Article published In:
Interactional LinguisticsVol. 4:1 (2024) ► pp.68–96
From doing work on your own talk to doing work on others’ talk
The longitudinal development of also ‘so’ in L2 German
Research on L2 interactional competence (IC) has become increasingly focused on how L2 speakers develop and
recalibrate linguistic resources to do interactional work, i.e., how L2 speakers develop a
grammar-for-interaction (Pekarek Doehler 2018). In this paper, I
use interactional linguistics to track one L2 German speaker’s IC development over 11 months by analyzing her use of German
also (English ‘so’) in formulations (see Deppermann 2011; Heritage & Watson 1979, 1980). In initial
months, the L2 speaker uses also exclusively to do work on her own prior talk, e.g., in upshots, consequences,
and unpackings. The L2 speaker’s initial also uses contribute to moves that maintain intersubjectivity by
ensuring her co-interactant’s understanding of her own talk. In later months, the L2 speaker diversifies her uses of
also, including uses oriented to co-interactants’ prior talk that address manifest problems of
intersubjectivity: to preface an other-correction of an incorrect candidate understanding, and to preface turns addressing a
co-interactant’s problem of understanding. The L2 speaker’s changing also uses demonstrate her ability to
contribute to interactional organization in increasingly diverse ways, evidencing a developing grammar-for-interaction. I end by
calling for more research on the L2 development of linguistic resources that primarily serve interactional functions, such as
particles.
Keywords: interactional competence, L2 grammar-for-interaction, interactional linguistics, longitudinal CA, discourse markers, particles
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Interactional competence and grammar-for-interaction
- 3.German also: Connective adverb with interactional functions
- 4.Participant & data
- 5.Analysis
- 5.1Nina maintaining intersubjectivity with also in months 2–4
- 5.1.1 Canonical also: Signalling upshots and consequences
- 5.1.2Unpacking also
- 5.2Nina restoring intersubjectivity with also in months 11 and 12
- 5.2.1Targeting a co-interactant’s talk: Correcting candidate understandings
- 5.2.2Also in other-initiated self-reformulations
- 5.1Nina maintaining intersubjectivity with also in months 2–4
- 6.Overview of Nina’s also use over time
- 7.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Symbols used in transcripts
-
References
References (51)
Alm, M. (2004). Contribution
of sentence position: the word also in spoken German. ZAS Papers in
Linguistics,
35
(1), 1–14. 
Antaki, C. (2012). Affiliative
and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse
Studies,
14
(5), 531–547.
Auer, P. (1996). The
pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization
position. Pragmatics,
6
(3), 295–322.
Auer, P., & Günthner, S. (2005). Die
Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von
Grammatikalisierung? In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung
im
Deutschen (pp. 335–362). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Blühdorn, H., Foolen, A., & Loureda, O. (2017). Diskursmarker:
Begriffsgeschichte – Theorie – Beschreibung. Ein bibliographischer
Überblick. In H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Diskursmarker
im Deutschen. Reflexionen und
Analysen (pp. 3–36). Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Bolden, G. B. (2006). Little
words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social
interaction. Journal of
Communication,
56
(4), 661–688.
(2015). Discourse
markers. In K. Tracy, T. Sandel, & C. Ilie (Eds.), The
international encyclopedia of language and social
interaction (pp. 1–7). Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,
Assessment. Cambridge: CUP.
. (2018). Common European
framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new
descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing.
. (2020). Common European
framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion
volume. Council of Europe Publishing. [URL][URL]
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2021). Language
over time. Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English. Interactional
Linguistics,
1
(1), 33–63.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional
linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
Deppermann, A. (2011). The
study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human
Studies,
34
(2), 115–128.
Deppermann, A., & Helmer, H. (2013). Zur
Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und
dann
. Zeitschrift Für
Sprachwissenschaft,
32
(1), 1–39.
Deppermann, A., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Longitudinal
conversation analysis – Introduction to the special
issue. ROLSI,
54
(2), 127–141.
Deppermann, A., & Reineke, S. (2020). Practices
of indexing discrepant assumptions with German ich dachte (‘I thought’) in
talk-in-interaction. Functions of
Language,
27
(2), 113–142.
Dittmar, N. (2011). Zum
Verhältnis von Form und (kommunikativer) Funktion in der mündlichen Rede am Beispiel des Konnektors
also
. In N. Dittmar & N. Bahlo (Eds.), Beschreibungen
für gesprochenes Deutsch auf dem Prüfstand: Analysen und
Perspektiven (pp. 99–135). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
Drew, P. (1997). “Open”
class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in
conversation. JoP,
28
1, 69–101.
Dudenredaktion. (n.d.). also. Duden Online. Retrieved August 13,
2021, from [URL]
Egbert, M. (2004). Other-initiated
repair and membership categorization – Some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership
categorization. JoP,
36
(8), 1467–1498.
Fernández-Villanueva, M. (2007). Uses
of also in oral semi-informal German. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics,
6
1, 95–115.
Fischer, K. (2006). Towards
an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: introduction to the
volume. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches
to discourse
particles (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies
in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On
formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical
sociology: Perspectives and
developments (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Golato, A. (2012). German
oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
45
(3), 245–268.
Gülich, E. (2002). Reformulierungen. In I. Kolboom, T. Kotschi, & E. Reichel (Eds.), Handbuch
Französisch.
Sprache-Literatur-Kultur-Gesellschaft (pp. 350–357). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social
actions for classroom language
learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Heritage, J. (1984). A
change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential
placement. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures
of social action: Studies in conversation
analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: CUP.
(1998).
Oh-prefaced
responses to inquiry. Language in
Society,
27
(3), 291–334.
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2018). Introduction.
Analyzing turn-initial particles. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between
turn and sequence. Turn-Initial particles across
languages (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations
as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday
language: Studies in
ethnomethodology (pp. 123–163). New York: Irvington Publishers.
(1980). Aspects
of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances
analysed. Semiotica,
30
(3–4), 245–262.
Ishida, M. (2009). Development
of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during
study-abroad. In H. thi Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction:
Multilingual
perspectives (pp. 351–387). Honolulu: National Foreign Resource Center-University of Hawai’i.
Koschmann, T. (2013). Conversation
analysis and learning in interaction. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of applied
linguistics (pp. 1038–1043). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling
in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook
of conversation
analysis (pp. 492–507). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations
on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom
Discourse,
9
(1), 3–24.
(2019). On
the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence. State of the art and implications for
praxis. In S. Salaberry, Rafael M. Kunitz (Ed.), Teaching
and testing L2 interactional
competence (pp. 25–59). New York: Routledge.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2018). L2
interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of
story-openings. Applied
Linguistics,
39
(4), 555–578.
(2019). On
the reflexive relation between developing L2 interactional competence and evolving social relationships: A longitudinal study
of word-searches in the ‘wild.’ In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation
analytic research on learning-in-action. The complex ecology of second language acquisition “in the
wild” (pp. 51–75). Cham: Springer.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Eskildsen, S. W. (2022). Emergent
L2 grammars in and for social interaction: Introduction to the special
issue. MLJ,
106
(1), 3–22.
Pfeiffer, M. (2017). Über
die Funktion der Reparaturmarker im Deutschen. In H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Diskursmarker
im Deutschen. Reflexionen und
Analysen (pp. 259–283). Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Third
turn repair. In G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Towards
a social science of language: Papers in honor of William
Labov (pp. 31–40). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
(2013). Ten
operations of self-initiated, same-turn repair. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversation
repair and human
understanding. Cambridge: CUP.
Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning
to respond: Well-prefaced responses to
wh-questions. ROLSI,
42
(2), 91–115.
Schirm, R. S. K. (2022). L2
discourse markers and the development of interactional competence during study abroad [Ph.D.
Dissertation]. University of Waterloo.
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., … Uhmann, S. (2011). A
system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT
2. Gesprächsforschung,
12
1, 1–51.
Shively, R. L. (2011). L2
pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service
encounters. JoP,
43
(6), 1818–1835.
Skogmyr Marian, K. (2023). Longitudinal
change in linguistic resources for interaction. The case of tu vois (‘you see’) in L2
French. Interactional
Linguistics, 1–35.
Skogmyr Marian, K., & Balaman, U. (2018). Second
language interactional competence and its development: An overview of conversation analytic research on interactional change
over time. Linguistics and Language
Compass,
12
1, 1–16.
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2018). Reformulating
prior speaker’s turn in Finnish. Turn-initial siis, eli(kkä), and nii(n)
et(tä)
. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between
turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across
languages (pp. 251–286). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wagner, J., Pekarek Doehler, S., & González-Martínez, E. (2018). Longitudinal
research on the organization of social interaction: Current developments and methodological
challenges. In S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Wagner, & E. González-Martínez (Eds.), Longitudinal
studies on the organization of social
interaction (pp. 3–35). London: Palgrave Macmillan.