Article published In: Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 5:1 (2024) ► pp.31–55
Turn design in talk-in-interaction in a foreign language – Collaborative turn constructions and ellipses in casual conversations among German high-school learners of English
Published online: 8 November 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.22016.has
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.22016.has
Abstract
This study explores the ability of advanced adolescent German learners of English to optimize turn design for
talk-in-interaction, focusing on collaborative turn constructions and ellipses. Data deriving from recorded conversations
conducted in the foreign language among German learners of English are compared to conversations between native speakers of
British English and integrated into a diagnostic approach that helps identify deficits in the field of interactional skills. The
results show that the two syntactic formats occur less frequently in learner conversations, which indicates that learners are less
likely to use syntactic resources to bind their contribution immediately to prior talk or to the situational context. It is argued
that this has a negative effect upon the sequential fit of turns and that conversational practice targeted toward a syntax for
conversation would help learners achieving a more fluid interplay of conversational moves.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The organization of everyday conversational interaction
- 3.Syntax-for-conversation: Collaborative turn-constructions and ellipses
- 3.1Collaborative turn-constructions
- 3.2Ellipses
- 4.Method
- 5.Analysis
- 5.1Collaborative turn-constructions
- 5.2Ellipses
- 6.Discussion and implications for teaching
- 7.Conclusion
References
References (47)
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do
Language Learners Recognize Pragmatic Violations? Pragmatic versus Grammatical Awareness in Instructed L2
Learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 321, 233–262.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2020). Pedagogical
linguistics. A view from L2 pragmatics. Pedagogical
Linguistics, 1(1), 44–65.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar
and the spoken language. Applied
Linguistics, 16(2), 141–158.
Cherchi, L. (1985). On
the role of ellipsis in discourse coherence. In R. Meyer Hermann & H. Rieser (Eds.), Ellipsen
und fragmentarische
Ausdrücke, Band 21 (pp. 224–249). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). On
affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. Text &
Talk, 32(4), 453–476.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., Fox, B. & Thompson, S. (2014). Forms
of responsivity: Grammatical formats for responding to two types of requests in
conversation. In S. Günthner, W. Imo & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar
and dialogism: sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and
sedimentation (pp. 109–138). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional
linguistics. Studying language in
interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cutrone, P. (2005). A
case study examining backchannels between Japanese-British
dyads. Multilingua, 241, 237–274.
Deppermann, A. (2012). Über
Sätze in Gesprächsbeiträgen – wann sie beginnen und wann man sie
braucht. In C. Cortès (Ed.), Satzeröffnung.
Formen, Funktionen,
Strategien. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1–14.
(2013). Turn-design
at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in
German. Journal of
Pragmatics, 46(1), 91–121.
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (2010). Responses
to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 43(2), 133–156.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2006). Ellipsis
and discourse coherence. Linguistics and
Philosophy, 291, 315–346.
Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse
markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied
Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439.
Haselow, A. (2019). Discourse
marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn
production. Journal of
Pragmatics, 1461, 1–18.
(2021). The
acquisition of pragmatic markers in the foreign language classroom: An experimental study on the effects of implicit and
explicit learning. Journal of
Pragmatics, 1861, 73–86.
Hasselgreen, A. (2004). Testing
the spoken English of young Norwegians: a study of test validity and the role of “smallwords” in contributing to pupils’
fluency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2013). Turn-initial
position and some of its occupants. Journal of
Pragmatics, 571, 331–337.
Jacoby, S. & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction:
An introduction. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 28(3), 171–183.
Knobloch, C. (2013). „Ein
Teil, das fehlt, geht nie kaputt.“ – Ellipsen in Grammatik und
Kommunikation. In M. Hennig (Ed.), Die
Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes
Problem (pp. 19–38). Berlin: de Gruyter.
(1992). Assisted
storytelling: deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative
Sociology, 151, 247–271.
(2004). Collaborative
turn sequences. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation
analysis. Studies from the first
generation (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levinson, S., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing
in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of
language. In J. Holler, K. Kendrick, M. Casillas & S. Levinson (Eds.), Turn
taking in human communicative
interaction (pp. 10–26). Lausanne: Frontiers Media.
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer
appropriate processing in classroom second language
acquisition. In Z. H. Han (Ed.), Understanding
second language
process (pp. 27–44). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking
back: ‘Small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research in Language and
Social
Interaction, 36(1), 33–63.
Merchant, J. (2001). The
syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of
ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2018). Ellipsis:
A survey of analytical approaches. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of
ellipsis (pp. 19–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse
markers in native and non-native English
discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). The
development of cohesion in a learner corpus. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 3(1), 109–130.
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do
people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 11(3), 105–110.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A
comprehensive grammar of the English
language. London: Longman.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar
and social organization: yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American
Sociological
Review, 681, 939–967.
Roll, M., Gosselke, S., Lindgren, M., & Horne, M. (2013). Time-driven
effects on processing grammatical agreement. Frontiers in
Psychology, 41, 1004.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A
simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation. Language, 501, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn
organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and
interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction
and
grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2007). Sequence
organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The
preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in
conversation. Language, 531, 361–382.
Schremm, A., Horne, M., & Roll, M. (2015). Brain
responses to syntax constrained by time- driven implicit prosodic phrases. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 351, 68–84.
Selting, M. (2001). Fragments
of units as deviant cases of unit-production in conversational
talk. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies
in interactional
linguistics (pp. 229–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 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.
