, inability, and associated ideals of something being amiss
or missing. One particular problem for work that employs CA in order to map out what and
how something develops, is that it may no longer be ‘participant-oriented’ development that
is under consideration. (56, 57)
A similar danger exists with applying external developmental benchmarks to L2 learning
(see also Hellermann 2018) – one that has been taken up by applied linguists and addressed
in Gardner and Wagner’s (2004) powerful exhibit with a collection of CA studies that
demonstrate how L2 users show great sophistication and versatility in managing various
interactional contingencies, thereby producing L2 conversations as a display of achievements
rather than deficiencies. Lee and Hellermann (2014), for example, argue for ‘a close analytic
account of how L2 speakers come to terms with contingent constraints and contextual
resources in order to carry out their interactional tasks’ despite the presence or absence of
a story preface (e.g. ‘You want to hear what happened today?’) in managing their telling
(774). Ultimately, in other words, key to the deployment of the various interactional practices
is still the most general principle of recipient design (see definition earlier). As recipients as
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE   61

well as their local contexts vary vastly, does this also mean that the practices of interaction
also vary beyond grasp, rending it impossible to establish what our pedagogical goals are?
Two observations may be made with regard to the concerns raised so far. First, just
because we have only reached a partial understanding of the practices that enable interac-
tion does not mean that existing findings with regard to the generic resources of social
interaction (e.g. projecting turn completing, producing a dispreferred or disaffiliative action
with delay, mitigation, or accounts) are not desirable pedagogical objects in L2 IC teaching.
Second, while it is true that any ‘non-target’ behaviour (e.g. absence of story preface in one’s
telling) does not necessarily constitute evidence of incompetence and successful interaction
can be achieved with resources beyond those already documented in L1 interaction, it would
still be pedagogically profitable to teach students how, for example, to launch telllings with
a story preface.
With regard to gauging greater or less competence for the benefit of designing develop-
mentally appropriate pedagogical materials and activities, we may consult conversation
analytic studies that seek to document the L2 development of IC (e.g. Hellermann 2008; Hall,
Hellermann, and Pekarek Doehler 2011; Al-Gahtani and Roever 2012; Waring 2013; Sert
forthcoming). By examining a German L2 speaking au-pair Julie’s conversational storytellings
during her nine-month stay with a French-speaking host family, for example, Pekarek Doehler
and Berger (2016) show that ‘Julie’s practices for story-opening get increasingly closer to
what has been documented for storytelling in L1 interactions’ (20), demonstrating increasing
ability for context-sensitive conduct. In their review of L2 studies of the development of IC,
the authors also conclude that the development of L2 IC involves increasing diversification
of methods of action and increasing efficiency in recipient design (Pekarek Doehler and
Pochon-Berger 2015).
Another place to look for useful information on gauging greater or less competence is
second language assessment. Although much of the work in the realm of assessing second
language use has been devoted to not interactional competence per se, but pragmatics (e.g.
Roever 2011; Kasper and Ross 2013), a small number of efforts have been made to address
the assessment of interactional competence more or less directly. Galaczi (2014) found that
in a paired speaking test, learners of different proficiency levels manifest different levels of
interactional competence in managing turn-taking, topic development and active listening.
Youn (2015) operationalises ‘pragmatic competence in interaction’ as the generic organisa-
tion such as turn-taking, adjacency pairs and preference organisation in the CA literature,
thereby virtually equating it with interactional competence (see also ‘interactional pragmatic
competence’ in Kasper and Youn 2017). Based on this operationalisation of pragmatic com-
petence in interaction, the author was able to develop a set of data-driven criteria for assess-
ing such competence, which includes content delivery, language use, sensitivity to situation
and turn organisation. In her study on the development and validation of an assessment
instrument for L2 pragmatics performance in university settings, Ikeda (2017) also concep-
tualises ‘discourse-oriented L2 pragmatic ability’ as interactional competence, and based on
a review of research on the development of interactional competence, reports that traits of
interactional competence of more proficient L2 learners include more active involvement
in conversations, greater ability to engage in topic development and less directly rushing
to the main point, etc.
In brief, thoughtful planning of L2 teaching of IC should be grounded in a solid under-
standing of what the target of such teaching involves and what the development trajectory
62   H. Z. WARING

towards such a target looks like. Both remain fuzzy at the moment given that our current
understanding of what constitutes interactional competence is partial at best and that there
is a danger in confounding ‘competence’ as a set of external criteria with ‘competence’ as
intrinsic participant conduct in the EMCA sense. As argued above, however, existing findings
on interactional practices in the CA literature, compared to what is currently represented in
ELT texts, still constitute desirable pedagogical objects despite all the caveats. At the same
time, efforts have begun to be made in both L2 developmental studies and L2 assessment
to begin sketching a useful map of developmental trajectory.

Translating CA insights into classroom practices

Even with our existing knowledge of interactional practices and emerging understandings
of developmental trajectories, how to translate these resources into actual classroom teach-
ing remains a challenge in itself. As Gilmore (2015) observes, the application of CA to lan-
guage learning is still in its infancy with only traces of its influence (e.g. greeting-return
greeting) found in many internationally marketed textbooks (519). Responses to CA insights
have, in other words, remained lukewarm despite the fact that various endeavours have
been made since the mid-1980s to reveal the discrepancies between textbook dialogues
and real-life interactions (e.g. Gardner 2000; Bernsten 2002; Wong 2002, 2007) and to advo-
cate utilising CA-based materials in actual classroom teaching (e.g. Barraja-Rohan and
Pritchard 1997; Huth 2006, 2010; Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm 2006; Wong and Waring 2010;
Barraja-Rohan 2011; Carroll 2011; Olsher 2011; Betz and Huth 2014).
To begin to understand why we might be facing this predicament, I include here the
exhibit of an intervention class designed to show what teaching IC may look like in the
classroom (Waring forthcoming). Pitched to a beginning level class in a community English
programme – a lab school for an applied linguistics and TESOL graduate programme – as
an opportunity to learn real conversation, a one-hour intervention class was taught to a
group of 10 ESL student volunteers from six different L1 backgrounds by an experienced
ESL instructor and a doctoral student in applied linguistics with a specialty in conversation
analysis. The class was planned and implemented around a transcript along with its recording
referred to in the classic CA literature as the ‘stalled tape’ (Schegloff 2007):

[stalled tape]
01 1 + rings
02 Marcia: Hello?
03 Donny: Hello Marica.
04 Marcia: Yea [ : h ]
05 Donny:   [(‘t’s) Do]nny.
06 Marcia: Hi Donny.
07 Donny: Guess what .hh
08 Marcia: What.
09 Donny: hh my ca:r is sta::lled.
10 (0.2)
11 (‘n) I’m up here in the Glen?
12 Marcia: Oh::.
13 (0.4)
14 Donny: hhh
15 A:nd.hh
16 (0.2)
17 I don’ know if it’s po:ssible, but hhh (0.2)
18 see I have to open up the ba:nk.hh
19 (0.3)
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE   63

20 a:t uh: (.) in Brentwood? hh=

21 Marcia: =Yeah:. - and I know you want- (.) and I w- (.)
22 and I would, but– except I’ve gotta leave in
23 about five min(h)utes. [(hheh)
24 Donny:          [Okay then I gotta call
25 somebody else.right away.
26 (.)
27 Okay?=
28 Marcia: =Okay [ ___ ]
29 Donny:    [Thanks] a lot.=Bye-.
30 Marcia: Bye:

As one might note, despite the limited range of vocabulary and grammatical structures,
this brief phone conversation effectively illustrates a range of interactional practices­
including phone opening (lines 01–06), pre-announcement (lines 07–09), request–reject
sequence along with the preference structure it entails (lines 09–25) and telephone closing
(lines 27–30).
The lesson began with a discussion of ‘conversation myths’ such as native speakers
always use complete sentences when they speak, are always direct when they ask for help,
and never have problems with speaking. The ‘stalled tape’ was then introduced as an example
of a real conversation between real people, and the goal of the lesson explained. Next,
students were invited to listen to the audio recording along with the transcript. For the bulk
of the lesson, the students were led through a close reading and listening of each segment
as the teacher explained and invited discussions on various practices in terms rendered
relatable to the students. They were also invited to role-play as Marcia and Donny along with
various segments of the audio-recordings custom-made to leave blank spaces for various
lines in the transcript. The students were fully engaged during the one-hour lesson: they
laughed at their own failure to keep up at times and congratulated themselves and each
other with applauding. A post-intervention survey administered immediately after the class
showed that the students found the lesson useful, were able to articulate what they learned,
and expressed an interest in more lessons of a similar nature.
While demonstrating the possibility of teaching IC in the classroom, the above exhibit
also makes evident the various obstacles to making such teaching a reality – the range of
resources that enabled the implementation of such an intervention class are not typically
available in the real-world of ELT classrooms: it happens in a lab school that supports ped-
agogical experimentations, it is taught by an instructor who is familiar with CA, and it is
organised around one single transcript with the availability of its recording that happens to
contain a range of key interactional practices.
Clearly, we are yet to accumulate a collection of the ‘stall tape’-like materials that are
amenable to pedagogical interventions. The textbook series that systematically transforms
the model of interactional practices into teachable ELT materials for both adults and children
it yet to be written. Important efforts have been made in this regard (e.g. Beyond Talk https://
eslandcateaching.wordpress.com/beyond-talk/ and Your Turn at Talk http://www.tc.
columbia.edu/lansi/resources/your-turn-at-talk/), but none has made it into the mainstream
ELT textbook market. There is also a general lack of familiarity with CA among language
teachers that yields disinterest even with exposure to context-specific CA insights (Don
Carroll, personal communication, 17 September 2017). Until CA training becomes an integral
component in graduate programmes of TESOL and applied linguistics and the professional
development of practicing teachers, the problem will remain. Finally, given that injecting
CA-based teaching of IC into the language classroom would require large-scale curriculum
64   H. Z. WARING

innovation and pedagogical restructuring, this radical shift is unlikely to materialise without
institutional support.
A successful example can be found at the Centre for Languages and Intercultural
Communication (CLIC) at Rice University (http://clicmaterials.rice.edu/course-materials/),
where teachers of various foreign languages receive systematic training in CA and are
encouraged to develop innovative CA-based materials for their own classes. The Rice inno-
vation is in part documented in Salaberry and Kunitz’s (forthcoming) edited volume show-
casing recent efforts in applying CA findings to the teaching and testing of interactional
competence. It is important to note that teaching interactional practices does not mean
abandoning the teaching of pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. Without these linguis-
tic resources, turn-taking, sequencing, overall structuring and repair would be non-existent.
In that regard, a more palatable route to bringing IC into the classroom is perhaps to devise
innovative ways to build IC teaching around the staples of traditional ELT materials. With a
textbook question such as ‘Where were you yesterday?’ designed to teach the past tense,
for example, a CA-informed language teacher would take the opportunity to launch a dis-
cussion of how such question could be heard as incipient complaints along with its related
formats such as ‘You weren’t at work yesterday’ or ‘Why weren’t you at work yesterday?’ The
discussion can then morph into other ways of doing complaints and how one might produce
accounts or excuses in response to such complaints (Don Carroll, personal communication,
17 September 2017).
Thus, given the absence of a commercially viable CA-based textbook series for teaching
interaction, the lack of CA training among language teachers, and the not-yet-likely institu-
tional support for a radical shift away from traditional language teaching materials and
practices at the moment, there is still a long march ahead for translating CA insights into
classroom practices. The good news is that interactional practices are indeed teachable
objects and that the field is wide open with incremental but exemplary endeavours at the
levels of both the individual and the institution – endeavours that I hope can inspire
sustained and growing efforts of pedagogical innovations.

Coda
By emphasising the need to specify and standardise interactional competence and articu-
lating the difficulty of translating CA insights into the language classroom, I realise that I
might have painted a somewhat bleak picture of teaching IC in the L2 classroom. My inten-
tion, however, is not to simply parade problems, but to present possibilities as well. I hope
to have achieved both with a modicum of success, and that the ‘bleak’ portrayals are to be
treated, not as insurmountable barriers, but as sombre realities to be reckoned with in our
continuing efforts to reconceptualise language teaching for the benefit of producing inter-
actionally competent language learners.

Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Don Carroll, Gabi Kasper, Silvia Kunitz, Joan Kelly Hall, Olcay Sert, Orn Patharakorn,
Carsten Roever, Eunseok Ro, and Jean Wong for suggesting and providing relevant resources and
to Elizabeth Reddington for conducting the initial survey of the literature and completing the final
reference list for this paper. Thank you also to the anonymous reviewer for reading the manuscript
carefully and providing useful suggestions.
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE   65

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Hansun Zhang Waring is an associate professor of Linguistics and Education at Teachers College,
Columbia University and founder of The Language and Social Interaction Working Group (LANSI).
Her research interests include classroom discourse, advice giving and receiving, and most recently,
parent-child interaction as well as communicating in and with the public.

References
Al-Gahtani, S., and C. Roever. 2012. “Proficiency and Sequential Organization of L2 Requests.” Applied
Linguistics 33: 42–65.
Barraja-Rohan, A. M. 2011. “Using Conversation Analysis in the Second Language Classroom to Teach
Interactional Competence.” Language Teaching Research 15: 479–507.
Barraja-Rohan, A.-M., and C. R. Pritchard. 1997. Beyond Talk: A Course in Communication and Conversation
Skills for Intermediate Adult Learners of English. Melbourne: Western Melbourne Institute of TAFE.
Bernsten, S. (2002). “Using Conversation Analysis to Evaluate Pre-sequences in Invitation, Offer, and
Request Dialogues in ESL Textbooks.” Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign.
Betz, E., and T. Huth. 2014. “Beyond Grammar: Teaching Interaction in the German Language Classroom.”
Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 47: 140–163.
Carroll, D. 2011. “Taking Turns and Talking Naturally: Teaching Conversational Turn-taking.” In Pragmatics:
Teaching Natural Conversation, edited by N. Houck and D. Tatsuki, 91–103. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Curl, T. S., and P. Drew. 2008. “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.”
Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2): 129–153.
Forrester, M. 2010. “Ethnomethodology and Adult-child Conversation: Whose Development?” In
Analysing Interactions in Childhood: Insights from Conversation Analysis, edited by H. Gardner and
M. Forrester, 42–58. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Galaczi, E. 2014. “Interactional Competence across Proficiency Levels: How do Learners Manage
Interaction in Paired Speaking Tests?” Applied Linguistics 35 (5): 553–574.
Gardner, R. 2000. “Resources for Delicate Manoeuvres: Learning to Disagree.” Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, Series S 16: 31–47.
Gardner, R., and J. Wagner, eds. 2004. Second Language Conversations. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gilmore, A. 2015. “Research into Practice: The Influence of Discourse Studies on Language Descriptions
and Task Design in Published ELT Materials.” Language Teaching 48 (4): 506–530.
Haakana, M., M. Laakso, and J. Lindström, eds. 2010. Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Helsinki:
Finnish Literature Society.
Hall, J. K. 1999. “The Prosaics of Interaction: The Development of Interactional Competence in Another
Language.” In Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by E. Hinkel, 137–151.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, J. K. 2018. “From L2 Interactional Competence to L2 Interactional Repertoires: Reconceptualising
the Objects of L2 Learning.” Classroom Discourse 8 (1): 25–39.
Hall, J. K., J. Hellermann, and S. Pekarek Doehler, eds. 2011. L2 Interactional Competence and Development.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J. 2008. Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hellermann, J. 2018. “Languaging as Competencing: Considering Language Learning as Enactment.”
Classroom Discourse 8 (1): 40–56.
Hutchby, I., and R. Wooffitt. 2008. Conversation Analysis. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
66   H. Z. WARING

Huth, T. 2006. “Negotiating Structure and Culture: L2 Learners’ Realization of L2 Compliment–Response

Sequences in Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 2025–2050.
Huth, T. 2010. “Intercultural Competence in Conversation: Teaching German Requests.” Die
Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 43 (2): 154–166.
Huth, T. forthcoming. “Conceptualizing Interactional Learning Targets for the Second Language
Curriculum.” In Classroom-based Conversation Analytic Research: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives
on Pedagogy, edited by S. Kunitz, N. Markee and O. Sert. Heidelberg: Springer (Educational Linguistics
series).
Huth, T., and C. Taleghani-Nikazm. 2006. “How Can Insights from Conversation Analysis be Directly
Applied to Teaching L2 Pragmatics?” Language Teaching Research 10 (1): 53–79.
Ikeda, N. 2017. “Measuring L2 Oral Pragmatic Abilities for Use in Social Contexts: Development and
Validation of an Assessment Instrument for L2 Pragmatics Performance in University Settings.”
Unpublished doctoral diss. The University of Melbourne.
Kasper, G. 2006. “Speech Acts in Interaction: Towards Discursive Pragmatics.” In Pragmatics and Language
Learning, edited by K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. Omar, 281–314. Honolulu: National
Foreign Language Resource Center.
Kasper, G., and S. Ross, eds. 2013. Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kasper, G., and S. J. Youn. 2017. “Transforming Instruction to Activity: Roleplay in Language Assessment.”
Applied Linguistics Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1515/applirev-2017-0020.
Kramsch, C. 1986. “From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence.” The Modern Language
Journal 70 (4): 366–372.
Lee, Y., and J. Hellermann. 2014. “Tracing Developmental Changes through Conversation Analysis:
Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Analysis.” TESOL Quarterly 48 (4): 763–788.
Markee, N. 2000. Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olsher, D. 2011. “Responders: Continuers.” In Pragmatics: Teaching Natural Conversation, edited by N.
Houck and D. Tatsuki, 153–169. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Pekarek Doehler, S. 2017. “The Development of L2 Interactional Competence: ‘Methods’ for Action and
Grammar-for-Interaction.” Plenary presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for
Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR, March.
Pekarek Doehler, S., and E. Berger. 2016. “L2 Interactional Competence as Increased Ability for Context-
Sensitive Conduct: A Longitudinal Study of Story-openings.” Applied Linguistics. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1093/applin/amw021
Pekarek Doehler, S., and E. Pochon-Berger. 2015. “The Development of L2 Interactional Competence:
Evidence from Turn-taking Organization, Sequence Organization, Repair Organization and Preference
Organization.” In Usage-based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, edited by T. Cadierno and
S. W. Eskildsen, 233–270. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Pomerantz, A. 1978. “Compliment Responses: Notes on the Cooperation of Multiple Constraints.” In
Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, edited by J. Schenkein, 79–112. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Roever, C. 2011. “Testing of Second Language Pragmatics: Past and Future.” Language Testing 28 (4):
463–481.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-
taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735.
Salaberry, M. R., and S. Kunitz, eds. forthcoming. Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence:
Bridging Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schegloff, E. A. 1988. “Presequences and Indirection: Applying Speech Act Theory to Ordinary
Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 12 (1): 55–62.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. vol. 1. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sert, O. forthcoming. “The Interplay between Collaborative Turn Sequences and Active Listenership:
Implications for the Development of L2 Interactional Competence.” In Teaching and Testing L2
Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice, edited by R. Salaberry and S. Kunitz. London:
Routledge.
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE   67

Sidnell, J. 2009. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Sidnell, J. 2013. “Basic Conversation Analytic Methods.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited
by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, 77–101. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stivers, T., N. J. Enfield, and S. C. Levinson, eds. 2010. “Question–Response Sequences in Conversation
across Ten Languages [Special Section].” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2615–2798.
Streeck, J., C. Goodwin, and C. LeBaron. 2011. Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material
World. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Waring, H. Z. 2013. “‘How was your Weekend?’: Developing the Interactional Competence in Managing
Routine Inquiries.” Language Awareness 22 (1): 1–16.
Waring, H. Z. forthcoming. “Developing Interactional Competence with Limited Linguistic Resources.”
In Teaching and Testing L2 Interactional Competence: Bridging Theory and Practice, edited by M. R.
Salaberry and S. Kunitz. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wong, J. 2002. “‘Applying’ Conversation Analysis in Applied Linguistics: Evaluating Dialogue in English
as a Second Language Textbooks.” IRAL 40 (1): 37–60.
Wong, J. 2007. “Answering My Call: A Look at Telephone Closings.” In Conversation Analysis and Language
for Specific Purposes, edited by H. Bowles and P. Seedhouse, 271–304. Bern: Peter Lang.
Wong, J., and H. Z. Waring. 2010. Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Youn, S. J. 2015. “Validity Argument for Assessing L2 Pragmatics in Interaction Using Mixed Methods.”
Language Testing 32 (2): 199–225.
Young, R. F. 2011. “Interactional Competence in Learning, Teaching, and Testing.” In Handbook of Research
in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Vol. II, edited by E. Hinkel, 426–443. London: Routledge.