Cover not available

Article published In: Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 6:1 (2024) ► pp.31–59

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Sequence organization in L2 interactions

Differences in the post-expansion token okay and recipient uptake during storytelling episodes

ORCiD logo with link | The University of Texas at Austin
Published online: 18 January 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.22002.gar
Abstract
Employing conversation analysis (CA) to analyze a first encounter between a second language (L2) learner and a native speaker (NS) of Spanish, this study demonstrates how interactants’ differences in deploying sequence expansion and recipient uptake impact the interaction. Focusing on sequence organization during storytelling episodes, I argue that both interactants, teller and recipient, act as co-authors of the telling episode by conveying stancetaking differently, to display (mis)alignment and/or (dis)affiliation with the telling. The focal data are derived from one videotaped, semi-structured conversation of an L2-NS dyad. I identify ten focal episodes of sequences representing some form of post-expansions, recipient uptake, and stancetaking. The study reveals that these two speakers used post-expansions differently: the Spanish NS used them to accept a second-pair part; the Spanish learner employed them to close a second-pair part and transition toward a new topic, such as when encountering less-preferred recipient uptake. Gestures and gaze (e.g., looking away from the interlocutor) accentuated closing a dispreferred second-pair part. Given the importance of recipient uptake in talk-in-interaction, the article offers implications for research and pedagogy regarding training L2 learners to produce appropriate sequences beyond minimal post-expansions in talk.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sequence organization in talk-in-interaction
    • 2.1Post-expansions
    • 2.2Recipient uptake and stancetaking in talk-in-interaction
  • 3.The current study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Instruments for data collection
    • 3.3Procedures of data collection and analysis
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Sequence expansion with okay: Minimal post-expansions in storytelling
    • 4.2Recipient uptake: Acknowledgement and affiliative tokens
      • 4.2.1Passive minimal continuers
      • 4.2.2Active continuers
    • 4.3Stance-taking
      • 4.3.1Seeking affiliation
      • 4.3.2Portraying disaffiliation
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (60)
References
Al-Gahtani, S. (2017). Sequence organization of requests among Australian English and Saudi Arabic speakers: A contrastive study. Arabica, 64(5–6), 761–784. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2014). Insert and post-expansions in L2 Arabic requests. System, 421, 189–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners and co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 566–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Using prosodically marked “Okays” to display epistemic stances and incongruous actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 1691, 151–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Betz, E., & Sorjonen, M. L. (2021). Introduction: OKAY emergening as a cross-linguistic object of study in prior research. In E. Betz, A. Deppermann, L. Mondada, & M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), OKAY across languages: Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction (pp. 2–28). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2021a). OH + OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination. Open Linguistics, 7(1), 816–836. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
deSouza, D. K., Betz, E., Clinkenbeard, M., Morita, E., Shrikant, N. & Tuccio, W. A. (2021). Taking a detour before answering the question: Turn-initial okay in second position in English interaction. Language & Communication, 761, 47–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1986). The audience as co-author: An introduction. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 6(3), 239–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetakin in discourse: An introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1–26). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filipi, A., & Wales, R. (2003). Differential uses of okay, right, and alright, and their function in signaling perspective shift or maintenance in a map task. Semiotica, 147(1/4), 429–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaines, P. (2011). The multifunctionality of discourse oerator Okay: Evidences from a police interview. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3291–3315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 91, 205–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. (2018). From interactional competence to interactional repertoires: Reconceptualizing the goal of L2 learning, Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Polity.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1997). “A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 307–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics & language Learning (Vol. 111, pp. 281–314). University of Hawai‘i at Manoa/National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking (2nd ed., pp. 279–303). Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2015). How listeners use facial expression to shift the emotional stance of the speaker’s utterance. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3), 319–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 1681, 119–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, J. (1989). Interpersonal dynamics in conversational storytelling. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 114–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 492–507). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2017). Using conversation tasks and retrospective methodology to investigate L2 pragmatics development: the case of EFL criticisms and responses to criticisms. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 399–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Data collection methods in L2 pragmatics research: An overview. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 195–211). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2012). Facial pursuit of response. In A. Peräkylä & M. L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 64–91). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2016). Sequence organization. In J. Nussbaum (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedias: Communication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, J. (2013). Emotion, affect, and conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 330–349). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. [URL]
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schleef, E. (2008). The “lecturer’s OK” revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the influence of academic division. American Speech, 83(1), 62–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts:An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Sequence organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 191–228). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2013). Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 69–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Embodiment in human communication. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44(1), 419–438. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2018). Advanced second language pragmatic competence. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benatti (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 505–526). Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Second language acquisition and pragmatics: An overview. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 31–46). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. & Yamaguchi. (2019). Implicature comprehension in L2 pragmatics research. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 1–14). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagner, J., & Gardner, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 1–17). Continuum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Taguchi, Naoko
2025. Acquisition of Second Language Pragmatics. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue