Cover not available

Article published In: Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 6:1 (2026) ► pp.95–124

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

Initiating answers with en fait (‘in fact’) in L2 French interaction

A multimodal study

ORCiD logo with link | University of Neuchâtel
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Neuchâtel.

Published online: 18 December 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.25002.jui
Abstract
This study examines the use of en fait by second language (L2) French speakers as a resource for initiating answers in interaction. Drawing on a longitudinal video-recorded corpus (‘Pauscaf-L2’) and using the tools of Conversation Analysis, the study investigates the developmental trajectory of en fait across proficiency levels in L2. The analysis reveals three main functions emerging over time: At the A2 level, en fait is used to initiate transformative answers; at the B1 level, it emerges as a resource to manage delayed responses; and at the B2 level, it becomes a frequent resource to preface non-straightforward answers (i.e., responses that are sequentially more complex, including prefaces, accounts, and taking the form of multi-unit turns), thus playing an important role in projection. This study thus sheds light on the use of en fait in L2 interaction and contributes to our understanding of how linguistic and multimodal resources develop over time to support the development of interactional competence in L2.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Existing research
    • 2.1En fait (‘in fact’)
      • 2.1.1En fait in L1 French
      • 2.1.2The acquisition of en fait in L1 and L2 French
  • 3.Method and data
  • 4.Analyses
    • 4.1Upper-elementary speakers: Initiating transformative answers with en fait
    • 4.2Intermediate speakers: Managing delayed answers with en fait
    • 4.3Advanced speakers: Prefacing non-straightforward answers with en fait
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
References (70)
References
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2004). A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: The semantic field of expectation. Journal of pragmatics, 36(10), 1781–1805. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., & Rapley, M. (2000). “Brilliant. next question…”: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(3), 235–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.2.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available from: [URL]
Bolden, G. B. (2009). Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs, 76(2), 121–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danjou-Flaux, N. (1980). A propos de « de fait », « en fait », « en effet », et « effectivement ». Le français moderne Paris, 48(2), 110–139.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Defour, T., D’Hondt, U., Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., & Willems, D. (2010). In fact, en fait, de fait, au fait: A contrastive study of the synchronic correspondences and diachronic development of English and French cognates. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 433–463.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Hondt, U. (2014). Au fait, de fait et en fait: analyse de trois parcours de grammaticalisation. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures, 49(2), 235–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drake, A. V. (2013). Turn-final or in English: A conversation analytic perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2011). The L2 inventory in action: Usage-based linguistics and conversation analysis in second language acquisition. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), Learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 327–364). National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferré, G. (2011). Multimodal Analysis of Discourse Markers’ donc’,’alors’ and’en fait’ in Conversational French. In ICPhS VXII1 (pp. 671–674).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
Forsgren, M. (2009). Les connecteurs de fait, en fait, en effet, effectivement: observations empiriques effectuées dans des contextes discursifs variés. Syntaxe & sémantique, (1), 51–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franckel, J. J. (2020). De l’énonciation à la méta-énonciation. Corela. Cognition, représentation, langage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, H. M., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 621, 51–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of self-initiated self-repair by an adult learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 113–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horbowicz, P., & Nordanger, M. (2024). Managing the flow of talk: A longitudinal case study of the multiword expression det er sant in L2 Norwegian Interactions. Applied Linguistics, amae006.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. Nguyen, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–387). National Foreign Language Resource Centre, University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Juillet, M. (2024). L’emploi de parce que micro-syntaxique en français L2 : une étude interactionnelle et multimodale. SHS Web of Conferences 1911, 01008. EDP Sciences. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Juillet, M., & Kowalczuk, T. (Forthc.). L’expression tu sais dans la gestion de problèmes lexicaux en français langue seconde. Language, Interaction and Acquisition.
Juillet, M., Forsberg Lundell, F., Skogmyr Marian, K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (In prep.). Identifying Two Interactional Functions of en fait in L2 French: A Mixed-Methods Approach.
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). Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G. & Y. Kim. (2015). Conversation-for-learning: Institutional talk beyond the classroom. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 390–408). Oxford: Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta psychologica, 261, 22–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of pragmatics, 23(3), 247–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, S. (2023). Development of interactional practices for initiating and extending small talk in service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 2171, 85–108.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, C. (2020). A conversation analysis approach to French L2 learning: Introducing and closing topics in everyday interactions. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konzett-Firth, C. (2023). On the development of interactional competence in L2 French: Changes over time in responsive turn beginnings in peer interactions. Linguistics and Education, 751, 101176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koshik, I., & Seo, M. S. (2012). Word (and other) search sequences initiated by language learners. Text & Talk, 32(2), 167–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kowalczuk, T. (2024). L’emploi de tu sais par des apprenants de français L2. Bulletin VALS-ASLA 1171, 35–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 651, 137–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. t. & Malabarba, T. (2024). Learning ’on the shop floor’: The development of interactional competence at the workplace by users of English as a foreign language. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogden, R. (2013). Clicks and percussives in English conversation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43(3), 299–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Swallowing in conversation. Frontiers in Communication, 61, 657190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: the development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). How grammar-for-interaction emerges over time: Evidence from second language talk. In New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research (pp. 334–359). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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). Mouton de Gruyter. 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., & Skogmyr Marian, K. (2022). Functional diversification and progressive routinization of a multiword expression in and for social interaction: A longitudinal L2 study. The Modern Language Journal, 106(S1), 23–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. & Thörle, B. (2024). Discourse markers and second language acquisition. M.-B. Mosegaard Hansen, & J. Visconti (Eds.), Manual of discourse markers in romance (pp. 377–411). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., Polak-Yitzhaki, H., Li, X., Stoenica, I. M., Havlík, M., & Keevallik, L. (2021). Multimodal assemblies for prefacing a dispreferred response: A cross-linguistic analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 121, 689275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., Keevallik, L., & Li, X. (2022). The grammar-body interface in social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 131, 875696. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rahimi, F., & Riasati, M. J. (2012). The effect of explicit instruction of discourse markers on the quality of oral output. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 70–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American sociological review, 68(6), 939–967. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reaves, A. (2023). Discourse markers in second language French. Milton Park: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 308–329). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossari, C. (1992). De fait, en fait, en réalité: trois marqueurs aux emplois inclusifs. Verbum (3). 139–161. 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. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of. Interaction and Grammar, 131, 52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 121, 1–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skogmyr Marian, K. (2022). The development of L2 interactional competence: A multimodal study of complaining in French interactions. Milton Park: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Longitudinal change in linguistic resources for interaction: The case of tu vois (‘you see’) in L2 French. Interactional Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skogmyr Marian, K., Malabarba, T., & Weatherall, A. (2021). Multi-unit turns that begin with a resaying of a prior speaker’s turn. Language & Communication, 781, 77–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2772–2781. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. 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
Theodórsdóttir, G., & Eskildsen, S. W. (2022). Accumulating semiotic resources for social actions: A case study of L2 Icelandic in the wild. The Modern Language Journal, 106(S1), 46–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torreira, F., Bögels, S., and Levinson, S. C. (2015). Breathing for answering: the time course of response planning in conversation. Frontiers in Psychology, 61:284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. Usage-based perspectives on second language learning, 75–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue