Cover not available

Article published In: Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 7:2 (2025) ► pp.109–140

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

Interactional competence in online text chat

Prefatory moves, entitlement, and contingency in L2 requests

ORCiD logo with link | University of Melbourne
ORCiD logo with link | University of Melbourne
Published online: 4 November 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.23007.wan
Abstract
This study explores the development of L2 learners’ interactional competence (IC) in online text chat involving request scenarios. Against the background of research on L2 IC development in spoken interaction, which had shown increased use of prefatory moves with increasing IC, we investigate how learners establish shared background knowledge in text chat through preliminary moves and whether the medium facilitates more prefatory moves at lower IC levels. We also explored how learners orient to entitlement and contingency associated with a possible grant through the selection of syntactic forms. 72 learners of English at three different proficiency levels and 16 English L1 speakers engaged in two dyadic role plays on WeChat. Online interactional data demonstrated L2 learners’ following a similar trajectory in the deployment of prefatory moves as in spoken interaction, using more prefatory moves and designing them more tightly to the interlocutor’s epistemic status as their proficiency and IC increase. Lower-level learners overwhelmingly produced I want/need or can/could structures, whereas higher-level learners also used I wonder if constructions to accommodate potential contingencies related to their requests, though not as systematically as native speakers. We discuss methodological and developmental implications from these findings for L2 pragmatics teaching and testing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Requesting in L2
    • 2.2Entitlement and contingency in requests
    • 2.3CA for CMC
  • 3.The current study
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Instruments
      • 4.2.1Open role-play tasks
      • 4.2.2Technological affordances: WeChat
    • 4.3Procedures
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Prefatory moves
      • 5.1.1Lower-intermediate learners
      • 5.1.2Upper-intermediate learners
      • 5.1.3Advanced learners
      • 5.1.4English native speakers
    • 5.2Choices of syntactic forms
      • 5.2.1Lower-intermediate learners
      • 5.2.2Upper-intermediate learners
      • 5.2.3Advanced learners
      • 5.2.4English native speakers
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Prefatory work in L2 requests and the role of processing
    • 6.2Syntactic forms in making requests
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
References (53)
References
Abe, M., & Roever, C. (2019). Interactional competence in L2 text-chat interactions: First-idea proffering in task openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 1441, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Task closings in L2 text-chat interactions: A study of L2 interactional competence. CALICO Journal, 37(1), 23–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Al-Gahtani, S. (2022). The development of L2 interactional competence in Arabic: The case of multiple requests. Foreign Language Annals, 55(2), 610–634. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 42–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Preference structure in L2 Arabic requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(4), 619–643. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Proficiency and preference organization in second language refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 1291, 140–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2014). Requesting in social interaction. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P., & Walker, T. (2010). Citizens’ emergency calls requesting assistance in calls to the police. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 95–110). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, B. (2015). On the notion of pre-request. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 41–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T. (2021). Are they requests? An exploration of declaratives of trouble in service encounters. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 20–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzales, A. (2013). Development of politeness strategies in participatory online environments: A case study. In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 101–120). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heinemann, T. (2006). ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1081–1104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012b). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In D. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp. 1–25). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
IELTS Partners (2023). IELTS and the CEFR. Retrieved 22 November 2023 from [URL]
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 Ph.D. dissertation]. University of Melbourne.
Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2003). Coping with high imposition requests: High vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. In A. M. Flor, A. Fernández Guerra, & E. Usó Juan (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 161–184). Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, A. (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 209–230). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malabarba, T. (2022). Requesting on WhatsApp: The interplay of interactional competence and deontics in English as an additional language. TESOL in Context, 30(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markman, K. M. (2013). Conversational coherence in small group chat. In S. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 539–564). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meredith, J. (2020). Conversation analysis, cyberpsychology and online interaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(5), 285–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meredith, J., Giles, D., & Stommel, W. (2021). Introduction: The microanalysis of digital interaction. In J. Meredith, D. Giles, W. Stommel (Eds.), Analysing digital interaction (pp. 1–21). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. (2015). In/directness in Polish children’s requests at the dinner table. Journal of Pragmatics, 821, 67–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2019). On the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence: State of the art and implications for praxis. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence (pp. 25–59). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Toward a coherent understanding of L2 interactional competence: Epistemologies of language learning and teaching. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp. 19–33). Springer. 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
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 Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020). NVivo (released in March 2020).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roever, C., & Dai, D. W. (2021). Reconceptualising interactional competence for language testing. In M. R. Salaberry & A. R. Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications (pp. 23–49). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation, volumes I and II. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 104–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is situated. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 70–96). Berg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (2013). Conversational floor in computer-mediated discourse. In S. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 515–538). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taleghani-Nikazm, C., & Huth, T. (2010). L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua, 29(2), 185–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tencent Holdings Limited. (2018). WeChat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trott, S., & Rossano, F. (2020). The role of entitlement in formatting preferences across requesters and recipients. Discourse Processes, 57(7), 551–572. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2013). Form-focused social repertoires in an online language learning partnership. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 187–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Extending prior posts in dyadic online text chat. Discourse Processes, 52(8), 642–669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 191, 52–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, J., & Roever, C. (2021). Proficiency and preference organization in second language mandarin chinese refusals. Modern Language Journal, 105(4), 897–918. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Young, R. F. (2019). Interactional competence and L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (1st ed., pp. 93–110). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue