Grammar as validity evidence for assessing L2 interactional competence
The case of requests in role-play interaction
This study examines how L2 learners of English at different pragmatic performance levels implement requests during role-play assessment interaction. In doing so, the role of grammar-for-interaction as validity evidence of assessing interactional competence is explicated. Using qualitative and quantitative data, the following research questions are investigated: (a) How do learners use grammar differently depending on the role-play request situations they are engaged in?; (b) To what extent are learners’ role-play performance levels associated with the ability to use context-sensitive grammar when co-constructing request sequences? The data come from a database of 102 L2 English learners’ role-play interactions with 45 hours of recorded interaction in total. The role-play assessment tasks include various real-life communicative situations, such as requests designed for specific interlocutors in a university context. Using conversation analysis, the role-play interactions at different performance levels were analyzed. Sequential analyses showed that higher-level learners utilized diverse grammatical formats that are sensitive to their sequential positions and contingencies associated with requests. As quantitative evidence, the relationship between selected grammatical constructions and the learners’ role-play performance levels determined by trained raters was examined. With this, I discuss the role of grammar-for-interaction in defining and assessing interactional competence.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1L2 grammar-for-interaction: The case of requests
- 2.2Grammar as the evidence of assessing speaking proficiency
- 3.This study
- 4.Data and methods
- 4.1Data
- 4.2Methods
- 4.2.1Qualitative analysis
- 4.2.2Quantitative analysis
- 4.2.2.1First variable (Coded data)
- 4.2.2.2Second variable (Scores for role-play performances)
- 5.Results
- 5.1Sequential positions and grammar constructions in role-play interaction
- 5.1.1Recommendation letter request
- 5.1.1.1Higher-level learners
- 5.1.1.2Lower-level learners
- 5.1.2Advising-time request
- 5.1.2.1Higher-level learners
- 5.1.2.2Lower-level learners
- 5.2Relationships between grammatical constructions and role-play performance level
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (48)
References
AERA, APA, NCME (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education). (1999). Standards for education and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Alcón-Soler, E. (2017). Pragmatic development during study abroad: An analysis of Spanish teenagers’ request strategies in English emails. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
37
1, 77–92. 

Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics,
33
1, 42–65. 

British Council. (n.d.). IELTS speaking band descriptors (public version). Retrieved from [URL]
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics,
6
1, 5–35. 

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001). Interactional prosody: High onsets in reasons-for-the-call turns. Language in Society,
30
1, 29–53. 

Cunningham, D. J. (2016). Request modification in synchronous computer-mediated communication: The role of focused instruction. The Modern Language Journal,
100
1, 484–507. 

Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction,
41
1, 129–153. 

Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of ‘actually’. Language,
77
1, 245–291. [URL]
De Ruiter, J. P., & Albert, S. (2017). An appeal for a methodological fusion of conversation analysis and experimental psychology. Research on Language and Social Interaction,
50
1, 90–107. 

Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning,
62
1, 335–372. 

Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1–15). Multilingual Matters. 

Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013). Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal,
97
1, 828–852. 

Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal,
91
1, 83–96. 

Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (Eds.). (2019). Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’. Springer. 

Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics,
35
1, 553–574. 

Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly,
15
1, 219–236. 

Hall, J. K. (2018). From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse,
9
1, 25–39. 

Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics,
29
1, 24–49. 

Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. In V. D’Urso & P. Leonardi (Eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetorics (pp. 11–38). Cleup Editors.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (ix–xvi). Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 111 (pp. 281–314). Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i.
Kim, Y. (2009). Korean discourse markers in L2 Korean speakers’ conversation: An acquisitional perspective. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 317–350). University of Hawai‘i.
Lam, D. M. K. (2018). What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing,
35
1, 377–401. 

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Linacre, J. M. (2013). A user’s guide to FACETS: Rasch-model computer programs. [URL]
Markee, N. (2019). Some theoretical reflections on the construct of interactional competence. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 60–76). Routledge. 

McNamara, T. (1997). ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics,
18
1, 446–466. 

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education & Macmillan.
May, L., Nakatsuhara, F., Lam, D., & Galaczi, E. (2020). Developing tools for learning oriented assessment of interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Language Testing,
37
1, 165–188. 

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge University Press. 

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse,
9
1, 3–24. 

Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–268). De Gruyter. 

Plough, I., Banerjee, J., & Iwashita, N. (Eds.) (2018). Special issue on interactional competence. Language Testing,
35
(3).
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Blackwell.
Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing,
28
1, 463–481. 

Salaberry, M. R., & Burch, A. R. (Eds.) (2021). Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications. Multilingual Matters.
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (p. 71–93). Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. 

Stivers, T. (2015). Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis? Research on Language and Social Interaction,
48
1, 1–19. 

Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Urdan, T. C. (2017). Statistics in plain English. Routledge.
Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing,
32
(2), 199–225. 

Youn, S. J., & Burch, A. R. (2020). Where conversation analysis meets language assessment: Toward expanding epistemologies and validity evidence. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment,
9
1, iii–xvii.
Youn, S. J. (2020). Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment: Validity evidence of interactional competence across levels. Language Testing,
37
(1), 76–106. 

Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Glasson, Nicholas & Katherine Halley
2024.
Less talk, more action? Exploring proficiency scores and embodied resources in online L2 interactions.
Classroom Discourse ► pp. 1 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.