Contexts of Co-Constructed Discourse

i
Contexts of Co-Constructed Discourse
This collection showcases cutting-edge developments in co-construction in dis-

course. Drawing on the pioneering work of Dale A. Koike, the volume contributes
new understandings of how speakers jointly negotiate meanings, contexts, iden-
tities, and social positions in interaction.
The volume is organized around three key themes in co- construction—
co-constructed discourse, pragmatics in discourse, and teaching and assessment of
discourse—and builds on the introductory chapter that situates the discussion on
context and co-construction as fundamental to understanding meaning-making
in interaction. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives across strands of lin-
guistics and education, chapters explore both the contextual elements that frame
co-construction processes and the distinct dynamics between action and language
use across a wide range of interactional contexts, including sports commentary,
interviews, everyday conversation, classroom discourse, and digitally mediated
settings. Taken together, the book highlights the impact of Koike’s contributions
on existing research in pragmatics and discourse and exhibits the potential for her
work to frame scholarship on emerging interactional contexts.
This volume will be of particular interest to students and researchers in dis-
course studies, pragmatics, applied linguistics, second language studies, and lan-
guage education, as well as those interested in interaction across diverse contexts.
Lori Czerwionka is Associate Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at Purdue

University. Her research on pragmatics and discourse focuses on mitigation,
speech acts, and intercultural communicative competence. She has published
in edited volumes and journals, including Journal of Pragmatics, Intercultural
Pragmatics, Hispania, and International Journal of Learner Corpus Research.
Rachel Showstack is Associate Professor of Spanish at Wichita State University.

Her research on co-construction and pragmatics in Spanish heritage language
education appears in Language and Intercultural Communication, the Journal
of Spanish Language Teaching, and the Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education. Her current work addresses language and Latinx health.
Judith Liskin-Gasparro is Associate Professor Emerita of Spanish and Applied

Linguistics at the University of Iowa. Her research on the development and
evaluation of L2 speaking proficiency in classroom or immersion environments
has appeared in peer-reviewed journals and volumes, including The Modern
Language Journal, Foreign Language Annals, Hispania, Applied Linguistics, and
three Routledge volumes.
ii
Routledge Studies in Applied Linguistics
Researching Interpretive Talk Around Literary Narrative Texts

Shared Novel Reading
John Gordon
Analyzing Discourses in Teacher Observation Feedback Conferences

Fiona Copland and Helen Donaghue
Learning-Oriented Language Assessment

Putting Theory into Practice
Edited by Atta Gebril
Language, Mobility and Study Abroad in the Contemporary

European Context
Edited by Rosamond Mitchell and Henry Tyne
Intonation in L2 Discourse
Research Insights
María Dolores Ramirez-Verdugo
Contexts of Co-Constructed Discourse

Interaction, Pragmatics, and Second Language Applications
Edited by Lori Czerwionka, Rachel Showstack, and
Judith Liskin-Gasparro
The Ambiguity of English as a Lingua Franca

Politics of Language in South Africa
Stephanie Rudwick
For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.

routledge.com/Routledge-Studies-in-Applied-Linguistics/book-series/
RSAL
iii
Contexts of Co-Constructed
Discourse
Interaction, Pragmatics, and Second
Language Applications
Edited by Lori Czerwionka,

Rachel Showstack, and
Judith Liskin-Gasparro
iv
First published 2022

by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 selection and editorial matter, Lori Czerwionka, Rachel Showstack,
and Judith Liskin-Gasparro; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Lori Czerwionka, Rachel Showstack, and Judith Liskin-Gasparro to
be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their
individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-367-89555-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-03640-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-02509-2 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Newgen Publishing UK
v
We dedicate this book to Dr. Dale Koike as a Festschrift, to

honor her as a scholar, teacher, colleague, and friend.
vi
vi
Contents
List of Contributors ix
Acknowledgments xii
1 Introduction: Context and Co-Construction in Interaction,

Pragmatics, and Second Language Applications 1
L O R I C Z E RWIO N KA AN D RACH E L SH O WSTAC K
PART I
Co-Constructed Discourse 21
2 Institutional Roles as Interactional Achievements: The

Epistemics of Sports Commentary 23
C H A S E W E S LE Y RAYMO N D A N D H O L LY R. CASHMAN
3 [A/aa ‘oh’ + demo ‘but’]-Prefaced Affiliative Response

in Japanese: Co-Construction of a Shared Stance
through Opinion-Negotiation 46
E I K O YA S U I
4 Corrective Feedback and the Ideological

Co-Construction of Expertise 68
DREW COLCHER
PART II
Pragmatics of Discourse 91
5 Multimodal and Co-Constructed Speech Acts:

Gratitude and Other Responses to Compliments
and Gifts in Peninsular Spanish 93
L O R I C Z E RWIO N KA , SYDN E Y DICKE RSO N , AND
R O D R I G O A RA GO N -B A UTISTA
vi
viii Contents
6 Multimodal Resources in the Co-Construction of
Humorous Discourse 115
E L I S A G I R O NZE TTI
7 Epistemic Causality in Spanish Narratives as Evidence

of Knowledge Frames 136
S A R A H E . B L A CKWE L L
PART III
Teaching and Assessment of Discourse 161
8 Discourse Approaches to Second Language Reflections

in Portfolio Assessment: An Activity Theory Account
of Learner Agency 163
M A RTA A N TÓN AN D TH O MAS P E N DE XTE R
9 Intersubjectivity in Co-Constructed Test Discourse:

What is the Role of L2 Speaking Ability? 183
K ATH A R I N A KL E Y
10 Changing Expectations through Drama-Based

Pedagogy: An L2 Spanish Conversation Course about
Study Abroad 209
LY N N P E A R SO N
Afterword. Co-Construction and Frames in a

Post-Digital Age 227
R A C H E L S H OWSTACK, L O RI CZE RWIO N KA, AND
J U D I TH L I S K IN -G ASPARRO
Epilogue. Dale Koike and Research on Pragmatics in

Interaction: Mentor, Collaborator, Friend 232
J . C É S A R F É L IX- B
RA SDE FE R
Index 235
xi
Contributors
Marta Antón is Professor of Spanish at Indiana University– Purdue

University Indianapolis. Her publications include a book on assessment
methods (Arco Libros, 2013), articles and chapters on sociocultural
approaches to classroom interaction and dynamic assessment, health
discourse, and Spanish sociolinguistics. She is the current editor of The
Modern Language Journal.
Rodrigo Aragon-Bautista completed his MA degree in Hispanic Linguistics
at Purdue University. His research has focused on pragmatics, and
he applies his linguistics training in his work as an English teacher
in Spain.
Sarah E. Blackwell is Professor of Spanish Linguistics in the Department
of Romance Languages and faculty in Linguistics at the University
of Georgia. She is author of Implicatures in Discourse: The Case of
Spanish NP Anaphora (John Benjamins) and was an editor of the
Journal of Pragmatics (2003–2010).
Holly R. Cashman is Professor of Spanish at the University of New
Hampshire. Her research interests include multilingualism in individ-
uals, interaction, and communities, and language, gender, and sexu-
ality. She is the author of Queer, Latinx, and Bilingual (Routledge)
and recent articles in Language in Society and Gender & Language.
Drew Colcher is a PhD student in Iberian and Latin American Linguistics
at the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include
contact linguistics, language ideologies, and Spanish in the U.S. His
work has previously appeared in Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone
Linguistics.
Lori Czerwionka is Associate Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at
Purdue University. Her research on pragmatics and discourse focuses
on mitigation, speech acts, and intercultural communicative compe-
tence. She has published in edited volumes and journals, including
Journal of Pragmatics, Intercultural Pragmatics, Hispania, and
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research.
x
x Contributors
Sydney Dickerson is a PhD student in Hispanic Linguistics at Purdue
University. Her research interests include cross-cultural speech acts,
second language pragmatic development, and second language peda-
gogy. Her research investigates the effect of short-term study abroad
and different types of instruction on the pragmatic learning of dis-
course markers in Spanish.
J. César Félix-Brasdefer is Professor of Linguistics and Spanish at Indiana
University. He has published several books, as well as peer-reviewed
articles in edited volumes, journals, and handbooks. His recent
publications include the co-edited Routledge Handbook of Spanish
Pragmatics with Dale Koike (Routledge, 2021) and Pragmática del
español: contexto, uso y variación (Routledge, 2019).
Elisa Gironzetti is Assistant Professor of Spanish Applied Linguistics
and Director of the Spanish Language Program at the University of
Maryland. Her research focuses on humor, pragmatics, intercultural
communication, Spanish L2/HL, and multimodality. Her work has
appeared in Discourse Processes, Humor, and Journal of Spanish
Language Teaching, among others.
Katharina Kley is Lecturer in German at Rice University. Her research
interests include the assessment of second language speaking,
classroom-based assessment, conversation analysis-informed teaching
and testing of interactional competence, and second language inter-
actional development.
Judith Liskin-Gasparro is Associate Professor Emerita of Spanish and
Applied Linguistics at the University of Iowa. Her research on the
development and evaluation of L2 speaking proficiency in classroom or
immersion environments has appeared in peer-reviewed journals and
volumes, including The Modern Language Journal, Foreign Language
Annals, Hispania, Applied Linguistics, and three Routledge volumes.
Lynn Pearson is Associate Professor of Spanish at Bowling Green State
University, where she teaches courses in Hispanic linguistics and second
language acquisition. She has published in Hispania, The Modern
Language Journal, System, Pragmatics and Language Learning, and
the book collection L2 Spanish Pragmatics: From Research to Practice.
Thomas Pendexter obtained his MA in Teaching Spanish from Indiana
University–Purdue University Indianapolis. He has taught English in
Spain and Spanish in the United States at several levels of instruction
(college, high school, and elementary school), and he is currently an
editorial assistant for The Modern Language Journal.
Chase Wesley Raymond is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the
University of Colorado, Boulder. His interests lie at the intersection
of language and social identity, in both ordinary and institutional
xi
Contributors xi
interaction, with an emphasis on grammar. Recent publications
include articles in Language, Language in Society, and Journal of
Sociolinguistics.
Rachel Showstack is Associate Professor of Spanish at Wichita State
University. Her research on co-construction and pragmatics in Spanish
heritage language education appears in Language and Intercultural
Communication, the Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, and
the Journal of Language, Identity, and Education. Her current work
addresses language and Latinx health.
Eiko Yasui is Associate Professor at Nagoya University, Japan. She
received a PhD in Communication Studies from the University of
Texas at Austin. Her research addresses microanalysis of language and
body in everyday interaction. Recent publications include the book
Pointing in Interaction (written in Japanese) and articles in Journal of
Pragmatics.
xi
newgenprepdf
Acknowledgments
As three of the 43 PhD students, along with countless other graduate and
undergraduate students whom Dr. Dale Koike has advised and taught,
we thank her for teaching us about linguistics, pragmatics, pedagogy,
research, and writing, and also for preparing us as mentors and leaders. In
her work and life, she creates strong relationships with others and shows
genuine concern for the well-being of all. Dr. Dale Koike is a role model
as a professor, scholar, and mentor. Without her scholarly contributions
and, indeed, her entire academic career, our work, which includes this
volume, would not have been possible.
We also acknowledge the authors, reviewers, and the Routledge edi-
torial team for their dedication to this co-constructed project.
1
1
Introduction
Context and Co-Construction
in Interaction, Pragmatics, and
Second Language Applications
Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack
Introduction
This edited collection on context and co-construction in discourse is
presented in honor of a highly respected scholar and much-loved professor
in the fields of Hispanic linguistics and applied linguistics, Dr. Dale April
Koike (The University of Texas at Austin), on the occasion of her retire-
ment. With this volume, we honor her work as a scholar by highlighting
her contributions to applied linguistics, pragmatics, and language peda-
gogy. Many of the scholarly contributions by Koike converge on the topic
of co-constructed discourse, addressing related topics including pragmatic
meanings, communicative resources used to co-construct discourse, con-
textual variables (e.g., identity, expectations) that frame co-constructed
discourse and emerge in co-constructed discourse, as well as discourse
approaches to language teaching and assessment. (See Appendix 1.A for
a list of Koike’s scholarly contributions.)
Koike’s influence on the understanding of co-construction is the result
of a body of work that she has produced across the span of her career as
she emerged as a leader in her fields of study. She was one of the early
scholars to examine cross- cultural pragmatics (Koike, 1989a, 1994),
and she was of the first scholars to apply research on pragmatics to the
study of language learner development (Koike, 1989b, 1996a; Koike &
Pearson, 2005). Her expertise in pragmatics and discourse has allowed
her to contribute new ideas about the pragmatic meanings of specific
phrases in Spanish and Portuguese (e.g., Busquets et al., 2001; Koike,
1988, 1994, 1996b; Koike et al., 2001) and discourse-based approaches
to second language (L2) oral proficiency (Félix-Brasdefer & Koike, 2014;
Koike, 1998; Koike & Hinojosa, 1998). She has relied on notions of cul-
tural, interactional, and cognitive frames and expectations to contribute
to the understanding of identity and expertise in discourse (Blyth &
Koike, 2014; Koike, 2010, 2012, 2015; Koike & Blyth, 2016; Rodríguez
Alfano & Koike, 2004), and she has offered close analyses of interactions
to expose the co-constructed nature of discourse (Koike, 2003, 2012;
Koike & Graham, 2006). Throughout her career, Koike has applied her
2
2 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

research skills to new and pressing issues in both the scholarly and social
worlds, as can be seen in her recent work on Twitter discourses (Koike
& Bentes, 2018; Koike, et al., forthcoming) and her research on heritage
speaker pragmatics (Koike & Palmiere, 2011). Her work has transformed
the fields of cross-cultural pragmatics, interlanguage pragmatics, dis-
course analysis, and pragmatics in interaction.
Building on Koike’s research and the work of other scholars, this
volume contributes new perspectives on the topic of context and co-
construction in discourse. Through addressing these themes, each
chapter provides a more accurate understanding of the emergent con-
text in the specific, situated, and local interactions. In addition to
honoring Koike as a scholar with this volume, we express our appre-
ciation to her for being a dedicated mentor to many students1 and
scholars who collectively deepen our understanding of the topics that
she has investigated.
Co-Construction and Context

While traditional pragmatics research has viewed context as a set of
features that shape what is considered to be appropriate to say in a par-
ticular interaction, including the linguistic context, situational context,
and social context, this volume encapsulates a more nuanced view of
context that has emerged in contemporary pragmatics, sociolinguistics,
anthropology, and language pedagogy research and, notably, in Koike’s
work. In this view of context, the variables that emerge in a given con-
text, the produced meanings, and the context itself are understood to
be co-constructed among individuals who each bring their own personal
histories and expectations to specific moments in interaction. In this way,
context and talk are in a “mutually reflexive relationship with each other,”
with both shaping each other throughout the interaction (Goodwin &
Duranti, 1992, p. 31). Co-construction is understood as the processes
through which speakers cooperatively and collaboratively create meaning
and joint understandings of their shared social context through inter-
action. The concept has its roots in disciplines such as dialogue studies
(e.g., Bakhtin, 1981), language socialization (e.g., Schieffelin & Ochs,
1986), conversation analysis (e.g., Sacks, et al., 1974; Schegloff, et al.,
1977), ethnography of speaking and participation frameworks (e.g., Bell,
1984; Hymes, 1972), and L2 assessment (e.g., He & Young, 1998). Co-
construction results in negotiated and jointly produced meanings and
intersubjectivity. Beyond those, it also results in negotiated performances
of identity, face, and discourse actions (e.g., Jacoby & Ochs, 1995). Co-
construction can be analyzed at all levels of pragmatics, from the negoti-
ation of the meaning of individual speech acts (Koike, 2008) to the joint
creation of an understanding of what type of interaction is occurring in a
given conversation (Koike, 2015), to give just two examples.
3
Introduction 3
The current discussion of co-constructed discourse relies on these prior
understandings to explore the interplay between the ways in which co-
constructed meanings, identities, and understandings of social actions
simultaneously shape and are shaped by the context of the interaction
(Bucholtz & Hall, 2004; Koike, 2012; Ortner, 1989; Young, 2009; Young
& Astarita, 2013). Co-constructed meanings necessarily point toward
the perspective that reality is constructed through discursive symbols
and meanings. As stated by Poster (2019), “because discourse has some
meaningful link to its context, it serves to illuminate that context and
even to provide an understanding of the mechanisms […] of that context”
(p. 7). In Poster’s (2019) quote and in numerous theories of language,
context is taken to be inherently present for every interaction because
of previously existing cultural practices, frames, and expectations, and
at the same time, context is further understood and shaped through
language and interaction (e.g., Fetzer, 2017; Gumperz, 1992, Heritage,
2013; Verschueren, 2008).
Relying on a range of perspectives on context, we argue that contextual
variables, such as those identified by Hymes (1974) in his SPEAKING
model, those that have been widely studied within pragmatic approaches
to politeness (i.e., power, distance, imposition) (Brown & Levinson, 1987),
cultural contexts (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), and cultural and individual
frames, and expectations (Filmore, 1975; Gumperz, 1982; Koike, 2010,
2012, 2015; Koike & Blyth, 2016) are only a part of what shapes context
in interaction. Although these contextual variables taken in isolation can
be useful starting points to understand pragmatic meanings, interactions,
and contexts, this volume advances an understanding of context that is
co-constructed by interlocutors as a local, situated phenomenon— an
approach that relies on prior research on co-construction, context, and
interaction (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004; Jacoby & Ochs, 1995; Koike, 2012;
Ortner, 1989; Young, 2009). This approach allows for the inclusion of
a priori contextual variables (e.g., cultural, cognitive, or interactional
frames; identities; situations) when they are at play in the interaction,
gleaned through the interaction in analyses of co-constructed discourse,
or when they emerge through triangulation of data and provide a new
perspective for the analysis. Discourse, with all of its intertwining elem-
ents, can illuminate not only the context itself but also the objects and
actions within that context.
Three Themes of the Volume

The volume is organized around three key themes related to co-
construction and context, as reflected in the titles of the sections—
Co-Constructed Discourse, Pragmatics in Discourse, and Teaching and
Assessment of Discourse—and builds on interdisciplinary perspectives
across strands of linguistics and language pedagogy to consider the
4

functions of language and forms of meaning-making through the lens
of co-construction. Chapters explore a priori contextual elements that
affect co- construction processes and the distinct dynamics between
action and language in interactions that create clearer understandings
of identities, social roles and actions, pragmatic meanings, frames, and
context itself.
The first section, Co-Constructed Discourse, introduces elements
of context and social identities that emerge through analyses of co-
construction in interaction. This section provides a closeup view of
moment- by-
moment conversations as context; context is construed
through the language and communicative resources of unfolding
conversations and the variables that emerge within them. Chapters 2–
4 demonstrate how knowledge is construed and applied in interaction,
relying on conversation analysis. Through discourse, interactants claim
and cede, highlight and ignore, and accept and reject knowledge, all
in ways that contribute to the indexing of identities and social roles.
Chapter 2, by Raymond and Cashman, addresses the complementary
roles of two sports commentators interacting about a soccer match and
highlights two ways in which interactants claim authority and independ-
ence over knowledge: use of membership categories and turn-by-turn
responsive utterances that cede or attain authority over knowledge (e.g.,
sí ‘yes,’ oh ‘oh’). The authors’ analysis of sports commentating discourse
validates the inclusion of a priori identity categories (e.g., type of sports
commentator, coach, World Cup participant) in the understanding of
context: They show how direct reference to identity categories affects the
meanings communicated through related affordances and how identities
are negotiated in co-constructed discourse. In Chapter 3, Yasui returns
to the analysis of responsive utterances seen in Chapter 2. She focuses
on the turn-entry device in Japanese A/ aa ‘oh’ + demo ‘but’ as it relates
to positions of affiliation and disaffiliation in interaction. Through her
analyses, Yasui shows that this device is used in conversation following
the presentation of an opinion in the prior turn to create a shift in stance
from disaffiliation to affiliation with the prior speaker. Like the other
two chapters in this section, Chapter 4 approaches the topic of know-
ledge, but remains focused on the co-constructive nature of the affiliative
stance towards expressed knowledge by the interlocutors. By using this
turn-entry device, interlocutors present their discourse roles as affiliative.
In Chapter 4, the final one in the first section, Colcher examines sociolin-
guistic interviews between a researcher, who is an L2 speaker of Spanish,
and both native and heritage speakers of Spanish. The interview topics
include language use and codeswitching, and the analysis exposes how
Spanish-language expertise is an identity that can be co-constructed via
ideological stances towards language varieties (i.e., prescriptivist ideolo-
gies) and a corrective orientation to the L2 learner’s linguistic errors.
Colcher’s chapter highlights the finding that a priori notions of language
expert or non-expert, which are at times associated with classifications
5
Introduction 5
of native, heritage, or L2 speaker, are relevant to the contextual analysis
only when speakers index or ascribe those identities within the conver-
sation. Collectively, the chapters in the first section of this volume high-
light ways of claiming, asserting, or negotiating knowledge as a way of
indexing identities and social roles through co-constructed discourse.
In the second section, Pragmatics of Discourse, the themes of co-
construction and context remain, but with particular attention to core
areas of pragmatics research. Chapters 5–7 address the pragmatic topics
of speech acts, humor, and causality. The data analyses demonstrate co-
construction via multimodal resources, as well as a discussion of frames,
both of which contribute to understandings of context. In Chapter 5,
Czerwionka, Dickerson, and Aragon-Bautista, analyze contexts of grati-
tude (i.e., compliment, gift) in Peninsular Spanish interactions. Through
a multimodal analysis in which they examine language, affective expres-
sive sounds, and gesture, they find differences between the co-constructed
discourse of compliment and gift sequences. The findings lead them to
propose that compliment and gift interactions are not united under the
category of contexts that provoke the expressive speech act of gratitude
in Peninsular Spanish, but rather that they represent different types of
speech acts and, thus, different types of contexts and social actions. Also
exploring multimodal resources, Gironzetti examines the co-construction
of humorous discourse in Chapter 6. In her analyses of conversational
humor, she focuses on how smiling and gaze by both the speaker and
receiver of jablines and ironic comments function as the interactants
jointly construct humorous and nonhumorous frames. The section
focused on pragmatics concludes with Chapter 7, in which Blackwell
explores the cognitive or knowledge frames that are communicated by
narrators through their use of causatives (e.g., porque ‘because’). These
frames expose narrators’ prior knowledge, experiences, and expectations,
forming part of a subjective notion of context (e.g., van Dijk, 2008).
These three chapters collectively remind readers that the meanings of
communicative resources, such as the phrase ‘thank you,’ a smile, or
causatives like porque ‘because,’ are dependent on the linguistic, social,
and cultural contexts in which they occur, and thus the individual his-
tories of the interlocutors, and that communication, social actions (e.g.,
gift-giving, humor, narration), and context in general are co-constructed
in discourse.
The third section, Teaching and Assessment of Discourse, addresses
discourse related to institutional contexts of L2 teaching and learning
within classrooms and higher education. The chapters in this
section explore co-constructed assessment of the learning experience
(Chapter 8) and co-constructed discourse as integral to the second lan-
guage learning process (Chapters 9 and 10). Chapter 8, by Antón and
Pendexter, examines language learners’ reflective essays about their lan-
guage learning experiences, as part of the learners’ language portfolios.
Language portfolios and reflective essays promote learner agency in the
6

language learning experience and assessment of their experiences which
are locally and socioculturally situated. Through thematic and discourse
analyses, the authors find that emotional responses, life experiences,
courses and programs, and teachers are highlighted by learners as
salient variables within the language learning context, thus defining
the context through their discourse. Investigating the co-construction
of intersubjectivity among second language learners of German, Kley
(Chapter 9) provides insight into the relationship between learners’
speaking ability (i.e., high vs. low) and their displays of understanding
that serve to co-construct intersubjectivity. This author also suggests
that learners’ frames related to task-type (e.g., interview vs. conversa-
tion) may impact their displays of intersubjectivity. In the final chapter,
Chapter 10, Pearson proposes the implementation of drama- based
pedagogy for language learning, which serves to engage second lan-
guage students in a range of imagined contexts in which they use the
second language and develop cognitive frames that may support second
language interactions. These three final chapters describe language
learning and the assessment of language learning as social processes
reliant on co-constructed discourse.
As can be noted, because of the nature of context and co-construction,
the topics that are highlighted in the three sections are not limited to
those sections. The topic of frames appears in the contributions by Yasui
(Chapter 3), Gironzetti (Chapter 6), Blackwell (Chapter 7), and Kley
(Chapter 9). Identity emerges as a theme in the studies by Raymond and
Cashman (Chapter 2), Colcher (Chapter 4), and Antón and Pendexter
(Chapter 8). Pragmatic meanings of specific linguistic forms are analyzed
by Yasui (Chapter 3) and Blackwell (Chapter 7), and the pragmatic
meanings of multimodal communicative resources are addressed by
Czerwionka et al. (Chapter 5) and Gironzetti (Chapter 6).
Following the nine invited chapters, we reflect on how Koike’s ideas
related to co-construction and frames will be indispensable to address
questions that explore interaction in current and future contexts. The
Afterword is a commentary on interaction in the current moment in
time, in which the COVID–19 pandemic has greatly expanded the use of
technology for interaction for new populations, purposes, and contexts.
Through considering examples of the challenges and opportunities to
co-construction that are afforded by technologies and diverse virtual
platforms, we propose the application of a posthumanist theoretical
frame to discuss the new post-digital era of interaction. Drawing this
Festschrift to an end, the epilogue, written by Dr. J. César Félix-Brasdefer,
offers a personal tribute to Dr. Dale April Koike as a mentor, collaborator,
and friend, and it situates Koike as a leader in interlanguage pragmatics,
discourse analysis, pragmatics in interaction, and pragmatic variation in
Spanish and Portuguese.
7
Introduction 7
The volume as whole presents identities, pragmatic meanings, social
actors and actions, and context itself as being co-constructed with others
via a multitude of communicative resources (e.g., language, gesture, gaze,
use of time and space in interaction) that maintain language and inter-
action as central to the construction and interpretation of the shared
world and, thus, the human experience. Building on prior scholarly
conversations presented by Dale April Koike (e.g., Blyth & Koike, 2014;
Koike, 2003, 2010, 2012, 2015; Koike & Blyth, 2016), the discussions
in this volume raise key theoretical and applied questions related to the
understanding of context and co-construction in interaction and they
contribute to the future direction of research on pragmatics and inter-
action applied to a wide range of contexts.
Appendix 1.A
Scholarly Contributions by Dale April Koike
Books
Koike, D. A. (1992). Language and social relationship in Brazilian Portuguese:
The pragmatics of politeness. University of Texas Press.
Edited Volumes and Special Editions

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Koike, D. A. (Eds.). (2012). Pragmatic variation in first
and second language contexts: Methodological issues. John Benjamins.
Gironzetti, E., & Koike, D. A. (Eds.) (2016). Bridging the gap in Spanish
instructional pragmatics: From theory to practice/Acortando distancias en la
enseñanza de la pragmática del español: de la teoría a la práctica. [Special
Issue] Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 3(2).
Koike, D. A., & Simões, A. R. (Eds.). (1989). Negotiating for meaning: Papers on
foreign language teaching and testing. Center for Foreign Language Education
Studies.
Koike, D. A., & Macedo, D. P. (Eds.). (1992). Romance linguistics: The Portuguese
context. Bergin and Garvey.
Koike, D. A., & Carpenter, M. (Eds.). (1998). Perspectives on second language
acquisition from Spanish. [Special Edition] Texas Papers in Foreign Language
Education, 3(3). Center for Foreign Language Education Studies.
Koike, D. A. (Ed.). (2003). La co-construcción del significado en el español de las
Américas: acercamientos discursivos. University of Ottawa/Legas Press.
Koike, D. A., & Rodríguez-Alfano, L. (Eds.). (2010). Dialogue in Spanish: Studies
in functions and contexts. John Benjamins.
Koike, D., & Blyth, C. S. (Eds.). (2015). Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal
communities. John Benjamins.
Koike, D. A., & Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (Eds.). (2021). The Routledge handbook of
Spanish pragmatics. Routledge.
8

Textbooks
Biron, C. M., & Koike, D. A. (1994). Puntos de vista: conversación. Heinle and
Heinle.
Jackson, E. K., & Koike, D. A. (1994). Vamos ao Brasil: Exploratory Portuguese
language and culture for middle school students. Institute of Latin American
Studies.
Koike, D. A., & Klee, C. A. (2012). Linguística aplicada: Adquisición del español
como segunda lengua. (1st ed. (2002). Wiley Global Education.
Koike, D., Lacorte, M., Mayberry, M., & Pearson, L. (in progress). Expectativas.
Chapters in Books or Proceedings

Koike, D. A. (1983). The inflected infinitive in colloquial Brazilian Portuguese
as a marker of social dialects. In J. Bergen & G. Bills (Eds.), Spanish and
Portuguese in social context (pp. 92–104). Georgetown University Press.
Koike, D. A. (1988). Brazilian Portuguese requests and the role of deixis in polite-
ness. In K. Ferrara, B. Brown, K. Walters, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Linguistic change
and contact (pp. 166– 177). University of Texas Linguistics Department.
Working version in ERIC Microfiche ED 267 608.
Koike, D. (1988). Markedness and its application to pragmatics: Brazilian
Portuguese directives. In J. Staczek (Ed.), On Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan
linguistics (pp. 211–225). Georgetown University Press.
Koike, D. (1988). Portuguese language of Brazil. In I. Stern (Ed.), Dictionary
of Brazilian literature (pp. 254–256). Greenwood Press. (Portuguese ed. by
Editora Atica).
Koike, D. A. (1992). Brazilian Portuguese directives and a hierarchy of strategies
for politeness. In D. A. Koike & D. R. Macedo (Eds.), Romance linguistics:
The Portuguese context (pp. 121–140). Bergin and Garvey.
Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in
Spanish foreign language learning. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts
across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 257–
281). Mouton de Gruyter.
Koike, D. A. (1998). What happens when there’s no one to talk to? Spanish for-
eign language discourse in simulated oral proficiency interviews. In R. Young
& A. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment
of oral proficiency (pp. 69–98). John Benjamins.
Vann, R. E., Busquets, J., & Koike, D. (2002). Spanish no, sí: A particle of polite-
ness. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse. Trends in Spanish
semantics and pragmatics (pp. 337–349). Elsevier Science.
Koike, D. A. (2003). La co-construcción del significado en español: elementos
pragmáticos de la interacción dialógica. In D. A. Koike (Ed.), La co-
construcción del significado en el español de las Américas: acercamientos
discursivos (pp. 11–23). University of Ottawa/Legas Press.
Koike, D. A. (2003). Prefacio. In D. A. Koike (Ed.), La co-construcción del
significado en el español de las Américas: acercamientos discursivos (pp. 7–
11). University of Ottawa/Legas Press.
Koike, D. A., & Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (2003). A Reply to Kramsch’s The priv-
ilege of the non-native speaker. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign
9
Introduction 9
language classrooms: Contributions of the native, near-native, and non-native
speaker (pp. 263–266). Cengage.
Koike, D., Pearson, L., & Witten, C. (2003). Pragmatics and discourse analysis
in Spanish second language acquisition research. In B. Lafford & R. Salaberry
(Eds.), Spanish second language acquisition: The state of the science (pp. 160–
185). Georgetown University Press.
Koike, D. A., & Flanzer, V. (2004). Pragmatic transfer from Spanish to Portuguese
as an L3: Requests and apologies. In A. Simões, L. Wiedemann, & A. Carvalho
(Eds.), Portuguese for Spanish speakers: Acquisition and teaching/Português
para falantes de espanhol: Acquisição e ensino (pp. 95–114). Editora Pontes.
Koike, D. (2005). La alineación en el marco de un modelo dinámico de la cortesía
verbal. In J. Murillo Medrano (Ed.), Actas del 2º coloquio internacional
del programa EDICE (Estudios de la Cortesía en Español) (pp. 319–342).
Programa EDICE–Universidad de Costa Rica.
Koike, D. (2008). A grammar of L2 pragmatics: Issues in learning and teaching.
In In S. L. Katz & J. Watzinger-Tharp (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 grammar:
Theoretical approaches and their application in the L2 Classroom (pp. 35–
52). Cengage.
Koike, D., & Gualda, R. (2008). The effect of explicit or implicit teaching of
grammatical form in Portuguese as a third language: Noticing and transfer. In
L. Wiedemann & M. Scaramucci (Eds.), Português para falantes de espanhol.
Aquisição e ensino. Artigos selectionados escritos em português e inglês /
Portuguese for Spanish speakers: Acquisition and teaching. Selected articles
written in Portuguese and English (pp. 47–68). Editora Pontes.
Koike, D. (2010). Behind L2 pragmatics: The role of expectations. In D. Koike
& L. Rodríguez-Alfano (Eds.), Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in functions and
contexts (pp. 257–282). John Benjamins.
Koike, D., & Rodríguez- Alfano, L. (2010). Conclusions and implications of
studies that approach dialogue in its complexity. In D. Koike & L. Rodríguez-
Alfano (Eds.), Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in functions and contexts (pp.
283–290). John Benjamins.
Koike, D., & Rodríguez- Alfano, L. (2010). Introduction. In D. Koike & L.
Rodríguez-Alfano (Eds.), Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in functions and
contexts (pp. vii–xiii). John Benjamins.
Rodríguez Alfano, L., & Koike, D. (2010). Marcadores de identidad en
conversaciones espontáneas en el español de la frontera. In I. Fonte Zarabozo
& L. Rodríguez Alfano (Eds.), Perspectivas dialógicas en estudios del lenguaje
(pp. 95– 124). Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Autónoma de
Nuevo León.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Koike, D. (2012). Introduction: Pragmatic variation in
first and second language contexts. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D. Koike (Eds.).
Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological
issues (pp. 1–16). John Benjamins.
Koike, D. A. (2012). Variation in NS-learner interactions: Frames and expectations
in pragmatic co-construction. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D. A. Koike (Eds.),
Koike, D. A., & Félix- Brasdefer, J. C. (2012). Conclusions: Methodological
issues in pragmatic variation. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D. A. Koike (Eds.),
01

Koike, D., & James, M. (2012). Análisis de la conversación. In M. Niño-Murcia
& S. de los Heros (Eds.), Fundamentos y modelos del estudio pragmático y
sociopragmático del español (pp. 117–139). Georgetown University Press.
Blyth, C., & Koike, D. (2014). Interactional frames and construction grammar.
In S. Katz & L. Myers (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on structure and context
(pp. 87–108). John Benjamins.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Koike, D. (2014). Perspectives on Spanish second lan-
guage acquisition from pragmatics and discourse. In M. Lacorte (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of Hispanic applied linguistics (pp. 25–48). Taylor &
Francis.
Koike, D. (2015). Changing frames in native speaker and learner talk: Moving
toward a shared dialogue. In D. Koike & C. S. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in multi-
lingual and multimodal communities (pp. 253–285). John Benjamins.
Koike, D., & Blyth, C. S. (2015). Introduction: Dialogue in multilingual and
multimodal communities of practice. In D. Koike & C. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue
in multilingual and multimodal communities (pp. 1–22). John Benjamins.
Koike, D., & Czerwionka, L. (2015). El diálogo. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.),
Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica (pp. 405–418). Routledge.
Koike, D. (2017). Os frames culturais na fala: expectativas para a (des)cortesia. In
A. L. Tinoco Cabral, I. Roboredo Seara, & M. F. Guaranha (Eds.), Descortesia
e cortesia: Expressão de culturas (pp. 57–92). Editora Cortez.
Koike, D. A. (2017). Theory and practice. In E. Weigand (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of language and dialogue (pp. 251–263). Routledge.
Koike, D. A., & Witte, J. (2017). Spanish corpus proficiency level website and
corpus: An open source, online resource for corpus linguistics studies. In M.
Alonso-Ramos (Ed.), Spanish learner corpus research. Current trends and
future perspectives (pp. 169–197). John Benjamins.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2018). Pragmatics. In J. Muñoz-Basols, E. Gironzetti,
& M. Lacorte (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish language teaching:
Metodologías, contextos y recursos para la enseñanza del español L2 (pp.
348–361). Routledge.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2020). La adquisición de la competencia pragmática
L2. In M. Victoria Escandell-Vidal, J. A. Pons, & A. Ahern (Eds.), Pragmática
(pp. 729–741). Akal.
Koike, D. A. (2021). Research methods for pragmatics study. In D. A. Koike &
J. C. Félix-Brasdefer (Eds.), The Routledge handbook for Spanish pragmatics
(pp. 567–582). Routledge.
Koike, D. A., & Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2021). Introduction to The Routledge
handbook of Spanish pragmatics. Routledge. In D. Koike & C. Félix-
Brasdefer (Eds.), The Routledge handbook for Spanish pragmatics (pp. 1–12).
Routledge.
Koike. D. (2021). Pragmática e interculturalidad en la adquisición del español
como L2. In M. Saracho Arnaíz & H. Otero Doval (Eds.), Internacionalización
y enseñanza del español LE/L2: pluringüismo y comunicación intercultural
(pp. 32–52). ASELE. La Asociación para la Enseñanza del Español como
Lengua Extranjera (AESLE).
1
Introduction 11
Articles in Refereed Journals
Koike, D. A. (1985). Register, social variables, and variation of the infinitive in
Brazilian Portuguese. Hispania, 68(1), 134–142.
Koike, D. A. (1986). Differences and similarities in men’s and women’s directives
in Carioca Brazilian Portuguese. Hispania, 69(2), 387–394.
Doman, M. G., Koike, D. A., & Mendenhall, M. (1985). Coping with forty
students in a Spanish language classroom. The Southeast Conference on
Linguistics (SECOL) Review, 9(1), 24–43.
Koike, D. A. (1987). Code switching in the bilingual Chicano narrative. Hispania,
70(1), 148–154.
Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts
in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 279–289.
Koike, D. A. (1989). Requests and the role of deixis in politeness. Journal of
Pragmatics, 13(2), 187–202. (Slightly revised version of Koike (1988) Brazilian
Portuguese requests and the role of deixis in politeness.)
Koike, D. A. (1991). Tense and cohesion in Brazilian Portuguese oral narratives.
Hispania, 74(3), 647–653.
Koike, D., & Mace-Matluck, B. (1991). Story recall in the language assessment
of bilingual and monolingual children. Journal for the New York State
Association for Bilingual Education (SABE), 7(1), 40–54.
Koike, D. A. (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests:
Mitigating effects? Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 513–526.
Koike, D. A. (1996). Functions of the adverbial ya in Spanish narrative discourse.
Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 267–279.
Koike, D. A., & Biron, C. M. (1996). Genre as a basis for the advanced Spanish
conversation course. Hispania, 79(2), 290–296.
Koike, D. (1998). La sugerencia en español: una perspectiva comparativa.
Diálogos Hispánicos, 22, 211–235.
Koike, D. A., & Hinojosa, F. (1998). A discourse approach to the assessment
of foreign language oral proficiency. Texas Papers in Foreign Language
Education, 3(3), 33–50.
Koike, D. A., & Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (1999). What is a near-native speaker?
Perspectives of job seekers and search committees in Spanish. Association of
Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin, 30(3), 54–62.
Busquets, J., Koike, D. A., & Vann, R. E. (2001). Spanish no, sí: Reactive moves to
perceived face-threatening acts, Part I. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(5), 701–723.
Koike, D. A., Vann, R. E., & Busquets, J. (2001). Spanish no, sí: Reactive moves
to perceived face- threatening acts, Part II. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6),
879–899.
Rodríguez Alfano, L., & Koike, D. A. (2004). La interacción en diálogos
transmitidos por la radio en la frontera. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios
del Discurso, 4(1), 47–72.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the
development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501.
Koike, D. A., & Graham, C. P. (2006). Who is more Hispanic?: The co-
construction of identities in a US Hispanic political debate. Spanish in Context,
3(2), 181–213.
21

Koike, D. A., & Palmiere, D. T. L. (2011). First and second language pragmatics
in third language oral and written modalities. Foreign Language Annals,
44(1), 80–104.
Koike, D., & Lacorte, M. (2014). Toward intercultural competence: From
questions to perspectives and practices of the target culture. Journal of Spanish
Language Teaching, 1(1), 15–30.
Gironzetti, E., & Koike, D. A. (2016). Bridging the gap in Spanish instructional
pragmatics: From theory to practice/Acortando distancias en la enseñanza
de la pragmática del español: De la teoría a la práctica. Journal of Spanish
Language Teaching, 3(2): 89–98.
Koike, D., & Blyth, C. (2016). A metadialogic approach to intercultural dialogue:
Uncovering hidden motivations for language use. Language and Dialogue,
6(2), 223–253.
Koike, D., & Bentes, A. C. (2018). Tweetstorms e processos de (des)legitimação
social na administração Trump. Cadernos CEDES, Campinas, 38, 139–158.
Koike, D., & Michno, J. (2020). ¿Qué querí? Shifting frames in Nicaraguan
corner shop talk. International Journal of the Linguistics Association of the
Southwest, 34(1–2), 67–81.
Koike, D., Garre León, V., & Pérez-Cejudo, G. (forthcoming). Twitter and the
Real Academia Española: Perspectives on impoliteness. Journal of Politeness
Research: Language, Behavior, Culture.
Internet-Based Projects
Koike, D. Pragmatics module for teacher training.
This site was developed as part of a general set of teacher training modules for
higher education, from a grant by the Texas Higher Education Board. http://
coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/pragmatics/
Koike, D. Spanish learner corpus and proficiency training (SPT).
This site contains videotaped recordings of learners of different levels who answer
the same questions, to be viewed by future Spanish teachers as a training tool to
recognize abilities of different levels, and also to be used by researchers for data
on learner language. http://dev.laits.utexas.edu/spt/
Koike, D. (with S. Herrick). Spanish oral proficiency examination (SOPE) tool.
This site allows learners to hear a test stimulus, record their answers onto a server,
and listen back to their recording after they have received a grade and feedback
from the instructor. www.utexas.edu/academic/cit/test/sopev3/ [Changed to
RAACS, now defunct site.]
Koike, D. (with J. Witte and H. Yoon). Actividades de práctica con aprendices
de español.
This site serves as a workbook site for the Spanish Applied Linguistics course, and
presents videos and accompanying activities that illustrate points in the course.
http://sites.la.utexas.edu/actividades-spt/
Koike, D., & Flanzer, V. Languacultural surveys for learning and teaching
languages.
31
Introduction 13
This site illustrates the construction and implementation of language and cultural
surveys across countries and cities to gather information useful to teachers and
students of foreign languages. [under construction]
Translations
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Adult literacy and popular libraries. (D. Koike,
Trans.) In P. Freire & D. Macedo, Literacy: Reading the word and the world
(pp. 37–46). Bergin and Garvey.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). The people speak their word: Literacy in action.
(D. Koike, Trans.) In P. Freire & D. Macedo, Literacy: Reading the word and
the world (pp. 63–93). Bergin and Garvey.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers–Letters to those who dare to teach.
(D. Macedo, D. Koike, & A. Oliveira, Trans.). Westview Press.
Book Reviews
Review of Uppendahl, K., A negação em português. The Modern Language
Journal, 64(3) (1980), 379–380.
Review of Irving, K., Communicating in context: Intercultural communication
skills for ESL students. The Modern Language Journal, 71(4) (1987), 450.
Review of Azevedo, M., A contrastive phonology of Portuguese and English.
Hispania, 66(1) (1983), 148–149.
Review of Fant, L., Estructura informativa en español. Romance Philology, 41(3)
(1988), 340–343.
Review of C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-
disciplinary perspectives on language study. The Modern Language Journal,
77(1) (1993), 95–96.
Review of T. Pérez-Leroux & W. R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives
on the acquisition of Spanish. Vols. 1 and 2. The Modern Language Journal,
83(3) (1999), 460.
Review of D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of
discourse analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4) (2003), 626–627.
Review of G. Parodi (Ed.), Academic and professional discourse genres in
Spanish. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 78(6) (2011), 891–892. Co-authored
with R. Showstack.
Review of K. Taylor-Leech & D. Starks, D. (Eds.), Doing research within com-
munities. Stories and lessons from language and education field research.
Language and Dialogue, 7(2) (2017), 283–290. Co-authored with A. Assini.
41
Appendix 1.B
Ph.D. Dissertations Supervised by Dale April Koike
2020 Salvatore Callesano. Perceptual dialectology, mediatization,

and idioms: Exploring communities in Miami
2019 Erika Burt. Development of interactional competence in
Spanish-language service learning
2019 Vivian Flanzer. The pragmatics of greetings and leave-takings in
Brazil and the United States: A cross-cultural study
2018 Jesse Abing. Language coaching for learners of Spanish
as a heritage language: Novice–expert interactions via
videoconference
2018 Hyunjee Yoon. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in
Spanish heritage and second language learner interaction
2017 Jeff Michno. Nicaragua y ¿vos, tú, o usted? Pronoun use and
identity construction in an area of recent linguistic and cultural
contact
2014 Arthur Wendorf. El mundo de comida: The relative effectiveness
of digital game feedback and classroom feedback in helping
students learn Spanish food vocabulary
2014 Cecilia Tocaimaza-Hatch. The effect of metatalk on L2 Spanish
vocabulary development
2013 Rachel Showstack. Ideology and identity in Spanish heritage
language classroom discursive practices
2013 Robert Sauveur. Emergence of comprehension of Spanish
second language requests
2013 Jocelly Meiners. Sympathy and compassion in Spanish and
English: Cross-cultural and interlanguage perspectives on
emotional expression
2012 Ricardo Gualda. The discourse of Hugo Chávez in ‘Aló
Presidente’: Establishing the Bolivarian revolution through
television performance
2012 Cory Lyle. The co-emergence of individual differences in second
language acquisition: A dynamical systems perspective on
metacognition
2011 Karyn Rayburn. Linguistic humor comprehension in Spanish as
a second language
2010 Patxi Laskurain. Information structure and mood distribution
in Spanish noun complements
51
Introduction 15
2010 Lori Czerwionka. Mitigation in Spanish discourse: Social

and cognitive motivations, linguistic analyses, and effects on
interaction and interlocutors
2008 Alfonso Abad-Mancheño. A study of the effect of study
abroad and the homestay on the development of linguistic and
interactional practices by Spanish L2 learners
2007 Abigail Dings. Developing interactional competence in a second
language: A case study of a Spanish-language learner
2006 María Mayberry. Listening comprehension in the foreign
language classroom: The cognitive receptive processes in the
development of Spanish phonological perception
2005 Jerome Mwinyelle. The acquisition of pragmatic competence in
an L2 classroom: Giving advice in Spanish
2004 Malia LeMond. Synchronous computer-mediated team-based
learning in the Spanish foreign language classroom
2004 Theodore Jobe. Challenge sequence tellings: A case study
analysis of storytelling in Spanish
2003 Catherine Buscemi. The effects of computer-assisted language
learning on the second language acquisition of Spanish verb
morphology
2003 Rebecca Bearden. Chatting in a foreign language: An
interactional study of Spanish oral versus computer-assisted
discussion in native speaker and non-native learner dyads
2002 Caryn Witten. The effects of input enhancement and interactive
video viewing on the development of pragmatic awareness and
use in the beginning Spanish L2 classroom
2002 Danny Jo Smith. Patterns of variation in Spanish/English
bilingualism in Northeast Georgia
2001 Lynn Pearson. Pragmatics in foreign language teaching: The
effects of instruction on L2 learners’ acquisition of Spanish
expressions of gratitude, apologies, and directives
2001 Peggy Patterson. A link between real-time synchronous
computer-assisted language learning and second language
acquisition
2000 Christina Isabelli. Motivation and extended interaction in the
study abroad context: Factors in Spanish-language acquisition
(published)
1999 Karol Hardin. Pragmatics in persuasive discourse of Spanish
television advertising (published)
1999 Joy Saunders. Null and overt references in Spanish second
language acquisition: A discourse perspective
61
1998 Jeffrey Reeder. An acoustic description of the acquisition of

Spanish phonetic detail by adult English speakers
1998 Amy Gregory. A discourse–pragmatic analysis of indicative and
subjunctive mood use in Costa Rican Spanish
1997 Karina Collentine (co-chaired with Thomas Garza). The effect
of authentic and simulated-authentic video materials on the
listening comprehension skills of foreign language students of
Spanish
1996 Junko Baba. A study of interlanguage pragmatics: Compliment
responses by learners of Japanese and English as a second
language (published)
1996 Robert Vann (co-chaired with Keith Walters). Pragmatic
and cultural aspects of an emergent language variety: The
construction of Catalan Spanish deictic expressions
1995 Ruth Westfall (co-chaired with Carlota Smith). Simple and
progressive forms of the Spanish past tense system: A semantic
and pragmatic study in viewpoint contrast
1994 Masanori Kimura (co-chaired with Elaine Horwitz). Analysis
of confusion in the use of the third-person singular pronouns in
oral English of adult Japanese ESL learners
1993 Joseph Collentine. Subjunctive development in intermediate
foreign language students of Spanish
1993 Judith Liskin-Gasparro (co-chaired with Elaine Horwitz).
Talking about the past: An analysis of the discourse of
intermediate high and advanced level speakers of Spanish
(Winner of the ACTFL/MLJ Birkmaier Award for Outstanding
Dissertation in Foreign Language Education, 1994)
1992 Frances Sweeney. Foreign language communicative competence
and writing development: A comparison of the speech and
writing acquisition of beginning foreign language learners
1990 Nina Furry. Explorations in extra-textual space: Reading
comprehension in a foreign language
1990 Dianne Hobbs. Gender differences in issuing directives in
Mexican Spanish
Note
1 See Appendix B for list of Ph.D. dissertations directed by Koike.
71
Introduction 17
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of
Texas Press.
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2),
145–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5_20
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Requests and apologies. Ablex.
Blyth, C., & Koike, D. (2014). Interactional frames and grammatical constructions.
In S. Katz & L. Myers (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on structure and context
(pp. 87–108). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.244.05bly
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511813085
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. A companion to lin-
guistic anthropology, 1, 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996522.
ch16
Busquets, J., Koike, D. A., & Vann, R. E. (2001). Spanish no, sí: Reactive moves
to perceived face-threatening acts, Part I. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(5), 701–
723. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)80033-3
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Koike, D. (2014). Perspectives on Spanish second lan-
guage acquisition from pragmatics and discourse. In M. Lacorte (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of Hispanic applied linguistics (pp. 25–48). Taylor &
Francis.
Fetzer, A. (2017). Context. In Y. Huang (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of
pragmatics. (pp. 259– 276). Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199697960.013.15
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings
of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1, 123–131.
https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A.
Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive
phenomenon (pp. 1–42). Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/cbo9780511611834
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Interviewing in intercultural situations. In P. Drew & J.
Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 302–330). Cambridge University Press.
He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse
approach. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse
approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins.
Heritage, J. (2013). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. John Wiley & Sons.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 53–73). Penguin.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jacoby, S., & Ochs E. (Eds.). (1995). Co- construction: An introduction.
Research on Language & Social Interaction, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327973rlsi2803_1
Koike, D. (1988). Markedness and its application to pragmatics: Brazilian
Portuguese directives. In J. Staczek (Ed.), On Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan
linguistics (pp. 211–225). Georgetown University Press.
81

Koike, D. A. (1989a). Requests and the role of deixis in politeness. Journal of
Pragmatics, 13(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(89)90010-5
Koike, D. A. (1989b). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech
acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 279–289. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06364.x
Koike, D. A. (1994). Negation in Spanish and English suggestions and requests:
Mitigating effects? Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 513–526. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0378-2166(94)90027-2
Koike, D. A. (1996a). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in
Spanish foreign language learning. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts
across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 257–
281). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219289.2.257
Koike, D. A. (1996b). Functions of the adverbial ya in Spanish narrative dis-
course. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0378-2166(94)00095-6
Koike, D. A. (1998). What happens when there’s no one to talk to? Spanish for-
eign language discourse in simulated oral proficiency interviews. In R. Young
& A. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment
of oral proficiency (pp. 69– 98). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/
sibil.14.06koi
construcción del significado en el español de las Américas: acercamientos
discursivos (pp. 11–23). University of Ottawa/Legas Press.
Koike, D. (2008). A grammar of L2 pragmatics: Issues in learning and teaching.
In S. L. Katz & J. Watzinger-Tharp (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 grammar:
Theoretical approaches and their application in the L2 Classroom (pp. 35–
52). Cengage.
Koike, D. (2010). Behind L2 pragmatics: The role of expectations. In D. A. Koike
contexts (pp. 257–282). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.7.14koi
Koike, D. A. (2012). Variation in NS– learner interactions: Frames and
expectations in pragmatic co- construction. In J. C. Félix- Brasdefer &
D. A. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts:
Methodological issues (pp. 175– 208). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/
10.1075/impact.31.07koi
Koike, D. (2015). Changing frames in native speaker and learner talk: Moving
toward a shared dialogue. In D. Koike & C. S. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in multi-
lingual and multimodal communities (pp. 253–285). John Benjamins. https://
doi.org/10.1075/ds.27.09koi
Koike, D., & Bentes, A. C. (2018). Tweetstorms e processos de (des)legitimação
social na administração Trump. Cadernos CEDES, Campinas, 38, 139–158.
https://doi.org/10.1590/cc0101-32622018183528
6(2), 223–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.2.02koi
Koike, D., Garre León, V., & Pérez-Cejudo, G. (forthcoming). Twitter and the
91
Introduction 19
Koike, D. A., & Graham, C. P. (2006). Who is more Hispanic?: The co-construction
of identities in a US Hispanic political debate. Spanish in Context, 3(2), 181–
213. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.3.2.02koi
Koike, D. A., & Hinojosa, F. (1998). A discourse approach to the assessment
of foreign language oral proficiency. Texas Papers in Foreign Language
Education, 3(3), 33–50.
Koike, D. A., & Palmiere, D. T. L. (2011). First and second language pragmatics
in third language oral and written modalities. Foreign Language Annals,
44(1), 80–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01115.x
development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008
Koike, D. A., Vann, R. E., & Busquets, J. (2001). Spanish no, sí: Reactive moves
to perceived face-threatening acts, Part II. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6), 879–
899. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)80033-3
Ortner, S. B. (1989). High religion: A cultural and political history of
Sherpa Buddhism. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/
9780691218076
Poster, M. (2019). Critical theory and poststructuralism: In search of a context.
Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501746185
del Discurso, 4(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.35956/v.4.n1.2004.p.47-72
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson G., (1974). The simplest systematics for
the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-
correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/
413107
Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review
of Anthropology, 15, 163–191. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
an.15.100186.001115
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach.
Verschueren, J. (2008). Context and structure in a theory of pragmatics. Studies
in Pragmatics, 10, 13–23.
Young, R. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Young, R. F., & Astarita, A. (2013). Practice theory in language learning.
Language Learning, 63 (Supplement 1), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9922.2012.00743.x
02
12
Part I
Co-Constructed Discourse
2
32
2
Institutional Roles as Interactional
Achievements
The Epistemics of Sports
Commentary
Chase Wesley Raymond and
Holly R. Cashman
Introduction
Research from a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives
has shown that as people engage in social interaction, they collabora-
tively construct their respective roles and identities through the practices
and actions they produce together in real time (e.g., Bucholtz & Hall,
2005; Goffman, 1959; Goodwin, 2018; Heritage, 1984; G. Raymond &
Heritage, 2006). This has been a recurrent theme in the work of Dale
Koike, to whom the present volume is dedicated. In contexts of natur-
ally occurring language use ranging from conversational interaction
(Busquets et al., 2001; Koike et al., 2001; Rodríguez Alfano & Koike,
2010) and narrative (Koike, 1987, 1996), to political debates (Koike &
Graham, 2006) and radio discourse (Rodríguez Alfano & Koike, 2004),
much of Koike’s research has focused on the linguistic resources that
interactants use to situate themselves vis-à-vis one another on a moment-
by-moment basis in talk. As this is a primary focus in our own work as
well (Cashman, 2005, 2008, 2015, 2018, 2019; Cashman & C. Raymond,
2014; C. Raymond, 2012, 2016a, 2016b, 2018, 2019, 2020), the current
chapter continues this line of investigation by exploring how participants
in a particular institutional setting use language to interactionally achieve
their respective institutional roles.
The data we analyze are taken from the coverage of Mexico’s three
matches in the 2011 FIFA Women’s World Cup soccer tournament (June–
July in Germany), as televised on Galavisión, a U.S.-based/broadcasted,
Spanish-language cable network. Drawing on the theory and methods of
conversation analysis (Clift, 2016; Koike & James, 2012; C. Raymond
& Olguin, forthcoming), we focus on the practices through which the
participants in the data—the ‘play-by-play commentator’ or ‘main com-
mentator,’ and the ‘analyst’ or ‘color commentator’—interactionally nego-
tiate their respective domains of expertise and experience and, thus, their
respective roles as distinct sorts of commentators. Importantly, although
we focus on the color commentator specifically in many of our examples,
42
24 C. W. Raymond and H. R. Cashman

we aim to show that the collaborative construction of one participant’s
relevant epistemic domain necessarily orients to and constructs that of
her interlocutor as well, as epistemic positioning is an inherently relative
interactional achievement (see Drew, 2018; Heritage, 2012).
We begin the analysis with cases in which comparatively more overt
categorization devices are used to explicitly ascribe or claim identities
and experiences, which is done in the service of accounting for rights
to knowledge. We then use research on the epistemics of responsive
utterances to illustrate some of the more subtle practices through which
territories of knowledge and experience (Heritage 2012) can be claimed,
contested, and defended in and through the details of talk. The analysis
therefore links epistemic domains (including the rights and responsibil-
ities associated with those domains) with institutional roles and iden-
tities, and it underscores that these all must be interactionally managed in
the immediacy of moment-by-moment conduct.
Data, Participants, and Institutional Roles

In this section, our description of institutional roles in broadcast sports
discourse is informed by research on “broadcast talk” (Scannell, 1991,
1996), specifically the notion that “institutionalized variants of ‘conversa-
tion’ ” with “identifiable generic structures” have developed in radio and
television broadcasting (Tolson, 1991, p. 179). As Tolson also notes, live
commentary is a particular genre that “clearly takes on different forms on
radio and television” and “occurs across sports programs, state occasions,
live political events and, sometimes, disasters” (p. 179). The broadcasting
of televised sports provides more than merely an objective description of
the play action; indeed, the role of sports commentary “has expanded
to include the responsibility of dramatizing the event, of creating sus-
pense, sustaining tension, and enabling the viewers to feel that they have
participated in an important and fiercely contested event” (Bryant et al.,
1977, pp. 150–151). In fact, Bryant et al. (1977) found that broadcast
commentary affected viewers’ perception of roughness and violence in
televised ice hockey matches, as well as viewers’ enjoyment of the game.
Although there is variation across different sports in terms of the
commentators themselves as well as the commentary they offer, the div-
ision of labor in our data can be roughly divided into (i) play-by-play and
(ii) analysis (Williams, 1977, p. 137), or “description of the play versus
dramatic or humorous enrichments” (Bryant et al., 1977, p. 141). We
thus see broadcasters fulfilling different institutional roles in interaction
(see Drew & Heritage, 1992) that align to some degree with these two
categories of sports commentary (Billings et al., 2018; Bowcher, 2003).
Two of these distinct roles, which entail constraints on and opportunities
for broadcasters’ contributions and turns-at-talk, are the play-by-play
commentator and the color commentator.
As Bowcher (2003, p. 449) explains, the play-by-play commentator is
the main commentator, whose “principal task is to relay the actions of the
52
The Epistemics of Sports Commentary 25

game as it takes place”; the role of the color commentator, by contrast, is
to make “analytical and evaluative comments on the game.” While play-
by-play commentators’ talk can be generally categorized as descriptive—
that is, it functions to “recount the action of the game or clarify facts of
play” (Bryant et al., 1977, p. 142)—this is not to say that it is objective,
for example, with regard to gender (Cashman & Raymond, 2014) or race
(Bruce, 2004), and it accomplishes any number of tasks, such as situ-
ating the play within the narrative of the soccer match (Barnfield, 2013).
Play-by-play commentators talk more than those in other roles, and their
descriptions of the unfolding match play do not necessarily set up the
expectation of a reply. In Bowcher’s (2003) data, which consisted of radio
commentary of rugby matches, nearly three-quarters of the talk consisted
of play-by-play, and this accounted for roughly half of all turns.1
In the data we examine, two individuals participate in the broadcast
commentary, and they correspond to the roles just described. Jorge Pérez-
Navarro (abbreviated JPN), a professional sportscaster, is the play-by-play
announcer, and Andrea Rodebaugh (abbreviated AR), former captain of the
Mexican women’s soccer team, is the color commentator. Pérez-Navarro
does double duty in the sense that he also hosts the broadcast, which involves
welcoming viewers, introducing commercial breaks, reading advertisements
for upcoming broadcasts, and updating viewers on the scores of previous
and simultaneous matches. These institutional roles are established prior
to the event and can constrain commentators’ contributions (Drew &
Heritage, 1992); however, as we show in this chapter, these roles are also
open to being contested and negotiated in and through the particulars of
talk, and thus must be viewed as interactional achievements (Heritage &
Clayman, 2010; C. Raymond, 2016a, 2016b; G. Raymond, 2000).
The data we draw upon includes three video- recorded Women’s
World Cup soccer matches featuring the Mexican national team against
England (game 1), Japan (game 2), and New Zealand (game 3). Each
match includes approximately 90 minutes of broadcast talk, transcribed
in accordance with the conventions outlined in Jefferson (2004).
Analysis
We begin our examination of the data with an exploration of one explicit
means used by JPN and AR in the data to index aspects of their own
and their interlocutor’s identities: Membership Categorization Devices
(MCDs). This is followed in the subsequent section with an analysis
of comparatively more ‘covert’ practices—unmarked interjections and
agentive response designs—through which the commentators likewise
accomplish epistemically based identity work.
Membership Categorization Devices (MCDs)

One of the more explicit means through which identities are indexed in
sports commentary is the use of overt Membership Categorization Devices
62

(MCDs, Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 2007). These begin from the very onset of
the interaction, as JPN introduces the broadcasts by expressing his excite-
ment de ver fútbol con mi amiga y compañera Andrea Rodebaugh quien
fue mundialista por México en mil novecientos noventa y nueve ‘to watch
soccer with my friend and colleague Andrea Rodebaugh who was a member
of Mexico’s World Cup team in 1999.’ The bolded items here make descrip-
tive reference to, and thereby categorize, the color commentator as a member
of various groups (i.e., friends, colleagues, World Cup alumnae)—hence the
term ‘Membership Categorization Device.’ Importantly, as we will show,
such categorizations are demonstrably used in the service of action.
Throughout the broadcast, the play- by-
play commentator (JPN)
solicits information and various assessments from the color commen-
tator (AR) in conjunction with what is happening in the match. In the
solicitation of these actions, and/or in the color commentator’s provi-
sion of them, the participants frequently invoke aspects of the color
commentator’s identity or past experience, thereby taking the stance that
that particular identity or experience is relevant to the action(s) in pro-
gress (see C. Raymond, 2016a). In our data, we find that these categoriza-
tion practices are routinely used to account for the color commentator’s
relevant authority over the epistemic domain in question.
Consider the first case (1), which comes out of the play- by-
play
commentator’s mention that one player, Cecilia Santiago, is apenas
‘barely’ 16 years old. In soliciting AR’s view on young persons’ participa-
tion at the World Cup level, JPN explicitly invokes AR’s prior experience
as an entrenadora ‘coach.’ Inclusion of an explicit category term in the
design of the question offers an account for why AR has the epistemic
authority to offer a relevant perspective on this particular issue.
(1) [Game_
2_
3-
4]
> Tú como entrenadora que fuiste_(1.5)
01 JPN: -
You as the coach that you were_(1.5)
02 llamarías a la selección mayor,
would you call to the national team,
03 a una chiquita de dieciséis años?
a little girl of sixteen years old?
((sequence interrupted for play-
by-
play
commentary; lines omitted))
04 AR: Sí. De hecho: Cecilia participó conmigo
en...
Yes. In fa:ct Cecilia participated with
me in...
By designing his question with a category term, JPN explicitly invites AR
to use her knowledge and experience as an entrenadora in responding to
the question, while at the same time inviting at-home viewers/listeners
72

to interpret her response as based in that experiential knowledge. This
question, along with its ultimate response, thereby work to carve out a
‘territory of knowledge’ over which AR is oriented to as having certain
epistemic rights, and thus the relevant institutional role that she embodies
in this context. Importantly, as epistemic positioning is inherently relative
(i.e., the participants vis-à-vis one another), this collaborative construc-
tion of AR’s role simultaneously and reflexively constitutes JPN’s institu-
tional role as well. Indeed, the design of JPN’s question—particularly the
diminutive chiquita ‘little girl’ (line 3)—conveys his stance on the issue
of young women’s participation in sports at the international level. AR
orients to and indexes a contrast with the stance displayed in this question
through her use of de hecho ‘in fact’ (cf. Clift, 2001), subsequently going
on to describe Cecilia Santiago’s successful participation (with AR, in
fact; line 4) in professional sports beginning at age 14 (data not shown).2
Thus, even in this brief question–answer sequence, the participants can be
seen to be negotiating their respective domains of knowledge and experi-
ence in assessing the appropriateness of young women’s participation at
the World Cup level, with AR’s identity and experience as an entrenadora
used to account for her rights to offer the perspective she offers.
Knowledge-and experience- based institutional roles can also be
indexed through overt categorization not of the commentator herself, but
of the specific epistemic domain that an action makes relevant. In example
(2), JPN again prefaces his question in a way that accomplishes member-
ship categorization, but does so indirectly: by naming AR as the rele-
vant recipient of a pregunta táctica ‘tactical question’ (line 1), JPN makes
relevant her tactical expertise and implicitly accounts for her epistemic
authority to assess la vocación ofensiva, <y el: valor> que ha mostrado
México para ir al frente? ‘the offensive calling, <and the: bravery> that
Mexico has shown in going to the front’ (lines 3–4).
(2) [Game_1_4]
01 JPN: -> PreGUnta TÁctica para Andrea Rodebaugh:.
TActical QUEstion for Andrea Rodebaugh:.
02 .hhh <Te sorprende> hasta el momento,=
.hhh <Does it surprise you> up to now,=
03 =.hh la vocación ofensiva, <y el: valor>
que ha
=.hh the offensive calling, <and the:
bravery>
04 mostrado México para ir al frente?
that Mexico has shown in going to the
front?
05 AR: .hhhhh No::, yo siento que...
.hhhhh No::, I feel that...
82

The preface to JPN’s question thus actively constructs AR as having the
epistemic rights to offer a tactical perspective on the situation at hand.
As described in the prior example, though, this positioning is inherently
relative: Although JPN’s question certainly adopts a stance regarding
the Mexican team’s movement on the field (see Heritage & Raymond,
2021), by ceding ultimate epistemic authority over tactical analysis to AR
through the very asking of the question (and through AR’s accepting of
this authority through her response; line 5), JPN simultaneously positions
himself as less entitled to definitively present tactical analyses. And indeed,
AR’s lengthy response—beginning with No::, yo siento que… ‘No::, I feel
that…’ (line 5)—in fact disconfirms the “surprised” (line 2) stance taken in
JPN’s question. In such sequences, then, we again see both commentators
working to situate their respective domains of expertise, which in turn
(re-)creates their respective roles in this institutional context and also
make those roles explicitly available to the overhearing audience.
It is not only the play-by-play commentator who deploys such mem-
bership categorization practices; we likewise see the color commentator
invoking aspects of her own identity and past experience in responding
to the play-by-play commentator’s initiating actions. These references
are used in the service of claiming relevant epistemic authority to offer
the responsive action in progress. In example (3), following a descrip-
tion of a play in which Dinora Garza was involved, JPN asks who AR
considers to be the best player on the Mexican team (lines 2–3). While
AR answers that Dinora Garza would be her pick for the best Mexican
player (line 4), JPN disattends to this answer and instead explains why
he asked about the Mexican team specifically, and not about the best
player on the field overall—namely because the best player overall would
obviously (obvio; line 5) be Japan’s Homare Sawa (lines 5–13). AR agrees
with this assessment (lines 14–17), but immediately returns to positively
assess Dinora Garza (line 18).
(3) [Game_2_29]
01 JPN: Esta es: Dinora Garza.
This is: Dinora Garza.
02 .hh Quién consideras tú que fue (.) la
.hh Who do you consider was (.) the
03 mejor jugadora de México?
best player from Mexico?
04 AR: .hh Yo:: pienso que sería Dinora Garza:.=
.hh I:: think that it would be Dinora
Garza:.=
05 JPN: =Te pregunto de México porque (.) es obvio
=I ask you from Mexico because (.) it is
obvious that
92
06 que la mejor sobre el terr>en<o de juego,

the best on the field of play,
07 .hhh fue H:omare (.) S:awa.
.hhh was H:omare (.) S:awa.
08 .hhh Tres goles, .hhh Además fue un=pilar
.hhh Three goals, .hhh Also was a pillar
09 en la contención de Japón,
of Japan’s defense,
10 (0.2)
11 JPN: .hh Labor que no fue muy exigida,=
.hh Work that was not very demanding.=
12 =porque México lo que propuso fue:: (0.5)
=because Mexico what they put forward
was:: (0.5)
13 dos veces en la segunda parte.
two times in the second part.
14 AR: °Sí.°
°Yes.°
15 (0.2)
16 AR: Sí: efectivamente Sawa en el-
del::: del
Yes: indeed Sawa in the-
of the::: of the
17 partido sería la va-la más importante,
match would be the va-the most important,
18 Y de México, .hh pues: (.) eh Dinora,
And from Mexico, .hh well: (.) uh Dinora,
19 (1.0)
20 AR: -> También es una jugadora que: participó
Also she is a player who: participated
21 en el sub-
veinte: conmigo,
in the under-
twenty: with me,
22 (1.0)
23 AR: -> Conozco muy bien su: su calidad=es una
I know very well her: her quality=she is
24 jugadora también muy técnica,
a player also ((who is)) very technical,
25 (.) muy explosiva.
(.) very explosive.
03

JPN did not engage with AR’s first positive assessment of Dinora Garza
in line 4, and similarly offers no uptake to her re-assessment of Dinora
as the best Mexican player in line 18, resulting in the emergence of a
silence (line 19). In this context of a repeated lack of engagement with
her assessment, AR expands her answer to account for—and thereby
defend—her epistemic authority in making it. By explicitly referencing
an aspect of her own identity and prior experience, she carves out an epi-
stemic domain over which she claims primacy, thereby underscoring her
rights to make this assessment of Dinora Garza. While JPN never ends
up offering agreement or any form of second assessment with regard
to this move by AR (as is common in our data, but see example (10)
below), this epistemic undergirding is nonetheless available to the at-
home viewer/listener who now has access to the experiential basis for
AR’s assessment.
Response design
In the previous section, we illustrated some more overt means of member-
ship categorization—specifically, explicit references to identity categories
and past experiences in the design of turns-at-talk. We argued that these
references are used to carve out the commentators’ respective territories
of knowledge, and in so doing, emergently (re-)create their respective
institutional roles on a moment-by-moment basis in broadcast discourse.
In this section, we move to consider some of the comparatively more
covert practices through which this sort of epistemically based identity
work is accomplished, focusing on the design of the color commentator’s
responses to the play-by-play commentator’s initiating actions. Before we
return to the data, let us situate this inquiry in some of the recent research
on responsive turns vis-à-vis their prior turns.
Recent cross- linguistic and cross- cultural research has revealed
important systematicities in the design of responsive utterances (see, e.g.,
Enfield et al., 2019; Heritage, 2002, 2012; Heritage & G. Raymond,
2005, 2012; C. Raymond, 2015, 2017, forthcoming; G. Raymond, 2003;
G. Raymond & Heritage, 2006; Stivers, 2005, 2011, 2019; Thompson
et al., 2015). Consider the case of assessments. As Heritage (2002)
observes, first assessments inherently “index or embody a first speaker’s
claim to what might be termed ‘epistemic authority’ about an issue rela-
tive to a second or to ‘know better’ about it or have some priority in
rights to evaluate it.” (p. 200). Thus, when first speakers wish to defeat
this inherent, position-derived authority, they use downgrades, qualifiers,
and other turn-design features to cede epistemic authority to their inter-
locutor. It is then in the responsive turn that second speakers either acqui-
esce to the epistemic positioning established by the design of the first
speaker’s turn and its position, or resist it.
Focusing on question– answer sequences, unmarked interjection
responses—like sí (‘yes’)—have been argued to accept completely the
13

terms put forth in the initiating action, “exert[ing] no agency with
respect to those terms, and thus acquiesc[ing] in them” (Heritage &
G. Raymond, 2012, p. 283; G. Raymond, 2003; on Spanish, specifically,
see C. Raymond, 2015, forthcoming; for a cross-linguistic/cross-cultural
perspective, see Enfield et al., 2019). Such a response design differs from
the range of practices used to resist the epistemic landscape established
in the first action in some way, often in the service of the second speaker
claiming authority, primacy, or independence over the knowledge in
question. Take oh-prefaced and repetitional responses as cases-in-point.
As a turn-initial particle, Heritage (2002) shows that the change-of-state
token oh is particularized in responses to assessments to “inexplicitly
yet insistently” index epistemic independence (see also Heritage, 1998).
Similarly, repetitional responses “assert the respondent’s epistemic and
social entitlement in regard to the matter being addressed and do so by
‘confirming’ rather than ‘affirming’ the proposition” raised in the first
action, thereby claiming more epistemic rights over the information than
the original action conceded (Heritage & G. Raymond, 2012, p. 283; see
also Heritage & G. Raymond, 2005; C. Raymond, 2015, forthcoming;
G. Raymond, 2003; G. Raymond & Heritage, 2006; Schegloff, 1996;
Stivers, 2005; Thompson et al., 2015).
In the following case (4), for instance, Gay is giving Jeremy a German
telephone number. After receiving several digits, Jeremy expresses his sur-
prise as to the length of the number in line 13, and assesses it. Observe
Gay’s oh-prefaced, repetitional response to this assessment in line 14.
(4) [Heritage, 2002, p. 199]

1 Gay: So the ↑number is (0.2) oh: one oh::.
2 Jer: Oh one oh:,
3 (1.0)
4 Jer: Yeup,
5 Gay: ↑Four ni:ne,
6 (0.5)
7 Jer: Ri:ght?
8 Gay: Sev’n three,u-
six o:ne?hh
9 (0.6)
10 Jer: Sev’n three: six o:ne?
11 (0.3)
12 Gay: Ei:ght ni:ne,
13 Jer: -> °Gosh° it goe:s (.) goes on’n on
14 Gay: => Oh it doe:s Germany doe:s.
About this exchange, Heritage (2002, p. 199) writes:
Here, Gay could have responded with a simple agreement [e.g., yes],
which…would have conveyed that her agreement was grounded in
23

the “here and now” common experience of an interminable tele-
phone number. Instead, her oh-prefaced response—Oh it doe:s—
treats his remark as reviving an earlier observation of the same type
that she had made independently of this occasion, and she thereby
conveys that, in contrast to Jeremy, she finds it unsurprising. By this
means she also manages to indicate that she is an “old hand” at
phoning abroad.
Gay’s turn design—the oh-preface followed by a repetition (oh it does, cf.

yes)—indexes that her knowledge of the extensiveness of German phone
numbers exists independently of Jeremy’s having just said so. The turn
thereby effectuates a confirmation of Jeremy’s assessment, not agreement
with it. And as the last line of Heritage’s analysis suggests, such claims,
challenges, and defenses of rights and obligations to knowledge are intim-
ately connected to the negotiation of interactants’ identities (Heritage &
G. Raymond, 2005; G. Raymond & Heritage, 2006).
As researchers have explored responsive utterances cross linguistic-
ally, we consistently find that, as Schegloff (1996, p. 194) concisely puts
it, “the apparently petty ‘who is agreeing with whom’…can and does
matter”— for the participants themselves (Clift & Raymond, 2018;
Drew, 2018). Although a comprehensive overview of this research
is beyond the scope of the present chapter (but see Thompson et al.,
2015), this backdrop nonetheless allows us to pose specific questions
about the design of responsive actions vis-à-vis initiating actions in the
context of sports commentary. In what follows, we explore the color
commentator’s use of distinct affirmative response designs, underscoring
how these designs— in their particular, local sequential contexts—
contribute to the active negotiation of the participants’ respective
epistemic positioning and, in turn, the achievement of institutionally
relevant roles and identities.3
Unmarked Interjections
Let us begin by considering the sorts of environments in which the color
commentator produces unmarked interjections. As described above,
unmarked interjections—like sí ‘yes’—accept the terms put forth in the
initiating action and thus acquiesce in the epistemic landscape established
by it. Such responses are most frequently used in sports commen-
tary discourse when the color commentator is responding to the main
commentator’s description of plays and referee decisions, often after
together watching an instant video replay of the play in question.
In the following brief example (5), for instance, JPN announces that
Alina Garciamendez’s hand touched the ball (a kind of contact that is not
permitted in soccer). In response, AR produces a simple agreement with
sí ‘yes.’
3
(5) [Game_2_12-13]
01 JPN: -> La triangulación=había también mano de
The triangulation=there was also a
hand from
02 Garciamendez::.
Garciamendez::.
03 AR: => Sí.
Yes.
Describing the state of play is wholly within the play- by-

play
commentator’s role in this institutional context, and he offers this obser-
vation as an unvarnished declarative statement, situated squarely in his
epistemic domain. The design of AR’s agreeing response supports this
stance by acquiescing to JPN’s claimed right to offer this sort of obser-
vation about the state of play, despite the fact that AR herself also bore
witness to this play and thus arguably has equivalent epistemic status
regarding what transpired.4
We also routinely find sí ‘yes’ responses when JPN produces first
assessments and other observations that are epistemically downgraded in
their turn design (Heritage & G. Raymond, 2005). Consider the following
instance that includes the verb parecer ‘to seem/appear,’ which serves to
mitigate the speaker’s rights to knowledge.
(6) [Game_2_6]
01 (4.0)
02 JPN: -> Y contrario a lo que se pudiera pensa:r:,
And contrary to what one might thi:nk:,
03 (2.0)
04 JPN: -> En estatura me parece que México tiene
In height it seems to me that Mexico has
05 -> un poquito de ventaja sobre las japonesas,
a little advantage over the Japanese,
06 (0.5)
07 AR: => Sí. Las japonesas no son: no son muy
al:tas,
Yes. The Japanese are: not are not very
ta:ll,
43
08 Eh:: son un poquito más bajitas, (0.7)

Uh:: they are a little shorter, (0.7)
09 que las mexicanas,
than the Mexicans,
10 Sí compensan, llegan a compensar
They do compensate, they come to
compensate
11 esa:: esa:: falta de estatura
For tha:: tha::t lack of height
12 .hh con su técnica, .hh con su
disciplina,...
.hh with their technique, .hh with their
discipline,...
In this case, rather than asserting definitively that Mexico has an

advantage in terms of height, JPN downgrades his rights to make this
assessment with the qualification me parece ‘it seems to me.’ Note also
the diminutivization—Mexico is not claimed to have una ventaja ‘an
advantage’ but rather un poquito de ventaja ‘a little.DIM of advantage’
(line 5)—which likewise works to mitigate or hedge the terms of the first
assessment. This first-position downgrading, we argue, orients to AR’s
primary epistemic authority—as the color commentator—to offer such
an observation comparing the teams’ respective advantages, which sim-
ultaneously constructs the play-by-play commentator’s respective role
as well. Indeed, this relative epistemic positioning may be part of what
mobilizes a response from AR (Stivers & Rossano, 2010). In response,
given that JPN has already ceded epistemic primacy on this issue to his
interlocutor through the downgraded design of his first assessment, AR
produces a simple sí ‘yes’ (line 7), before expanding her turn to ultimately
unpack how the Japanese players’ technique and discipline make up for
what they purportedly lack in height (lines 9–12). In short, then, in this
case we see JPN produce an action whose design defers to AR’s rights
to assess the teams’ comparative (dis)advantages, and we see AR accept
the terms of that epistemic positioning unproblematically through her
unmarked interjection response.
Marked Interjections and Repetitional Responses

As reviewed earlier, although unmarked interjections acquiesce to
the terms established by the design of a prior action, other sorts of
responses “inexplicitly yet insistently” (Heritage, 2002) push back on
those terms, resisting the first speaker’s implied rights to produce the
initiating action in the way it was designed. Here we will consider two
53

such response designs: (i) the marked interjection así es (roughly, ‘that’s
it /that’s right’) (cf. C. Raymond, 2015, forthcoming; Stivers, 2011,
2019); and (ii) repetitional responses, of the sort discussed earlier (see
extract (4)). Where do we see such agentive response designs being used
in our data?
Marked interjections and repetitional responses are deployed by the
color commentator in a particular sequential context in our data, namely
when the play-by-play commentator offers an unmitigated assessment
of teams/players with regard to their technique or abilities. By offering
such first assessments, the play-by-play commentator embodies a claim
to “have some priority in rights to evaluate” (Heritage, 2002, p. 200)
the teams and players on the field. Contrasting with the use of unmarked
sí ‘yes,’ the agentive response designs produced in response to such
assessments resist this implicit claim to epistemic authority by issuing
confirmation as opposed to agreement. In claiming primary or inde-
pendent rights over this particular territory of knowledge, we argue that
the color commentator emergently constructs her role in this institutional
context—that is, what a color commentator is vis-à-vis the play-by-play
commentator, and what epistemic rights and responsibilities those dis-
tinct roles engender—in and through the agentive design of her responses.
Consider the following case (7). Here, JPN concludes his description
of a play involving Sandra Stephany Mayor Gutiérrez in line 3, and then
resummarizes what happened in lines 4–5. At this point, he launches into
overarching assessments about the Japanese team (lines 6–9), going as
far as to claim that speed is their prin:cipal carta de presentación ‘mai:n
letter of introduction’ (lines 6–7), alongside their técnica ‘technique’ and
buen manejo de la pelota ‘good ball handling’ (line 8). He concludes his
commentary with a turn-final reference to his interlocutor, thereby mobil-
izing a response from her. In response to this assessment, we do not find
an agreeing sí (‘yes’), as we saw in the prior section; here we find así es
‘that’s right’ (line 10).
(7) [Game_2_5]
01 JPN: Y R:Ápido sale proponien:do con la mano=
And QU:Ickly she comes out sugge:sting
with her hand=
02 =y allá avanza México por contacto de
and there Mexico advances through
contact of
03 Sandra Stephany::_
Mayor Gutiérrez.
Sandra Stephany::_
Mayor Gutiérrez.
04 hh Atacan tres, y usted vio en un abrir y
.hh Three attack, and you saw in the blink
63
05 cerrar de ojo, regresaron a

defender?=seis
of an eye,they returned to defend?=six
06 -
> japonesa::s, LA velocidad .hh de las
nadeshiko
Japane::se, THE speed .hh of the
Nadeshiko >
07 -
> .hh es su prin:cipal carta de
presentación?=
.hh is their mai:n letter of
introduction?=
08 -
> =.hhh JUNto con la técnica y buen manejo
de
=.hh TOGether with the technique and
good ball
09 -
> pelota que tienen Andrea
handling that they have Andrea
10 -
> R:odebau:[gh.
R:odebau: gh
11 AR: => [Así e:s,=La técnica,=la
That’s ri:ght,=the technique,=the
12 => velocidad, .hh Y: (.) la tenacidad.
speed, .hh A:nd (.) the tenacity.
Through the non- downgraded (and indeed, possibly upgraded; prin-

cipal ‘main’; (line 7), declarative design of his assessment, JPN enacts an
authoritative stance over this particular territory of knowledge. With her
marked interjection response, AR does not agree with JPN’s assessment
(as with sí ‘yes’); rather, she confirms it. In so doing, she does not acqui-
esce to JPN’s claimed epistemic primacy; rather, she resists it by asserting
her own epistemic authority from responsive position. She then goes on to
not only repeat some of the characteristics mentioned in JPN’s assessment
(lines 11-12), but also expand upon them to offer an additional note-
worthy quality of the team that JPN did not mention: la tenacidad, their
‘tenacity’ (line 12).
In cases like (7), then, what we see is the play-by-play commentator
ostensibly intruding into the epistemic domain of the color commentator.
By moving beyond the description of plays (his institutionally defined
role) and into unmitigated assessing of player technique, abilities, strategy,
and so on, he begins to infringe on the institutionally defined territory of
knowledge and expertise of the color commentator. Importantly, this is
73

not a top-down categorization of roles and identities. On the contrary,
by designing her responses to (non-downgraded, declarative) assessments
of player technique in such a way so as to resist the epistemic landscape
they establish, AR herself agentively (re- )constitutes her institutional
role. In and through the design of her responsive utterance, as she asserts
her epistemic authority over this particular territory of knowledge, she
“talks into being” (Heritage, 1984, p. 290) what a color commentator
is and what relevant expertise she brings to the broadcast vis-à-vis the
play-by-play commentator. Moreover, given that this response was issued
to a turn by the play-by-play commentator, the resulting identity work
accomplished through the sequence of actions must be viewed as a co-
constructed interactional achievement.
A similar case is seen in (8). Following the conclusion of the descrip-
tion of a play (line 1), JPN offers a global analysis of el problema con el
que >se han< encontrado las mexicanas ‘the problem the Mexicans have
run into’ (lines 2–5). As seen above, AR claims primary rights to offer this
sort of tactical observation with así es ‘that’s right’—issuing confirmation
of JPN’s assessment, not agreement with it.
(8) [Game_2_20]
01 JPN: Ocampo nue(v)amente queriendo darse la
vuelta:,
Ocampo ne(w)ly wanting to turn around:,
02 -
> .hhh Pero el problema con el que >se han<
.hhh But the problem that the Mexicans
03 -
> encontrado las mexicanas, (.) .hh es que
ante
have run into, (.) .hh is that faced with
04 -
> esa falta de velocidad, cuando pretenden
darse
that lack of speed, when they want to
turn
05 -
> la vuelta? ya tienen a tres encima.
around? they already have three on top of
them.
06 AR: => Así e:s,
That’s ri:ght,
07 AR: => Y entre más la toquen,
And the more they touch it,
08 => má:s les empiezan a caer las jugadoras,
the mo:re the players start to fall on
them,
83

As in the prior case (7), here AR immediately expands her así es-turn
to offer an additional tactical observation beyond what JPN expressed
(lines 7–8).
Repetitional responses are another practice through which speakers
issue agentive confirmation as opposed to acquiescent affirmation
or agreement (Enfield et al., 2019; Heritage & G. Raymond, 2005;
C. Raymond, 2015, forthcoming; G. Raymond, 2003; G. Raymond &
Heritage, 2006; Schegloff, 1996; Stivers, 2005). This explains why we find
such turns in similar epistemic and action contexts as just described for así
es ‘that’s right’—namely, in response to the play-by-play commentator’s
unmitigated assessing of player technique and abilities, an epistemic
domain over which the color commentator claims primary authority.
Consider case (9). Here, after watching an instant replay of a par-
ticular moment in the match, JPN assesses a player’s technique with Muy
buena la técnica ‘Very good technique,’ mobilizing a response from AR
through the turn-final address term Andrea, as we saw in (7). AR then
responds, again not with sí ‘yes,’ but with a repetition: Muy buena: ‘very
goo:d’ (line 3).
(9) [Game_2_33]
01 (3.5)
02 JPN: -> Muy buena la técnica=Andrea,
Very good technique=Andrea,
03 AR: => Muy buena:, Se lleva a:: toda la
Very goo:d, The whole
04 línea defensiva;=en dos movimientos.
defensive line is carried;=in two motions.
05 (1.5)
As we saw in the prior two cases, this unmitigated first assessment by

the play-by-play commentator invokes a territory of knowledge over
which the color commentator claims primary authority. Although sí ‘yes’
would have signalled acquiescence to JPN’s implied rights to make this
assessment, thereby ceding the epistemic high ground to him, the repe-
titional response “assert[s]‌the independence and priority of [AR’s] pos-
ition” (Heritage & G. Raymond, 2005, p. 24) in relation to JPN’s, thereby
issuing confirmation as opposed to agreement (Schegloff, 1996). As seen
in the así es cases discussed earlier, AR expands her turn to offer additional
evidence for her assessment that goes beyond what JPN offered in his
first assessment. By claiming independent authority to assess the player’s
technique, we argue that AR simultaneously (re-)constitutes the institu-
tional role of the color commentator vis-à-vis that of the play-by-play
93

commentator— in and through the moment- by-moment talk. Again,
‘vis-à-vis’ is crucial here: This epistemic positioning is a co-constructed
and inherently relative and intersubjective achievement, and thus it has
implications for carving out not only AR’s relevant epistemic domain, but
also that of her interlocutor.
Our final example (10) offers an additional case of a repetitional
response, and one which clearly illustrates participant orientations to
both (i) the distinction between interjectional and repetitional responses
(because both are used), and (ii) the distinction between agreement and
confirmation. Here, after re-watching a play, AR delivers a technical ana-
lysis in lines 2–4. In response, JPN provides a bright side assessment, which
he frames as contrastive with the point of view AR just offered through
his use of turn-initial pero ‘but’ (line 6). AR responds to this presented-
as-contrastive assessment with a turn design that prioritizes confirmation
with the repetition Es algo ‘It is something’), over agreement with the inter-
jection sí ‘yes’ (on which, see Heritage & G. Raymond 2005, pp. 24–25).
(10) [Game_2_27]
01 (5.0)
02 AR: Sí. Se abrió el espacio.
Yes. Space was opened up.
03 Fue un buen tiro. Sin embargo eh:
quizás faltó
It was a good shot. However uh: maybe
it lacked
04 un poco de de: fuerza. Sí estaba: eh
sobre la:
a bit of of: force. Yes it was: uh
on the:
05 la portería.
the goal.
06 JPN: -> Pero por lo menos ya es algo.
But at least it is something.
07 AR: => Es algo. Sí.
It is something. Yes.
Through the confirmatory design of her response, AR conveys that she is

not informed by JPN’s positive assessment of the play; rather, she presents
herself as having already, independently, arrived at this assessment her-
self, and indeed even alluded to it in her own earlier talk (line 3) (Schegloff,
1996). AR’s defense of her epistemic domain accomplishes not only
04

sequential identity work (i.e., that she herself had already alluded to this
in her own prior talk), but also works to locally reassert her authority
over the offering of technical assessments, thereby contributing to the
moment-by-moment discursive negotiation and re-creation of the color
commentator’s interactional role vis- à-
vis that of the play- by-
play
commentator.
Discussion and Conclusion

In this study, we have explored some of the concrete practices through
which sports commentators navigate their respective domains of know-
ledge and expertise, and in so doing, collaboratively construct their
respective institutional roles and identities.
We began by considering the overt categorization of identities, roles,
and experiences as part of the design of turns-at-talk. By explicitly cat-
egorizing themselves or their co- commentator with such turn- design
features, these interactants make interactionally relevant and proced-
urally consequential (Schegloff, 1987) certain aspects of their identities
and experiences. This is done both to account for the speaker’s epistemic
rights to offer the action in question, as well as to inform or remind the
at-home audience of the grounds on which the speaker is claiming or
ascribing epistemic authority. In our discussion of these practices, we
emphasized that epistemic positioning is always relative, as participants
continuously situate their knowledge and rights to knowledge vis-à-vis
one another.
We then shifted to consider some comparatively more ‘covert’
practices through which territories of knowledge—and thereby (insti-
tutional) roles and identities—are negotiated. This entailed taking prior
research on epistemics and response design and applying it to this par-
ticular broadcast setting. Our analysis showed that while the color com-
mentator acquiesces to the play-by-play commentator’s expressed rights
to describe plays, for example, she exerts primary epistemic authority
over the analysis and assessment of players’ technique and abilities.
The participants themselves show us the relevance of these “divisions
of descriptive labor” (G. Raymond, 2000, p. 360) in and through the
design of their turns-at-talk. The color commentator uses the unmarked
interjection sí ‘yes’ to provide affirmation, agreement, or acceptance in
response to (i) descriptions of the state of play, and (ii) downgraded/
mitigated/question-designed assessments about player technique. This
response design acquiesces to the epistemic landscape established by
the first action. When the play- by-play commentator makes unmiti-
gated, declarative assessments of player technique, however, the color
commentator responds with marked interjections (así es, ‘that’s right’)
or repetitions. These agentive response designs issue confirmation as
opposed to agreement, and thereby index the color commentator’s
authoritative claim over the knowledge expressed. This again constitutes
14

a relative interactional positioning in that the second speaker takes an
epistemic stance vis-à-vis that taken by the first speaker.
Crucially, then, notwithstanding our emphasis here on response design,
we must not lose sight of the fact that these turn designs are respon-
sive to some prior turn. The argument is not, therefore, that así es and
repetitional responses are used whenever player technique and abilities
are assessed by the play-by-play commentator. On the contrary, when
the play-by-play commentator constructs his assessments with a stance
that cedes epistemic authority to the color commentator, we find simple
sí ‘yes’ responses (e.g., example (6)). It is when the play-by-play com-
mentator offers unmitigated, declarative assessments—thereby claiming
rights to assess and placing the color commentator in an epistemically
(and sequentially) downgraded position— that such agentive response
designs are produced, in an effort to resist this relative epistemic
positioning. By bringing what we know about the palette of options used
to design responsive utterances (vis-à-vis particular prior turns) to bear
on the examination of sports broadcast discourse, we illustrated that
epistemic positioning through response design constitutes one concrete
means through which participants in this context subtly negotiate their
respective, institutionally relevant roles and identities. Accordingly, the
chapter as a whole demonstrates that territories of knowledge, and the
institutional roles and identities they are linked to, must be conceptualized
as co-constructed interactional achievements, navigated and negotiated in
and through the sequential progression of talk and its constitutive details.
Notes
1 While this brief discussion of institutional roles and sports commentary has
included references to research on radio commentary as well as televised com-
mentary, it is important to note that, as Tolson (2006) points out, radio and
television commentary do differ in ways that there is not sufficient space to
delve into here; there may also be variation in institutional roles in broad-
cast commentary for different sports. We leave such comparative inquires—
particularly as regards Spanish- language broadcast talk— open for future
research.
2 For more on the Membership Categorization Devices used to reference players
(e.g., chiquita ‘little girl’; line 2), as opposed to commentators, see Cashman
and Raymond (2014).
3 Following the literature cited in this section (e.g., Enfield et al. 2019), we focus
here on distinct forms of affirmation/confirmation, as disconfirmation and
other disaffiliative responses deploy a distinct array of response-design options.
For an examination of some instances of disconfirmation/disagreement in this
context, see Cashman and Raymond (2014).
4 While here we focus on the color commentator’s use of unmarked interjections
and two marked response types (see next section), one might also ask about the
distinction between producing a response at all vs. not, and what doing so (or
not) accomplishes in this particular institutional context. We leave this matter
open for future inquiry (but see Stivers & Rossano, 2010).
24

References
Barnfield, A. (2013). Soccer, broadcasting, and narrative: On televising a live
soccer match. Communication and Sport, 1(4), 326–341. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2167479513479107
Billings, A. C., Butterworth, M. L., & Turman, P. D. (2018). Communication and
sport: Surveying the field (3rd ed.). Sage.
Bowcher, W. L. (2003). Speaker contributions in radio sports commentary. Text,
23(4), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.018
Bruce, T. (2004). Marking the boundaries of the ‘normal’ in televised sports: The
play-by-play of race. Media, Culture & Society, 26(6), 861–879. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0163443704047030
Bryant, J., Comisky, P., & Zillmann, D. (1977). Drama in sports commentary.
Journal of Communication, 27(3), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
2466.1977.tb02140.x
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural lin-
guistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461445605054407
Busquets, J., Koike, D., & Vann, R. (2001). Spanish ‘no, sí’: Reactive moves to
perceived face-threatening acts: Part I. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(5), 701–725.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80033-3
Cashman, H. R. (2005). Identities at play: Language preference and group mem-
bership in bilingual talk in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.004
Cashman, H. R. (2008). Accomplishing marginalization in bilingual interaction:
Relational work as a resource for the intersubjective construction of identity.
Multilingua, 27(1–2), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2008.007
Cashman, H. R. (2015). Intersecting communities, interwoven identities:
Questioning boundaries, testing bridges, and forging a queer latinidad in the
U.S. Southwest. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(3), 424–440.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2015.1015344
Cashman, H. R. (2018). Queer, Latinx, and bilingual: Narrative resources in the
negotiation of identities. Routledge.
Cashman, H. R. (2019). What Phoenix’s jotería is saying: Identity, normativity,
resistance. Language in Society, 48(4), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0047404519000411
Cashman, H. R., & Raymond, C. W. (2014). Doing gender in soccer (football)
and beyond: Making gender relevant in Spanish-language broadcast discourse.
Gender & Language, 8(3), 311–340. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.v8i3.311
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of ‘actually.’ Language, 77(2),
245–291. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0074
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Clift, R., & Raymond, C. W. (2018). Actions in practice: On details in
collections. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 90–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461445617734344
Drew, P. (2018). Epistemics in social interaction. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 163–
187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734347
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1992). Talk at work: Language use in institutional
and workplace settings. Cambridge University Press.
34

Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M.,
Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C.
W., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.–E., Zwitserlood, I., & Levinson, S. C. (2019). Polar
answers. Journal of Linguistics, 55(2), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022226718000336
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh- prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society,
27(3), 291–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying
agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.),
The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of
knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities and
institutions. Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance
in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 39–59.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic
authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes:
Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P.
De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional, and interactional perspectives
(pp. 179–192). Cambridge University Press.
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). John Benjamins.
Koike, D. A. (1987). Code-switching in the bilingual Chicano narrative. Hispania,
70(1),148–154. https://doi.org/10.2307/343692
Koike, D. A. (1996). Function of the adverbial ya in Spanish narrative dis-
course. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0378-2166(94)00095-6
Koike, D. A., & Graham, C. P. (2006). Who is more Hispanic? The co-construction
of identities in a US Hispanic political debate. Spanish in Context, 3(2), 181–
Koike, D. A., & James, M. C. (2012). El análisis de conversación: Una
metodología y herramienta lingüística. In M. Niño-Murcia & S. de los Heros
(Eds.), Fundamentos y modelos del estudio pragmático y sociopragmático del
español (pp. 117–139). Georgetown University Press.
Koike, D. A., Vann, R. E., & Busquets, J. (2001). Spanish “no, sí”: Reactive
moves to perceived face-threatening acts: Part II. Journal of Pragmatics, 31,
879–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80033-3
Raymond, C. W. (2012). Reallocation of pronouns through contact: In- the-
moment identity construction amongst Southern California Salvadorans.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(5), 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12001
4

Raymond, C. W. (2015). Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and
Spanish– English bilingual conversation. Language & Communication, 42,
50–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.02.001
Raymond, C. W. (2016a). Linguistic reference in the negotiation of identity and
action: Revisiting the T/V distinction. Language, 92(3), 636–670. https://doi.
org/10.1353/lan.2016.0053
Raymond, C. W. (2016b). Reconceptualizing identity and context in the deploy-
ment of forms of address. In M. I. Moyna & S. Rivera-Mills (Eds.), Forms of
address in Spanish across the Americas (pp. 267–288). John Benjamins.
Raymond, C. W. (2017). Indexing a contrast: The ‘do’-construction in English
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 118, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2017.07.004
Raymond, C. W. (2018). On the Relevance and Accountability of Dialect:
Conversation Analysis and Contact Linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics,
22, 161–189.
Raymond, C. W. (2019). Category accounts: Identity and normativity in
sequences of action. Language in Society, 48, 585–606. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0047404519000368
Raymond, C. W. (2020). Negotiating language on the radio in Los Angeles. In
A. Lynch (Ed.), Spanish in the global city (pp. 406–429). Routledge.
Raymond, C. W. (forthcoming). Code-switching, agency, and the “answer pos-
sibility space” of Spanish–English bilinguals. In G. B. Bolden, J. Heritage, &
M.–L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Polar responses. John Benjamins
Raymond, C. W., & Olguin, L. M. (forthcoming). Análisis de la conversación:
Fundamentos, metodología y alcances. Routledge.
Raymond, G. (2000). The voice of authority: The local accomplishment of
authoritative discourse in live news broadcasts. Discourse Studies, 2, 354–
379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002003005
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives
and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68,
939–967.
Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning
grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0047404506060325
del Discurso, 4(1), 47–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.35956/v.4.n1.2004.p.47–72
Rodríguez Alfano, L., & Koike, D. A. (2010). Marcadores de identidad en
conversaciones espontáneas en el español de la frontera. Perspectivas dialógicas
en estudios del lenguaje (pp. 95–124). Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (2 vols.). Blackwell.
Scannell, P. (Ed.). (1991). Broadcast talk. Sage.
Scannell, P. (1996). Radio, television and modern life. Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between macro and micro: Contexts and other
connections. In J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch, & N. J. Smelser (Eds.),
The micro–macro link (pp. 207–234). University of California Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of
action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. https://doi.org/
10.1086/230911
54

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of
Pragmatics, 39, 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights
from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2),
131–158. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a
presupposition of askability In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.),
The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 82– 106). Cambridge
University Press.
Stivers, T. (2019). How we manage social relationships through answers to
questions: The case of interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3), 191–209.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 43, 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday
talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge University Press.
Tolson, A. (1991). Televised chat and the synthetic personality. In P. Scannell
(Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 178–200). Sage.
Tolson, A. (2006) Media talk: Spoken discourse on TV and radio. Edinburgh
University Press.
Williams, B. R. (1977). The structure of televised football. Journal of
Communication, 27(3), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.
tb02139.x
64
[A/aa ‘oh’ + demo ‘but’]-Prefaced

3
Affiliative Response in Japanese
Co-Construction of a Shared Stance
through Opinion-Negotiation
Eiko Yasui
Introduction
Research on conversation and discourse from a variety of perspectives
has revealed that people negotiate and co-construct meanings, stances,
identities, and roles as they orient to accomplish mutual understanding
through interaction. Dale Koike has revealed the functions of linguistic
resources employed in negotiating and co- constructing meanings and
identities, with emphasis on discourse context in terms of action sequences
(e.g., Busquets et al., 2001; Koike & Graham, 2006; Koike et al., 2001).
The present study also aims to explore a specific linguistic formulation
in a particular sequential context that contributes to negotiation and co-
construction in interaction.
Conversation analysis, a microanalytic approach to the organiza-
tion of social interaction, with its focus on the process of interaction,
has articulated the moment-by-moment progressions through which a
meaning, knowledge, understanding, stance, or membership categor-
ization is co-constructed among participants (e.g., C. Goodwin, 1995,
2010; M. H. Goodwin, 1995). Actions or activities are collaborative
achievements by multiple participants, rather than by a single speaker,
through the intricate coordination of linguistic, paralinguistic (intonation,
pitch, and stress), bodily resources (gesture, gaze, facial expression, and
posture), and surrounding environment (e.g., C. Goodwin, 1979, 1984,
2007, 2013; Lerner, 1996, 2002; Sacks et al., 1974; Schegloff, 1995).
Taking a conversation- analytic approach, the present study
investigates co- construction in interaction in terms of participants’
collaborative achievement of a shared stance towards an opinion. In
everyday conversations, people share their opinions and thoughts, trivial
or serious. When one proffers an opinion or thought, it becomes rele-
vant that the recipient next produce either agreement or disagreement
(Pomerantz, 1984a; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). Studies in conversation
analysis have revealed that although either agreement or disagreement
can be a relevant next response to an opinion (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973),
these two types of responses are produced differently in terms of their
74
Prefaced Affiliative Response in Japanese 47

structure (Pomerantz, 1984a; Sacks, 1987). Agreement, the preferred
response, is often produced early, without a gap, whereas disagreement,
the dispreferred response, accompanies a delay through pause, perturb-
ation, or repair initiation. Studies have demonstrated that speakers of
an opinion display orientation to elicit agreement; that is, an affiliative
response that supports a prior speaker’s stance (Stivers, 2008), even after
proffered opinions or thoughts fail to receive such a response (Mori,
1999; Nakamura, 2011; Pomerantz, 1975, 1984b). For example, when
a speaker senses a delay, which can imply that an upcoming response
is not an agreement, they will often engage in remedial work, such as
clarifying, reviewing assumed common knowledge, or modifying their
position, in order to pursue agreement (Mori, 1999; Pomerantz, 1975,
1984b). A speaker may also use extreme case formulations—upgrading
a description—such as in phrases like brand new, completely innocent,
or forever, to legitimize their claim and pursue an affiliative response
(Pomerantz, 1986). As such, the participants engage in opinion-
negotiation until they “find a middle ground, acknowledge co-existing
multiple perspectives, or change the topic to terminate the discussion”
(Mori, 1999, p. 138).
This study focuses on cases in which the recipient of a proffered
opinion first displays disaffiliation but later, after participants engage in
the negotiation of opinions and stances, expresses affiliation. It attempts
to explore how conversation participants negotiate an opinion and co-
construct a mutually affiliative stance by looking not only at how the
speaker of an opinion monitors the recipient’s reaction and pursues affili-
ation, but also at how the formerly disaffiliating recipient aligns with the
speaker’s remedial work and displays affiliation.
To do so, this study focuses on a specific linguistic formulation, the
Japanese “change-of-state token” (Heritage, 1984) a/aa ‘oh’ and con-
trastive marker demo ‘but’ placed before an affiliative response, and aims to
reveal how its use contributes to the co-construction of an affiliative stance.
Although it seems contradictory that a contrastive marker is produced
before affiliation, it has been observed in the data that the recipients of
a proffered opinion preface their affiliative response with a/aa and demo
when they respond after the speaker of the opinion elaborates on, clarifies,
or legitimizes it. This study, therefore, explores what the formulation of
[a/aa ‘oh’ + demo ‘but’] does in the display of affiliation during the negoti-
ation of opinion. In doing so, it attempts to contribute to the development
of the field of interactional linguistics, a conversation analysis-informed
approach to the linguistic organization of talk-in-interaction (Couper-
Kuhlen & Selting, 2017; Selting & Couper-Kuhlen, 2001). Interactional
linguistics, like conversation analysis, examines linguistic structures and
forms in utterances as emergent and context sensitive. They are emergent
because the production of a sentence, clause, phrase, or word is an inter-
actional achievement among speakers and recipients as they coordinate
their actions with one another moment by moment. They are context
84
48 Eiko Yasui
sensitive because what a specific linguistic form or item in an utterance
accomplishes can be understood through the integration of its placement
within a turn and sequence, the speaker’s bodily conduct, the activity in
which it is embedded, other participants’ behaviors, and the surrounding
environment. In the present study, therefore, a specific linguistic formula-
tion (i.e., a/aa + demo) is analyzed in relation to the sequential context in
which it is embedded.
[Aa ‘oh’ + demo ‘but’]-Prefacing of Affiliation
Turn-Initial Elements in a Responsive Turn

As stated, this study looks at the combination of the Japanese particle a/aa
and conjunction demo placed at the beginning of an affiliative response to
an opinion in an opinion-negotiation sequence. Turn-initial position is the
prime place to display the connection between what the current speaker is
about to say and what the previous speaker has just said, simultaneously
pointing both forward and backward (e.g., Couper-Kuhlen & Selting,
2017; Heritage & Sorjonen, 2018; Kim & Kuroshima, 2013; Schegloff,
1987, 1996; Schegloff & Lerner, 2009). Particles, conjunctions, response
tokens, and discourse markers placed in turn-initial position are called
pre-placed appositionals, pre-beginning elements, or turn-entry devices;
they are not the recognizable beginning and grammatical components of
a turn, but important elements for building an action to be performed in
an incipient turn, since they mark the relationship between a prior and an
emerging turn (Sacks et al., 1974; Schegloff, 1987, 1996).
Specifically, in responsive (second position) turns, such turn-initial
elements deal with the expectations established by a first action in a
sequence, such as questions, assessments, or opinions, and they alert the
interlocutor to the positioning of the responsive action in relation to the
preceding one. For example, Hayashi and Kushida (2013) state that the
Japanese negative response token iya (similar to English no) prefacing a
response to a wh-question can mark that the respondent finds the pre-
ceding question problematic. As such, pre-beginning elements in a second
sequential position can mark the stance that a speaker has towards the
prior first action.
Japanese Particle a/aa and Conjunction demo

According to previous studies (Endo, 2018; Hayashi & Hayano, 2018),
the Japanese particle a or aa1 in a responsive turn is employed similarly
to the English change-of-state token ‘oh’ (Heritage, 1984); it marks that
“its producer has undergone some kind of change in his or her locally
current state of knowledge, information, orientation or awareness”
(p. 299). Although the tokens a and aa display differences in the ways
that their producer’s state changes (Endo, 2018), both mark that some
94

shift has occurred in their producer’s orientation or stance as a result of
a prior turn.
Few studies have investigated the Japanese conjunction demo ‘but’
from a conversation-analytic perspective. As a response to an opinion,
demo most frequently appears before disagreement. Mori (1999)
investigates demo placed before a disagreeing response to an opinion and
reports that demo is often used to mark the contrast between agreement
and disagreement in the “agreement-plus-disagreement” format ‘yes, but’
(Pomerantz, 1984a). In this case, demo can serve as a transitional marker
indicating the contrast between the two different types of responses, as in
un demo ‘yes, but’, where a recipient first indicates agreement but later
claims disagreement with a prior speaker. Demo can also be deployed at
the beginning of a disagreeing response not prefaced by an agreement; in
such a case, demo marks a contrast between the previous turn and the
disagreeing turn or a shift in perspective based on the same issue that the
previous speaker introduced (Mori, 1999).
While Mori (1999) investigates demo in a disagreeing response to an
opinion, the present study looks at demo prefacing affiliation, such as
agreement with or understanding of an opinion. Although employing a
contrastive marker demo before affiliating with a prior speaker seems
contradictory, it is not unusual. Nishizaka (2016) reports cases in which
demo is placed before an affiliative response during troubles- telling.
He finds that recipients of a troubles-telling can employ demo to avoid
responding directly to an extremely harsh part of the story told by a
speaker when they feel unqualified to affiliate with the speaker because
of their lack of equivalent experience. That is, demo-prefacing allows
the recipients to selectively respond to an earlier aspect of the ongoing
talk with which they can adequately display affiliation. Importantly, the
demo-prefaced response does not simply refer to the earlier portion of
the talk; it also marks a topical contrast between the upcoming affiliative
response and the immediately preceding talk.
In the present study, as in Nishizaka (2016), since it is placed before
an affiliative response, demo also seems to deal with some interactional
problems that emerge in displaying affiliation. Unlike prior studies, how-
ever, the focus of this study is on the combination of a/aa and demo,
rather than demo on its own. Its purpose, therefore, is to reveal how the
combination of the change-of-state token a/aa and contrastive marker
demo placed at the turn-beginning allows a speaker to adequately pro-
vide an affiliative response, as well as how it relates to the co-construction
of a shared stance.
Methodology and Data

This study employed conversation analysis as its methodology, using
videotaped naturally occurring conversations. The data come from: (1)
multi-party dinner time conversations involving three or more participants
05
50 Eiko Yasui
recorded both in the United States and in Japan; and (2) conversations
among four female college students taken from the Sakura Corpus,
available from TalkBank (MacWhinney & Wagner, 2010). All of the
participants were native speakers of Japanese. The transcripts of the
conversations involve three lines: The first line shows an actual utterance,
transcribed using the conventions of conversation analysis (Jefferson,
2004); the second line gives a word-by-word gloss; and the third line
gives an English translation (see Appendix 3.A for the transcription
conventions). The analysis not only focuses on the participants’ verbal
behaviors but also considers the phonetic features and embodied actions.
The embodied actions are transcribed based on Mondada (2018).
Analysis
When an Affiliative Response is Immediately Provided

As a comparison, before investigating the cases in which a recipient first
rejects affiliating with a proffered opinion or thought but affiliates with it
later, let us look at a case in which a recipient immediately affiliates with
an opinion. In such a straightforward affiliation, a response is produced
without any preface. Prior to excerpt (1), three Japanese women in their
late twenties, M, Y, and R, who live in the United States, were talking
about extremely packed rush-hour trains in Tokyo. In the excerpt, M
states that although the university shuttle bus she used to take was not
crowded, she sometimes had to stand on the bus, as people did not make
room for one another.
(1) [JP dinner 1: Rush hour]

1 M: iya itsumo koo omoun da yo.
well always this think COP FP
Well, I always wonder.
2 Dakara koo tatsu toki mo aru janai
so this stand when also exist TAG
So, people stand on a bus at times, right?
3 R: u::n
uh huh
Right.
4 M: .hh de: minna motto gyuugyuuni tsumereba ii noni [:,
and everyone more “gyuugyuu” cram.if good but
And, although they can move closer to each other,
5 R: [u:n
yes
Yeah.
15
6 M: nore nai hito mo iru wake yo.

ride NEG people also exist reason FP
7 tama[ni oosugite.
sometimes too many
since there are many people who can’t fit in sometimes as there are
already too many in it, [lines 6–7]
8 R: [u: n u:n
uh huh uh huh
Uh-huh, uh-uuh.
9 M: minna motto gyuugyuuni tsumereba ii [noni,
everyone more “gyuugyuu” cram good but
Although people can move closer to each other,
10 R: [un
yes
Yeah.
11 M: kekko minna supeesu akeru wake [yo:.
considerably everyone space leave because FP
they leave lots of space.
12 R: [a::::
oh
Oh::::.
13 M: are ga haratatte shooganai n da yo [ne.
that SP mad cannot.help NMLZ COP FP FP
That really made me mad.
14 Y:→ [wakaru.
understand
I understand (your point).
15 R: a::::[::::::::::::::
oh
Oh::::::::::::::::::.
16 Y:→ [waka(h)ru.
understand
I understand (your point).
Here, after M shares that she would be annoyed at those who did
not move closer to others on the university shuttle bus, Y immediately
provides an affiliative response—a claim of understanding wakaru ‘I
understand (your point)’ twice, in lines 14 and 16. Note that in this
case, the response is not prefaced and comes right before the comple-
tion of M’s turn (line 14). That is, a straightforward affiliative response
that comes early is unmarked. Let us then compare this case with the
ones that follow, in which an affiliative response is marked with [a/aa
+ demo].
25
52 Eiko Yasui
Accomplishment of Affiliation: Negotiation of Opinion

In contrast to the prior excerpt, let us now turn to the cases in which a
recipient first does not orient to display affiliation but later agrees with
a proffered view. We start with a conversation in which the speaker of
an opinion attempts to elicit affiliation from the recipient by engaging
in remedial work after the recipients display difficulty agreeing with the
proffered opinion. Excerpt (2) below is taken from a conversation among
four female freshmen college students—B, C, D, and E. They are talking
about their colleagues at their part-time jobs.
(2) [Sakura 8, Toshiue 1]

1 C: demo toshiue no hoo ga yoku na:I yariyasuku nai?
But older LK side SP good TAG easy.to.do TAG
But it is better to work with someone older (than to work with
younger ones), isn’t it? It’s easier, isn’t it?
2 (0.6)
3 E: u::n? n? toshiue ga haittekuru hoo ga
hmm mm older SP enter side SP
Huh? Mm? You mean it’s better to have someone older at work?
4 C: toshiue to: baito suru hoo ga yariyasuku na:i
older with part-
time work do side SP easy.to.do TAG
It is easier to work with someone older at your part-time job, isn’t it?
5 (0.3)
6 E: °demo° toshishita to hataraita koto ga nai kara
but younger with worked thing SP NEG because
7 wakara nai watashi=
know NEG I
But I don’t know because I haven’t worked with someone younger
than me. [lines 6–7]
8 D: = (°watashi mo: °)
I also
(I haven’t either.)
9 (0.2)
10 C: °toshishita:°
younger
Someone younger.
11 B: toshiue de° shigoto ga dekiru- ° dekiru hito ga-
older COP work SP can.do can.do person SP
12 dekiru hito nara ii ya betsuni
can.do person if good FP nothing
Older ones who can do their job-can do-if they can do their job, I
don’t care if they are older or younger. [lines 11–12]
35
13 C: hmmm toshishita ne:

younger FP
Hmm, someone younger.
14 nanka jakkan jenereeshon gappu o kanjiru n da yo ne=
somehow little generation gap O feel NMLZ COP FP FP
I somewhat feel a bit of a generation gap between me and younger
colleagues.
15 B:-
> =hayaku ne?
early NEG
Aren’t you too young (to feel that)?
16 C: kookoo no toki ni: kooni de: kooichi no ko ga
high school LK when in sophomore COP freshman LK kid SP
17 itari toka° shiteta n da kedo: °
be etc. did NMLZ CP but
During my second year in high school, there were first year students
(at work), but [lines 16–17]
18 (0.2) nanka jakkan tenshon ga chigau mita(hh)ina(h)
somehow little mood SP different like
like, their energy was a little different.
19 (0.2)
20 B:=> >a [demo< sore wa aru to omo[u.
that TP exist QT think
a demo I think that happens.
21 E: [aa
oh
Oh.
22 C: [Un
yes
Yeah.
Prior to this excerpt, E mentions that she is the youngest part-timer at her
workplace. In the beginning of the excerpt, C asks if E finds it easier to
work with older rather than younger people (line 1). The formulation of
her polar interrogatives (yoku nai? ‘better, isn’t it?’ and yariyasuku nai?
‘easier, isn’t it?’) end with the negative morpheme nai ‘not,’ ‘isn’t it?’;
this pursues agreement from the recipient (Hayashi, 2010). However, E
does not show agreement; instead, she indicates her lack of knowledge
to respond to C, stating that she has not worked with younger people
(lines 6 and 7).2 Since neither D nor B’s responses that follow affiliate
with C either, C says that she feels a generation gap even with those who
are only a year younger than her (lines 13 and 14), explaining why she
prefers working with older people. However, again, despite this remedial
45
54 Eiko Yasui
work by C, B immediately displays disaffiliation, Hayaku ne ‘Aren’t you
too young (to feel a generation gap)’? (line 15). This leads to the start of
C’s further elaboration; she says that she used to perceive the energy of
sophomores in high school as a little different (jakkan tenshon ga chigau)
when she was a high school senior (lines 16, 17, and 18), which is the
reason why she feels a generation gap.
This elaboration by C on her earlier statement causes some change in
the recipients’ stances. After a brief pause after C’s turn, B utters a demo
sore wa aru to omou ‘a, demo I think that happens’ (line 20). Here, using
the demonstrative sore ‘that,’ B directly points to what was just said by
C and indicates agreement. However, by attaching the topic marker par-
ticle wa after that, which can mark a contrast, it is indicated that she is
limiting the target of her agreement; she is only agreeing with what C
has just said during her elaboration, rather than what C said before that.
Here, although a indicates B’s change of state caused after C’s elaboration,
demo marks the contrast of the stance with (or shift of the stance from)
what she had indicated earlier, which is disaffiliation. The [a + demo] that
prefaces B’s affiliation, therefore, demonstrates that B appreciates and
incorporates C’s elaboration and selectively affiliates with what the prior
speaker said during her remedial work.
Another example is found in what happens after Excerpt (2). After
displaying affiliation with C’s immediate prior utterance (‘the energy of
sophomores in high school was a little different’) (line 20 in Excerpt (2)),
B proffers an opinion relevant to the point just made by C and pursues
agreement from others: ‘Students in different grades have different
features, don’t they?’ (line 25). She then tells her experience that led her
express that opinion.
(3) [Sakura 8, Toshiue 2]

23 B: nanka-
something
Well
24 C: nor[i ga:
mood SP
Their moods are...
25 B: [>sono< gakunen de sa: zenzen tokushoku chigauku
that grade COP GP totally feature different
26 [na:i
TAG
Students in different grades have different features, don’t they?
27 C: [u:n
yes
Yeah.
5
28 (.)
29 E: [hmm mm
30 B: [ninensee no kai itta ra nannimo wakanakatta mon.
sophomores LK floor went when any understood.NEG FP
When I went to the sophomores’ floor (when I was in high
school), I couldn’t understand anything.
31 (0.3)
32 B: ichinensee no kai ittara nioi chigatta mon.
freshman LK floor went.when smell different FP
When I went to the freshmen’s floor, it smelled differently.
33 C: [haha[hahaha [haha
34 D: [haha[hahaha .hh [nani:
what
What,
35 E: [haha
36 B: ho:ntoni ni[oi chigatta mon.
really smell different FP
It really did smell different.
37 D: [keshoo toka.
make up etcetra
Like (the smell of) make-up?
38 (0.2)
39 B: iya nanka
no somehow
No, well,
40 D: wakai nioi?
young smell
Young people’s smell?
41 B: pichipichi jya[nai kana
“pichi pichi” NEG Q
I think it was “pichi pichi” ((onomatopoeia representing
“young”)).
42 C: [hah[ahaha
43 D: [a:hahaha
44 E:-
> [hahaha do(hh)n[na(hh),
how
What kind (of smell is that)?
45 C: [haha
46 B: uchira juken de garigari[garigari yattotte
we entrance exam COP “gari gari gari gari” did
We were studying really hard for the upcoming college entrance
exams, and,
65
56 Eiko Yasui
47 E: [a::
oh::
Oh::
48 C: un
uh-huh
Uh-huh.
49 (0.7)
50 B: nanka ikko shita ga ichinensee yatte ichinennsee toko
somehow one below SP freshman COP freshman place
well, one floor below us was where the freshman’s classrooms
were, and when I went there,
51 B: iku to nanka ↑ne: ↓kiiroi koe toka ↑ne: .hh
go if somehow FP yellow voice etcetra FP
I heard their cheerful voice, you know?
52 C: hm h[mm wakaru=
understand
Uh-huh, I understand (your point)=
53 B: [°kyaa°
“kyaa”
“kyaa” ((onomatopoeia expressing shrill voice))
54 C: =waka[ru
understand
=I understand (your point).
55 E:=> [aa demo wakaru kamoshirena[i
understand maybe
Aa demo I may understand (your point).
56 B: [tsuka
I mean
57 [zenzen chigau mon.
totally different FP
I mean, they were completely different. [lines 56–57]
58 E: [nanka↑ kookoo(.)
somehow high school
59 E: toka tte ookii yo ne
etcetra QT large FP FP
Well, in high school, there is a huge difference, isn’t there?
[lines 58–59]
60 B: u[:n
yes
Uh-huh
61 E: [sono ichi gakunen zutsu ga.
that one grade each SP
I mean, between each grade.
62 B: ma daigaku haitte maeba ↑so:nna
well college enter if that
Uhm, once you enter college, there isn’t that much
75
63 E: ↑kawara n
different NEG
difference.
64 B: son:na itte mo kawara n yan=
that say even different NEG TAG
There isn’t that much difference, right?
65 E: =datte kooichi tte chuugaku agari jan(.)
because freshman QT middle school finish TAG
Because freshmen are those who just finished middle school, right?
66 koosan tte moo daigakusei(.) ni na&ru kara sa:&
B_bd &nods three times &
senior QT already college student to become since FP
and seniors are those who are about to become college students.
67 koko tte ookii yo ne=
this QT big FP FP
There’s a big difference among them, isn’t there?
68 C: =°un. °
yes
Yeah.
69 B: ((B nods))
Here, B recounts her first-hand experience and says that as a high

school senior she felt that freshmen “smelled differently” (line 32). In
response, all of the recipients laugh, reacting to this comical expression
rather than affiliating with her opinion. B thus claims that what she
said was not a joke but what really happened (line 35) and answers
D’s subsequent questions (‘like (the smell of) makeup’? (lines 34 and
37), and, ‘young people’s smell’? (line 40). However, as B responds
that she thought they smelled pichi pichi (line 41) (an onomatopoeia
for ‘young’ in Japanese), this onomatopoetic expression again causes
the recipients’ laughter. Then, while laughing, E utters donna ‘what
kind (of smell is that)’ with a non-rising intonation (line 44). With this
intonation and laughter, her utterance is not conveyed as a question,
but as her expression of disbelief over B’s words. That is, while the
recipients react to B’s humorous expression, none of them display affili-
ation with her points.
This leads to B’s further elaboration of her overall point; that is, remedial
work to pursue an affiliative response from the recipients. To elaborate
on her earlier point, in lines 46, 50, and 51, B describes the contrast in
mood between herself and the freshmen. This utterance finally causes the
recipients’ display of affiliation; because what B is describing is a similar
point to the one previously made by C, it seems natural that C immediately
claims understanding, wakaru ‘I understand (your point)’ twice (lines 52
and 54). However, C is not the only one; E, who has previously indicated
difficulty understanding B’s point (‘what kind (of smell is that)’ in line 44),
also expresses understanding. E, during B’s onomatopoetic expression
85
58 Eiko Yasui
garigari in line 46, describing the tension among the seniors, first shows
her change of state by a:: (line 47). Then, after B finishes her explan-
ation, E moves her gaze away from B, saying aa, and says, demo wakaru
kamoshirenai ‘demo I may understand (your point)’ (line 55). As Hiramoto
(2011) argues, wakaru (which literally means ‘understand’) indicates that
its speaker understands not only the content of a thought just reported but
also the perspective associated with it; that is, what made the speaker say
what she or he just said. Wakaru ‘I understand (your point/perspective),’
therefore, if uttered after a view is presented, can do more than just claim
understanding of the meaning of what was just said—it can also indicate
affiliation with the proffered view, claiming understanding of the perspec-
tive behind it. Therefore, although her claim of understanding is hedged
with kamoshirenai ‘maybe,’ it is clear that E changes her stance from disaf-
filiation to affiliation with B’s point as a result of her remedial work.
Hiramoto (2011) shows that speakers who claim understanding
using wakaru often attempt to prove their understanding by telling their
own perspective or experience. Similarly, in this excerpt, the one who
claims affiliation using wakaru attempts to prove her understanding; E
says, ‘well, in high school, there is a huge difference, isn’t there? I mean,
between each grade’ (lines 58 to 61). E goes on to display even stronger
understanding to B by grammatically completing her sentence (Hayashi,
2003); after B says, Ma daigaku haittemae ba so:nna ‘Uhm, once you
enter college, there isn’t that much’ (line 62), E produces a predicate that
fits B’s ongoing sentence, kawara n ‘difference’ (line 63). Additionally,
after B repeats son:na ‘that’ (line 64) and continues her ongoing sen-
tence, ittemo kawara n yan ‘there isn’t that much difference, right?’ (line
64), E further explains why, in high school, there is a huge difference
between each grade (lines 65 to 67). As such, by paraphrasing B’s point,
E displays her strong understanding and agreement. B then nods (line
69), confirming that E’s understanding is correct and acknowledging the
accomplishment of a shared stance.
Thus, we have observed in this extended segment that includes Excerpts
(2) and (3) the process of opinion-negotiation. First, when a proffered
view does not elicit an affiliative response, its speaker elaborates on or
clarifies their point(s). Then, the recipients, after being provided with
resources and opportunities to re-examine the view, change their initial
stances and display affiliation. They not only claim their understanding
and agreement, but also state their independent experiences that caused
them to agree, or express their understanding of the proffered view by
paraphrasing it. In doing so, they prove that they actually understood the
proffered view and affiliate with it, which elicits confirmation from the
speaker of the initial view. The participants co-construct mutual affili-
ation through this kind of negotiation of opinion. Additionally, although
demo prefaces an affiliative response, what happens in the preceding
turns does not contradict with the affiliative response. Therefore, demo is
95

not marking a contrast in semantic meanings, but a contrast between the
recipient’s prior disaffiliation and current affiliation.
Accomplishment of Affiliation: Aligning with Others’ Actions

Let us next look at an example in which remedial work does not take
place even after an opinion fails to receive an affiliative response, since
the speaker of the opinion is not present in the conversation. Even in
this situation, the participants orient to accomplish a mutually affilia-
tive stance by monitoring each other’s stances and aligning with each
other’s actions. Excerpt (4) is taken from a conversation among eight
participants, four men and four women in their late twenties to early
thirties, talking about which celebrity each participant resembles. In this
excerpt, the participants are talking about whom they think a male par-
ticipant, T, resembles.
(4) [Sendai 2: Niteru]

1 F: de ato Nishio san ga:
F_
gz -
>> looks at T
and then Nishio honorifics SP
And then Nishio said ((“Nishio” is a mutual acquaintance of the
participants.))
2 T: °un°
yes
Yeah.
3 (1.6) ((F is smiling))
4 F: Matsuda Ryuhei ka Shoota ka
Matsuda Ryuhei or Shoota or
5 docchika ni ni[teru tte
either to resemble QT
6 hh[ehh&hehhe
T resembles either Ryuhei or Shoota Matsuda. [lines 4–6]
7 N: [ahahaha
8 +ha+[ha &hhhh&
9 T: [°d&are &da sore wa°
who COP that TP
Who are they?
10 O:-
> [ka &doc&chika tte+ hh+ ((smiling))
O_
gz +...+ looks at T +....+
F_
gz -
->>&to.left& looks down-
->
or either QT
“Either one.” ((quoting Nishio’s formulation))
11 N: +.HHh
O_
gz + looks at T -
->>
06
60 Eiko Yasui
12 T: °doc[chika d[e (ee)°

either COP good
Only one is enough.
13 N: [*aa: [:: [: ((smiling))
N_
gz *looks at T -
->>
oh
Oh::::
14 Y [mirum [e wa aru
see eye TP exist
She has a good eye.
15 O:=> [aa demo wak[&aru &
understand
Aa demo I understand (what Nishio meant).
16 N: [&nank&a u:n (0.2)
F_
gz -
-
>&......& looks at T-
-
>
somehow yes
17 °un un.°
Yes yes
Somewhat yeah. Yeah, yeah. [lines 16–17]
18 T: s&ore yo&ku wakara n (°nen°) docchi
F_
gz -
->&.........& looks down -
->>
that well understand NEG FP either
19 mo shira n kara anmari
also know NEG since well
I don’t really get that. I don’t know either of them well. [lines 18–19]
Here, F reports that the participants’ common acquaintance, Nishio (who

is not in the conversation), said that T resembles either Ryuhei or Shoota
Matsuda, two famous celebrity brothers in Japan (lines 1, 4, and 5).
Here, right before presenting what Nishio said, F pauses for 1.6 seconds
while looking at T with a smile (line 3), projecting that something funny
is forthcoming, and right after reporting it, he laughs (line 6). That is,
F presents Nishio’s view as something funny and laughable. In what
follows, the recipients affiliate with the stance presented by F; N imme-
diately bursts into laughter (line 7), and O, with a smiling face, partially
repeats F’s prior utterance, marking it with tte, the quotation marker (ka
docchika tte ‘either one’ in line 10). With that partial repetition while
smiling, O displays that he finds the specific formulation ‘either X or Y’
in Nishio’s utterance funny.3
The participants then start to change their stances. As soon as she
stops laughing, N takes a sharp intake of breath (line 11) and brings her
gaze to T while uttering aa::::: and smiling (line 13). This lengthened
aa::::: uttered as she looks at T indicates that N is in the process of
inspecting T’s face and assessing Nishio’s view. That is, N first reacted
to the funny formulation of Nishio’s utterance with laughter, but is now
16

examining her view itself. Also, Y, in overlap with N’s aa, utters, miru
me wa aru ‘she (= Nishio) has a good eye,’ showing that Y affiliates with
Nishio, the producer of the proffered view. Further, O, who has also
been looking at T, as soon as N starts to say aa, utters aa. He then ver-
bally claims his understanding with a contrastive marker demo (aa demo
wakaru). By employing wakaru, O is displaying that he understands not
only the meaning of what Nishio says but also her perspective associated
with it.
Thus, although O first reacts only to the funny formulation employed
by Nishio (‘resembles either X or Y’), he then co-participates in N and
Y’s re-examination and re-evaluation of the proffered view and affiliates
with it, indicating that he now understands how Nishio concluded that
T resembles one of the two actors. In response, N utters un (‘yes’) mul-
tiple times and indicates that she also possesses a shared stance with O
(line 16).4
We thus observe in this excerpt that the participants co-construct a
shared affiliative stance. First, they all affiliate with F’s stance presented
as he reports Nishio’s view, and react only to the comical formulation
employed by Nishio. However, as soon as N starts to re-examine the
content of her view and Y displays affiliation with it, O aligns with them
and co-participates in their re-examination. O then displays agreement
with the proffered view, a view with which N also affiliates. Therefore,
the participants mutually monitor one another’s stances and align with
one’ another’s actions to accomplish a mutually affiliative stance. O’s
aa, uttered in overlap with N’s aa, displays both O’s co-participation in
N’s action and his on-time re-examination of the proffered view. Demo
here, rather than marking a referential contrast, deals with O’s focus shift
from the formulation employed by Nishio to the content of Nishio’s view.
As such, [aa + demo] makes visible the process through which O co-
participates in the others’ actions, shifts his focus, and accomplishes a
shared affiliative stance with them.
Summary
The excerpts demonstrate that [a/aa + demo]-prefacing works in two steps,
explaining why these specific linguistic items occur in this order before
an affiliative response. First, the change-of-state token a/aa is a reaction
to what has happened immediately before; in a backward-looking way,
it marks that some change of state has occurred since the recipient has
undergone re-examination of a proffered view, through negotiation of
opinion and stance among the participants. Then, in a forward-looking
manner, demo projects that a contrast is on its way. [A/aa + demo], there-
fore, is employed: (1) when the shift in stance from disaffiliation to affili-
ation has occurred; and (2) when affiliation is a co-constructed product
by both the speaker and the recipient, each monitoring each other’s stance
and adjusting their own stance.
26
62 Eiko Yasui
Conclusion
This conversation-analytic study has examined the process by which
conversation participants co- construct a mutually affiliative stance
through negotiation of opinions and stances or alignment with each
other’s stances. The participants display preference for affiliation, such
as agreement or understanding, with an opinion; when the recipients
display difficulty affiliating, the speaker of an opinion will often start
remedial work, such as elaboration or clarification, of the proffered
opinion. The recipients, in turn, align with the actions of the speaker
and others and re-examine the proffered opinion. The analyses reveal
that when the recipients, after their re-examination of the opinion,
claim affiliation with it, they may also state their own perspective to
prove that they actually understand and agree with it. Others, including
the speaker of the proffered view, then confirm that they have reached a
shared stance on the opinion. A shared affiliative stance is co-constructed
as such, as participants monitor the development of talk and align with
each other’s actions.
The present study also revealed an interactional practice underlying a
specific turn-beginning formulation, considering its position in turn and
sequence and the interactional context in which it is embedded. As shown
in Excerpt (1), affiliation is not prefaced when it is provided immediately
after a proffered opinion. In contrast, in Excerpts (2) to (4), affiliation
is prefaced with [a/aa + demo], which shows that this formulation deals
with the interactional problem of displaying affiliation after presenting
a different stance from it. That is, [a/aa + demo]-prefacing explains why
the recipient of an opinion, who indicated a different stance earlier, is
now able to display an affiliative stance; what just happened, including
the speaker’s remedial work, has caused their noticing or awareness that
led to their stance shift. As such, participants give accounts of “why that
now” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973), showing the connection between what
happens previously and what comes next. This is possible as a/aa marks
a change in awareness, orientation, or knowledge, while demo projects
that some kind of contrast or shift is underway.
Finally, concerning the contribution to the field of interactional lin-
guistics, first, the analysis has shown that demo can mark not only a
semantic contrast but also a contrast between one’s previous and current
stances. In the excerpts examined in this study, although it seems contra-
dictory that demo, a contrastive marker, is placed before displaying affili-
ation with a proffered opinion, the contrast which demo points to is not
between the proffered opinion and an affiliative response but between
the recipient’s prior disaffiliation and upcoming affiliation. What a con-
junction can connect in interaction can only be revealed in relation to its
position in turn and sequence as well as the sequential environments in
which it appears. Also, this study has suggested that multiple linguistic
items can be systematically employed in a certain order combination in
36

a certain sequential position and context to deal with a specific kind of
interactional problem. It would thus be of interest to find out whether
a similar combination of a particle and conjunction at turn-beginnings
(such as English oh, but) can also be found in other languages when
dealing with the same kind of interactional problem. By exploring
similar practices in other languages from such a perspective, we can learn
whether people manage negotiation and co-construction of a stance in
similar ways, or if different languages mobilize different resources to cope
with the same kind of interactional problem.
Notes
1 Note that there are two related but distinct particles comprising the vowel [a]‌
in Japanese, the “short a” and “long aa,” as noted by Hayashi and Hayano
(2018). According to their definitions, the length of the [a] sound in the “short
a” is one beat, that is, 0.1–0.2 seconds, and may or may not be followed by a
glottal stop. The “long aa” is “produced with varying degrees of elongation
and typically with falling intonation” (Hayashi & Hayano, 2018, p. 194).
2 Note that E’s response here is prefaced by demo, as E is providing a response
that contrasts with C’s pursuit of agreement placed immediately before; demo
usually does not come with aa when it indicates a contrastive relationship with
what comes immediately before.
3 Here, T, the target of Nishio’s description, shows a different reaction. He
declares his lack of knowledge of the actors (‘who is that’ in line 7) and utters
that resembling only one (among the two) would be enough (line 10), rejecting
Nishio’s view that there are two candidates that resemble him.
4 Note that T is in a different position than the others, in that he is the target of
Nishio’s description. He refuses to affiliate with the view, and repeats his claims
of insufficient knowledge (line 15).
Appendix 3.A
Transcription Conventions and Interlinear Glossing Symbols
[onset of overlapping talk

(0.2) length of silence in tenths of seconds
:: lengthened sound
OKAY higher volume
°okay° lower volume
okay stress or emphasis
oka- sound cut-off
>okay< increase in tempo
<okay> decrease in tempo
hh audible outbreath
.hh audible inbreath
(h) laughter
¥okay¥ smiley voice
(okay) unintelligible talk
46 56
64 Eiko Yasui
Additional transcription symbols used based on Mondada (2007) are as follows:
A_gz gaze by a participant indicated (participant A in this case)
A_bd bodily conduct by a participant indicated (participant A in this case)
For the Japanese grammatical elements, the following abbreviations were used:
COP various forms of copula verb be
NMLZ nominalizer
SP subject particle
TP topic marker particle
FP final particle
IP interjection particle
O object particle
Q question particle
QT quotation particle
LK linking particle
NEG negative morpheme
TAG tag-like question
References
Busquets, J., Koike, D., & Vann, R. (2001). Spanish no, sí: Reactive moves to
perceived face-threatening acts: Part I. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(5), 701–725.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00029-1
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). Interactional linguistics: Studying
language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1017/9781139507318
Endo, T. (2018). The Japanese change- state tokens a and aa in respon-
of-
sive units. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2017.06.010
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural con-
versation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethod-
ology (pp. 97–121). Irvington Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446
286364
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participa-
tion. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Ed.), Structures of social action: Studies
in conversation analysis (pp. 225–246). Cambridge University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.016
Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic
man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 233–260. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_4
Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In S. D. Duncan, J.
Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language
(pp. 195–212). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016735.017
Goodwin, C. (2010). Constructing meaning through prosody in aphasia. In D.
Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp.
373–394). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.29goo
Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human
action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
56

Goodwin, M. H. (1995). Co- construction in girls’ hopscotch. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327973rlsi2803_5
Hayashi, M. (2003). Joint utterance construction in Japanese conversation. John
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.12
Hayashi, M. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in Japanese.
Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2685–2702. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2010.04.006
Hayashi, M., & Hayano, K. (2018). A-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese.
In J. Heritage & M.–L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between turn and sequence: Turn-
initial particles across languages (pp. 191–224). John Benjamins. https://doi.
org/10.1075/slsi.31.07hay
Hayashi, M., & Kushida, S. (2013). Responding with resistance to wh-questions
in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction,
46(3), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.810407
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:
Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.–L. (Eds.). (2018). Between turn and sequence: Turn-
initial particles across languages. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/
slsi.31
Hiramoto, T. (2011). Tasha o wakaru yarrikata ni kansuru kaiwabunseki
kenkyuu [A conversation analytic approach to wakaru (understanding) others
in everyday conversation]. Shakaigaku Ronhyoo [The Japan Sociological
Society], 62(2), 153–171. http://doi.org/ 10.4057/jsr.62.153
H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.
13–31). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
Kim, S. H., & Kuroshima, S. (2013). Turn beginnings in interaction: An intro-
duction. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2013.08.026
Koike, D., Vann, R., & Busquets, J. (2001). Spanish no, sí: Reactive moves to
perceived face-threatening acts: Part II. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6), 879–
899. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80033-3
Koike, D., & Graham, C. (2006). Who is more Hispanic? The co-construction of
identities in a U.S. Hispanic political debate. Spanish in Context, 3(2), 181–
Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units
in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker.
In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and
grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511620874.005
Lerner, G. H. (2002). Turn- sharing: The choral co- production of talk-
in-
interaction. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of
turn and sequence (pp. 225–257). Oxford University Press.
MacWhinney, B., & Wagner, J. (2010). Transcribing, searching and data sharing:
The CLAN software and the TalkBank data repository. Gesprachsforschung,
11, 154–173.
6
66 Eiko Yasui
Mondada, L. (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction:
challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: Connective
expressions and turn construction. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/
sidag.8
Nishizaka, A. (2016). The use of demo-prefaced response displacement for being
a listener to distressful experiences in Japanese interaction. Text & Talk, 36(6),
757–787. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0033
Nakamura, K. (2011). Kaiwa ni okeru kenkaikooshoo to shuchotaido no chosei
[Interactive negotiation of perspectives and adjustment of assertiveness in
conversation]. Shakaigengokagaku [The Japanese Journal of Language in
Society], 14(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.19024/jajls.14.1_33
Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreement/
disagreement. [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine].
Pomerantz, A. (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some
features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J.
Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation ana-
lysis (pp. 57– 101). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511665868.008
Pomerantz, A. (1984b). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),
Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152–163).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.011
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.
Human Studies, 9, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation.
In R. Bauman & J. F. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of
speaking (pp. 337–353). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511611810.022
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in
conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization
(pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, Vol. 2. Blackwell. http://doi.org/
10.1002/9781444328301
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in
conversation’s turn-taking organization. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.),
Talk and social organization (pp. 70–85). Multilingual Matters.
Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The
omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3),
185–211. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and
interaction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and
grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511620874.002
Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: “Well”-prefaced
responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction,
42(2), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511
76

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–
327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.28
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) (2001). Studies in interactional linguis-
tics. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123
86
4
Corrective Feedback and the
Ideological Co-Construction
of Expertise
Drew Colcher
Introduction
Within sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (SLA), many
researchers frame expertise as one aspect of a speaker’s identity that is
constructed in dialogue (Dings, 2012; Showstack, 2017). From this per-
spective, people utilize the turn-taking structure of linguistic interaction
to establish identities relationally in various ways, including the process
of indexicality, whereby speakers point to (or index) ideological stances
(Silverstein, 1976). For example, we index attitudes about the speech of
people with whom we interact or the speech varieties we perceive in our
daily lives to establish ourselves as language experts relative to others
(Leeman & Serafini, 2020).
Ideologies of expertise become salient when speakers with different
learning backgrounds interact in a shared language, due to attitudes about
the value of literacy and education, but also due to objective differences
in competency (Lynch & Polinsky, 2018). Studies exploring interactions
between native speakers (NS), heritage language speakers (HLS), and
second language (L2) speakers often focus on the latter point; that is,
the speech errors of L2 and heritage language students and the inter-
active strategies employed to overcome them. These strategies—types of
corrective feedback (Lyster et al., 2013)—range from explicit to implicit
focus on an error, but all involve attention to a linguistic form resulting
in some negotiated resolution.
The study presented in this chapter addresses L2 error and NS/HLS cor-
rective feedback within 23 Spanish-language sociolinguistic interviews.
The semi- structured video- recorded interviews, which I gathered for
an unrelated study on linguistic discrimination, show native and heri-
tage language Spanish-speaking participants individually correcting my
L2 speech errors both explicitly and implicitly. Participants also index
ideologies regarding stigmatized varieties and registers of Spanish in rela-
tion to their own. Participants who express negative attitudes toward
linguistic variation tend to correct my errors more explicitly than those
who do not. This seems to hold true regardless of native or heritage
speaker background, despite common use of this distinction as a metric
for expertise (Zyzik, 2016).
96
Ideological Co-Construction of Expertise 69

Utilizing a sociocultural linguistic approach (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005)
informed by conversation analysis (Sacks et al., 1974), I illustrate one
of the mechanisms through which expertise is negotiated between
native, heritage, and L2 speakers of Spanish. By analyzing how cor-
rective feedback interacts with language ideologies, I further unsettle
equations of expertise with nativeness, as do Lynch and Polinsky
(2018), demonstrating instead the construction of expertise in dialogue.
This contributes to discussions of interaction within SLA, heritage lan-
guage research, and sociolinguistics by expanding our understanding
of the social co-construction of expertise and the impact of language
ideologies.
Background
Language Expertise and Nativeness

In response to traditional arguments equating language expertise with
nativeness or formal education, researchers in sociolinguistics and lan-
guage acquisition now commonly analyze the construction of expertise in
dialogue. Dings (2012), for example, focuses on participation strategies
among native and L2 speakers of Spanish in a study abroad context.
Throughout the course of a year in Spain, native and L2 Spanish speakers
“slowly [distance] themselves from the initial novice/ expert orienta-
tion” (p. 1516), moving from corrective feedback on grammatical errors
in L2 speech, toward efforts to maintain conversational understanding
regardless of error. In this way, expertise has less to do with nativeness
than with the evolving participatory framework of linguistic interaction
(Koike, 2015).
Showstack (2017) offers a related analysis, revealing that students in
Spanish classes for heritage speakers “position themselves as experts or
novices… in relation to certain interlocutors, and these positions emerge
in dialectic with the ways they make sense of the ideologies of expertise to
which they have been exposed” (p. 11). In this context, a heritage speaker
is someone born into a Spanish-speaking home in the U.S. whose first
language is likely Spanish, but who may be dominant in English (Valdés,
2001). Showstack (2017) illustrates that expertise is co-constructed when
heritage language students correct each other, ask for help, and express
positive or negative attitudes toward Spanglish, a controversial umbrella
term applied to varieties of Spanish influenced by contact with English.1
In doing so, students position themselves relationally via ideologies of
authenticity, expertise, and language mixture.
Traditional ideals of supposedly native-like acquisition in language
research have obscured the true linguistic competency of many Spanish
speakers, particularly heritage speakers of Spanish in the United States
(Leeman, 2005). Increasingly, studies show that distinctions between
native and heritage speakers are more ideological than objective in
07
70 Drew Colcher
nature (e.g., Davidson, under review; Lynch & Polinsky, 2018). For
these reasons, I consider heritage speakers to be a subset of native
speakers, building on work by Pascual y Cabo (2018) and others.
Distinguishing them in my analysis highlights how ideologies of
expertise and corrective feedback interact in similar ways within L2/
HLS and L2/NS dyads, problematizing notions of expertise that rely
on this distinction.
Indexicality and Language Ideologies

Many approaches to the co-construction of social structures reference
Silverstein’s (1976) concept of indexicality. In what follows, I employ
Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005) sociocultural linguistic approach, which
describes indexicality as one aspect of the social constitution of speaker
identity. Bucholtz and Hall (2005) propose five principles—indexicality,
emergence, positionality, relationality, and partialness—that guide the
analysis of identity as a social phenomenon. I discuss these concepts with
primary reference to indexicality, which comprises the myriad strategies
through which identities emerge in dense, symbolic webs of ideologic-
ally co-constructed meaning (Douglas Fir Group, 2016). This framework
helps researchers show how speakers “point to larger social contexts and
meanings” in dialogue (Duff, 2019, p. 8).
Studies have shown that native, heritage, and L2 Spanish speakers
index ideologies about their own speech and the speech of others, in
reference to such distinctions as education, class, and race (Leeman &
Serafini, 2020). These language ideologies (Woolard, 1998) include the
monoglossic ideology (García, 2009), which prioritizes monolingual var-
ieties of Spanish over those spoken by Latinos in the United States. U.S.
Spanish speakers are often Spanish–English bilinguals, whose speech may
bear stigmatized features that some may attribute to decreased fluency
in Spanish. The standard language ideology (Lippi-Green, 1994) works
together with the monoglossic ideology by reinforcing a belief in standard
and non-standard varieties of a language, which are in fact ideological
constructs.
I utilize Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005) sociocultural linguistic frame-
work to show that one possibility of linguistic interaction—corrective
feedback—represents a significant site for ideologically indexing and
co-constructing expertise. Participants in the current study reference
monoglossic and standard language ideologies in discussing their
attitudes and beliefs regarding the Spanish language, evaluating their
Spanish in relation to that spoken by others they know or perceive.
They also offer different types of corrective feedback when faced with
L2 errors. By relating language ideologies to the manner in which
participants navigate the erroneous speech of their L2 interviewer,
I attempt to illustrate one of the ways expertise is co-constructed in
interaction.
17
Corrective Feedback
Earlier studies in SLA often focused on a dichotomy of ‘correction’ versus
‘repair’ in response to erroneous L2 speech, correction being common
in classrooms and repair in extracurricular settings (Schegloff et al.,
1977). This distinction was later refined to show how power differentials
(e.g., between student and teacher; native and L2 speaker) also shape
the contours of corrective feedback (Huth, 2010; Theodórsdóttir,
2018). Some researchers prefer the term ‘repair’ when discussing non-
classroom settings, since corrective feedback from an interlocutor is
often absent (e.g., Schegloff, 1992). Indeed, some researchers argue for
the reconceptualization of error in L2 and heritage language speech
altogether, in order to account for ideological biases against emerging
global language varieties (e.g., Davidson, under review, p. 5).
Rather than debate typologies of correction and repair, I consider them
collectively, highlighting that some forms of corrective feedback are more
explicit than others (Lyster et al., 2013). For example, identifying an
erroneous form and correcting it (Mackey, 2013) is more explicit than
requesting verbal clarification or restatement (Philp & Tognini, 2009).
A clarification request, in turn, is more explicit than a reformulation
(Thoms, 2014)—when one speaker re-words another’s speech to increase
comprehensibility—and reformulations are more explicit than self-repair
(i.e., independently correcting one’s own speech) (Schegloff et al., 1977).
Concerning error, I consider anything I know to have been an L2 error
in my own speech as the interviewer or anything that was marked as
troublesome by the participant through corrective feedback.
The analysis suggests that some types of correction index larger
differentials in expertise by being more explicit and, furthermore, that
participants who provide explicit corrective feedback ideologically
index language expertise in other ways as well. To explore the poten-
tial connections between corrective feedback and the ideological co-
construction of expertise, the analysis presented in this chapter focuses on
how NS/HLS participants index their Spanish-language expertise through
language ideologies and how they correct L2 speech errors. Taken jointly,
these approaches expose connections between language ideologies and
the explicitness of corrective feedback as indexes of language expertise.
Methodology
Participants and Data Collection

Data are from 23 video- recorded interviews and biographical
questionnaires gathered in 2017 for a project on linguistic discrimin-
ation in Garden City, Kansas, a town of 30,000 with a majority Latino
population (Colcher, 2019). The interviews range from 22 minutes to
76 minutes in length (M = 46 minutes) and address a variety of topics
27
72 Drew Colcher
Table 4.1 Description of participants
Participants Female Male

(N = 23) (n = 15) (n = 8)
Age Mean 38 41 32
Range 24–54 26–54 24–47
Speaker history Native speaker 11 7 4
Heritage language speaker 12 8 4
Education Less than high school 1 1 0
High school /GED 9 4 5
Bachelor’s degree 7 6 1
Graduate degree 6 3 3
from language ideologies and experiences of discrimination to family

language policies and education. I conducted the interviews using a list
of questions, but conversations followed distinct courses based on the
participants’ responses. These are therefore loosely guided, mostly natur-
alistic dialogues about topics related to participants’ views on language.
No specific linguistic structures were targeted or elicited, and corrective
feedback was not part of the research design.
Participants were recruited using a snowball sampling method (Milroy
& Gordon, 2003). They were given the option to speak Spanish or
English; only Spanish interviews were included in the current analysis.
All interviews took place in the researcher’s home, or the participant’s
home or workplace. As Table 4.1 shows, participants range widely in
age (24–54), are predominately women (65%), and are relatively evenly
distributed between native and heritage Spanish speakers (47.8% and
52.2% respectively).
Conversation Analysis
I utilize the framework outlined earlier as part of an approach informed
by conversation analysis, or CA (Sacks et al., 1974). Within the analyt-
ical methodology of CA, social structures, such as distinctions of expert/
novice, are “fundamentally empirical and locally accomplished” (Hall,
2019, p. 81) and, thus, are recoverable through detailed analysis of dia-
logue. Within this framework, researchers do not assume the existence
of an objective social order, but rather attempt to illuminate how social
order is negotiated in lived human experience.
Although the analysis that follows includes variables from outside
of the conversational context (e.g., speaker history), which is not an
approach followed by CA researchers, I utilized conversation analytical
procedures to explore relevant interactions. This aligns with CA’s insist-
ence that “research questions [not be] taken a priori but rather emerge
from the data” (Boxer, 2004, p. 15). Through this approach, the goal of
37

this chapter is to identify how participants ideologically construct them-
selves as Spanish-language “experts” or “non-experts” via indexicality,
and how this relates to corrective feedback and language learning back-
ground (NS or HLS).
For the analysis procedures, I performed three rounds of review of
the data, recording timestamps for indexes of monoglossic and standard
language ideologies, which mainly took the form of negative attitudes
toward what participants identified as Spanglish. I additionally recorded
timestamps for my speech errors, marking those that were in some way
taken up by the participant and also those that were not. I transcribed
examples using CA conventions to describe utterances in detail, including
pauses, inward breaths, or emphatic speech.2 The results presented in in
the following section come from four representative participants, two HLS
and two NS (all names are pseudonyms). I (‘D’) am the L2 interviewer.
Results
Kristina C., the HLS ‘Expert’

Kristina C., age 39, was born in Colorado and raised in Garden City,
Kansas by parents who immigrated from Mexico as adults. She is a simul-
taneous Spanish–English bilingual who acquired Spanish from her parents
and English from her siblings and at school. Kristina therefore meets the
broad criteria defining heritage speakers of Spanish (Valdés, 2001).
Throughout Kristina’s interview, she emphasizes that she speaks—and
prefers—“educated” Spanish, and she criticizes regionalisms as “unedu-
cated.” These characterizations reflect a standard language ideology
(Lippi-Green, 1994), along with a negative evaluation of non-standard
varieties and their speakers. Kristina also indexes a monoglossic ideology
(García, 2009), making a very finite distinction regarding the accept-
ability of code-switching between English and Spanish versus using
English loanwords. Because participants made frequent references to
Spanglish, I began asking how each participant defined it. Kristina offers
the following definition (translation follows; English content spoken
within Spanish portions is bold):
Example 1: Kristina C.
1 K: U::m el Spanglish para mí: ((points at self))
2 D: Mmhmm.
3 K: Es poder hablar contigo en español,
4 D: Uh-huh.
5 K: And in English.
6 D: Sí,
K: The going back-
7 and-
forth. Not necessarily
(1.0) um, saying (4.0) oh, que te puedo decir
(3.0) ͘hhh (1.0) vamonos, uh, ok to me, the only
47
74 Drew Colcher
word that I can think of right now is say (1.0)
brakes.
8 D: Uh-huh?
9 K: (1.0) your brakes on your car are brakes.
10 D: Uh-huh.
K: ((leans forward)) Los frenos en el carro son
11
frenos, no las bre:quas.
12 D: ((chuckle)) Brequas?
13 K: Ya!
1 K: U::m Spanglish to me: ((points at self))

2 D: Mmhmm.
3 K: Is being able to speak with you in Spanish,
4 D: Uh-
huh.
5 D: And in English.
6 D: Yeah,
K: The going back-
7 and-
forth. Not necessarily
(1.0) um, saying (4.0) oh, what could I say to
you (3.0) ͘hhh (1.0) let’s go, uh, ok to me, the
only word that I can think of right now is say
(1.0) brakes.
8 D: Uh-
huh?
9 K: (1.0) your brakes on your car are brakes.
10 D: Uh-
huh
K: ((leans forward)) The brakes on the car are
11
brakes [frenos], not bre:quas [i.e., brequas, a
loanword for ‘brakes’]
12 D: ((chuckle)) Brequas?
13 K: Yeah!
In Example 1, Kristina provides a narrow definition of language mixing,

prioritizing inter-sentential code-switching (line 7)—often associated with
high bilingual fluency (Eichler et al., 2012)—over the use of loanwords
like brequas for ‘brakes’ (line 11). Kristina leans in and emphasizes each
syllable (line 11) to highlight her evaluation of this term as inappro-
priate. By criticizing brequas, Kristina implies that the widespread use
of loanwords is less desirable than the supposedly strict separation of the
grammars of the two languages: she indexes the monoglossic ideology.
As this sequence continues, I inquire about Kristina’s reactions to such
language:
1 D: Y qué piensas de esas (1.0)
2 K: Oh, es,
3 D: Esas palabras que (2.0)
4 K: ((choking sound))
57

5 D: No //te gusta?
K: No me gusta, no! No me gusta. Mm-
6 mm. ((shakes
head no))
7 D: Por qué?
K: (1.0) Brequas? Qué es brequas? ((expression of
8
disbelief))
9 D: ((laughter)) O troca?
10 K: ͘hhh (0.5) Camioneta.
11 D: °(Es una camioneta).
K: (4.0) Ya, so eso, las brequas, o um (1.0)
12
cositas así, I’m like (3.0) así!
13 D: //
Mmhmm.
14 K: No a:si:na.
1 D: And what do you think about those (1.0)

2 K: Oh, it’s,
3 D: Those words that (2.0)
4 K: ((choking sound))
5 D: You //don’t like it?
K: I don’t like it, no! I don’t like it. Mm-
6 mm.
((shakes head no))
7 D: Why?
K: (1.0) Brequas? What is brequas? ((expression
8
of disbelief))
D: ((laughter)) Or troca? [loanword from English
9
‘truck’]
K: ͘hhh (0.5) Camioneta. [standard Spanish for
10
‘truck’]
11 D: °(It’s a camioneta).
K: (4.0) Yeah, so that, the brequas, or um… little
12
things like that, I’m like… así! [modern Spanish
adverb meaning ‘thus’ or ‘in this manner’]
13 D: //
Mmhmm.
K: Not a:si:na. [i.e., asina, stigmatized archaic
14
form of así]
Kristina expresses distaste for non-standard Spanish by reacting with a

choking sound (line 4). I then offer the example of troca, from English
‘truck’ (line 9), which Kristina translates to the standard Spanish
camioneta (line 10). Kristina then suggests the stigmatized archaism asina
(line 12), a form of adverbial así which, like brequas (Example 1, line 11),
she syllabifies for emphasis. Troca and asina are commonly used in sev-
eral varieties of Spanish in the United States (Escobar & Potowski, 2015,
p. 124, p. 73); they are often attributed to HLSs in ways that under-
mine their expertise. Kristina distances herself from this attribution by
claiming a higher position in a perceived hierarchy of speakers, and she
does so by indexing monoglossic and standard language ideologies.
67
76 Drew Colcher
Kristina’s interview also contains the most explicit correction sequence
in the dataset. Shortly before the interactions in Example 2, Kristina and
I were discussing sources of written Spanish in her daily life. When I ask
Kristina what written material she consumes regularly, the following
sequence occurs:
K: Mmhmm, eso y:: [me gusta] leer las revistas en
1
español.
D: Hay revistas [sic: periódicos] en español acá
2
en Garden City?
3 K: Oh, sí, sí//
4 D: Eh:: La Semana? Es una:?
5 K: La revi-eso es una, un periódico.
6 D: Ah:: ok, ok=
7 K: Periódico ((points at D and smiles))
8 D: ((laughter))
9 K: No, pero las revistas-magazines.
10 D: Ah:: ok, bueno=
K: Mmhmm, that and:: [I like to] read magazines

1
in Spanish.
D: Are there magazines [sic: newspapers] in
2
Spanish here in Garden City?
3 K: Oh, yeah, yeah//
4 D: Eh:: La Semana? Is o:ne?
5 K: Magazi-that’s a, a newspaper.
6 D: Ah:: ok, ok=
7 K: Newspaper ((points at D and smiles))
8 D: ((laughter))
9 K: No but revistas-magazines.
10 D: Ah:: ok, right=
Kristina comments that she likes reading magazines in Spanish (line

1), but I misunderstand the word revista ‘magazine’ and provide La
Semana (a local newspaper or periódico) as an example (line 4). The
misunderstanding is genuine. Despite my knowledge of both words at
the time, I assigned the meaning ‘newspaper’ inaccurately to the word
revista, which happened in other interviews as well. Kristina corrects the
error, informing me that La Semana is a periódico, not a revista (line 5),
repeating the term periódico again (line 7) before translating revista (line
9). Her smile and pointing (line 7) playfully mark my mistake as a faux
pas, and illustrate Kristina’s willingness to instruct.
In Examples 1 and 2, Kristina constructs herself as an educated,
expert Spanish speaker by ideologically criticizing non-standard speech,
a construction I engage in by laughing in response to her examples of
7

Spanglish (line 12, Example 1; line 9, example 2). In Example 3, we
continue to co-construct Kristina’s expertise when I commit an error,
and she explicitly corrects it, thus acting on the expert identity she
indexes in Examples 1 and 2. In the next section, I discuss a native
Spanish-speaking participant who indexes expertise in the same manner
as Kristina.
Ana C., the NS ‘Expert’

Ana C., 42 years old, was born in Cuauhtémoc, Chihuahua, Mexico.
She immigrated with her parents to Garden City at age 13, and names
Spanish as her first language. Considering these facts, as well as her years
of formal education in a Spanish-speaking country, many researchers
would consider Ana a first-generation native Spanish speaker and sequen-
tial Spanish–English bilingual (Escobar & Potowski, 2015, p. 22).
Like Kristina, Ana criticizes regional dialects of Spanish, including
her own “Chihuahua accent,” and she emphasizes education. When
discussing her efforts to reduce her accent—specifically the use of the
fricative [ʃ] in place of the affricate [tʃ] in word-initial position, a stereo-
typical feature of Chihuahua Spanish (Méndez, 2017)—I ask Ana about
the importance of pronunciation:
Example 4: Ana C.
D: Era mu-ha sido muy importante para ti—
1 dominar
un acento:: estándar del inglés?
2 A: Mmhmm. ((nods head yes))
D: (0.5) Y:: mantener una forma estándar del
3
español?
A: Claro que sí, porque—
4 es como te digo, no
quiere::s medio (0.5) enseña::r=
5 D: °(Uh-huh).
A: A- a tus hijos (0.5) o sería hipocresía el
6
decir—el enojarte con alguien que dice mapear=
7 D: Uh-huh.
A: Y que tú no sa-no: (0.5) no sepa::s equis, i
8
griega o zeta.
9 D: Eh-heh=
10 A: O sea, que es una ridiculez para mí=
11 D: Sí.
A: ¡Es vergonzoso! Es (1.0) Pe- pero también
12
tiene que ver mucho la persona que tienes tú. Hay
personas que, como te digo, no tuvieron la opor
tunidad de °(estudiar (0.5) y no saben. (0.5) Y
el corregir a alguien no:: (0.5) necesariamente
siempre es: (0.5) lo:: lo que debe hacer uno).
((smiles))
87
78 Drew Colcher
D: Was it ver-has it been very important for you—
1
to master a standa::rd English accent?
2 A: Mmhmm. ((nods head yes))
3 D: (0.5) A::nd maintain a standard form of Spanish?
A: Of course, because—
4 it’s like I said, you don’t
want to:: half (0.5) tea::ch=
5 D: °(Uh-huh).
A: Y-
6 your kids (0.5) or it would be hypocrisy
to say—to get mad at someone who says mapear=
[loanword from English ‘to mop’]
7 D: Uh-huh.
A: And you don’t kn-
8 know, do:n’t (0.5) know:: x,
y, or z.
9 D: Eh-heh=
10 A: I mean, it’s ridiculous to me=
11 D: Yeah.
A: It’s shameful! It’s (1.0) bu-but also it has
12
a lot to do with the individual at hand. There
are people that, like I said, didn’t have the op
portunity to °(study (0.5) and they don’t know.
(0.5) And correcting someone is not:: (0.5) neces
sarily always what: (0.5) what:: one should do).
((smiles))
Prior to the talk in Example 4, Ana had introduced the term ‘accent,’
prompting me to ask if she considers it a priority to achieve a ‘standard
accent’ in her spoken English, and to cultivate a similar standard for
her Spanish (lines 1 and 3). Ana answers affirmatively (line 2), and she
elaborates that her reasons for doing so are to provide her children with
a proper linguistic role-model (lines 4, 6, 8), and to be justified in her
attitude toward those who may speak what she perceives as improper
Spanish (line 6).
Like Kristina, Ana provides a lexical borrowing from English (in this
case the verb mapear for ‘to mop’ instead of the standard Spanish trapear
or limpiar) as an example of incorrect Spanish (line 6). She says this kind
of mixed speech is ‘ridiculous’ (line 10) and ‘shameful’ (line 12), emphat-
ically stressing the nuclear syllable of each word. However, she states that
she refrains from correcting people because it is improper and perhaps
rude (line 12). Like Kristina, Ana attributes this speech to lack of formal
education (line 12), simultaneously indexing the standard language and
monoglossic ideologies.
Although she did not correct like Kristina, Ana initiates a clarification
request in Example 5, a similarly explicit type of corrective feedback.
After our discussion of the Spanish spoken in Garden City, and Ana’s
views on the importance of education for achieving fluency in standard
Spanish, I ask her about how different national varieties compare to
each other:
97

Example 5: Ana C.
D: En tu opinión: (0.5) en qué país hablan el-el
1
mejor español?
2 A: (2.0) A qué te refieres?
3 D: ͘hhh.
4 A: En qué país=
D: Puede-eh: qué país tiene el mejor acento:, la
5
mejor forma de hablar el español. Tienes (1.5)
opinión acerca de eso?
6 A: No te entiendo todavía.
7 D: //
Si:
8 A: Al decir país, te refieres a un paí:s (0.5)
9 D: Un país la-un país latinoamericano.
10 A: Oh, ok=
11 D: Sí.
12 A: (3.0) Ya te entendí.
D: In your opinion: (0.5) in what country do they

1
speak the-the best Spanish?
2 A: (2.0) What are you referring to?
3 D: ͘hhh
4 A: In what country=
D: Can- eh: what country has the best acce:nt,
5
the best way of speaking Spanish. Do you have
(1.5) an opinion about that?
6 A: I still don’t understand you.
7 D: //If:
A: When you say country [i.e., país], you’re
8
referring to a country: (0.5)
9 D: A La-a Latin American country.
10 A: Oh, ok=
11 D: Yeah.
12 A: (3.0) Now I understood you.
When asked which country speaks the best Spanish, Ana does not under-
stand (line 2), likely due to a contextual infelicity: I switched topics from
education to nationality without a prelude. Ana requests clarification,
and she repeats the misunderstood phrase (line 4). I then clarify by elab-
orating on mejor español ‘best Spanish’ (line 5), rather than the problem-
atic structure en qué país, ‘in what country,’ thinking the word país was
transparent. Ana repeats that she does not understand what I mean by
país (line 6) and requests clarification (line 8) rather than, for example,
reformulating. I clarify using the adjective latinoamericano ‘Latin
American’ (line 9), and Ana registers understanding (line 10) and then
pauses for three seconds before explicitly stating that she understands
(line 12). Following her indication of understanding, she answers the
08
80 Drew Colcher
question, expressing ambiguous attitudes toward other national varieties
of Spanish (not included in example because of length).
Like Kristina, the “HLS expert,” Ana offers more explicit corrective
feedback than other participants. She also indexes a higher level of
expertise through her ideological views on different language practices.
This illustrates that both native and HLS of Spanish index expertise in
conversation with L2 speakers via similar ideological routes. Later in
this section I compare Kristina and Ana (who index significant levels of
expertise) with Monica and Sara, who—despite similar or more intensive
Spanish learning histories—do not ideologically position themselves as
experts relative to other Spanish speakers. My analysis shows that they
likewise engage in less explicit forms of corrective feedback.
Monica D., the HLS ‘Non-expert’

Monica D., 48 years old, was born in Texas, raised in New Mexico, and
moved to Garden City at age 23. Her mother was born in Spain and her
father in Mexico; both immigrated to the United States as adults. Monica
grew up in regions where Spanish–English bilingualism has been the norm
for over 150 years and, like Kristina, she learned both simultaneously.
Despite stressing the importance of formal language education,
Monica expresses openness to code-switching and Spanglish, and does
not overtly criticize regionalisms or other Spanish speakers. After Monica
comments that for her, code-switching mostly involves using English for
Spanish terminology she lacks, I ask whether she feels it is the same for
all Spanish speakers:
Example 6: Monica D.
1 D: Sí. Eh: crees que ese:: spanglish, o lo que sea=
2 M: Mmhmm.
D: Puede ser algo:: hablado más naturalmente por
3
alguna gente? o °(simplemente es una situación así
como: (1.0) les falta una palabra y tienen que
decirlo en inglés).
M: (2.0) No, se me hace que es un modo de hablar
4
para gente. ((smiles))
5 D: Sí?
M: °(Sí, ya)—
6 es muy—͘hhh, es porque, es lo-es lo
que ha usado en (0.5) ah, todo el tiempo y: (1.0)
y °(piensan que así se dicen las cosas).
D:
1 Yes. Eh:: do you think that tha::t Spanglish,
or whatever=
2 M: Mmhmm.
D:
3 Could it be somethi::ng spoken more naturally
by some people? or °(is it just a situation like
18

that, li:ke (1.0) they’re missing a word and have
to say it in English).
M: (2.0) No, to me it seems like a way of speaking
4
for people. ((smiles))
5 D: Yeah?
M: °(Yes, now it’s)—
6 it’s very—͘hhh, it’s because,
it’s what-it’s what they’ve used in (0.5) ah, all
the time a:nd (1.0) and °(they think that’s how
things are said).
Whereas other participants tie loanwords or borrowings to lack of flu-

ency, Monica only indicates that possibility in her own case, and she
describes Spanglish as a natural form of communication (line 4). Like
Sara T. (Example 8), Monica does express some patronizing attitudes
toward such linguistic practices in characterizing Spanglish as “how they
think things are said” (line 6), but she never overtly places herself above
other speakers; elsewhere, she openly discusses her own use of code-
switching and loanwords. Monica thus does not ideologically construct
herself as an expert in Spanish in this Spanish-language interview.
Likewise, when confronted with trouble in L2 speech production
(Example 7), Monica’s general strategy is to not respond at all. As in
most of the interviews, Monica and I discuss media consumption habits
in both English and Spanish. One of the standardized interview questions
dealt with Latinos in news media in the United States. In Example 7,
I ask Monica about her views on the nature of media representations of
Latinos, whether good, bad, or neutral:
Example 7: Monica D.
D: Ah, ok. E::m (5.0) Eh:: ((clicking tongue)) (1.5)
1
tienes una opinión— acerca de representaciones de
los latinos en:: los medios? eh:: en los medios
de-de—(1.0) //
en inglés (1.0) digo.
M: ((nods head yes)) Uh-
2 huh ((confused face)) (1.5)
sí: (2.0) se me ha—uh-huh?
D: Pue::s cómo representan a los latinos en las
3
noticias?
4 M: (2.0) Igual, se me hace.
5 D: Sí?=
6 M: °(Uh-huh).
D: Es una buena representación °(de la comunidad
7
latina)?
8 M: °(Sí).
D: Ah, ok. E::m (5.0) Eh:: ((clicking tongue))

1
(1.5) do you have an opinion—
about representations
of Latinos in:: the media? Eh:: in the media from-
from—
(1.0) //
in English (1.0) I mean.
28
82 Drew Colcher
M: ((nods head yes)) Uh-
2 huh ((confused face)) (1.5)
yeah: (2.0) it seems—uh-huh?
D: We::ll how do they represent Latinos in the news?
3
4 M: (2.0) Seems the same, to me.
5 D: Yeah?=
6 M: °(Uh-huh).
D: It’s a good representation °(of the Latino com
7
munity)?
8 M: °(Yes).
Here, I utilize a truncation of the phrase medios de comunicación ‘mass

media,’ faltering several times before terminating the utterance with “the
media from… in English, I mean” (line 1). This ambiguous question could
be misinterpreted as, for example, a request to answer in English. Rather
than request clarification or reformulate the question, however, Monica
hesitantly agrees (line 2), an infelicitous response to an open- ended
question. I reformulate by saying “Well, how do they represent Latinos
in the news?” (line 3). However, I could have phrased the question more
concretely (i.e., ¿cómo se representan los latinos en las noticias? ‘how are
Latinos represented in the news?,’ and Monica still misunderstands. She
softens her voice and extralinguistically expresses confusion and contem-
plation (line 4), before affirming with a vague answer (“seems the same
to me” [line 4]). I reformulate again, offering the unfortunately leading
question “It’s a good representation of the Latino community?” (line 7).
Monica agrees in line 8, and the sequence closes.
When compared with Ana’s reaction to ambiguously phrased questions
(Example 5), Monica’s navigation of L2 linguistic trouble is not explicit.
She likewise does not express negative attitudes toward stigmatized
varieties of Spanish. However, her lack of corrective feedback could
arguably be a matter of language dominance: Monica is the only par-
ticipant discussed in the current analysis who expressed concern about
her Spanish fluency over time. In this view, Monica may have avoided
the question like an L2 speaker experiencing trouble (Turrero-García,
2017): answering affirmatively, remaining vague, and attempting to
move forward to different topics. Generally speaking, I did not perceive
that Monica was struggling with Spanish fluency. While fluency may have
played a role, the next example shows a native Spanish-speaking par-
ticipant reacting to L2 vagueness and error in ways similar to Monica,
suggesting that corrective feedback may be tied to the ideological con-
struction of expertise in dialogue.
Sara T., the NS ‘Non-expert’

Sara T. is a 44-year-old native Spanish speaker who was born in Ciudad
Delicias, Chihuahua, Mexico. She immigrated to the United States at
age 17. Unlike Monica, Sara indicates higher fluency in Spanish than in
38

English, and she talks about taking specific steps to improve her L2 com-
petency, like reading more in English.
Like Monica, Sara expresses neither strong monoglossic nor standard
language ideologies; she indicates no significant opposition to code-
switching, the use of English loanwords, or regional variation in Spanish.
Early in the interview, Sara and I discuss mixing English and Spanish, and
I ask if she thinks young people mix languages more than others. Sara
describes how her children mix Spanish and English more than she does,
and when I ask her opinion on such practices, Sara responds as follows:
Example 8: Sara T.
1 D: Y:: qué te parece, esa me-esa mezcla?
2 S: ((laughter)) Es, es gracioso a veces.
3 D: ((laughter)) Sí? (1.0) ¿Tú lo haces?
4 S: Eh:: ((smiles and widens eyes)) sí, a //
ve:ces.
5 D: Sí=
S: Ya se acostumbra uno, sí. Y como, em, trabajo
6
con muchos niños? en McDonald’s?
7 D: Sí.
S: Y, y hablan español (1.0) m::ocho? a veces la
8
mita::d hablan en español, y la mitad la dicen en
inglés?
9 D: Mmhmm.
S: Y se le va uno, se le va uno agarrando ((motion
10
toward head, indicating mind)). Se le va pegando
de:: tanto que los escucha uno.
D: ¿Y: te parece un:: proceso n-
11 natural? ¿Mezclar—
las lenguas así?
S: ͘hh (0.5) no que me parezca natural, pero se
12
me hace como:: (4.5) como que están entre (1.0) a
veces ellos—lo hacen sin pensarlo.
13 D: Mmhmm.
S: Y por n- no—
14 pos, tienen raíz de aquí, tienen
raíz de a- de México. Y se: ((motions fingerti
ps coming together repeatedly)) se les hace— yo
pienso que se les hace natural a ellos.
D: And:: what do you think about, that mi- that

1
mixture?
2 S: ((laughter)) It’s funny sometimes.
3 D: ((laughter)) Yeah? (1.0) Do you do it?
S: Eh:: ((smiles and widens eyes)) yeah, //
4
someti:mes.
5 D: Yeah=
S: You get used to it, yeah. And since, em, I work
6
with a lot of kids? at McDonald’s?
48
84 Drew Colcher
7 D: Yeah.
S: And, and they speak a (1.0) m::ocho [i.e.,
8
mocho, literally ‘stunted’] Spanish? sometimes
they speak ha::lf in Spanish, and half they say
it in English?
9 D: Mmhmm.
S: And you kind of, you kind of pick it up ((motion
10
toward head, indicating mind)). It sticks with
you fro::m the more one hears them.
D: A:nd does it seem like a:: n-
11 natural process
to you? Mixing—languages like that?
S: ͘hh (0.5) not that it seems natural to me but
12
it seems li::ke (4.5) like they’re between (1.0)
sometimes they—do it without thinking about it.
D: Mmhmm.
13
S: And from n-
14 not—
well, they have roots from here,
roots from the-from Mexico. And to: ((motions fi
ngertips coming together repeatedly)) to them it
seems—
I think it seems natural to them.
Sara describes mixing Spanish and English as gracioso ‘funny’ (line 2) and
mocho (literally ‘stunted,’ line 8). Mocho in this context means ‘broken
Spanish,’ which Sara hesitates to say, drawing out the first syllable and
marking the word with question intonation. However, she does not
openly criticize so-called mocho Spanish as inferior to hers. She admits
to having adopted this way of speaking to some extent after years of
working around youths at a local McDonald’s (line 6), and she describes
it as something that people do naturally “without thinking” (line 12).
Sara portrays language mixture as cultural mixture, associating it with
biculturality rather than a knowledge deficit, in contrast with Kristina
and Ana, the participants classified as “experts.” It may not be natural to
her (line 12), but she does not evaluate it negatively nor position herself
as expert despite her native Spanish fluency.
In accordance with the observation that participants who do not ideo-
logically index expertise seem to offer feedback that is less explicit, Sara
does not respond in any significant way to my grammatical errors. When
I ask a question that is poorly phrased to the extent that its meaning
changes entirely, Ana glosses over the flawed production, answering
based on inference:
Example 9: Sara T.
1 D: ¿Cómo trabaja: tu esposo?
2 S: (1.0) Mi esposo trabajaba en la planta?
3 D: Mmhmm.
4 [60.0]
58

5 D: Y en qué—trabajas?
6 S: (0.5) Yo?
7 D: Sí=
8 S: Yo trabajo: duré-trabajaba en McDonald’s.
D: How doe:s your husband work. [pragmatically

1
infelicitous question]
2 S: (1.0) My husband worked at the plant?
3 D: Mmhmm.
4 [60.0]
5 D: And what do—
you do for work?
6 S: (0.5) Me?
7 D: Yeah=
8 S: I wor:k I spent-I worked at McDonald’s.
¿Cómo trabaja? (line 1) is pragmatically infelicitous in this context,

seeming to inquire how well one works, or how it is possible that one
works. ¿En qué trabaja? (the intended question) translates to ‘what does
he do for a living?.’ Ana pauses for one second before answering the
intended question (line 2), deftly overcoming the error without refor-
mulation, correction, or clarification. At most, her answer of mi esposo
trabajaba en… ‘my husband worked at…’ (line 2) constitutes a partial
reformulation, offering the correct preposition en. Indeed, one minute
later, I phrase the question appropriately when directing it to Sara (line
5) rather than to her absent husband.
Despite being a first-generation native Spanish speaker and having
spent the most time receiving formal education in Spanish, Sara—like
Monica, but unlike Kristina and Ana—does not offer explicit corrective
feedback in response to L2 error at any point in the interview. She allows
me to self-repair, or she offers a partial reformulation of my erroneous
question, as in Example 9. Likewise, she does not overtly index an
ideological view of language expertise predicated on monoglossia and
standard language varieties.
Conclusion
The preceding analysis uses the framework of indexicality to illustrate one
manner in which expertise is negotiated: through indexing monoglossic
and standard language ideologies while offering corrective feedback at
varying degrees of explicitness. It suggests that Spanish speakers who
index stronger monoglossic and standard language ideologies also offer
more explicit corrective feedback to me, and that both of these phenomena
work toward the co- construction of an identity of language expert.
Because the pattern holds for both NS and HLS participants, I suggest
that this process represents one way in which expertise is constructed
via social interaction. This, in turn, illustrates one way in which native
68
86 Drew Colcher
and heritage language speakers are more similar than distinct, and can
both productively be viewed as native speakers engaging in overarching
ideologies about fluency and correctness. Researchers and educators can
work against essentializing, nativist stances toward different varieties of
Spanish by acknowledging that correction is not always an objective inter-
action, but also an ideological one (Leeman, 2005; Showstack, 2017).
These interviews show how monoglossic and standard language
ideologies that have traditionally been reinforced in classrooms are
enacted in the broader Spanish-speaking community of Garden City.
Speaking more generally, the analysis shows that L2 interlocutors also
engage in the same language ideologies indexed by NSs and HLSs of
Spanish. The fact that expertise is co-constructed in this fashion out-
side of classrooms (i.e., through language ideologies and correcting the
speech of others) can inform Spanish-language pedagogies. This insight
reinforces previous suggestions that heritage Spanish instructors pro-
mote students’ critical awareness of how ideologies, rather than objective
measures of competency, may shape their perceptions of the acceptability
or correctness of Spanish varieties to which they are exposed, and var-
ieties which they speak (see Vergara Wilson & Ibarra, 2015 for further
discussion). Language instructors who are conscious of how local com-
munities view language variation can more effectively construct L2 and
heritage language pedagogies informed by local community norms (Pak,
2018; Vergara Wilson & Ibarra, 2015). They should approach heritage
language varieties not from the standpoint of ideological correction, but
rather using the additive approach—valuing local variation while offering
access to other registers of Spanish (Correa, 2011).
Though the data analyzed reflect only one community in southwestern
Kansas, ideologies connect individual and local- scale phenomena to
overarching social structures through an emergent process of indexicality.
Ideologies of monoglossia and the belief in a standard language variety
can be and are experienced in nearly any setting (Douglas Fir Group,
2016). By contextualizing corrective feedback within ideological indexes
in this one setting, we begin to see how native, heritage, and L2 speakers
of Spanish negotiate error, correctness, and attitudes about the accept-
ability of language variation. The fact that ideological indexes of lan-
guage expertise and different types of corrective feedback naturalistically
co-occur suggests that jointly these practices are a productive site for ana-
lyzing the linguistic co-construction of social relations like those between
expert and novice.
The preceding analysis suggests that corrective feedback reproduces
hegemonic language ideologies by building on identities of expertise,
constructed indexically. This could expand our understanding of how
correction as an index of expertise plays a role in acquisition, because
monoglossia and the standard language ideology function as gatekeeping
forces privelging those with access to the prestigious speech norms of
their communities. In an increasingly polyglossic world, analyses like the
78

one presented in this chapter can be useful in increasing both academic
and broader public awareness of the ideological force of nativeness,
expertise, and correctness as related to the social construction of identity.
Notes
1 ‘Spanglish’ is a controversial term rejected by many scholars (e.g., Otheguy,
2011) because it ideologically devalues Spanish in the U.S. and the people who
speak it. I use it in this chapter because participants themselves utilize it to
describe the linguistic phenomena to which they refer.
2 See Sacks et al. (1974) for a description of conversation analysis conventions.
References
Boxer, D. (2004). Studying speaking to inform second language learning: A con-
ceptual overview. In D. Boxer & A. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform
second language learning (pp. 3–24). Multilingual Matters.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural lin-
guistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461445605054407
Colcher, D. (2019). “Speak American”: Linguistic discrimination against Latino
residents of Garden City, KS [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Wichita State
University. http://hdl.handle.net/10057/16395
Correa, M. (2011). Advocating for critical pedagogical approaches to teaching
Spanish as a heritage language: Some considerations. Foreign Language
Annals, 44(2), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01132.x
Davidson, J. (under review). Legitimizing Spanish-English contact in U.S. Spanish:
sociophonetic variation in Spanish orthographic <b> and <v>. Spanish in
Context.
Dings, A. (2012). Native speaker/nonnative speaker interaction and orientation
to novice/expert identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 1503–1518. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.015
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilin-
gual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(supplement), 19–47. https://
doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
Duff, P. (2019). Social dimensions and processes in second language acquisition:
Multilingual socialization in transnational contexts. The Modern Language
Journal, 103(supplement), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12534
Eichler, N., Hager, M., & Müller, N. (2012). Code- switching within deter-
miner phrases in bilingual children. Zeitschrift die Französische Sprache und
Literatur, 122(3), 227–258.
Escobar, A., & Potowski, K. (2015). El español de los Estados Unidos. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316091326
García, O. (2009). Livin’ and teachin’ “la lengua loca”: Glocalizing US Spanish
ideologies and practices. In M. Salaberry (Ed.), Language allegiances and
bilingualism in the US (pp. 151–171). Multilingual Matters.
Hall, J. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional
linguistics to a usage- based understanding of language: Expanding the
transdisciplinary framework. The Modern Language Journal, 103(supplement),
80–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12535
8
88 Drew Colcher
Huth, T. (2010). Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects of
elicited second-language interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4),
537–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01092.x
Koike, D. (2015). Changing frames in native speaker and learner talk. In D. Koike
& C. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communities (pp.
253–285). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.27.09koi
Leeman, J. (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers.
Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2005.tb02451.x
Leeman, J., & Serafini, E. (2020) “It’s not fair”: Discourses of deficit, equity,
and effort in mixed heritage and second language Spanish classes. Journal of
Language, Identity & Education [published online], 1– 15. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15348458.2020.1777866
Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory
pretext in the courts. Language in Society, 23(2), 163–198.
Lynch, A., & Polinsky, M. (2018). Native speakerhood in heritage language
research. In S. Bauckus & S. Kresin (Eds.), Connecting across languages and
cultures: A heritage language festschrift in honor of Olga Kagan (pp. 144–
162). Slavica.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second lan-
guage classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444812000365
Mackey, A. (2013). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning.
Oxford University Press.
Méndez, L. (2017). The variant [ʃ] in the Spanish of Ciudad Juárez. Borealis,
6(1), 243–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/1.6.1.4102
Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation.
Blackwell.
Otheguy, S. (2011). On so-called Spanglish. International Journal of Bilingualism,
15(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006910379298
Pak, C. (2018). Linking service– learning with sense of belonging: A cultur-
ally relevant pedagogy for heritage students of Spanish. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 17(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192716630028
Pascual y Cabo, D. (2018). Spanish as a heritage language in the U.S.: Core
issues and future directions. In K. Geeslin (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
Hispanic linguistics (pp. 478–495). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/9781316779194.023
Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts
and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 47(1), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.011
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn- taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696– 735.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
Schegloff, E. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense
of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5),
1295–1345. https://doi.org/10.1086/229903
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction
in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(1), 361–382.
https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
98

Showstack, R. (2017). Stancetaking and language ideologies in heritage language
learner classroom discourse. Journal of Language, Identity & Education,
16(5), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2016.1248558
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In
K. Basso & H. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 11–55). University
of New Mexico Press.
Theodórsdóttir, G. (2018). L2 teaching in the wild: A closer look at correction
and explanation practices in everyday L2 interaction. The Modern Language
Journal, 102(1), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12457
Thoms, J. (2014). An ecological view of whole-class discussions in a second-
language literature classroom: Teacher reformulations as affordances for
learning. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 724–741. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12119.x
Turrero-García, M. (2017). Proficiency matters: L2 avoidance in Spanish complex
wh- production. Borealis, 6(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.6.2.4098
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American
schools. Teachers College Press.
Vergara Wilson, D., & Ibarra, C. (2015). Understanding the inheritors: The per-
ception of beginning-level students toward their Spanish as a Heritage Language
program. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages Special
Issue, 2(2), 85–101. http://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.3.52
Woolard, K. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B.
Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice
and theory (pp. 3–50). Oxford University Press.
Zyzik, E. (2016). Toward a prototype model of the heritage language learner. In
M. Fairclough, S. Beaudrie, A. Roca, & G. Valdés (Eds.), Innovative strategies
for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 19–
38). Georgetown University Press.
09
19
Part II
Pragmatics of Discourse
29
39
5
Multimodal and Co-Constructed
Speech Acts
Gratitude and Other Responses to
Compliments and Gifts in Peninsular
Spanish
Lori Czerwionka, Sydney Dickerson,
and Rodrigo Aragon-Bautista
Introduction
The study of speech acts––utterances that create actions or contribute to
the creation of actions in the world (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969, 1976)–
–highlights cultural differences in the production and use of language.
Referring to certain expressive speech acts, which are utterances that
express and make present a psychological state of the speaker (Searle,
1976), Coulmas (1981) said that “while thanks and apologies may exist
as generic types of activities across cultures, it is obvious that the prag-
matic considerations of their implementation are culturally defined”
(p. 89). Knowing when, how, and to whom a speech act, like the expres-
sion of gratitude, is performed is crucial to intercultural and cross-cultural
communication. In Spain, the absence of the overt gratitude expression,
gracias ‘thank you,’ has been noted in certain interactions (de Pablos
Ortega, 2010; Haverkate, 1993, 2000; Hickey, 2005). This norm can be
surprising or even offensive to those unfamiliar with the thanking norms
and underlying cultural norms in Spain. And yet, the contextual depend-
ence of when gracias is used or not across languages has still not been
fully explored. Furthermore, in light of recent research demonstrating
that speech acts are co-constructed with verbal and nonverbal commu-
nicative resources (e.g., Drew & Couper-Kuhlen, 2014; Goodwin, 2000;
Koike, 2010; O’Halloran et al., 2014), speech act research must diverge
from traditional approaches to address a dialogic perspective in which
the contributions of multiple interlocutors and communicative resources
are explored in context in order to understand human interaction.1
This chapter considers current questions about when overt thanking
is used in Peninsular Spanish in response to compliments and gifts, how
Peninsular Spanish interactions continue in the absence of thanking, and
what a dialogic perspective offers to the understanding of gratitude and
other responses to compliments and gifts. We use the term ‘contexts of
49
94 Lori Czerwionka et al.

gratitude’ to refer to compliment and gift contexts, since gratitude is a
possible but not always required response. Data were collected by offering
a compliment and a gift to ten Peninsular Spanish speakers within an
interview interaction. By examining common ways in which language
is used in certain contexts, we contribute to the understanding of what
is pragmatically appropriate in Peninsular Spanish, where appropriate
pragmatic use can be defined as the expected norm for a given community
or context (Leech, 1983; Kasper & Rose, 2001). The results of this study
not only clarify speech act norms in Peninsular Spanish via the analysis
of naturally occurring contexts of gratitude and consideration of speech
act theory, but they also contribute a multimodal and co-constructed
approach to analyze interactions.
Literature Review
Expressive speech acts are one of the least studied types of speech acts
(Ronan, 2015). Most research on expressive speech acts has examined
compliment responses, which often include expressions of gratitude
or appreciation tokens (e.g., Cheng, 2011; Cui, 2012; Danziger, 2018;
de Pablos Ortega, 2010; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986; Golato, 2003;
Haverkate, 1993, 2000; Hickey, 2005; Holmes, 1986; Lorenzo-Dus,
2001; Maíz-Arévalo, 2012; Mir & Cots, 2017; Osuka, 2017; Pomerantz,
1978; Wong, 2010). Previous investigations have indicated that it is not
unusual to encounter the absence of thanking routines among Peninsular
Spanish speakers in contexts in which they are expected in other cultures
(e.g., de Pablos Ortega, 2010; Haverkate, 2000), such as in service or
transactional interactions.
This omission of a gratitude expression aligns with a cultural norm
found in Spain towards positive politeness:2 rather than put distance
between and show deference to one’s interlocutor, Peninsular Spanish
speakers emphasize solidarity (e.g., de Pablos Ortega, 2010; Haverkate,
2000; Lorenzo-Dus, 2001; Maíz-Arévalo, 2012). The trend to value posi-
tive politeness over negative politeness has been found to exist in much of
the Spanish-speaking world (e.g., Curcó, 2007; García, 1993; Márquez-
Reiter, 2000; Ruzickova, 2007).3 Explaining the dependence on positive
politeness norms, Márquez-Reiter et al. (2005) indicated that Peninsular
Spanish speakers rely on concrete understandings of specific relationships
and trust in the rather unchanging existence of those relationships (e.g.,
service provider–client, mother–daughter). This tendency justifies the use
of speech acts that lack additional verbal effort (Márquez-Reiter et al.,
2005) and also explains the absence of gratitude expressions in certain
contexts. Although the omission of thanking routines in Spanish service
and transactional contexts has been consistently indicated by pragmatics
researchers (de Pablos Ortega, 2010; Haverkate, 2000; Hickey, 2005),
incomplete understandings exist with regard to other thanking contexts
such as in response to receiving a compliment or a gift. Furthermore,
59
Multimodal and Co-Constructed Speech Acts 95

little is known about the sequential organization of verbal and nonverbal
resources used by interlocutors to continue the interaction when grati-
tude expression is a possibility.
Gratitude in Response to Compliments

In systematic analyses of compliment responses in face- to-face
interactions, using both discourse completion tasks (DCT) and natur-
alistic data, many investigations have aimed to define taxonomies of
compliment response strategies or use taxonomies to analyze data (e.g.,
Lázaro Ruiz & Ramajo Cuesta, 2015; Maíz-Arévalo, 2012; Mir & Cots,
2017). A common finding about compliment responses in Peninsular
Spanish is that compliment responses indicate acceptance of the compli-
ment about half of the time, using various substrategies like appreciation
(e.g., gracias), agreement, downgrading, enhancement, and returning the
compliment (e.g., 47% accept, Maíz-Arévalo, 2012; 48.3% accept, Mir
& Cots, 2017; cf. 26%, Mack & Sykes, 2009). Other possible responses
found were evading or rejecting the compliment (e.g., 24.5% evade,
28.5% reject [Maíz-Arévalo, 2012]; 45.4% self-praise avoidance, 5.9%
non-acceptance [Mir & Cots, 2017]). Although compliments can gener-
ally be accepted, evaded, or rejected, many compliment responses do not
fit squarely within one of these categories, and thus these results challenge
the application of taxonomies. Instead, compliment responses often lie
between categories as a result of concurrent conflicting needs to agree with
the interlocutor and also to display modesty (Leech, 1983), a common
explanation for the underlying cultural expectations surrounding compli-
ment responses (Pomerantz, 1978).
Although Peninsular Spanish speakers accept compliments, at least
about half of the time (Maíz-Arévalo, 2012; Mir & Cots, 2017), they do
not necessarily use an overt expression of thanks. Lorenzo-Dus (2001)
found that one of the most frequent Peninsular Spanish responses to a
compliment in a DCT was a request for repetition and expansion of the
compliment (e.g., Are you sure? You don’t think it looks bad?), a strategy
that avoided thanking and self-praise. Commenting more specifically on
the use of overt gratitude expressions and using the same nine DCT com-
pliment contexts as Lorenzo-Dus (2001), Mir and Cots (2017) found
that Spaniards considered gracias to be possible in 51% of the responses
across strategies.4 With less frequency, Mack and Sykes (2009) found
that appreciation alone or in conjunction with other strategies was used
in 88 of 250 Peninsular responses (35.2%) to a compliment response
electronic DCT. Different from DCT data, de Pablos Ortega’s (2010)
questionnaire about contexts in which an absence of thanking is appro-
priate among British, American, and Spanish participants showed that
Spanish respondents did not find it necessary to include a thanking rou-
tine in response to compliments. These different approaches are comple-
mentary, and collectively, they indicate that gracias is a possible response
69

to compliments in Peninsular Spanish (Mir & Cots, 2017), but that it
does not represent the sociopragmatic norm (Mack & Sykes, 2009) (i.e.,
it is not expected by Spanish interlocutors [de Pablos Ortega, 2010]).
Gratitude in Response to Gifts

Analyses of gratitude expression in contexts beyond compliment response
have been minimal in comparison (Hickey, 2005). Gift-giving contexts
have been explored to some degree (Hickey, 2005; de Pablos Ortega,
2010), and gratitude expressions have been reported to be used in close
conversations (Aston, 1995; see Hernández López & Placencia, 2004,
p. 140 for an example in a Peninsular Spanish service encounter) and serve
various other pragmatic functions (Dumitrescu, 2006). Hickey (2005)
examined the reactions of American English and Peninsular Spanish
speakers in roleplays including and not including expressions of gratitude
and found that giving thanks is an expected response to receiving a gift for
Peninsular Spanish speakers. His respondents also assessed expressions of
appreciation, which lacked overt thanks, as appropriate expressions for
the context provided that the appreciation was reasonably explicit and
sincere. De Pablos Ortega (2010) examined the perceived appropriate-
ness of responses to receiving a gift without overt thanking: Peninsular
Spanish speakers diverged considerably from the thanking behavior
they assessed as appropriate in response to compliments. In response
to receiving a gift, not only did speakers find it necessary to include a
gratitude expression, but they also deemed it important to incorporate a
further remark on the object gifted. Thus, with the somewhat diverging
judgments about the expectation for gratitude expressions in response to
gifts and the absence of analyses of naturalistic data, little information is
known about the use of gratitude expressions and interactions in general
in response to gifts in Peninsular Spanish.
Towards the Current Study

Given the few analyses of gratitude expressions in naturally occurring
Peninsular Spanish interactions (cf. observational study by Maíz-Arévalo,
2012), this investigation aims to compare the use of gratitude expressions
when receiving a compliment and gift in authentic interactions in
Peninsular Spanish. Participants were interviewed, and within the
interviews the interviewer gave a compliment and a gift to each partici-
pant, eliciting authentic responses to the compliment and gift. Analysis of
authentic data complements prior DCT and judgment task research, fur-
ther clarifying Peninsular Spanish thanking norms and underlying polite-
ness norms as they emerge in real-life interactions.
Furthermore, in light of previous reliance on DCTs and judgment
tasks that by nature lack authenticity, multimodal information, and
multispeaker contributions, this investigation seeks to examine contexts
79

of gratitude from a multimodal and dialogic perspective. Speech acts do
not occur as isolated utterances, but within ongoing discourse and over
various conversational turns (e.g., Arundale, 1999; Culpeper et al., 2018;
Drew & Couper-Kuhlen, 2014; Koike, 2010; Weigand, 2006). Pragmatic
meaning is also constructed via linguistic and non-linguistic resources
(e.g., Goodwin, 2000; O’Halloran et al., 2014); linguistic expressions
interact with affective expressive sounds (e.g., ooh, ah), gesture, manipu-
lation of physical objects, and gaze to make meaning and achieve actions
in interaction (e.g., Heath & Luff, 2013; Selting, 2012; Streeck, 2013).
This dialogic, multimodal approach changes how we conceive of
speech acts and how we examine them, and it calls for additional
research that highlights the co-construction of speech acts in interaction.
Therefore, this investigation offers a turn-by-turn, multimodal analysis of
contexts where gratitude is possible, focusing specifically on responses to
compliments and gifts. This approach goes beyond an analysis of strat-
egies, and it exposes the sequential, verbal, and nonverbal organizational
behaviors that are essential to expressing gratitude in Spanish or to con-
tinue interaction in contexts where gratitude is omitted. We examine
multimodal communicative resources, including linguistic structures,
affective expressive sounds, gesture, manipulation of physical objects,
and gaze, and show their communicative value in speech act construction
focusing on contexts of gratitude.
Methods
Participants
The participants (N = 11) were native speakers of Peninsular Spanish
from Madrid (six males, five females, 18–23 years old). All were enrolled
in or had completed tertiary education at a Spanish university. The
relatively small sample size provides data for an exploratory study of
Peninsular Spanish interactions in contexts of gratitude. All participant
names presented in this chapter are pseudonyms.
Procedure and Materials

One researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with participants,
discussing topics of study abroad, international travel, and cross-cultural
comparisons. The interviewer was a male native speaker of Peninsular
Spanish from Madrid and was similar in age and university background
to the participants. At the time of data collection, he was completing a
graduate degree at a U.S. institution. The interviewer knew 8 of the 11
participants personally. The interview served as a distractor to the object
of study—expressions of gratitude.
Within each interview, the interviewer used two prompts: a compli-
ment and a gift. These two prompts were selected considering Coulmas’s
89

(1981) distinctions between the possible actions that prompt grati-
tude expressions and his specific mention of compliments and gifts.
Furthermore, with the goal of eliciting authentic responses, these
two prompts fit naturally within the context of an interview and the
intervierwer–interviewee relationship.
The first prompt was a compliment (e.g., me gustan las botas esas ‘I
like those boots’; está guapa la camiseta ‘your shirt is pretty’). The com-
pliment given to each participant and its linguistic structure varied across
interviews since the same compliment may not have truthfully applied to
each participant. Although the compliments varied, the interviewer was
aware of common compliment structures in Spanish, which are less for-
mulaic in Spanish than in English (see Placencia & Yépez, 1999). Of the
11 compliments in this investigation, seven were delivered with mental
verbs of liking (i.e., me gusta(n) ‘I like’), three with a copular verb and
adjective, and one as a combination of these two types, all of which are
common linguistic structures for Spanish compliments (Maíz-Arévalo,
2010, cited in Maíz-Arévalo, 2012).5 The second prompt was a gift of
minimal monetary value, which was given at the end of the interview.
Gifts were a key ring from the researchers’ university along with a gift
card for a coffee purchase at a local coffeeshop or a T-shirt from the
researchers’ university. Eight participants received a T-shirt and three
received a key ring and a gift card for a coffeeshop. The variability in the
compliment structures and gifts was accounted for in the analyses.
Interviews lasted between 20–30 minutes and were video recorded by
the interviewer and transcribed for analysis by authors. Transcription
conventions relied on those used by Jefferson (2004), including:
(()) Description of gestures, behaviors, word meaning, etc.

(.) A brief interval
? High rising intonation
= No break or gap
Analysis
This study included quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quanti-
tative analysis focused on the presence or absence of gracias, which
has been shown to distinguish expressions of gratitude across cultures
and contexts (de Pablos Ortega, 2008, 2010; Haverkate, 2000; Hickey,
2005). Quantification of other communication resources was conducted
to support and contextualize the qualitative analyses (i.e., smiling,
nodding, gaze, touch, affective expressive sounds, laughter, additional
commentary, type of additional commentary).
For the qualitative analysis, researchers examined expressions of grati-
tude and other responses to compliments and gifts as co-constructed
sequences in interaction between interlocutors that occurred over multiple
conversational turns and relied on verbal and nonverbal communicative
9

Table 5.1 Key characteristics of interactions in contexts of gratitude
Verbal features Nonverbal features Sequencing

patterns
Overt thanking (e.g., gracias Physical manipulation of the Various

‘thank you’) object gifted or complimented
(e.g., holding up gift)
Evaluative utterances Smiling
(e.g., me gusta ‘I like it’)
Affective expressive sounds Nodding
(e.g., ooh, ah, gasping,
laughter)
resources. Analyses included linguistic resources and other communica-

tive resources (e.g., affective expressive sounds, facial expression, gesture,
manipulation of physical objects, gaze), contributing a new approach to
understanding the multiple, meaningful resources used to co-construct
contexts of gratitude in Spanish. Through the iterative process of observing
verbal and nonverbal communicative resources in the transcriptions and
video-recorded data, the researchers identified common trends in how
gratitude and other responses were co- constructed in discourse. Key
characteristics of the interactions, which are highlighted in the results
section, were verbal features, nonverbal features, and sequencing patterns
of the communicative resources (Table 5.1).
Results
The results section addresses the participants’ expressions of grati-
tude first in response to compliments and then in response to gifts. For
each, quantitative findings of overt thanking are presented, followed by
excerpts that represent the co-construction of gratitude trends and the
use of verbal and nonverbal communicative resources identified through
qualitative analysis.
Compliment Responses
In analyzing the videos and transcriptions of giving and responding to
a compliment, several trends emerged. Most notable was the fact that
most participants did not include an explicit expression of gratitude
(i.e., gracias). Of the 11 participants, four responded with a form of gra-
cias (36.4%) (two male, two female); seven did not (63.6%) (four male,
three female).6 Excerpts (1) and (2) show the use of gracias as well as
smiling and nodding as supplementary nonverbal resources. All compli-
ment responses that included an explicit statement of gracias immediately
ended with that statement, and interlocutors then transitioned to the next
interview question.
01

EXCERPT 1. El vestidito
1 INTERVIEWER: Ay (.) me gusta el vestidito
Ay (.) I like the dress
2 ISABEL: ((smiles)) Ay (.) gracias
((smiles)) Ay (.) thank you
La riñonera (la riño)

EXCERPT 2.
1 INTERVIEWER:Bueno (.) está guapa la riño
Well (.) it’s good-
looking the belt
2 DIEGO: Gracias (.) tío ((smiles, nods))
Thanks (.) man ((smiles, nods))
When gracias was not used, which was the case in the majority of the
compliment responses, the interactions relied on nonverbal communi-
cative resources or additional commentary on the target of the com-
pliment, and they occurred over multiple interviewer and interviewee
turns. Excerpt (3) demonstrates the nonverbal communicative resources
of gaze, touch, and smiling (lines 2 and 5). Hilaria acknowledges the
compliment by looking at and touching the object complimented, her
jacket. In fact, she uses the nonverbal expressions before the interviewer
completes the compliment in line 3, which highlights both the commu-
nicative value of the interviewer’s nonverbal focus on her jacket and the
interlocutors’ co-construction of the compliment. Following the com-
pliment, Hilaria appears to display her appreciation or agreement by
smiling. It is unclear whether the sí ‘yes’ (line 5) serves as agreement with
the compliment, an assertion that she is wearing a jacket, or agreement
that her jacket is warm. Regardless, Hilaria’s nonverbal agreement or
appreciation of the compliment seems to be a pragmatically sufficient
contribution. Closing the sequence, the interviewer offers a summarizing
compliment, saying Está guay ‘It’s cool’ in line 6, before transitioning to
the next question.
EXCERPT 3. La chaqueta
1 INTERVIEWER: Bueno (.) me gusta el=
Well (.) I like the=
2 HILARIA: ((looks down, touches jacket))
3 INTERVIEWER: =el qué es una una chaqueta (.) un
=that what is a a jacket (.) a
4 suéter. Se ve así calentito (.) No?
SWEATER. It looks like warm (.) right?
5 HILARIA: ((smiles)) Sí (.) es una chaqueta.
((smiles)) Yes (.) it is a jacket.
6 INTERVIEWER: Está guay. (.) Bueno. cómo estás?
It’s cool. (.) So. how are you?
Similarly reliant on nonverbal resources, Noé, in Excerpt 4 relies solely

on nonverbal behavior, nodding and smiling in his response, which serves
1
0

as a conversational turn (line 2). Yet, unlike when gracias is used, the
interaction remained focused on the object of the compliment over mul-
tiple turns with the interviewer’s evaluative comment and agreement by
Noé in lines 3 and 4.
Excerpt 4. La camisa 1
1 INTERVIEWER: Me gusta mucho la camisa que llevas
I like a lot the shirt that you're wearing.
2 NOÉ: ((nods head, smiles))
3 INTERVIEWER: En plan de estas largas (.) no?
It’s like those long ones (.) right?
4 NOÉ: ((looks at shirt))
Claro (.) sí ((laughs))
Of course (.) yes ((laughs))
When nonverbal responses were accompanied by the interviewee’s com-

mentary about the item complimented, which was common, some com-
mentary shifted the focus away from the interviewee and the compliment
(e.g., how much the item cost, where it was purchased), whereas other
commentary expressed blatant agreement. Excerpt (5) demonstrates
both types of commentary, as well as nonverbal indicators of agreement,
acknowledgement, or appreciation. In line 3, Damián agrees by nodding
his head, displays appreciation or agreement by smiling, and comments
that his shirt is good-looking. Finally, in line 5, he comments on its price.
This exchange is also an excellent example of the co-constructive nature
of the speech act sequence, as Damián literally completes the interviewer’s
compliment (line 3). Furthermore, both interlocutors together constructed
agreement and their shared opinion, Damián through nodding his head
and offering the evaluative guapa ‘good-looking’ and the interviewer
through his tag question in line 4, which both confirms that he shares the
opinion that the shirt is guapa ‘good-looking’ and seeks further agreement
from the interviewee.
Excerpt 5. La camiseta
1 INTERVIEWER: Bueno (.) me gusta la camiseta esa (.)
Well (.) I like that shirt (.)
2 Es como=
It’s like=
3 DAMIÁN: ((nods heads, smiles))
=Está guapa
=It’s good looking
4 INTERVIEWER: No?
Right?
5 DAMIáN: Tres pavos
Three pavos ((pavo is slang for euro))
2
0
1

Excerpt (6) demonstrates another example of offering information about
the item being complimented, stating where it was purchased. Note,
again, the combination of acknowledgment (touching the blouse) and
appreciation (smiling) in line 3.
Excerpt 6. La blusita
1 INTERVIEWER: Me gusta la (.) la blusita esa que
I like the (.) the that blouse that
2 LLEVAS.
you are wearing.
3 ALBA: ((smiles, touches blouse))
Es del H y M.
It’s from H and M.
In sum, when responding to compliments, although some explicit

expressions of gratitude were present, it was more common for participants
to employ a combination of multimodal communicative resources over
multiple turns that did not include gracias. In the absence of overt grati-
tude expressions, individual interactions employed a range of nonverbal
resources like smiling (8 interactions), nodding (5 interactions), gaze, and
physical manipulation of the item being complimented, as well as verbal
resources of additional commentary (5 interactions). Additional commen-
tary included downgrading in four cases (e.g., inexpensive, it was a gift
from someone) or informational details about the item. In three cases, the
interviewee included verbal agreement with the compliment. The multi-
modal resources supplemented or stood in place of an overt expression of
gratitude and were employed over the course of several turns, contrasting
with the idea of compliment responses as simply constituting one side of
a two-part adjacency pair.
These results parallel de Pablos Ortega’s (2010) finding about compli-
ment responses indicating that for Peninsular Spanish speakers, it is not
necessary to include a thanking routine in response to compliments. The
current data exhibited less reliance on appreciation tokens (e.g., gracias)
than in Mir and Cots’ (2017) study, which was expected considering the
design of that study, which allowed participants to list up to four pos-
sible responses, but a similar degree of usage as found by Mack and Sykes
(2009). The current results depart from the idea, presented in de Pablos
Ortega (2008), that it is necessary to respond to a compliment with some
sort of overt thanking routine in order to reestablish interactional balance
between the two speakers. While reflecting various compliment response
strategies found in prior literature (e.g., enhance, downgrade), these
results uniquely point out the coordination of verbal and nonverbal com-
municative resources, and sometimes the sole reliance on nonverbal com-
municative resources, as acknowledgment, agreement, and appreciation
in response to a compliment. The current data point to an overarching
trend to accept a compliment, so much so that at times the compliment
3
0
1

itself is co-constructed between the compliment giver and compliment
receiver (e.g., Excerpts 3 and 5).
Gift Responses
The quantitative trends that emerged from the analysis of gift responses
did not mirror those found in response to compliments. Rather, in this
context, the vast majority of participants, nine of the 11, invoked an
explicit statement of gracias.7 Excerpt 7 illustrates the common use of
explicit thanking in response to receiving a gift.
Excerpt 7. Mola, me gusta

1 INTERVIEWER: Para terminar (.) te voy a dar para
To finish (.) I’m going to give you so
2 que recuerdes un poco esta
that you remember a little this
3 experiencia te voy a dar una camiseta
experience I’m going to give you a
T-shirt
4 DAMIÁN: Ah (.) muchas gracias
Ah (.) thank you very much
((smiles,laughs, holds shirt up))
5 INTERVIEWER: De la universidad…
From the university…
6 DAMIÁN: Mola (.) me gusta
Cool (.) I like it
7 INTERVIEWER: …para que recuerdes esta entrevista
…so that you remember this interview
8 DAMIÁN: Ah (.) muchas gracias tío
Ah (.) thank you very much man
9 INTERVIEWER: Y nada. Con eso hemos terminado ya.
That’s all. With that we’ve finished.
As in Excerpt 7, muchas gracias ‘thank you very much’ as opposed to

gracias alone was a frequent response to receiving a gift. Of the nine
participants who explicitly thanked in this context, six utilized the inten-
sifier muchas ‘very much.’ This finding stands in contrast to the compli-
ment responses, in which none of the four participants who invoked an
explicit expression of gratitude included the intensifier. It seems likely that
the inclusion of an intensifier in gift-receiving contexts was an acknow-
ledgment on behalf of the recipient of the extra effort that is inherent in
giving a gift relative to giving a compliment.
Additionally, Excerpt 7 exhibits the co-constructive nature of the gift
exchange sequence, where what would traditionally be considered a two-
part adjacency pair unfolds over six turns, three by each speaker. The
interviewer stated his intention to give Damián a gift, explained that it
4
0
1

was from his university, and that it was meant as a memento of the inter-
view. Damián responded to each of the three interviewer utterances with
two explicit thanking routines and an expression of satisfaction with the
item in line 6. The coordinated gift giving and gift receiving collabora-
tively constructed one expressive speech act of gratitude.
The explicit statements of gracias and muchas gracias were fre-
quently accompanied by nonverbal expressions of gratitude and appre-
ciation, including physical manipulation of the item by holding it up (8
interactions), gazing at the object and smiling (11 interactions), laughing
(5 interactions), nodding (4 interactions), and hugging the interviewer (1
interaction), as well as the use of other affective expressive sounds (e.g.,
ay, ooh, gasping) (2 interactions), as seen in Excerpt 7. The frequency
with which nonverbal and affective expressive responses accompanied
explicit linguistic expressions of gratitude suggests that these are a fun-
damental part of a pragmatically appropriate response to receiving a gift
for these speakers. Interestingly, one of the two participants that did not
invoke an explicit statement of thanks in her response was also the only
participant that hugged the interviewer after receiving the gift (Excerpt
8). This seems to suggest that such overt nonverbal expression of grati-
tude may be a pragmatically appropriate substitute for the explicit gra-
cias, which is the Peninsular Spanish pragmatic norm when accepting
a gift based on the current data and prior research (Hickey, 2005; de
Pablos Ortega, 2010).
Excerpt 8. ¿Me vas a dar un regalo?

1 INTERVIEWER: Pues ya para terminar
So now to finish…
((takes gift out ofbag))
2 ALBA: Me vas a dar un regalo?
Are you going to give me a gift?
((smiles))
3 INTERVIEWER: Para que recuerdes (.) esto
So that you remember (.) this
4 ALBA: Me vas a dar un regalo?
Are you going to give me a gift?
5 De verdad? ((smiles, gasps))
Really? ((smiles, gasps))
6 INTERVIEWER: Te voy a dar esto de aquí
I’m going to give you this here
7 ALBA: Esto es lo que has dicho tú (inaudible)
This is what you said (inaudible)
8 verdad que sí?
isn’t it?
9 INTERVIEWER: Toma.
Here.
5
0
1

10 ALBA: Qué chula. ((hugs interviewer))
How cool. ((hugs interviewer))
11 Me gusta (.)
I like it (.)
In addition to exemplifying the combination of nonverbal expressions of

appreciation in conjunction with an explicit statement of gracias, Excerpt
8 shows the co-construction of a gift giving and receiving sequence.
The interviewee, Alba, smiles in line 2 after verbalizing the action to be
performed by the interviewer (i.e., gift giving) with her utterance ¿Me vas
a dar un regalo? ‘Are you going to give me a gift?’ Then, the interviewer
linguistically constructs the gift-giving action in lines 3 and 6; Alba co-
constructs this action by repeating her question in line 4 and expressing
acceptance or appreciation (smile) and excitement (gasp) in line 5. The
positive evaluations and the hug (line 10) respond to the gift. In Excerpt
8, as in many of the excerpts, questions posed by the gift receiver were
commonly used in interactions to add turns, extend the interaction, and
co-construct the gift-giving/gift-receiving sequence.
Finally, when receiving a gift, the participants used evaluative
expressions in 7 of the 11 interactions. These included comments on the
usefulness of the gift, how much the recipient liked it, and descriptions of
the item as cool or nice; they occurred before or after overt expressions
of gratitude. Damián, in Excerpt 7, responded with Mola (.) me gusta
‘Cool (.) I like it,’ and Alba, in Excerpt 8, said Qué chula ((hugs inter-
viewer)) Me gusta (.) ‘How cool ((hugs interviewer)) I like it (.).’ Other
gift receivers expressed evaluatives like those in the following excerpts in
response to receiving the shirt:
Excerpt 9. ¡Ooh! Me encanta

1 ISABEL: ¡Ooh! Me encanta
Ooh! I love it
((holds shirt on body as if to wear it))
2 Purdue University (.) Me voy a dormir con
Purdue University (.) I’m going to sleep with
3 ella muy a gusto de verdad.
it very comfortably really.
Excerpt 10. Genial tío

1 NOÉ: Genialtío (.) Joder (.) qué guapa(.)
Awesome man (.) Wow8 (.) how good- looking (.)
2 De puta madre tío.
Kick-ass man.
In sum, unlike when receiving compliments, being given a gift warranted

an explicit expression of gratitude for the majority of the participants
in this study. Also typical were nonverbal responses including smiling,
6
0
1

nodding, and physically manipulating the gift, affective expressive sounds
like ay, ooh, gasping, and laughing, and evaluative commentary that
consisted of expressing the utility of the gift (e.g., me vale ‘I’ll use it,’
me voy a dormir con ella ‘I’ll sleep with it’) and one’s satisfaction with
it (e.g., genial ‘great,’ guay ‘cool,’ qué chula ‘how cool,’ qué bien ‘how
nice,’ me gusta ‘I like it’). These types of responses were consistent across
both types of gifts.
These results align with de Pablos Ortega’s (2010) conclusion that in
response to being given a gift, Peninsular Spanish speakers find it neces-
sary to include a gratitude expression. However, unlike in the current data,
Hickey (2005) found that any reasonably explicit expression of appreci-
ation qualifies as giving thanks, which may or may not be performed for-
mulaically with gracias. The results of the current study depart from this
idea by demonstrating that the overt terms gracias and muchas gracias
are the most common means of giving thanks in response to a gift, with
9 of the 11 participants using these formulaic devices. Furthermore, these
results also confirm de Pablos Ortega’s (2010) finding that Peninsular
Spanish speakers deem it important to incorporate commentary on the
object being gifted. In addition to complementing prior findings by
providing an analysis of authentic gratitude expressions in Peninsular
Spanish, the current data also highlighted that gift giving and thanking
are acts that occur through verbal and nonverbal expressions, which are
often co-constructed by the two interlocutors over multiple turns.
Discussion
The current results offer new insights into the use of multimodal commu-
nicative resources and the co-construction of speech acts in contexts of
gratitude in Peninsular Spanish.
Multimodal Resources and Co-Construction of Gratitude

Linguistic resources, nonverbal resources, and affective expressive sounds
interacted together in contexts of gratitude. Nonverbal resources and
affective expressive sounds typically occurred in conjunction with lin-
guistic expressions and were picked up in interaction as relevant parts of
speakers’ turns, confirming that they are meaningful in speech act pro-
duction. The analyses also showed that gift and compliment giving and
receiving are not simple adjacency pairs. They are acts that were created
in interaction over multiple, and at times co-constructed, turns. Giving
gifts and compliments, and receiving them, are often thought of as acts
with one agent, but in most cases, the evidence showed that multiple
agents worked together to construct these acts in conversation.
Although multimodality and co-construction are relevant to both the
gift and compliment situations, each context called for unique language
and communication norms. Comparing the two contexts of gratitude
7
0
1

Table 5.2 Summary of compliment and gift response similarities and differences
Compliment response Gift response
Gratitude Overt gratitude Overt gratitude expression often

expression expression is not with intensification (i.e., muchas
common1 gracias ‘thank you very much’) 2
Other linguistic Agreement and Agreement and evaluative
resources acknowledgment comments
Nonverbal Nodding, smiling, Nodding, smiling, physical
resources physically manipulation of the item by
and affective manipulating or holding it up, affective expressive
expressive gazing at the object sounds (e.g., ay, ooh, gasping,
sounds laughing)
Turns Multiple turns Multiple turns
1
4 of the 11 compliment responses included gracias.
2
9 of the 11 gift responses included gracias.
(Table 5.2), a principal difference between them was the presence or

absence of gracias. The results indicated that in Peninsular Spanish
overt thanking is expected in response to a gift, but not in response to a
compliment, aligning the current results from authentic data with prior
research using questionnaires and observation (de Pablos Ortega, 2008,
2010; Haverkate, 2000). While these differences are not categorical,
the trends are quite clear even in the small data set analyzed, with 9 of
the 11 responses to gifts and only 4 of the 11 responses to compliments
including gracias. When accepting a compliment without an overt
gratitude marker, which was the norm, speakers expressed agreement
and acknowledgment verbally, while nodding, smiling, or touching
and looking at the object that was complimented. The increased reli-
ance on acceptance of a compliment in these data compared to prior
research may be the result of naturalistic data versus the DCT or survey
approaches used in most prior work (i.e., what people actually do
vs. what people think they do). Alternatively, authentic interactions
between two people may provoke a greater inclination towards soli-
darity or positive politeness.
receiving contexts, gracias was frequently accompanied by
In gift-
the intensifier muchas ‘very much,’ along with agreement and evalu-
ative comments and a wide range of nonverbal resources and affective
expressive sounds. While different types of interactions, both types of
interactions center on agreement and alignment with the other inter-
locutor via the use of linguistic resources and also nodding and smiling.
Agreement as the uniting element confirms the importance of positive
politeness for Spaniards (e.g., Curcó, 2007; García, 1993; Haverkate,
2000; Maíz-Arévalo, 2012; Márquez-Reiter, 2000). Furthermore, in both
compliment and gift responses, multimodal communicative resources
were used over multiple turns.
8
0
1
Theoretical Interpretation of Responses to Gifts and

Compliments in Peninsular Spanish
The differences noted between gift and compliment contexts have been
explained by prior researchers as being related to the material/immaterial
difference between a gift and a compliment, greater imposition on the
giver of a gift than a compliment, or increased modesty norms related to
compliments (Coulmas, 1981; de Pablos Ortega, 2010; Haverkate, 2000;
Hickey, 2005). Adding to this discussion, we suggest the application of
speech act theory within a discourse and co-constructivist theoretical
frame to provide greater understanding of the differences in Peninsular
Spanish gift and compliment contexts.
This proposal relies on theories of discourse that claim that meanings
are created through interaction (e.g., Arundale, 1999, 2008), rather than
pragmatic theories of speaker intention (e.g., Grice, 1957), and it exem-
plifies how to define speech acts in interaction. From this perspective,
the definition of the speech act must be based on the emergent discourse
itself and not on pre-defined contextual expectations. Thus, instead of
accepting all responses to gifts and compliments as gratitude expressions
or expressive speech acts, the discourse itself must be examined.
Considering the compliment interactions, when gracias is absent
and agreement and acknowledgment present, as is the case in much of
the Peninsular Spanish data, a possible explanation for the absence of
a gratitude expression is that the compliment is not taken up as praise
or admiration for the hearer. Instead, the lexical and syntactic responses
indicate that the utterance is taken up as an assertive speech act, that
is, as a statement of what the speaker believes to be true. This pro-
posal aligns with Barros García’s (2018) investigation of compliments in
Peninsular Spanish data, in which she found that authentic compliments
in Peninsular Spanish are formulaic utterances in the form of “declara-
tive, copulative and exclamatory sentences” (p. 147), forms that serve
as assertions. Barros García (2018) also commented that “addressees
rarely acknowledged these compliments explicitly” (p. 147), again indi-
cating that a so-called compliment may not be taken up in interaction as
a compliment.
Applying this proposal to an example from the data, one interviewer
commented on the interviewee’s pants, saying están guapos ‘they’re good-
looking’ as an assertion, and the interviewee, Javier, responded in the
following line with agreement sí ‘yes’ and additional information son de
la tienda de mi novia ‘they are from my girlfriend’s store.’ There is no
linguistic evidence that the initial assessment is taken as praise or admir-
ation related to Javier, and thus it is suggested that some seeming compli-
ment responses do not use overt expressions of gratitude because they are
responses to an assertion, or at least they emerge in discourse as assertion
responses. In these situations, the interactional achievement is agreement
and acknowledgment of the assertion, aligning with the Peninsular
9
0
1

Spanish preference for positive politeness. This theoretical explanation
also accounts for the increased use of affective expressive sounds in
response to gifts: Affective expressive sounds are used primarily in expres-
sive speech acts, not assertive speech acts. This explanation may offer a
clearer understanding about how Peninsular Spanish speakers most often
respond to compliments (i.e., as assertions), and thus, it explains why
compliment responses can be different from gift responses in their expres-
sion of gratitude and use of affective expressive sounds.
Conclusion
Connecting the notions of context and co-construction, this study showed
that contexts of gratitude (i.e., compliment and gift contexts) provoke co-
constructed speech acts produced over various conversational turns by
Peninsular Spanish speakers who relied on linguistic and other multimodal
communicative resources. We defined interactions involving compliment
and gift giving as ‘contexts of gratitude,’ but these contexts of gratitude
are part of a broader concept of context that includes interlocutor roles,
relationships, cultural norms, locations, physical objects, and the com-
municative resources used, among other elements. The current research
showed that compliments and gifts were important parts of the broader
context, evidenced by the fact that the communicative resources used in
interactions varied depending on whether a compliment or gift was given.
At the same time, the analyses highlighted the collaborative nature of the
interactions, showing a social context in which collaboration is welcome
and in which positive politeness is valued. The face-to-face, in-person
context influenced the interactions by making multimodal communica-
tive resources like smiles and hugs both possible and meaningful. These,
along with other variables in the context, impact interaction in a dynamic
way. Not only do contextual variables constrain or influence interactions
and the communicative resources used, but interactions also shape con-
textual variables (e.g., construction of social relationship) and make cer-
tain contextual variables relevant (e.g., a shirt). As stated by Heritage
(1984), interaction is both context-shaped and context-renewing.
The limitations of this exploratory study include the limited number of
data points, the variability in the compliment and gift prompts which was
accounted for in the results, the lack of variability in social relationship
among interviewer and interviewee (e.g., power, distance) and language
mode (e.g., oral vs. written), and the limited focus on the two specific com-
pliment and gift-giving gratitude contexts, when other contexts of grati-
tude and even contexts of compliment and gift giving also exist. Future
research should consider whether the multimodal resources identified in
compliment and gift responses in Peninsular Spanish are common across
cultures or culturally constrained communicative resources. Researchers
should also consider how linguistic and non-linguistic resources impact
interpretation of speech acts, considering specifically the interpretation
0
1

of expressive versus assertive speech acts. In an applied sense, the spe-
cific findings of this investigation about how contexts of gratitude unfold
as expressive or assertive speech acts in Peninsular Spanish interactions,
along with the use of smiling and nodding, can be useful to teachers and
learners of Spanish and anyone who interacts with people from Spain by
enhancing their intercultural knowledge and awareness of communica-
tive norms.
Notes
1 Critiques of speech act theory over the last 40 years have both highlighted
limitations of the theory and also shaped the current approaches that rely on
speech act theory and conversation- oriented approaches to understanding
social actions (e.g., Streeck, 1980; van Rees, 1992).
2 ‘Positive politeness’ and ‘negative politeness,’ terms coined by Brown and
Levinson (1987), were proposed to be universal social needs or ‘face needs’
that must be nurtured in interactions. The term positive face needs refers to a
desire of being included in the group; negative face needs refers to a desire for
a lack of imposition by others.
3 Concern for autonomy and affiliation (Bravo, 1999, 2002) or a balance
between face needs of the self and other (Hernández Flores, 2004) have also
been identified in the Spanish-speaking world.
4 Mir and Cots (2017) asked participants to list up to four possible responses
to each compliment context. This approach offers understanding about the
range of pragmalinguistic possibilities but limited information about the
sociopragmatic norm. Of the multiple responses provided by each participant,
half of which included gracias, there was no information about preference
among them or likelihood of using those with gracias over those without.
Thus, these data may overestimate the actual usage of overt gratitude.
5 Maíz- Arévalo (2010) found three major linguistic patterns for Spanish
compliments, including (1) exclamative clauses with an adjective, (2) declara-
tive clause with a copular verb and positive attribute, and (3) declarative clause
with mental verb of ‘liking.’
6 In response to compliments with verbs of liking, three of seven of the com-
pliment responses included an explicit expression of gratitude. In response
to copular verb plus adjective compliments, one of the three compliment
responses included an explicit expression of gratitude.
7 Of the interactions with a T-shirt gift, six of eight included an explicit expres-
sion of gratitude, and of those six, five included muchas gracias. When gifted
a key ring and gift card, all three participants used an explicit expression of
gratitude and two of the three used muchas gracias.
8 Joder translates to ‘fuck’ in English, but the pragmatic meaning of the word
in this excerpt as an interjection is more accurately glossed as ‘wow.’
References
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for
an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–153. https://doi.org/
10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru
1

Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human inter-
action. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1515/
ip.2008.012
Aston, G. (1995). Say “Thank you”: Some pragmatic constraints in conversa-
tional closings. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/
applin/16.1.57
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words (J. O. Urmson, ed.). Clarendon.
Barros García, M. J. (2018). Face- enhancing compliments in informal
conversations in Valencian Spanish. Borealis: An International Journal of
Hispanic Linguistics, 7(1), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.7.1.4315
Bravo, D. (1999). ¿Imagen “positiva2 vs. imagen “negativa”?: Pragmática socio-
cultural y componentes de face. Oralia, 2, 155–184.
Bravo, D. (2002). Actos asertivos y cortesía. Imagen del rol en el discurso de
académicos argentinos. In M. E. Placencia & D. Bravo (Eds.), Actos de habla
y cortesía en español (pp. 141–174). Lincom Europa.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, D. (2011). New insights on compliment responses: A comparison between
native English speakers and Chinese L2 speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8),
2204–2214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.003
Coulmas, F. (1981). “Poison to your soul” Thanks and apologies contrastively
viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine. De Gruyter Mouton.
Cui, X. (2012). A cross-linguistic study on expressions of gratitude by native
and non-native English speakers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
3(4). https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.753-760
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics:
From theory to research. Routledge.
Curcó, C. (2007). Positive face, group face, and affiliation: An overview of
politeness studies on Mexican Spanish. In M. E. Placencia & C. García
(Eds.), Research on politeness in the Spanish-speaking world (pp. 105–120).
Routledge.
Danziger, R. (2018). Compliments and compliment responses in Israeli Hebrew:
Hebrew University in Jerusalem students in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics,
124, 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.004
de Pablos Ortega, C. (2008). Análisis sociopragmático del acto de habla expresivo
de agradecimiento en español. In A. Briz Gómez, A. Hidalgo, M. Albelda,
J. Contreras, & N. Hernández Flores (Eds.), Cortesía y conversación: de lo
escrito a lo oral: III Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE (pp. 685–
691). Universitat de València.
de Pablos Ortega, C. (2010). Attitudes of English speakers towards thanking in
Spanish. Pragmatics, 20(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.2.02pab
Drew, P., & Couper-Kulhen, E. (Eds.). (2014). Requesting in social interaction.
John Benjamins.
Dumitrescu, D. (2006). Noroc!; merci;! ¡qué lindo!; sorry: Some polite speech
acts across cultures. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 25(2), 1–38.
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1986). “I very appreciate”: Expressions of
gratitude by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied
Linguistics, 7(2): 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.167
García, C. (1993). Making a request and responding to it: A case study of
Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(2), 127–152. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90085-4
2
1

Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and
recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 90–121.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.90
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human inter-
action. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0378-2166(99)00096-x
Grice, P. H. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377–388.
Haverkate, H. (1993). Acerca de los actos de habla expresivos y comisivos en
español. In H. Haverkate, K. Hengeveld, G. Mulder, & H. Olbertz (Eds.),
Aproximaciones pragmalingüísticas al español (pp. 149–80). Rodopi.
Haverkate, H. (2000). Estrategias de cortesía: análisis intercultural. Forma y
Función, 13, 16–30.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2013). Embodied action and organisational interaction:
Establishing contract on the strike of a hammer. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1),
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkle and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Hernández Flores, N. (2004). Politeness as face enhancement. In R. Márquez
Reiter & M. E. Placencia (Eds.), Current trends in the pragmatics of Spanish
(pp. 265–284). John Benjamins.
Hernández López, M., & Placencia, M. E. (2004). Modos de conducir las
relaciones interpersonales en interacciones de atención al público: el caso de
las farmacias en Sevilla y Londres. Estudios de Lingüística, Universidad de
Alicante, 18, 129–150. https://doi.org/10.14198/elua2004.18.07
Hickey, L. (2005). Politeness in Spain: Thanks but no “thanks.” In L. Hickey
& M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe (pp. 317– 330). Multilingual
Matters.
Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand
English. Anthropological Linguistics, 28(4), 485–508.
Jefferson, G. (2004). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural con-
versation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first
generation (pp. 43–59). John Benjamins.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. R. Rose
& G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1–10). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524797.003
Koike, D. (2010). Behind L2 pragmatics: The role of emerging expectations. In
D. A. Koike & L. Rodríguez-Alfano (Eds.), Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in
functions and contexts (pp. 257–82). John Benjamins.
Lázaro Ruiz, H., & Ramajo Cuesta, A. (2015). Compliment responses in
Peninsular Spanish. Exploratory and contrastive study conducted on women
from Madrid, Valencia, Catalonia, Andalusia and Castile-Leon. Procedia—
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2015.11.304
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2001). Compliment responses among British and Spanish uni-
versity students: A contrastive study. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 107–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00127-7
Mack, S., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). ¡Qué feíto estás tú también, cariño!: A com-
parison of the response to the use of “positive” irony for complimenting
in Peninsular and Mexican Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone
Linguistics, 2(2), 305–346. https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2009-1054
3
1

Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2010). Intercultural pragmatics: a contrastive analysis of
compliments in English and Spanish. In M. Blanco Gómez and J. Marín Arrese
(Eds.), Discourse and communication: Cognitive and functional perspectives
(pp. 165–196). Dykinson.
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2012). At a loss for words or how to respond to compliments:
A contrastive analysis of compliment response in English and Spanish. In L.
Fernández Amaya, M. Hernández López, R. Gómez Morón, M. Padilla Cruz,
M. Mejías Borrero, & M. Relinque Barranca (Eds.), New perspectives on
(im)politeness and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–163). Cambridge
Scholars.
Márquez-Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A con-
trastive study of requests and apologies. John Benjamins.
Márquez-Reiter, R., Rainey, I., & Fulcher, G. (2005). A comparative study of
certainty and conventional indirectness: Evidence from British English and
Peninsular Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/
applin/amh018
Mir, M., & Cots, J. M. (2017). Beyond saying thanks: Compliment responses
in American English and Peninsular Spanish. Languages in Contrast, 17(1),
128–150. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.06mir
O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., & Marissa, K. L. E., (2014). Multimodal pragmatics.
In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 239–268).
De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214406-010
Osuka, N. (2017). Development of pragmatic routines by Japanese learners in
a study abroad context. In I. Kecskes & S. Assimakopoulos (Eds.), Current
issues in intercultural pragmatics (pp. 275–96). John Benjamins.
Placencia, M. E., & Yépez, M. (1999). Compliments in Ecuadorian Spanish.
Lengua, 9, 83–121.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in
the organization of conversational interaction, (pp. 79–112). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-623550-0.50010-0
Ronan, P. (2015). Categorizing expressive speech acts in the pragmatically
annotated SPICE Ireland corpus. ICAME Journal, 39(1), 25–45. https://doi.
org/10.1515/icame-2015-0002
Ruzickova, E. (2007). Strong and mild requestive hints and positive-face redress
in Cuban Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1170–1202. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pragma.2006.06.005
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society,
5(1), 1–23.
Selting, M. (2012). Complaint stories and subsequent complaint stories with affect
displays. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2012.01.005
Streeck, J. (1980). Speech acts in interaction: A critique of Searle. Discourse
Processes, 3(2), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538009544483
Streeck, J. (2013). Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1),
van Rees, M. A. (1992). The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining conver-
sational phenomena: A response to some conversation analytical critics. Journal
of Pragmatics, 17(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90027-9
4
1

Weigand, E. (2006). Argumentation: The mixed game. Argumentation, 20(1),
59–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9000-4
Wong, M. L.–Y. (2010). Expressions of gratitude by Hong Kong speakers of
English: Research from the international corpus of English in Hong Kong
(ICE-HK). Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1243–1257. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2009.09.022
5
1
6
Multimodal Resources in the
Co-Construction of Humorous
Discourse
Elisa Gironzetti
Co-Constructed Discourse
Co-construction (or “collaborative narration”, Leung, 2009, p. 1341),
understood as the process by which speakers can contribute to the devel-
opment of a text by means of adding different elements, is a central fea-
ture of conversation and dialogue (Coates, 2007; Koike & Czerwionka,
2016). Saying that conversation or dialogue are co-constructed means
that two or more interlocutors collaborate and influence each other in
the process of meaning-making by repeating what was previously said,
expanding it, reacting to it, and so on. Individual stories can also be co-
constructed through continuous speaker– audience negotiation, which
may include comments, laughs, questions, and shows of assent from the
audience (Leung, 2009, p. 1342). Because the process of co-constructed,
participatory sense- making involves several people saying something
collaboratively, besides shared knowledge, it also requires interlocutors
to adhere to an “interactive pact” (McCarthy & Cartes, 2004, p. 172).
Most authors compare this to the behavior of a music ensemble such as
a jazz session (Coates, 2007; Davies, 2003; Sawyer, 2001) or jam session
(Coates, 1996) to underscore the fact that even though conversation is
improvised and not rehearsed, it is coherent (Kotthoff, 1999).
Shared scripts or frames are necessary for shared knowledge and par-
ticipatory sense-making to occur, and this concept has been approached
and described from different perspectives. From a social perspective,
Hymes (1974) referred to frames as means of speaking (including joking
and chatting) that a speaker uses for the listener to know how to interpret
utterances. When people interact with each other, they exchange signals
to indicate how they interpret each other’s behavior, and these signals
contribute to constructing interactive frames that help people interpret
what is being said (Bateson, 1972 [1955]). These frames (e.g., humorous
frame) are culturally influenced expectations that, once co-constructed,
form the basis of a stance to be taken. From a cognitive perspective,
shared scripts or frames allow speakers to rely on them (at least partially)
to co-construct dialogue (Arundale, 1999; Jacoby & Ochs, 1995) in a
way in which “both persons [are] affording and constraining the other’s
6
1
116 Elisa Gironzetti

interpreting and designing” (Arundale, 2005, p. 59). While discussing
humor, Raskin (1979) explained that “jokes are based on the knowledge
of a presupposition shared by the speaker and the hearer(s)” (p. 327) and
that our understanding of the sentence (i.e., the joke) depends on our
linguistic knowledge as well as our knowledge of the world, its routines,
and procedures, all of which is stored in our minds in the form of cogni-
tive scripts. Scripts, then, are “the ‘common sense’ cognitive structures”
(p. 325) in the mind of the speaker that describe the world as the speaker
knows it. For a text to be humorous, it has to fulfill two necessary and
sufficient conditions: It has to be compatible, fully or in part, with two
different scripts, and the two scripts have to be opposite (Raskin, 1985,
p. 99), generating an incongruity or a violation of the cooperative prin-
ciple (Attardo, 2012).
Co-Constructing Humor
Research on conversational humor as a co-constructed or negotiated
activity dates back to the pioneering work of Davies (1984), who
maintained that conversational partners jointly co- construct humor
(“joking”) during the interaction and that, by doing so, they display
features of a shared joking style. A similar idea can be traced back to
the work of Sacks (1974), who identified three joke-telling sequences
(preface, telling, and response) to which both the speaker and the audi-
ence could contribute. Coates (2007) also recognized co-construction as
an essential feature of spontaneous conversational joking. For example,
due to the spontaneous, creative, and unplanned nature of conversa-
tional joking, often speakers overlap with each other and partially
repeat what was previously said. Leung (2009) noted that teasing can
be performed collaboratively and offered examples of how collabora-
tive narrations are employed as play frames to build and demonstrate
friendship among young girls. While most instances of conversational
humor do not extend beyond three turns and many are limited to a
single turn (Attardo, 2015), extended forms that exceed two or three
turns of co-constructed conversational joking have been reported, with
the longest reported extending over 13 turns (Attardo, 2015). Laineste
and Chlopicki (2019) focused on the use of metaphors in Estonian con-
versation and analyzed the verbal resources mobilized by speakers in
the co-construction of extended metaphors, some of which were of a
humorous nature.
The present study falls within the strand of research on interactional
humor as a co-constructed or negotiated activity (see Gironzetti et al.,
2019; Holmes & Hay, 1997; Koike & Blyth, 2016; Kreuz & Roberts,
1995). It looks at jablines and ironic comments as a type of contingent,
emergent, and co-constructed discourse (Arundale, 1999; Haugh, 2008;
Koike, 2005) to which conversational partners can contribute equally,
regardless of their conversational role. Here, the multimodal resources
7
1
Co-Construction of Humorous Discourse 117

mobilized by speakers to co-construct conversational humorous frames
are described and analyzed by integrating qualitative and quantitative
data to shed light on the performance of interactional conversational
humor and illustrate how these resources are employed by conversa-
tional partners. However, because this study lies at the intersection of
multimodality and humor studies, two clarifications are needed. First, it
should be noted that the field of humor studies has traditionally favored
the study of humor competence over performance. Notably, Raskin’s
semantic script theory of humor (SSTH) is a theory of humor compe-
tence; as such, it does not account for whether a joke, for example, is
understood or considered funny by any specific person. Humor perform-
ance has been addressed mostly in studies within conversation and dis-
course analysis, often through a focus on the social action of laughter
and not humor per se (see Ford & Fox, 2010; Glenn, 2003; Glenn &
Holt, 2013, 2017; Jefferson, 1979; Sacks, 1974, 1989). Second, trad-
itionally, studies on co-construction have paid attention to the use of
linguistic and verbal resources, such as the repetition and expansion
of a previous utterance by adding a word or a clause (Coates, 2007)
or laughter from an audience (Leung, 2009). More recent works have
begun to acknowledge the multimodal nature of human communica-
tion by moving beyond the focus on language and into multimodality,
addressing the role of different semiotic systems that can be mobilized by
speakers, including gaze, gestures, and facial expressions. Nonetheless,
the overlap between these areas of inquiry, namely, the study of humor
performance as multimodal co-constructed discourse, has yet to be thor-
oughly addressed.
Multimodal Resources in Humorous Discourse

Multimodal studies are concerned with the interaction of language and
other semiotic resources (e.g., gestures, images, gaze) in the meaning-
making process. The mobilization of these resources defines the different
frames that are locally constructed, while at the same time these resources
are used to negotiate the shifts from one frame to another. For the purposes
of this study, these resources—primarily non-linguistic resources such
as smiling and gaze, but also including metalinguistic comments, head
position, laughter, and facial expressions—are considered and analyzed
together to shed light on how interlocutors co- construct humorous
frames.
Several scholars have addressed, with different degrees of detail, the
presence, role, and meaning of non-linguistic resources mobilized during
humorous discourse, particularly laughter and, more recently, smiling. In
a study examining interactions among native speakers and L2 speakers,
Koike (2012) noted that laughter, due to its many functions that tran-
scend humor (Jefferson, 1979, 1984; Haakana, 2010), was frequently
present in her conversational data also when humor was not attempted.
8
1

This same idea has been proposed and supported within the field of
humor studies (Attardo, 1994; Gironzetti et al., 2019; Olbrechts-Tyteca,
1974; Pickering et al., 2009; on the concept of laughable, see Glenn,
2003; Glenn & Holt, 2013, 2017). However, when humor and laughter
co-occur, Jefferson et al. (1978, p. 174) observed that conversational
participants are “not merely laughing at the same time but laughing in
the same way.” Laughter, thus, is not necessarily signaling or marking
humor, but “helping the conversationalists nonverbally coordinate their
constructed play” (Gibbs et al., 2014, p. 588). Smiling was recently
found to be used in a similar way, with interlocutors in face-to-face and
computer-mediated conversations matching each other’s smiling behavior
and displaying smiling accommodation gestures in the presence of humor
(Gironzetti et al., 2016, 2019).
Gaze behavior, in contrast, has been studied mostly in relationship to
perception (of scenes, images, and faces) and emotions, including mirth
and happiness, which bear a significant role for the study of humor. In
social interaction, we know that people use gaze to accomplish a wide
variety of functions, often by means of alternating between mutual gaze
and gaze aversion, by coordinating their gaze behavior with other verbal
and non-verbal signals, and by adjusting to the communicative purpose
of the current situation (Macdonald & Tatler, 2018). Mutual gaze occurs
whenever people are looking at each other’s face, including making eye
contact; gaze aversion, in contrast, occurs whenever people avoid looking
at each other’s face, specifically, the eyes. Both behaviors can accomplish
different purposes, traditionally grouped into cognitive, affective, and
social functions. Thus, mutual gaze can be a signal of social availability
(Goffman, 1963), but it also serves for regulating turn-taking (Cummins,
2012; Jokinen et al., 2013; Kawahara et al., 2012; Morency et al., 2006;
Richardson & Dale, 2005) and varies across different types of activities
(e.g., multi-unit turns or turn-by-turn talk, see Rossano, 2012). Gaze
aversion can serve cognitive functions by reducing the visual input and
facilitating complex activities such as planning what to say next, thinking
about complex topics, or completing demanding cognitive tasks (Abeles
& Yuval-Greenberg, 2017; Beattie, 1978, 1979; Doherty-Sneddon &
Phelps, 2005; Glenberg et al., 1998). Gaze aversion is also linked to the
conversational role of participants (i.e., speaker and hearer, Goffman,
1981) and the dialogic coordination of actions between conversational
partners (Bavelas et al., 2002).
The present study is part of a larger project on the multimodal perform-
ance of interactional conversational humor. The project focuses on the
complex interplay of different multimodal resources for the interactional
negotiation of pragmatic intentions in face-to-face conversations. Within
this project, the current study asks how smiling and gaze are mobilized by
dyads of conversational partners to co-construct spontaneous conversa-
tional humor (jablines and ironic comments) with the goal of contributing
to determine how humorous sense-making is achieved in conversation.
9
1
Method
Participants
Twelve participants (six women, six men) were recruited for this study at
a South-Central university in the United States among college students,
faculty, and staff of different ages, genders, and cultural backgrounds.
All participants agreed to take part in the study and signed an IRB-
approved informed consent form. All the names used in this chapter are
pseudonyms.
Procedures and Materials

Each conversation lasted approximately 30 minutes and required
participants to sit in the same room, across from each other. During
the data collection, the researcher was in an area separated from the
participants. Participants were instructed to begin by telling a joke
provided beforehand by the researcher to serve as an icebreaker (the
engineer joke and the frog joke, described in Pickering et al., 2009), and
then talk freely for approximately 20 minutes. This allowed for a natur-
alistic interaction between participants resembling as much as possible a
natural-occurring, unscripted conversation. Each conversation was audio
and video recorded using one high-resolution camera per participant, a
high-definition microphone, as well as two lower resolution microphones
for backup. Eye tracking data were collected for each speaker using two
portable eye trackers with a sampling rate of 60Hz.
Transcriptions and Humor Coding Procedure

Each conversation was transcribed for content. Two raters worked
independently relying on the transcripts and the audio files of the
conversations—not the video files so as not to be biased by participants
facial expressions—to code all instances of humor (see Gironzetti et al.,
2019, for a detailed explanation of the humor coding procedure). The
procedure for humor coding combined two perspectives, an internal one
and an external one. The internal perspective relied on metalinguistic and
metacommunicative comments (Bateson, 1972 [1955]) that exposed the
speaker’s and/or the hearer’s pragmatic intentions and relationship (e.g.,
I am joking) and the presence of any other humor marker described in
previous studies (e.g., laughter). The external perspective, on the other
hand, required a semantic–pragmatic analysis of the text to determine
the presence of a script overlap and opposition (Raskin, 1985). These cri-
teria were mobilized whenever possible. This approach is coherent with
Holmes’s (2000) definition of humor as “utterances which are identified
by the analyst, on the basis of paralinguistic, prosodic and discoursal
clues, as intended by the speaker(s) to be amusing and perceived to be
0
2
1

amusing by at least some participants” (p. 163). Moreover, it also adds
the insights of theoretical humor models to account for the presence of
unacknowledged or undetected humor in an exchange by identifying an
incongruity or a violation of the cooperative principle (Attardo, 2012).
Raters coded the transcripts independently and reached good interrater
reliability, k = .76, p < .005. Only instances of humor on which both
raters agreed were included in the analysis. Following Attardo et al.
(2011) and Gironzetti et al. (2019), instances of humor were coded as
either ironic humorous comments (showing a direct opposition between
what the speaker was saying or implying and what the speaker’s beliefs
and thoughts were assumed to be), jablines (spontaneous humorous
comments that did not disrupt the narrative), or punchlines (the last
and most significant part of a canned joke or narrative humor). For the
purposes of this study, only jablines and ironic comments were analyzed;
that is, instances of spontaneous and unplanned conversational humor.
Multimodal Resources Coding Procedure

ELAN, a professional tool for the creation of complex annotations (Sloetjes
& Wittenburg, 2008), was used to align audio and video tracks and to
annotate different layers of information, including transcriptions, presence
of humor, and multimodal resources mobilized at any given time. The
following multimodal resources were coded and analyzed for all instances
of humor: smiling behavior (intensity and synchrony) and eye movements
(eye contact, gaze to the mouth, and gaze aversion). Additional resources,
such as head position and facial expressions, were analyzed only if they
co-occurred with relevant smiling and gaze behaviors.
Two certified FACS (Facial Action Coding System, Ekman & Friesen,
1978) raters applied the Smiling Intensity Scale (SIS, Gironzetti et al., 2016)
to code the smiling behavior of each individual participant. The SIS instru-
ment describes five different types of smiling behaviors ranging from no
smiling (SIS 0), closed-mouth smiling (SIS 1), open-mouth smiling (SIS 2),
wide open-mouth smiling (SIS 3), and jaw-dropping smiling (SIS 4). Raters
worked independently and relied only on video recording (without audio
or transcriptions). Additionally, to avoid bias, each rater viewed the video
of the participant s/he was coding but not the interlocutor’s video nor their
smiling intensity score. Smiling intensity was coded frame by frame (each
frame lasting approximately 40 milliseconds) for the whole length of each
conversation. The first rater coded all of the recordings, whereas the second
rater coded a randomly selected 5% of the data. The two raters showed
good agreement as measured by a weighted kappa score (kw = 0.74).
Smiling behavior was also coded for the dyad by considering the
smiling behavior of the two speakers at the same time. For the purposes
of the study of humor co-construction, matching smiling, when the two
speakers displayed a reciprocal smiling behavior with intensity matching
(with equal SIS values) was considered.
1
2

Finally, gaze was measured by recording fixation time and fixation
counts on the eyes and the mouth of the interlocutor using two Tobii X2–
60 (Hz 60) after a successful calibration using a 5-point grid and analyzed
using Tobii Studio and statistical software. Fixations time stamps relative
to the onset of the humorous instance and the smiling behavior of the
speaker and the interlocutor were also collected.
Results
This section includes a presentation of the overall results concerning
the occurrence in the corpus of different types of conversational humor,
followed by three more detailed subsections presenting quantitative and
qualitative data regarding a) individual smiling intensity; b) matching
smiling behaviors, and c) gaze patterns, to show how the dyads relied
on these multimodal resources integrated with the verbal message of the
jabline or ironic comments in a dialogic and coordinated fashion.
The analysis of the corpus yielded 48 humorous instances of which
19 were jablines, and 13 ironic humorous comments. Table 6.1 shows
the distribution of humorous instances per dyadic conversation and
humor type and it includes punchlines to adequately represent the overall
contribution of spontaneous humor (jablines and ironic comments). As
illustrated in Table 6.1, each dyad had a different humor style, which
resulted in different amounts of humor being produced within each dyad
and within each humor type category.
Overall, each dyad mobilized a variety of multimodal resources to
construct a humorous frame for jablines and ironic humorous comments,
but no explicit verbalized metacommentaries (e.g., “I am joking” or “I
am telling a joke”) were employed.
Individual Smiling Intensity

The data for the smiling intensity of participants were classified based
on the type of humor (ironic comments that showed a direct opposition
between what the speaker was saying or implying and what the speaker’s
Table 6.1 Distribution of humorous instances per conversation and humor type
Conversation Punchlines Jablines Ironic comments Total
JT 2 9 1 12
JY 2 3 3 8
EJ 2 4 - 6
HA 4 1 - 5
AK 2 - 3 5
DA 4 2 6 12
Total 16 (33.3%) 19 (39.6%) 13 (27.1%) 48 (100%)
21
Figure 6.1 Box-plot comparison of smiling intensity values for jablines and irony
beliefs and thoughts were assumed to be, and jablines, that is, spontan-
eous humorous comments that did not disrupt the narrative), and are
summarized in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2, which show the distribution of
the data for each group. Generally, in this corpus, speakers are relying on
their individual smiling behavior to co-construct humor about 80% of the
time, although different types of humor seem to require or prompt them
to rely more on certain levels of smiling intensity. In contrast, smiling
characterizes only 30% of their non-humorous parts of conversations
included in the corpus, thus indicating that smiling is a relevant and char-
acteristic behavior of humorous discourse.
As shown in Figure 6.1, for both types of humor participants
displayed a median individual smiling intensity close to SIS 2 (jablines,
Median = 2.21; irony, Median = 1.51), with ironic comments displaying
overall lower values than jablines.
The analysis of the distribution of smiling behaviors with jablines and
ironies (Figure 6.2) shows that, for both types of humor, speakers relied
on smiling most of the time, not smiling (SIS 0) only about 20% of the
time. Moreover, closed-mouth smiling (SIS 1) was frequently employed
in the case of irony (20.8%) but not so much for jablines (9.4%), which
in turn were frequently accompanied by a wide open-mouth smiling (SIS
3, 36.3%).
Matching Smiling Behavior

Given that speakers are engaged in a dialogical activity, the joint con-
struction of a humorous frame, the individual smiling behaviors of each
member of the dyad affect the behavior of the other. Matching smiling
3
2
1
Figure 6.2 Distribution of smiling behaviors across jablines and ironic comments

in milliseconds
Note. SIS 0 = no smiling; SIS 1 = closed-mouth smiling; SIS 2 = open-mouth
smiling; SIS 3 = wide open-mouth smiling; SIS 4 = jaw-dropping smiling.
Table 6.2 Percentage of matching smiling by dyad and humor type
Dyads JT JY EJ HA AK DA
Jablines 12.7% 19.7% 76.7% 32.4% n/a 34%

Irony 0% 17.9% n/a n/a 21% 11.25%
Note. n/a indicates that there are no data available for a specific category because that spe-
cific type of humor was not produced by the dyad.
occurs when the two conversational partners display the same smiling
behavior at the same time during the interaction. For example, they
could both display a wide open-mouth smiling behavior (Figure 6.3).
Overall, speakers displayed matching smiling for 21.5% of the time in the
presence of humor, but only 2.8% of the time in the absence of humor.
Matching smiling behaviors were displayed for most jablines (68.4%)
and ironic comments (77%), although the duration of this joint behavior
varied extensively depending on the humorous instance and the dyad, as
shown in Table 6.2.
An example of matching behavior can be seen in Figure 6.3, which
illustrates the time course of a jabline delivered by Speaker E in con-
versation EJ. In this and all the following examples, smiling behavior
of participants was sampled at a rate of 17 milliseconds1 and visualized
as line graphs to show changes over time, and the moments at which
participants matched each other’s smiling are marked with a gray
4
2
1
Figure 6.3 EJ Jabline 1 with 32.7% matching smiling
background (see also Gironzetti et al., 2019, for a more detailed explan-
ation). The two images of the speakers represent a fragment of matching
smiling and show both were displaying a smiling of type 3 on the SIS scale
(wide open-mouth smiling).
As shown in Figure 6.3, before Speaker E (dark line) delivered her
jabline (indicated by a vertical dotted line), she and Speaker J (light
line) were displaying different smiling behaviors: at time 31, Speaker
E displayed a closed-mouth smiling, SIS 1, and Speaker J displayed a
wide open-mouth smiling, SIS 3. At time 61, they both converged and
maintained a SIS 2 smiling, the first example of matching smiling, with
Speaker J smiling first. Then, Speaker E changed her smiling behavior
to SIS 3 and was immediately followed by Speaker J; the two speakers
then maintained the same smiling behavior for over half a second. This
is the second example of matching smiling. At this point, the smiling
dance has begun, and we can see the two speakers shifting their smiling
behavior at different SIS values while at the same time following each
other and finding each other, repeatedly matching each other’ smiling
behavior.
The coordinated smiling behavior exemplified in Figure 6.3 was pre-
sent in all conversations and characterized most of the conversational
humorous instances in the corpus. However, the same behavior was not
found in the absence of humor: participants rarely smiled without humor
and when they did, they most often displayed a non-matching closed-
mouth smiling. This, smiling synchronicity by means of matching smiling
emerges as a way in which these speakers co-construct, dialogically, the
humorous nature of the text: rather than verbalizing their humorous
interpretation or intentions, they rely on smiling and modify their smiling
behavior to co-construct humor.
The example in Figure 6.3 can be considered a successful case of
humorous multimodal co-construction. Other cases, however, were not
5
2
1
Figure 6.4 DA Irony 1 with 0% matching smiling
as successful but nonetheless illustrate the important role of smiling in

the co-construction of humor. Figure 6.4 exemplifies one of the not-so-
successful cases with an instance of a humorous ironic comment delivered
by Speaker D.
In Figure 6.4, we can observe the smiling behavior of Speaker A (light
gray line) and Speaker D (dark line), who delivered the ironic comment
(indicated by a vertical dotted line). In contrast with the example in
Figure 6.3, here the two speakers display very different smiling behaviors
that never coincide. Speaker D is smiling throughout the fragment of con-
versation, shifting between SIS 2 and SIS 3 smiling, while Speaker A is
mostly serious, displaying a SIS 1 smiling (a closed-mouth smiling, also
known as polite smiling) towards the end of the fragment. Thus, even
though Speaker D is relying on the intensity increase of her individual
smiling behavior to participate in the construction of a humorous frame,
Speaker A is not joining her. The lack of smiling coordination points to a
mismatch between how the two speakers are attempting to co-construct
this part of the dialogue. The ironic humorous comment made by Speaker
D may not have been appreciated by Speaker A, who did not smile after
the delivery of the irony. The polite smiling that she displays at time 193
indicates that she may have understood the attempt at humor of D but
does not agree with it or does not appreciate it (Hay, 2001), making
this a case of failed humor. This interpretation is also supported by how
other multimodal resources are mobilized by these speakers: on the one
hand, the lack of laughter by Speaker A, despite the fact that Speaker D
delivered the comment with laughter (inviting laughter, Jefferson, 1979);
on the other hand, the gaze aversion and head tilt by Speaker A that co-
occur with the polite SIS 1 smiling towards the end of the fragment, as
shown in Figure 6.5. The example in Figure 6.5 illustrates the interplay
of smiling, facial expressions, and gaze in the (failed) co-construction of
conversational humor.
6
2
1
Figure 6.5 Multimodal resources mobilized by Speaker A during and after

D’s ironic comment
Gaze to the Interlocutor’s Face and Gaze Aversion

In this corpus, conversational humor co-occurred frequently with gaze
aversion. In the case of ironic statements, speakers increased gaze time
to the interlocutor’s mouth while avoiding the interlocutor’s eyes; in the
absence of humor, however, speakers increased the amount of time that
they looked their interlocutor in the eyes and reduced the time they spent
gazing at their mouth. Figures 6.6 and 6.7 illustrate the different gaze
behaviors of conversational partners in two segments of conversation, a
humorous ironic comment (Figure 6.6 and excerpt 1) and a non-humorous
one (Figure 6.7 and excerpt 2). Each figure reproduces, frame by frame,
the gaze behavior of Speaker T during the delivery, indicating while T is
looking at the interlocutor’s face (gaze to J) or elsewhere (gaze aversion).
Excerpt 1 (Transcript of talk during segment in Figure 6.6)
J: England highlights world cup 2014 [approx. frames 1–5]

T: Ooh! [approx. frames 6–9]
J: On floppy disk [approx. frames 10–15]
During the delivery of this ironic comment, T often averts his gaze
from J, the speaker of the ironic comment. Figure 6.6 shows a frame-by-
frame sequence of T’s behavior recorded while interlocutor J delivered
the ironic comment (who mostly looked at T during this fragment), with
five frames roughly corresponding to one second. At the beginning of the
sequence, T is avoiding looking at his interlocutor, who is sitting in front
of him, shifting his gaze from the top left corner of his visual field to the
top right one. Then, two brief moments of gaze to J (Frames 5 and 8) are
not sustained but followed by either closed eyes (Frames 6 and 7) or more
gaze aversion (Frames 9, 10, and 11; Frames 13, 14, and 15).
Excerpt 2 (Transcript of talk during segment in Figure 6.7)
J: Not really, it starts before [approx. frames 1–9]

T: Mm [approx. frames 9–10]
J: And really it never stops [approx. frames 10–15]
7
2
1
Figure 6.6 Gaze behavior of T during the delivery of an ironic comment in con-

versation JT
Figure 6.7 Gaze behavior of T during the delivery of a non-humorous comment

in conversation JT
Figure 6.7 illustrates the typical behavior of the same Speaker T when
listening to J but, this time, in the absence of humor. In Figure 6.7, T
looks at J most of the time, nodding and blinking to signal understanding
(Frames 2 and 3), smiling (Frames 1–4), and not averting his gaze. Note,
8
2
1

in contrast, that in Figure 6.6, T is frequently averting his gaze before
and after J’s delivery of an ironic comment, avoiding looking at his eyes
or mouth.
The relationship between gaze behavior, smiling, and conversational
humor is exemplified by the contrast between Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.7.
The two sequences are the same length, approximately 3 seconds. In both,
Speaker J holds the floor most of the time while T is listening to him, but
while in Figure 6.6 J is being ironic, in Figure 6.7 he is talking about the
football season in a non-humorous way. By looking at J while he speaks
in Figure 6.7, T is displaying his availability through non-sustained, low
intensity smiling, as well as behaving as expected by listeners in a conver-
sation that involves tellings, that is to say, gazing at the speaker for longer
periods of time, sustaining their gaze to expand the current sequence of
talk (Rossano, 2012; Rossano et al., 2009). However, in Figure 6.6, while
J is delivering his humorous comment, T is averting his gaze from J, pos-
sibly to ease the cognitive difficulty of computing the meaning of the
ironic message. Then, while smiling and verbalizing his understanding of
the humor (“Ooh!”), T is closing his eyes, thus reinforcing the coopera-
tive message expressed through smiling and verbally: by not making his
eyes available as a visual target for the interlocutor and smiling at the
same time, he is marking the mouth area of his own face as more salient.
Discussion
The starting point for this study was the notion of language as joint,
situated action, in which two or more interlocutors actively negotiate
meaning and contribute to the co-construction of interpretative frames.
In a face- to-
face conversation, interlocutors have at their disposal a
wide variety of resources to negotiate meaning beyond verbal language,
which include multimodal signals such as facial displays and gestures
(Davitti & Pasquandrea, 2017). In fact, even when they are not speaking,
interlocutors can express their stance by means of non-verbal resources
such as gaze or smiling. This study showed how interlocutors mobilize
these resources by analyzing instances of spontaneous conversational
humor in face-to-face conversations, expanding on a previous study on
computer-mediated interaction (Gironzetti et al., 2019).
In this study, interlocutors in a face-to-face conversation have been
shown to modify their individual smiling behavior to begin framing an
utterance as humorous, with higher smiling intensity associated with
jablines with respect to ironic statements, a difference that should be
explored in further studies that could consider the novelty of the ironic
comment and jabline, and the degree of appreciation of the humor,
besides its recognition. Interlocutors also jointly coordinated their smiling
behavior as a sign of agreement and understanding that both are par-
ticipating in creating and maintaining the humorous frame. Conversely,
a misalignment in smiling behavior characterized an example of failed
9
2
1

humor, with only one speaker participating in the (failed) co-construction
of the humorous frame (Figure 6.4). Parallel to smiling, interlocutors can
also mobilize gaze to support the negotiation of humorous meaning.
By decreasing gaze to the interlocutor’s eyes or mouth (and so, mutual
gaze) during the negotiation of humorous meaning, in contrast to non-
humorous meaning, interlocutors can ease the processing of cognitively
demanding humorous incongruities (Frames 1–4, Figure 6.6) and support
their smiling as a signal of cooperation (Frames 6–7, Figure 6.6). In con-
trast, by increasing gaze to the interlocutor’s mouth in the specific case
of irony, which is characterized by lower smiling intensity than jablines
(Figure 6.1), conversational partners could draw attention to the mouth
area and mark it as a salient element (i.e., worth looking at and worth
processing) in the negotiation of ironic humorous meaning. This last
behavior may point to their underlying expectations regarding the rela-
tionship between smiling and humor in conversation (i.e., they tend to co-
occur). It also indicates that the lower-intensity smiling that accompanies
ironic comments may be more difficult to process due to its lower visual
saliency (i.e., the teeth are not visible, the mouth is not open), and thus
it requires more direct gaze in order to be interpreted (see also Trujillo
et al., 2018 on gaze signals). In the case of non-humor, on the other hand,
interlocutors look at each other’s face, and specifically at the eyes, as a
sign of agreement and attention and alternate it with gaze aversion as a
regulatory strategy (Figure 6.7).
For practical reasons, in this chapter each multimodal resource was
presented in isolation. However, in the analyses, these resources were
considered together because in face- to-
face conversations they are
mobilized and integrated seamlessly and in parallel, as holistic multimodal
gestalts (Mondada, 2014, 2016). In fact, in our corpus no single resource
was always mobilized by interlocutors to create a humorous frame (thus,
no resource seems to be required in the co-construction of humorous
discourse), nor was any one resource acted upon in the same way by all
speakers consistently. The negotiation of humorous discourse does not
always rely on smiling or a specific gaze behavior; instead, it relies on
a combination of elements that are mobilized depending on the context
in which the conversation is taking place and the characteristics of the
dyad. Additionally, even though all participants were found to increase
their smiling intensity as a way of framing an utterance as humorous and
thus engage in the negotiation of meaning, each participant did so differ-
ently. This aspect is particularly relevant for scholars in the field of humor
studies interested in identifying a marker that (always or most of the
time) co-occurs with verbal humor and that could easily serve to identify
humor in a text such a conversation (Gironzetti, 2017).
Throughout the conversations analyzed, participants were shown
to coordinate their actions in a process of continuous, tentative negoti-
ations (Goodwin, 1980). It is this interplay between multimodal resources
and the verbal message at a specific time and place that contributes to
0
3
1

the co-construction of humorous discourse. By modifying their behavior
with respect to one or more of these resources within temporal proximity
to the utterance whose meaning is being negotiated, speakers frame it as
potentially humorous and can act upon it (e.g., showing agreement or
appreciation). In the example in Figure 6.5, Speaker A contributed to the
co-construction of the humorous frame by rejecting it, at least in part, but
nonetheless displayed her recognition of D’s attempt at humor, although
she decided not to show appreciation for it. In contrast, in the example
in Figure 6.6, Speaker T joined Speaker J in the co-construction of the
humorous frame while also showing appreciation for it.
Finally, results from this study have shown that it is not enough for a
specific smiling or gaze behavior to be displayed by one speaker for the
negotiation to be successful or unsuccessful. Instead, what we have shown
is a more complex and dynamic process in which speakers change when and
how these multimodal resources are employed in the presence of humor.
For the humorous frame to be successfully or unsuccessfully co-constructed,
both interlocutors need to participate and engage in the negotiation process,
albeit not necessarily by mobilizing the same kind of resources.
Conclusion
One of the main contributions of this study has been to present novel
empirical data and an integrated multimodal approach to answering
a long-standing question in the field of humor studies, that is: how do
speakers perform humor during conversation? When people are engaged
in a conversation, how do they know what is humorous and what is not
if nobody explicitly says, “this is a joke” or “this is meant to be funny?”
The data contribute to our understanding of humor performance—how
speakers do humor and what resources they employ to negotiate the
humorous potential of an utterance. In this sense, speakers were shown to
negotiate and co-construct humorous frames by means of several multi-
modal resources, in a process that allows meanings to emerge through
joint, collaborative interaction (Haugh, 2008).
Additionally, this study has shown that the multimodal resources
mobilized by interlocutors differ quantitatively and qualitatively from
those mobilized during non- humorous portions of conversation, as
well as across conversations and humor types. These results contribute
to studies on the role of gestures in discourse (Bavelas & Chovil, 2018;
Bavelas et al., 1995) and indicate that multimodal resources are mobilized
by speakers depending on their communicative goal. Thus, some sets of
resources are potentially being selected by speakers to co-construct a
specific frame (such as increased individual smiling intensity, increased
matching smiling, and decreased gaze to the eyes and mouth for a con-
versational humorous frame), while others can continue to be employed
to perform other actions that are not discourse oriented.
1
3

Overall, the results of this study highlight the importance of moving
away from a linguocentric approach to communication and discourse
and underscore the central role that different modalities could play in
the negotiation of meaning. Non-verbal behaviors such as smiling can
be essential to understanding what is meant in real life, face-to-face com-
munication, and as such should not only become an integral part of the
study of language. Given the effect that speakers’ language and cultural
background may have on the mobilization and characteristics of non-
verbal behaviors, for example, it is important that interlocutors become
aware of the communicative function of these behaviors and their signifi-
cance. Future research may address some of the limitations of this study
by considering other additional multimodal resources (e.g., gestures and
body posture) and their role in the co-construction of conversational
humor, and explore communicative contexts in which resources are not
available to speakers (e.g., phone conversations).
Note
1 Smiling behavior was coded continuously for all participants. For this study, a
17ms sampling rate for smiling allowed a direct comparison with eye-tracking
data, which was recorded at a sampling rate of 17ms.
References
Abeles, D., & Yuval-Greenberg, S. (2017). Just look away: Gaze aversion as an
overt attentional disengagement mechanism. Cognition, 168, 99–109. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.021
Arundale, R. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for
an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–153. https://doi.org/
10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru
Arundale, R. (2005). Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversation.
In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction
(pp. 41–63). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Mouton De Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (2012). Smiling, laughter, and humor. In P. Santangelo (Ed.), Laughing
in Chinese (pp. 421–436). Aracne.
Attardo, S. (2015). Humor and laughter. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D.
Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 2) (pp. 168–188).
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch8
Attardo, S., Pickering, L., & Baker, A. (2011). Prosodic and multimodal markers
of humor in conversation. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(2), 224–247. https://
doi.org/10.1075/pc.19.2.03att
Bateson, G. (1972 [1955]). Steps to an ecology of mind. Collected essays in
anthropology, psychiatry, evolutions, and epistemology. Jason Aronson.
Bavelas, J. B., & Chovil, N. (2018). Some pragmatic functions of conversational
facial gestures. Gesture, 17(1), 98–127. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.00012.
bav
2
3
1

Bavelas, J. B., Chovil, N., Coates, L., & Roe, L. (1995). Gestures specialized for
dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 394–405. https://
doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167295214010
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collab-
orative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566–580.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02562.x
Beattie, G. W. (1978). Floor apportionment and gaze in conversational dyads.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 7–16. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00889.x
Beattie, G. W. (1979). Planning units in spontaneous speech: Some evidence from
hesitations in speech and speaker gaze direction in conversation. Linguistics,
17, 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.61
Coates, J. (1996). Women talk. Conversations between women friends. Blackwell.
Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal
of Pragmatics, 39, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.003
Cummins, F. (2012). Gaze and blinking in dyadic conversation: A study in
coordinated behavior among individuals. Language and Cognitive Processes,
27, 1525–1549. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.615220
Davies, C. E. (1984). Joint joking: Improvisational humorous episodes in conver-
sation. In C. Brugman et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting
of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 360–371). University of California.
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English learners joke with native speakers: An inter-
actional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across
cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1361–1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0378-2166(02)00181-9
Davitti, E., & Pasquandrea, S. (2017). Embodied participation: What multimodal
analysis can tell us about interpreter- mediated encounters in pedagogical
settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2016.04.008
Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Phelps, F. G. (2005). Gaze aversion: A response to cog-
nitive or social difficulty? Memory and Cognition, 33(4), 727–733. https://doi.
org/10.3758/BF03195338
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system. Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Ford, C., & Fox, B. (2010). Multiple practices for constructing laughables. In D.
Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp.
339–368). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.27for
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., Bryant, G. A., & Colston, H. L. (2014). Where is the humor
in verbal irony? HUMOR—International Journal of Humor Research, 27(4),
575–595. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2014-0106
Gironzetti, E. (2017). Prosodic and multimodal markers of humor. In S. Attardo
(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 400– 413).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-28
Gironzetti, E., Attardo, S., & Pickering, L. (2019). Smiling and the negotiation of
humor in conversation. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 496–512. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0163853X.2018.1512247
Gironzetti, E., Pickering, L., Huang, M., Zhang, Y., Menjo, S., & Attardo,
S. (2016). Smiling synchronicity and gaze patterns in dyadic humorous
conversations. HUMOR—International Journal of Humor Research, 29(2),
301–324. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2016-0005
31

Glenberg, A. M., Schroeder, J. L., & Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting gaze
disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory and
Cognition, 26, 651–658. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211385
Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Glenn, P., & Holt, E. (2013). Studies of laughter in interaction. Bloomsbury.
Glenn, P., & Holt, E. (2017). Conversation analysis of humor. In S. Attardo (Ed.),
The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 295–308). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-21
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization
of gatherings. The Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of mutual gaze at
turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 272–302. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x
Haakana, M. (2010). Laughter and smiling: Notes on co-occurrences. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(6), 1499–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.010
Haugh, M. (2008). Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 99–
110. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.006
Hay, J. (2001). The pragmatics of humor support. HUMOR—International
Journal of Humor Research, 14, 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.14.1.55
Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humor functions
in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/
10.1177%2F1461445600002002002
Holmes, J., & Hay, J. (1997). Humour as an ethnic boundary marker in New
Zealand interaction. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 18, 127–151. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07256868.1997.9963447
Hymes, D. (1974). The ethnography of speaking. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings
in the sociology of language (pp. 99–138). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/
9783110805376.99
Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327973rlsi2803_1
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent
acceptance declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in
ethnomethodology (pp.79–96). Irvington Publishers.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J.
M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in con-
versation analysis (pp. 346–369). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9780511665868.021
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. (1978). Notes on laughter in the pursuit
of intimacy. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation
(pp. 152–205). Multilingual Matters.
Jokinen, K., Furukawa, H., Nishida, M., & Yamamoto, S. (2013). Gaze and
turn-taking behavior in casual conversational interactions. Transactions
on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 3(2), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2499474.2499481
Kawahara, T., Iwatate, T., & Takanashi, K. (2012). Prediction of turn-taking
by combining prosodic and eye- gaze information in poster conversations.
INTERSPEECH—2012, 727–730.
Koike, D. (2005). La alineación en el marco de un modelo dinámico de la cortesía
verbal. In J. Murillo Medrano (Ed.), Actas del II Coloquio Internacional
4
3
1

del Programa EDICE (pp. 319– 342). Programa EDICE– Universidad de
Costa Rica.
Koike, D. (2012). Variation in NS–learner interactions. Frames and expectations in
pragmatic co-construction. In C. Felix-Brasdefer & D. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic
variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues (pp.
175–208). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.31.07koi
6(2), 223–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.2.02koi
Koike, D., & Czerwionka, L. (2016). Diálogo. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.),
Enciclopedia lingüística hispánica (Vol. 2) (pp. 405–412). Routledge.
Kotthoff, H. (1999). Coherent keying in conversational humour: Contextualising
joint fictionalisation. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence
in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it (pp.
125–152). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.10kot
Kreuz, R., & Roberts, R. (1995). Two cues of verbal irony: Hyperbole and ironic
tone of voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 21–31. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15327868ms1001_3
Laineste, L., & Chlopicki, W. (2019). Co-construction of metaphors in Estonian
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 153, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2019.04.006
Leung, C. B. (2009). Collaborative narration in preadolescent girl talk: A
Saturday luncheon conversation among three friends. Journal of Pragmatics,
41(7), 1341–1357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.011
Macdonald, R. G., & Tatler, B. W. (2018). Gaze in a real-world social interaction:
A dual eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71,
2162–2173. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1747021817739221
McCarthy, M., & Cartes, R. (2004). “There’s millions of them”: Hyperbole in
everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 149–184. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00116-4
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social
interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.PRAGMA.2014.04.004
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in
social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(2), 2–32. https://doi.org/
10.1111/josl.1_12177
Morency, L. P., Christoudias, C. M., & Darrell, T. (2006). Recognizing gaze
aversion gestures in embodied conversational discourse. In F. Quek & J.
Yang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Multimodal
Interfaces (pp. 287–294). Association for Computing Machinery. http://doi.
acm.org/10.1145/1180995.1181051
Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1974). Le comique du discours. Editions de l’Université de
Bruxelles.
Pickering, L., Corduas, M., Eisterhold, J., Seifried, B., Eggleston, A., & Attardo,
S. (2009). Prosodic markers of saliency in humorous narratives. Discourse
Processes, 46, 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959604
Raskin, V. (1979). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Proceedings of the Fifth
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 325–335. http://journals.
linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/view/2164/1934.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Reidel.
5
3
1

Richardson, D. C., & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling
between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to dis-
course comprehension. Cognitive Science, 29(6), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15516709cog0000_29
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The
handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 308–329). Wiley-Blackwell. https://
doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch15
Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (2009). Gaze, questioning, and culture. In J.
Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 187–249).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511635670.008
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In
R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking
(pp. 337–353). Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1989). Harvey Sacks Lectures 1964–1965. Human Studies, 12(3/4).
www.jstor.org/stable/i20009053
Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Creating conversations: Improvisation in everyday dis-
course. Hampton Press.
Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category— ELAN and
ISO DCR. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language
Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008) (pp. 816–820).
Trujillo, J. P., Simanova, I., Bekkering, H., & Özyürek, A. (2018).
Communicative intent modulates production and comprehension of actions
and gestures: A kinetic study. Cognition, 180, 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cognition.2018.04.003
6
3
1
7
Epistemic Causality in Spanish
Narratives as Evidence of
Knowledge Frames
Sarah E. Blackwell
Introduction
Research in linguistics and related disciplines has shown how one’s
knowledge structures based on previous experience influence language
production and comprehension. These mental structures, which Ensink
and Sauer (2003) call ‘knowledge frames,’ have been used to explain
our understanding of linguistic and non-linguistic input. Furthermore,
they are “central to the theoretical premises of most approaches to
narrative text generation, comprehension and recall” (Georgakopoulou,
1997, p. 6). Ensink and Sauer define a knowledge frame as “a cogni-
tively available pattern used in perception in order to make sense of the
perceived material by ‘imposing’ that pattern and its known features on
that material” (2003, p. 5). The basic principle underlying these cognitive
constructs is that we access our knowledge from previous experiences to
interpret subsequent ones.
In this study, I apply the concept of knowledge frame in the analysis
of 30 narratives produced by native Spanish speakers from a rural town
in northeastern Spain who viewed the pear film (Chafe, 1980) and then
were asked to retell it. The study is based partially on Tannen’s work
(1979[1993], 1980) illustrating how Greek and American English
speakers’ narrations of this film were influenced by and reflected their
underlying frames, which Tannen equated with ‘structures of expect-
ation.’ For the current study, I analyzed the Spanish narrators’ retellings
of the pear film to seek linguistic evidence of their expectations about
the film’s contents in causal constructions expressed with the connective
porque ‘because.’ I hypothesized that there would be a discernable link
between evidence of frames and epistemic porque-constructions in the
narratives involving justification for reasoning, conclusions, and opinions,
given that semantic causality (i.e., causes of events) was not “clearly
discernable in the film” (Tannen, 1980, p. 73), nor were the characters’
aims or intentions made evident in the film. Specifically, I expected
causal relations with porque to express the narrators’ reasons for their
interpretations of the film, involving the imposition of their knowledge,
prior experience, and expectations. For instance, in (1), an epistemic
7
3
1
Epistemic Causality in Spanish Narratives 137

porque-construction explains why S7 inferred that the man picking pears
in the film was a farmhand, in turn revealing her frame-based expect-
ation regarding this character’s role (S7 indicates Speaker 7; porque and
because are in bold):
(1) S7: …Entonces está un un peón porque se se ve-yo creo que se

ve claramente que no son suyas las m-las peras.
‘…Then a a farmhand is there because you you see-I think
that you see clearly that the m-the pears aren’t his.’
The experimentally controlled context in which the Spanish retellings

of the pear film occurred renders them distinct from other narrative
subgenres. Georgakopoulou (1997), citing Polanyi (1985, p. 41),
defines stories—and narratives in general—as “the encoding of previous
experiences that took place at a specific point or over a specific interval
in a past-time story-world”; she adds that “the sequential presentation
or temporal ordering of events is frequently proposed as the distinctive
feature of narration which sets it apart from other modes of discourse”
(p. 2). Furthermore, narratives convey speakers’ attitudes and feelings
about recalled events and are “reconstructions and reconstitutions of past
events cast in a particular perspective that fits into the narrative’s context
of occurrence” (Georgakopoulou, 1997, p. 3). Another criterial feature
of narratives, however, is ‘causality’ (Georgakopoulou, 1997). According
to Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (2004), causality involves goal-oriented
actions initiated by events or motivating states resulting in consequences,
whereby one event can cause another when the necessary conditions are
present. Although the film-retell narratives examined in this study were
elicited and thus were less spontaneous than personal storytelling, they ful-
fill the definitional criteria of narrative discourse involving reconstructing
and recounting previous experiences involving the sequential presentation
of events, albeit those viewed in a film. However, because causality is not
made evident in the pear film, participants retelling it could only specu-
late about the situations depicted, and often did so depending on their
knowledge frames. Additionally, considering that stories can reveal what
matters to storytellers and that they are “aware of the need to separate
out more salient information from less salient information” (Polanyi,
1985, p. 2), the narrators’ explanations encoded by porque are considered
attempts to foreground and interpret what, for them, were salient elem-
ents in the film, in turn revealing evidence of the narrators’ expectations
based on cultural and social norms, beliefs, and prior experience.
In this chapter, I discuss the notion of frames and related concepts and
then causality and the differentiation of causal relations, before addressing
the methods employed in this study and presenting quantitative and quali-
tative results showing how the primarily epistemic porque-relations in
the film narratives provide evidence of the narrators’ knowledge frames.
8
3
1
138 Sarah E. Blackwell

Finally, I summarize the findings and conclusions reached from the study
and offer directions for future research.
Frames and Related Phenomena

Various terms, including ‘frames,’ ‘scripts,’ and ‘schemata,’ have been
used to refer to our knowledge structures based on prior experience
and stored in memory (see e.g., Bednarek, 2005; Tannen, 1979[1993]).
Essentially, however, frames and related notions are defined in connection
with prototypes and stereotypical situations, objects, events, and activ-
ities. For instance, Minsky (1977) defined a frame as
a data structure for representing a stereotyped situation like being

in a certain kind of living room or going to a child’s birthday party.
Attached to each frame are several kinds of information. […] Some is
about what one can expect to happen next.
(p. 355)
For Fillmore (1975), a frame was “any system of linguistic choices…

that can get associated with prototypical instances of scenes” (p. 124),
and Schank and Abelson (1975) described a script as “a predetermined,
stereotyped sequence of actions that define a well- known situation”
(p. 151). Moreover, van Dijk (1977) highlighted the conventional, yet
culture-specific nature of frames, defining them as “knowledge units
organized ‘around’ a certain concept” that “contain the essential, the
typical and the possible information associated with such a concept” and
“should specify what in a certain culture is ‘characteristic’ or ‘typical’ ”
(p. 215).
Tannen (1979[1993], 1980) analyzed Americans’ and Greeks’
retellings of the pear film and showed how their verbalizations revealed
their expectations about various elements in the film. For instance,
following Labov’s (1972) observation that negative statements indicated
the defeat of an expectation, she showed how negative statements in both
the Americans’ and Greeks’ narrations reflected their underlying frames
by conveying expectations that were not met.
Bednarek (2006) links frames to evaluative language use, observing
that opinions concerning objects, events, and situations “are part
of our mental representations” (p. 196). Furthermore, she notes that
evaluations may reflect the existence of particular frames, and that fac-
tual frame features would likely be shared by many people, whereas
evaluative frame features “may be more individual or shared only
within certain discourse communities” (2006, p. 196). Significantly, she
maintains, evaluations of expectedness, conveyed by, for instance, con-
trastive connectives (e.g., but), negations, adjectives, and adverbs, are
potential indicators of the existence of speakers’ frames (2006, p. 199;
see also Tannen 1979[1993]).
9
3
1

Research on Spanish has further explored the relationship between
frames and language use, and how expectations and other contextual
variables impact discourse and its co-construction. For example, Blackwell
(2001) combined Tannen’s (1979[1993]) frames as structures of expect-
ation and Wierzbicka’s (1994) cultural scripts approaches to show how
recurring patterns of language use and themes in the Spanish pear film
narratives analyzed in the current study could be described in terms of
universal human concepts, providing evidence of the speakers’ cultur-
ally specific knowledge structures and rules of speaking. Subsequently,
Blackwell (2009) identified the ways verbalizations in the same narratives
revealed the narrators’ ‘knowledge schemas’ (i.e., knowledge frames) and
‘interactive frames,’ or the activities speakers think they are engaged in
when talking (Tannen & Wallet, 1987). The study demonstrates how
the narrators’ expectations about the study, their perceived roles while
retelling the film (as storytellers, study participants, or film viewers),
and elements in the film were evidenced linguistically. The findings
from Blackwell (2001, 2009) align with van Dijk’s (2008) view of
‘mental models’ as comprising the context and involving both personal
and socially-shared knowledge, a view adopted for the present study.
Additionally, Blackwell (2010) demonstrated that greater intimacy/
familiarity between the Spanish interlocutors narrating and eliciting the
pear film retellings corresponded with more and more detailed acts of
evaluation and also misalignments with expectations (i.e., frames), which
corresponded with evaluation.
Koike (2010) investigated the effects of expectations in dialogues
between a native Spanish speaker and second language (L2) learners of
Spanish. She observed changes in the evolving roles and language use of
both interlocutors, how they adjusted their expectations, and thus how
the dialogues were co-constructed. Subsequently, Koike (2012) examined
the pragmatic resources used in two interactive frames, interviews versus
personal talk, in Spanish native speaker–L2 learner dialogue. She found
that participants modified their interactions when shifting frames (e.g.,
using more implicatures, discourse markers, and humor when orienting
to a conversation frame) and concluded that pragmatic variation results
from differences in speakers’ expectations and frame changes.
For this study, context is viewed, following van Dijk (2008), as a sub-
jective construct of the participants, involving the same ‘listener’ eliciting
retellings of the same film from 30 narrators, resulting in co-construction
between narrator and listener. Van Dijk maintains that “contexts are not
some kind of objective social situation, but rather a socially based but
subjective construct of participants about the for-them-relevant proper-
ties of such a situation, that is, a mental model” (2008, p. 56). He groups
personal knowledge structures (e.g., schemas and scripts, and thus frames)
under the broader notion of mental models (i.e., mental representations
of situations), calling them a “starting point” for discourse production.
Furthermore, mental models do not “objectively represent the events a
0
4
1

discourse is about, but rather the way language users variably interpret
or construct such events, for instance, as a function of different personal
aims, knowledge or previous experiences—or other aspects of the ‘con-
text’ ” (van Dijk, 2008, pp. 59–60). However, they also involve socially-
shared elements based on everyday experiences leading to abstract model
schemas with largely invariable settings, participants, and actions (van
Dijk, 2008). This view of context as mental models emphasizes the fact
that speech participants draw on personal and socially-shared knowledge
in the co-construction of discourse.
Although the term ‘frame’ has been defined variously, and frames
and related concepts have been studied from multiple perspectives for
different purposes, for this study knowledge frames are prototypical or
stereotypical mental models of situations (scenes, roles, events, activities,
etc.) formed on the basis of prior experiences, which result in expectations
about current experiences and are imposed on those experiences in order
to interpret them. Because frames are inevitably evoked to interpret new
experiences, we can expect the Spanish narrators’ retellings of the pear
film to contain evidence of their expectations, and whether or not they
were met, in their claims, assessments, and conclusions about elements in
the film and reasons justifying them.
Causality and Causal Relations

Research on causality has focused on various issues, including speakers’
choice of causal connectives in various languages, how they can express
different relationships, how causal constructions create cohesion and
coherence in discourse, and what causal relations reveal about gen-
eral human cognition (Sanders & Sweetser, 2009). Additionally, causal
connectives have been analyzed in terms of the types of coherence
relations they mark. In her influential work, Sweetser (1990) maintained
that conjunctions, including because, are pragmatically ambiguous
and must be analyzed “in the context of an utterance’s polyfunctional
status” (p. 76). To account for conjunction ambiguity, she proposed three
domains of causal conjunction usage, which she illustrates with because
as follows (p. 77):
(2) a. John came back because he loved her. (content)

b. John loved her, because he came back. (epistemic)
c. What are you doing tonight, because there’s a good movie on.
(speech act)
‘Content’ causal relations are semantic and relate causes to consequences

based on the propositional content of utterances (in (2a), John’s love
caused his coming back). In ‘epistemic’ relations, the speaker’s knowledge
as a premise justifies his/her conclusion or inference (in (2b), knowing
John came back justifies the speaker’s conclusion that John loved her).
1
4

However, in ‘speech act’ cases, the because-clause provides the speaker’s
reason for the preceding speech act (in (2c) the speaker gives a reason
for asking the question). Although both epistemic and speech act causal
relations are essentially pragmatic, epistemic causals involve conclusions
inferred by the speaker from claims presented as evidence and may there-
fore be derived from semantic propositions, whereas speech act causal
relations are not derivable from the semantic meanings of the propos-
itions in the clauses themselves.
Like because, its Spanish equivalent porque can express Sweetser’s
three categories of causal relations. In Blackwell (2016), Sweetser’s
domains- based approach was adopted to categorize the porque-
constructions in the narratives analyzed for the present study. Heuristic
paraphrase tests were applied to each construction to determine causal
domain, following Reyes’s (2002) proposal that porque, when pragmatic,
is also ‘metapragmatic’ and communicates more than its literal meaning,
producing a Gricean implicature such as lo digo porque ‘I’m saying it
because’ (p. 25). Felicitous insertion of the phrase y lo digo ‘and I’m
saying it’ before porque detected both speech act and epistemic causals,
while phrases like y lo he concluido ‘and I concluded it’ identified exclu-
sively epistemic cases. For instance, in (3), S1, a female between 66 and
75 years of age (henceforward, F, 66–75), provides reasons introduced
by porque to justify her conclusion that the man picking pears was the
‘owner of the farm’ (2016, p. 633, inserted phrases in brackets):
(3) S1: …Que debía de ser el amo de la finca, {y lo digo/y lo he

concluido} porque había otro señor que pasaba con una
cabra…
‘…That he must have been the owner of the farm, {and I’m
saying it/and I concluded it} because there was another man
who passed by with a goat….’
Felicitous addition of the heuristic phrases also demonstrates S1’s

metapragmatic reflection on her preceding speech, which Reyes (2002)
defines as a pragmatic consciousness, whereby speakers analyze and
evaluate their utterances. By contrast, in (4), S3 (F, 66–75) explains
why the pearpicker does not notice his basket of pears being stolen (a
supposedly observable behavior). Infelicitous insertion of the heuristic
phrases, indicated by #, confirmed this porque- relation as semantic
(Blackwell, 2016, p. 634):
(4) S3: A todo esto el señor no se da cuenta {#y lo digo/#y lo he

concluido} porque el chico ya procura de que no lo vea.
‘Meanwhile the man doesn’t realize {#and I’m saying it/#and
I concluded it} because the boy meanwhile makes sure that he
doesn’t see him.’
2
4
1

Summarizing, felicitous insertion of heuristic phrases before porque
identified constructions as pragmatic (epistemic or speech act) causal
relations, while revealing speakers’ metapragmatic reflection on their pre-
ceding discourse.
The relationship between causality and evaluation is traceable to
Labov’s (1972) work, in which he calls linguistic phenomena, including the
use of conjunctions like since and because, “evaluative,” due to being the
ways narrators indicate the point of their narratives and why what they
say is significant (p. 378). Moreover, Bednarek (2009) identified causality
as one of the linguistic dimensions of evaluation, or the expression of
opinions or appraisals. Given the relationships between frames and evalu-
ation (e.g., Bednarek, 2006; Tannen, 1979[1993], 1980), and causality
and evaluation (e.g., Bednarek, 2009; Labov, 1972), evaluative language
in the causal relations analyzed for this study could be expected to reflect
the narrators’ frames and associated expectations. Additionally, because
knowledge frames are inevitably evoked to interpret new experiences,
the Spanish narrators’ retellings of the pear film were expected to con-
tain evidence of their expectations—whether or not they were met—in
their claims, assessments, and conclusions about elements in the film and
reasons justifying them. Also, since the porque-relations in the film-retell
narratives were initially perceived to be largely evaluative, they were
predicted to reflect the narrators’ subjective interpretations based on
expectations, and thus their underlying frames.
Methodology and Aims of the Study
Data Collection and Participants

The narratives analyzed for this study were elicited using a six-minute film
with a sound track but no dialogue called the pear film (Chafe, 1980).
It depicts several events, objects, and people participating in the events,
and it was created to be interpretable by people from different cultural
and language backgrounds and elicit samples of speakers talking about
the same thing to compare their “verbalizations of what was, at least to a
large extent, the same knowledge” (Chafe, 1980, p. xii).
The narratives were video recorded in Maleján, a small rural town
northwest of Zaragoza in northeastern Spain. The film was shown to 30
Spaniards in groups of three to five participants at a time. Each group
watched it twice successively for better recall, and participants retold
the film individually shortly afterward. Before viewing the film, the
participants received the same instructions and filled out a demographic
questionnaire. I said I was studying how people talk about what they
experienced and that, after watching a film twice, they would be asked
to tell another person (henceforward, “the listener”) about it and could
say anything they wanted, as there was no right or wrong way to talk
about the film, adding that the listener had not seen the film before. The
3
4
1

listener (L in the transcripts) was a 36-year-old Spaniard and a family
member, friend, or acquaintance of all the participants. During video
recordings, he interacted conversationally with them, asking questions
or interjecting comments, and I spoke occasionally to reassure them. To
initiate retellings, he prompted participants, saying Cuéntame la película
‘Tell me [about] the film’ or Cuéntame lo que has visto ‘Tell me what
you saw.’
The participants’ ages ranged between 16 and 75: seven were 16 to
25 years old; seven were between 26 and 35; five were between 36 and
45; seven were between 46 and 55; and four were 66 to 75 years of age.
Nine had attended elementary school, 11 had three to four years of high
school, one had a vocational school diploma, two had university degrees,
and seven were high school or university students. Of the nonstudents,
three held white-collar jobs, and five of the seven students had parents in
a white-collar profession. Finally, 24 of the 30 participants were women.
The 30 narratives were transcribed using Spanish orthography and
conversation-analytical transcription conventions taken from Levinson
(1983, pp. 369–370; see Appendix 7.A). These included pauses, non-
lexical markers (e.g., eh, mm), false starts, repetitions, and lengthened
syllables. Additionally, a period signaled micro-pauses with sentence-
final or falling pitch, a comma indicated micro-pauses with level pitch,
and question marks indicated interrogatives regardless of intonation
contours. The narrators are identified numerically as S1, S2, etc., reflecting
the order in which the narratives were elicited, and by sex (M/F) and age
group (e.g., 26–35).
Analysis of Causal Domain

All tokens of porque in the transcriptions were identified electronically
and subsequently analyzed for causal domain. Porque-constructions
were considered semantic if they involved consequence–cause relations;
epistemic if porque introduced justification for speakers’ reasoning,
inferences, conclusions, or evaluations; and speech act if porque
introduced speakers’ reasons for realizing a preceding speech act (e.g.,
directive, advice, suggestion).
To determine causal domain, I used the heuristic metapragmatic
phrase-insertion tests described earlier. For instance, felicitous insertion
of such phrases before porque in (5) (S4, F, 66–75) revealed it as epi-
stemic, whereas the infelicitous insertion before porque in (6) (S13, F,
36–45) identified the porque-relation as semantic:
(5) S4: …estaba el señor de las peras, dando sus tirones al peral
que a mí me hacía duelo {y lo digo/y he pensado así} porque
al peral hay que tratarlo como unas, las plantas hay que
tratarlas como los animales y como las personas, con un poco
más de delicadeza.
41
‘…the pear man was, giving the pear tree his yanks and it
pained me {and I’m saying it/and I felt that way} because you
have to treat the pear tree like some, plants you have to treat
them like animals and like people, with a little more care.’
(6) S13: …va por el camino, en-pasa una niña, por el lado contrario,
tropieza {#y lo digo/#y he pensado así} porque se queda
mirando a la niña, tropieza en una piedra, y cae.
‘…he goes down the road, in-a girl comes by, in the opposite
direction, he falls over {#and I’m saying it/#and I felt that
way} because he’s staring at the girl, he runs over a rock, and
he falls.’
In Blackwell (2016), porque- constructions involving justifications for

evaluative claims were categorized as speech act (claim– motivation)
causals. However, for the present study, I adopted the broader notion
of epistemic causality described by Santana et al. (2018), who classify as
epistemic porque introducing justification for claims involving opinions,
attitudes, viewpoints, or feelings. Therefore, more porque-constructions
in the narratives were classified as epistemic in the current study than in
Blackwell (2016).
Grouping of Porque-Relations by Film Scene/Sequence

After analyzing all porque- relations for domain, they were grouped
based on the film scenes they described (see film summary by Chafe,
1980, pp. xiii–xiv). This step was taken under the assumption that the
narrators’ depictions of these scenes would reveal their interpretations
and expectations regarding the elements comprising them, thus providing
evidence of their frames.
Research Questions
Analysis of the porque-constructions aimed to address three research
questions:
1. What types of causal relations (content/semantic, epistemic, speech

act) are expressed via the porque-relations in the narratives?
2. What evidence of the narrators’ knowledge frames is gleaned from
their verbalizations involving porque-constructions?
3. What do the porque-constructions reveal about the influence of the
context as a subjective construct of the participants, dependent upon
the for-them-relevant properties of the situation, involving mental
models and the experimental context of retelling a film?
5
4
1

Regarding research question 1, since semantic causal relations intro-
duce causes of situations and events that are purportedly fact-based and
observable, and because such causality was not made evident in the pear
film, I hypothesized that largely, porque-relations in the narratives would
be epistemic, involving justification for evaluative claims and conclusions,
in turn providing evidence of the participants’ knowledge frames. Few
speech act porque-relations were expected in the data due to the unlikely
need to justify speech acts (e.g., questions, directives) during the retellings.
Research questions 2 and 3 were investigated through qualitative ana-
lyses of the verbalizations comprising porque-constructions that provided
evidence of knowledge frames and contextual effects.
Results
Classification of Porque-Relations by Domain

An electronic search identified 136 tokens of porque in the narratives.
Eight were eliminated due to being repetitions, false starts, or produced
by the listener. Application of the heuristic metapragmatic phrase-insertion
tests revealed that 91 porque-relations (71.1%) were epistemic. Another
27 (21.1%) were identified as semantic when considering only the clauses
immediately preceding and following the connective, but they were deemed
epistemic given the subjective and inferential nature of the larger discourse
context (e.g., clauses conjoined by porque were preceded by epistemic
expressions like creo que ‘I think that’). Only seven of the 128 cases (5.5%)
were determined to be strictly semantic, consequence–cause relations, while
only three (2.3%) were judged as speech act causals. Therefore, a majority
of the porque-relations in the narratives were epistemic (n =118, 92%),
which is unsurprising since the narrators frequently interpreted events and
scenes subjectively, imposing their own values and background knowledge
on those interpretations and justifying them via porque.
Evidence of Frames
The epistemic porque-relations were analyzed for linguistic evidence of
the narrators’ expectations, and thus their knowledge frames, in their
depictions of the following film scenes, which provided representative
samples from the dataset: (1) the opening scene; (2) a man picking pears
on a ladder in a tree and descending to dump them into three baskets;
and (3) a boy on a bike arriving at the foot of the tree and taking a basket
of pears.
The Opening Scene

Ten porque-relations, occurring in six narratives, involved justification
for evaluations and inferences about the opening scene. S1 (F, 66–75)
6
4
1

explained what she liked about the scene, using porque-constructions to
justify her appraisals while imposing her personal perspective:
(7) S1: …Lo primero que me ha gustao ha sido ver una casa en medio
del campo, porque a mí cuando hay-veo una casa así en el
campo y si encima cantan las gallinas y se ven palomitas a mí
es que me gusta muchísimo porque a mí el campo me gusta
mucho. Y he visto que había una casa de campo,…
‘…The first thing that I liked was seeing a house in the middle
of the country, because to me when there’s-I see a house like
that in the country and on top of it the hens are crowing and
you see little doves to me I mean I like it a lot because I really
like the country a lot. And I saw that there was a country
house,…’
S1 adds details to her idyllic countryside frame, including a house

(although no house appears in the film), and justifies her account via
an epistemic porque-utterance describing crowing hens and little doves
(although only one rooster crows in the opening scene). S1’s frame is
also conveyed when she summarizes her feelings and philosophizes about
rural life via epistemic porque-constructions:
(8) S1: y eso es vida vida que en el campo en esas medio cabañas
y y esa-eso es tan eso es precioso porque, la gente que se
conforma con vivir en el campo tiene que ser buenísima
porque porque todo le parece bien.
‘and that’s life life that in the country in those sort of cabins
and and that-that is so that’s beautiful because, the people
who are content with living in the country must be really good
because because everything seems fine to them.’
S1’s inclusion of ‘cabins’ and her depiction of country folk as content,

and therefore really good people, further reveal her idealistic frame for
rural Spain.
Thirteen narrators reported hearing a rooster crowing in the opening
scene and associated the sound with dawn. Three of them explained why
they inferred it was dawn using epistemic porque-constructions. S15 (F,
46–55) draws this inference from hearing a rooster, calling it a typical
occurrence ‘in villages,’ thus revealing her expectations:
(9) S15: Bueno pues yo he visto como un amanecer, mm supongo que

es un amanecer porque oigo cantar un gallo y es lo típico,
por lo menos en los pueblos,…
‘So well I saw like a dawn, mm I suppose that it’s dawn
because I hear a rooster crowing and it’s the typical thing, at
least in villages,…’
7
4
1

Similarly, S27 (F, 26–35) infers that the opening scene must be of a farm,
or at least the countryside, from hearing a rooster crowing, indicating her
association of this sound with her stereotypical farm frame via epistemic
porque:
(10) S27: La película, la primera esce-parece que es una granja,

porque se oye un gallo al principio, por lo pronto es en el
campo.(.)…
‘The film, the first sce-it looks like it’s a farm, because you
hear a rooster at the beginning, for the time being it’s in the
country.(.)…’
By contrast, S16 (M, 46–55) infers that the opening scene was of a man
picking pears near his house from hearing ‘a turkey,’ expressing this via
an epistemic porque-construction, although no turkey is heard, and no
house or village appears in the film:
(11) S16: Bueno yo pienso que es: nada-narra, la película narra: la:
la acción o sea la vida de una aldea, de de varios de varios
componentes de una aldea. Entonces sale un señor que-que
parece ser que está c-cerca de su casa cogiendo peras, y y
digo que está cerca de su casa porque se oye un pavo.
‘Well I think that i:t’s nothing-it narrates, the film narra:tes
the: the action or rather the life of a town, of of several of
several components of a town. Then a man comes on who-
it looks like he’s n-near his house picking pears, and and
I say he’s near his house because you hear a turkey.’
S16 also concludes that the scene was not of a pear farm because there
was only one pear tree, using epistemic porque and indicating his pear
farm frame as entailing multiple trees:
(12) S16: …Las peras: se supone que era: era un peral o sea no era
una finca de: de peras porque se ve sólo un peral…
‘…The pears: one assumes that it wa:s it was a pear tree
that is it wasn’t a pear farm because you see only one pear
tree…’
S20 (M, 46–55) focused on the economic disadvantages of large pear

trees like the one in the film, evaluating it as not profitable due to its size
and the danger this poses when picking fruit, thus revealing how his pear
tree frame contrasted with the one in the film:
(13) S20: Bueno primero el árbol es excesivamente grande entonces

claro es poco rentable porque el subir a árboles tan grandes
tiene mucho peligro.
8
4
1
‘Well first the tree is excessively large so of course it’s not

very profitable because climbing up trees that big is very
dangerous.’
Epistemic porque-constructions justifying opinions and inferences

regarding the opening scene reflected the narrators’ background knowledge
and experiences gained from living in a rural Spanish town and, simultan-
eously, their expectations about and mental constructs for such a scenario.
These causal relations, often involving epistemic expressions (e.g., parece
que ‘it seems that’; yo pienso que ‘I think that’) revealed that some elements
in the scene matched stereotypical expectations (a rooster crowing meant
it was dawn), whereas others contrasted with narrators’ preexisting frames
or triggered the addition of elements not shown in the film.
The Pearpicker
Seventeen speakers used porque- relations (totaling 28 instances) to
describe the pearpicker and his actions. Only one instance involved a
semantic reason for an action, and three occurred in constructed dia-
logue, whereby one participant created dialogue between film characters.
The remaining 24 porque-relations involved narrators’ assessments and
inferences. For instance, the absence of dialogue between the pearpicker
and a man passing by the pear tree with a goat, led S1 (F, 66–75) to reject
her initial supposition that he was a thief and conclude that he was ‘the
owner of the farm’:
(14) S1: … y: y he visto me ha parecido de pronto que era como

algu:no d’estos que se querían llevar las peras, como un
ladronzuelo. Pero después yo he pensado que no. Que debía
ser el amo de la finca, porque había otro señor que pasaba
con una cabra, y: y he visto que no había pues un grito de
decirle ¿y usted qué hace allí? Digo este señor será el amo.
‘…a:nd and I saw it seemed to me suddenly that it was like
one of these [guys] who wanted to take the pears, like a little
thief. But afterward I thought no [he wasn’t]. That he must
have been the owner of the farm, because there was another
man who passed by with a goat, and and I saw that there
wasn’t well a shout to say to him, and you what are you
doing there? I say [thought to myself] this man is probably the
owner.’
Epistemic porque introduces justification for S1’s conclusion about the

pearpicker’s status and conveys her expectation that, if he were not the
owner, the man passing by with a goat would have shouted to him to
question what he was doing in the tree. Her verbalizations contrast one
scenario (stealing pears and getting caught) with her prototypical farm
frame involving owners harvesting their own crops.
9
4
1

Initially, S7 (F, 16–25) inferred that the film characters were Mexican
from the pearpicker’s appearance and the arid landscape, which she justi-
fies using por ‘because of’ and epistemic porque:
(15) S7: Yo al principio he deducido que eran mexicanos, no sé por

qué, pero: por el pañuelo (.) las patillas y el bigote. Y luego
porque era así árido y tal.
‘I at the beginning deduced that they were Mexicans, I don’t
know why, bu:t because of the bandana (.) the sideburns, and
the mustache. And later because it was like arid and all.’
S7’s reasoning reveals her stereotypical frame for a farmworker in a climate

like the American southwest, where the film was actually shot, although
no participants received this information about the film. Similarly, S19 (F,
46–55) infers that the man was Mexican, expressing epistemic causality
with por: …parece ser que es mexicano, tal vez por los- por los rasgos
de la cara ‘it seems to be that he’s Mexican, perhaps because of the-
because of his facial features.’ S7 also deduces why the pearpicker cleans
a dropped pear (because the pears were not his), revealing this action as
unexpected and needing explanation:
(16) S7: Entonces está un un peón porque se se ve-yo creo que se

ve claramente que no son suyas las m-las peras. Que es un
trabajador que: está allí haciendo la jornada, está cogiendo
peras, y se le cae una. Entonces he deducido que no eran
suyas porque ha limpiado mucho la pera esa que se le había
caído, y: la ha dejado en un cesto.
‘So a a farm worker is there because you you see-I think that
you see clearly that the m-the pears aren’t his. That he’s a
worker who: is there doing his shift, he’s picking pears, and
he drops one. Then I deduced that they weren’t his because
of how much he cleaned that pear that he’d dropped, a:nd he
put it in a basket.’
S7 continues her narrative, after the listener’s collaborative comment.

Here, porque was initially categorized as semantic, but ultimately deemed
epistemic based on the larger discourse context:
(17) L: Estaba estaba cogiendo peras de un árbol.

S7: Sí entonces se le cae una y: recoge las que tenía él guardadas,
y la que se le ha caído, primero la limpia, y la la echa otra vez.
Entonces si: si estaba-yo creo que la ha limpiado pues porque
estaba un poco: sucia pero si hubiera sido s-el amo pues,
le daría lo mismo tirarla ¿no? pero, como era el trabaja-el
trabajador y eso…
L: ‘He was picking pears in a tree.’
0
5
1
S7: ‘Yes then he drops one a:nd he picks up the ones that he had
gathered, and the one that he dropped, first he cleans it, and
he tosses it it in again. So i:f if he was-I think that he cleaned
it then because it was a little: dirty but if he had been b-the
owner, he would have just as easily thrown it away, right? but
since he was the work-the worker and all…’
The phrase-insertion tests for speech act and epistemic causals failed (‘he
cleaned it {#and I’m saying it /#and I concluded it} because it was a little
dirty’). However, the porque-construction is prefaced by yo creo que ‘I
think that,’ signaling conjecturing about probable reasons for an unex-
pected action. This linguistic evidence of inferencing in the broader co-
text renders this porque-relation epistemic. Furthermore, despite obvious
semantic causality (cleaning something because it is dirty), S7 articulates
culturally based inferences (the man would not perform this action if he
were the owner). Thus, the causal relation is not “merely reported by the
speaker,” but “construed by the speaker…in ongoing discourse” (Stukker
& Sanders, 2012, p. 170), a feature associated with epistemic causals.
S27 (F, 26–35) thought the pears were probably not the pearpicker’s
based on the absence of conversation between the pearpicker and the
man with a goat who passes by the tree, in spite of acknowledging that
the film had no speech:
(18) 27: …Y:, y se ve a un señor cogiendo: peras, (.) que seguramente

serían no suyas porque luego pasa un señor con una cabra y
no le dice nada. En toda la película no se habla nada….
‘…A:nd, and you see a man picki:ng pears, (.) that surely were
probably not his because later a man with a goat passes by
and doesn’t say anything to him. Throughout the whole film
no one speaks at all….’
The pearpicker’s cleaning a dropped pear resulted in two additional

porque-constructions. S13 (F, 36–45) says he cleans the pear because the
pears need to look pretty, reflecting the narrator’s subjective conclusion
regarding the event, rendering the causal relation epistemic:
(19) S13: …una de ellas se le ha caído del árbol, en-se quita su

pañuelo, la limpia porque tienen que estar bonitas. En sus
cestos.
‘…he drops one of them from the tree, in-he takes off his
bandana, he cleans it because they have to look pretty. In
his baskets.’
S18 (F, 46–55) justifies her conclusion that the pearpicker treats the pears
really well via epistemic porque, followed by the focalizing adverb incluso
1
5

(‘even’), conveying that cleaning the pear was unexpected and above and
beyond her prototypical fruit-picking frame:
(20) S18: …Entonces pues está cogiendo peras, m-está tratándolas

muy bien porque incluso la que se le cae al suelo se quita el
pañuelo, la limpia, la frota y la deja en sus canastos.
‘…So well he’s picking pears, m-he’s treating them very well
because even the one that he drops to the ground he takes
off his bandana, he cleans it, he rubs it and leaves it in his
baskets.’
Seven narrators critiqued the pearpicker’s actions gathering pears,

demonstrating how their preexisting frames for this activity did not
match what they observed, and six of the seven did so using porque-
constructions. S1 (F, 75) uses epistemic porque to justify her critique (‘he
picks them a bit abruptly’), followed by another porque-construction to
explain her advice (‘you have to pick them with the stem’), rendering it a
speech act relation:
(21) S1: …, las coge con un poco de brusquedad porque, las peras de
agua, hay que cogerlas con cabo, porque si no si se tira a lo
mejor por el el orificio que hace el cabo puede podrirse que se
dice….
‘…, he picks them a bit abruptly because, dessert pears, you
have to pick them with the stem, because otherwise, if you
pull, it [i.e. the pear] can rot because of the hole that the stem
makes so they say….’
S1’s criticism of the man’s technique demonstrates how her expectations

regarding picking pears were not met. Her justification for explaining
how to do it correctly further illustrates her frame based on personal
experience doing such work.
Other participants revealed unmet expectations about the film’s pear
picking scene by emphasizing the pearpicker’s harsh treatment of the
pears and giving a lesson on proper pear picking (S4, F, 66–75); con-
cluding he did not know how to pick pears from seeing him yanking at
them (S12, M, 16–25); inferring he had ‘little practice’ picking pears and
that he was stealing them ‘because you could see the fruit wasn’t his…
with “those yanks” (esos tirones)’ (S14, F, 46–55); concluding he had
‘little experience’ because of his slowness (S19, F, 46–55); and evaluating
the man’s pear picking as haphazard, because he yanked them off one-
handedly (S20, M, 46–55). Only one narrator, S22 (F, 36–45), evaluated
the man’s pear picking positively, comparing it to a ‘ritual’ and empha-
sizing his dedication:
2
5
1
(22) S22: Yo: veo que es mm-de mañana y es un recolector de fruta,

que por cierto lo veo que lo hace como un rito porque pone
mucha dedicación en coger la fruta…
‘I: can see that it’s uh-morning and it’s a fruit picker, who by
the way I see that he does it like a ritual because he puts a lot
into picking the fruit…’
This positive evaluation of the man’s actions, which several narrators

criticized, illustrates how the same recalled experience can be interpreted
differently, revealing how frames are subjective constructs involving per-
sonally relevant properties of situations that vary depending on one’s
knowledge, experience, and expectations.
Ten narrators used porque- constructions to note the absence of
conversational interaction and expressed related inferences, revealing
expectations about social behavior. S30 (M, 16–25) concluded that the
pearpicker and the man passing by the tree with a goat did not know each
other based on the apparent absence of a greeting:
(23) S30: …un: otro campesino, que: parece no conocerlo porque se

cruzan-se cruzan justo en el camino, o sea él está subido en
la escalera y: y el otro pasa, y bueno, como no es hablada
no sé si se hablan o no pero vamos la-yo creo que no se
saludan….
‘…a: another farmer, who: doesn’t seem to know him
because they pass-they pass each other right along the
road, that is he’s up on the ladder a:nd and the other guy
passes, and well, since there’s no speaking I don’t know if
they talk to each other or not but anyway the-I think they
don’t greet each other.’
As noted in Blackwell (2001, 2009), narrators’ comments about what

did not happen in the film, including characters’ not speaking to each
other, reveal how their expectations were not met. Additional evidence
of expectations and thus frames in epistemic porque-constructions,
involving the absence of dialogue and other film elements, was culled
from narrators’ retellings of the subsequent scene, depicting a theft,
discussed in the next section.
The Bike Boy Taking the Pears

Thirteen narrators implemented 21 porque-constructions altogether when
describing the scene in which a boy arrives on a bike and takes a basket of
pears. S2 (F, 66–75) explained why she did not know whether or not the
pearpicker in the tree spoke to the boy. She conveys her reasoning (yo no
sé si…porque… ‘I don’t know if…because…’) and that verbal interaction
3
5
1

in this situation would be expected, indicating conversational interaction
as an essential frame feature for such rural encounters:
(24) S2: …Pero luego pasa un chiquillo con una bicicleta, yo no sé

si es que hablaba el señor porque no hay voz, o es que mira
arriba y se le lleva el cesto.
‘…But later a little boy passes by on a bicycle, I don’t know if
it’s that the man spoke because there’s no voice, or it’s that he
looks up and takes the basket from him.’
S4 (F, 66– 75) inferred that the boy and the man were not relatives
because there was no dialogue between them, explaining her conclusion
in response to L’s question, thus demonstrating the co-constructed nature
of her interpretation:
(25) L: ¿Pero (.) era familia de él?

S4: Yo creo que no porque la forma de mirar, si hubiera sido
familia, le hubiera dicho “¡tío que está:: que me llevo la
cesta!”
L: ‘But (.) was he family of his?’
S4: ‘I don’t think so because of the way he was looking, if he had
been family, he would have said to him, “uncle well i::t’s I’m
taking the basket!” ’
S4’s reasons for concluding that the characters were not related illustrate
how the boy’s demeanor and actions clashed with her frame for country-
side encounters between family members.
S16 (M, 46–55), without any prompting by the listener, verbalized his
hypotheses about the relationship between the boy and the pearpicker:
(26) S16: …yo en principio creí que sería hijo de él, pero luego me
hace dudar, porque mira, no sabe si decir algo o no, o
coger una pera o no, y luego se le lleva el cesto. Entonces,
yo pienso que no es hijo de él porque claro, s-si fuera hijo
de él, la dejaría más cerca de su pa-de su casa por, por el
sonido de del pavo.
‘…at first I thought that he was probably his son, but later
it makes me doubt it, because he looks, he doesn’t know
whether or not to say something, or whether or not to take
a pear, and then he takes the basket from him. So, I think
that he isn’t his son because of course, i-if he were his son,
he would leave it closer to his fa-to his house near, near the
sound of of the turkey.’
S16’s account conveys his initial expectation that the boy was the
pearpicker’s son, which was dashed by S16’s recollection of the boy’s
4
5
1

reticence to speak and his expectation that a son would help his father.
S16’s reasoning reflects his frame for a similar situation, involving family
collaborating in harvesting fruit close to home.
Several participants expressed the unlikelihood that the man would
not notice the boy arriving on his bike and taking a basket of pears dir-
ectly below the tree. For these narrators, who framed this scene as the
boy stealing pears, their epistemic porque-constructions revealed that the
scene did not match their frame for a theft happening nearby in broad
daylight. For instance, S11 (M, 36–45) concluded that the pearpicker was
‘stupid’ or ‘deaf,’ ‘because, [the boy] throws the bike down and the man
“doesn’t even bat an eyelid” ’ (ni se inmuta). And, S21 (F, 36–45) says it
is ‘strange’ that the pearpicker ‘doesn’t realize’ the boy getting on his bike
with a basket of pears ‘because…he’s close to him.’
Both S19 (F, 36–45) and S30 (M, 16–25) implemented epistemic porque
to justify their assessments of boy’s demeanor as calm and as such, unex-
pected, given the proximity of the pearpicker. Their verbalizations convey
that the boy’s behavior clashed with their expectation that a thief would
seem somewhat nervous during such a heist, that such a little boy would
not commit such a blatant crime (S19), and that he should have been
afraid of being scolded (S30):
(27) S19: …posiblemente a lo mejor el crío tenía necesidad, coge el

canasto, me parece con bastante tranquilidad porque el
señor estaba a metro y medio o dos metros, parece muy:
muy poco lógico que un niño pequeño tenga la sangre fría
suficiente como para hacer eso con el dueño allí, porque si
el dueño hubiese bajado de la escalera y se hubiese ido: y se
hubiese metido en la casa, pero el señor está en la escalera, a
un metro está el canasto,…
‘… possibly maybe the little boy was needy, he picks up the
basket, it seems to me very calmly because the man was a
meter and half or two meters away, it seems hardly logical
that a small boy could be cold-blooded enough to do that
with the owner there, because if the owner had climbed
down the ladder and if he had left and had gone into the
house, but the man was on the ladder, the basket’s a meter
away,…’
(28) S30: … El chaval también destaca su tranquilidad al hacer-,

porque se supone que está robando, ¿no? entonces pues
destaca que lo hace con toda tranquilidad y como si no le
fueran a echar la la bronca.
‘…The boy also noteworthy is his calmness upon doing-,
because you suppose that he’s stealing, right? So well what
stands out is that he does it with complete calmness and as if
they weren’t going to scold him.’
51

These epistemic causal relations demonstrate how speakers of different
ages with different perspectives and experiences (and thus frames)
evaluated the same scene differently. The narrators’ porque-constructions
incorporate subjective assessments that communicate various ways in
which the film scene, depicting a boy taking a basket of pears within a
stone’s throw of, and unbeknownst to the pearpicker, clashes with their
mental constructs for a similar situation.
Summary and Conclusion

Analysis of the porque-constructions in 30 Spanish pear film narratives
demonstrates how the narrators’ internally represented knowledge
frames compared and contrasted with elements in the film, and how
speakers resorted to their expectations regarding what for them would be
prototypical or stereotypical situations to retell the film. This resulted in
narrators’ subjective construals and evaluations of various film elements,
which they justified via epistemic porque-constructions.
Heuristic metapragmatic phrase- insertion tests initially determined
causal domain, showing that 71% of the porque-relations were clearly
epistemic, whereas another 21% had a semantic (consequence–cause)
basis but also involved speakers’ reasoning and evaluations, evidenced
linguistically in their discourse, and were thus ultimately considered epi-
stemic. These results suggest the existence of a cline for causal relations
ranging from strictly semantic, fact-based relations, to speaker-construed
epistemic (semantico– pragmatic/pragmatic) relations, to strictly prag-
matic, speech act relations.
That most porque-relations in the data (92%) were judged to be epi-
stemic is not surprising, since the narratives were reconstructed from
memory through the lens of each narrator in an experimental context.
Thus, unlike the causality characteristic of basic narrative structure,
involving one event causing another “by presenting the necessary and suf-
ficient conditions for it to happen” (Georgakopoulou & Goutsos, 2004,
p. 58), the porque-relations in the film retellings revealed why narrators
thought or concluded things about situations depicted or imagined in the
film. Moreover, due to the experimental task involved, and the fact that
the film did not directly convey causality, reasons for events and situ-
ations needed to be inferred in terms of probable causes.
Analysis of the porque-relations and their surrounding co-text revealed
that some factual film elements involved largely invariable, culturally
shared frame features described via epistemic porque-constructions (e.g.,
a rooster crowing meant it was dawn). Such evidence illustrates the meto-
nymic nature of frames, whereby a single frame feature can evoke an entire
frame (e.g., a crowing rooster calls up a ‘morning-on-the-farm’ frame).
However, narrators also added details that were never shown in the film
(e.g., it took place near a house or in a village). This resulted in their
relating film elements to their preexisting mental representations for the
same or similar elements and explaining these imposed representations via
6
5
1

epistemic porque-constructions. For instance, narrators drew conclusions
about characters’ actions, roles, and relationships, demonstrating how
film contents engendered expectations. Evidence of expectations was
reflected in verbalizations about what the narrators determined to be or
not be the case. For example, they explained why they concluded that
the scene was/was not of a farm; that the pearpicker was/was not the
owner of the farm (or a thief); that the pears were/were not his; that the
pearpicker and another man passing by did not know each other; that
the boy and the pearpicker were not related; that the pearpicker did not
know how to pick pears; that the boy’s demeanor was too calm for a
theft, etc. Furthermore, elements that were unexpected or that did not
match speakers’ extant mental constructs for similar situations frequently
resulted in inferences involving probable reasons for actions (e.g., the
pearpicker would not have cleaned off a dropped pear if he were the farm
owner).
The subjective nature of the epistemic porque-relations is evidenced in
the narrators’ use of verbs indicating their viewpoints (se ve claramente
‘you see clearly’; me hacía duelo ‘it pained me’; supongo ‘I suppose’; digo
‘I say [thought to myself]’, etc.). Additional subjectivity was conveyed by
narrators’ use of adjectival and adverbial expressions (e.g., graciosísimo
‘really cute’; muy despacio ‘very slowly’; excesivamente grande…poco
rentable ‘excessively large…not very profitable’). Such evaluations
revealed that the narrators were familiar with situations comparable to,
but which also contrasted to some extent with those in the film (e.g.,
picking pears properly; being near a house or village). Moreover, the
evaluative and inferential nature of the porque-constructions reflect the
fact that the narrators chose to interpret, explain, and thus talk at greater
length about matters “of some interest to them” (Polanyi, 1985, p. 1).
It is noteworthy that five study participants never used porque in their
narratives, and seven incorporated between one and three tokens, whereas
the remaining 18 participants produced between four and 11 porque-
constructions. In other words, the participants did not employ porque-
constructions at equal rates. This result suggests that some speakers may
have viewed the task as merely requiring objective recall, or that they did
not feel they had sufficient confianza ‘familiarity/trust’ with the listener
to freely evaluate and interpret the film and then justify interpretations
via epistemic porque.
Several conclusions may be gleaned from this study. First, ‘expected’
(i.e., frame) features may be broadly shared by a community of speakers
(e.g., people in the countryside usually greet each other), and when
absent, they are often noticed and mentioned. Similarly, ‘unexpected’
features of an experience tend to be recalled and critiqued in greater
detail by narrators due to mismatches between new experiences and their
existing structures of expectation. Such mismatches depend on one’s past
experiences and stored knowledge, which may be shared by commu-
nity members, or may be quite individualized. Whether or not speakers
7
5
1

verbalize such mismatches depends on their background knowledge,
expertise, idiosyncrasies, and social standing with their interlocutors.
These findings corroborate prior observations regarding expectations,
frames, and co-construction (e.g., Blackwell, 2009; Koike, 2010), while
confirming that knowledge frames constitute significant parts of con-
text, comprising objective, subjective, and intersubjective elements that
influence discourse (van Dijk, 2008). Through close analysis of epistemic
porque-constructions in their broader co-text, this study demonstrates
how causal relations serve to communicate narrators’ reasoning and in
turn, their knowledge frames.
Future work on frames could implement different films and other
visual and/or auditory stimuli to elicit talk about the same experiences
from speakers of different ages and backgrounds to seek linguistic evi-
dence of expectations and the frames that engender them. Such research
would uncover variations in people’s knowledge frames, while shedding
light on their reasoning, biases, values, and ideologies in light of sociolin-
guistic variables.
Appendix 7.A
Transcription Conventions (Levinson, 1983, pp. 369–370)

//point at which the current utterance is overlapped by that transcribed below
(.) pause—potentially significant but short
: lengthened syllables
:: longer lengthened syllables
- self-editing marker
= = latched utterances with no gap
¿? punctuation marks for questions
. micro-pause, falling intonation contour
, micro-pause, maintained (continuing) intonation contour
(()) used to specify phenomena ‘that the transcriber does not want to
wrestle with’ or some nonvocal action, e.g., ((doorbell rings))
() uncertain passages
CAPS words or syllables stressed by amplitude, pitch, or duration
References
Bednarek, M. A. (2005). Frames revisited— the coherence-inducing function
of frames. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(5), 685–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2004.09.007
Bednarek, M. A. (2006). Evaluation and cognition: Inscribing, evoking and
provoking opinion. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and memory: Aspects of
knowledge representation (pp. 188–221). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/
10.1515/9783110895087.187
Bednarek, M. A. (2009). Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic
perspectives. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(1), 146–175. https://doi.org/
10.1075/p&c.17.1.05bed
8
5
1

Blackwell, S. E. (2001). Spanish scripts, frames, and schemata: Linguistic evi-
dence of structures of expectations and cultural rules of speaking. Pragmatics
and Language Learning, 10, 45–72.
Blackwell, S. E. (2009). What’s in a pear film narrative: Framing and the power
of expectation in Spanish. Spanish in Context, 6(2), 249–299. https://doi.org/
10.1075/sic.6.2.05bla
Blackwell, S. E. (2010). Evaluation as a pragmatic act in Spanish film narratives.
Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2945–2963. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2010.06.018
Blackwell, S. E. (2016). “Porque in Spanish oral narratives: Semantic porque,
(meta)pragmatic porque or both?” In A. Capone & J. L. Mey (Eds.),
Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 615–651).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_25
Chafe, W. L. (Ed.). (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic
aspects of narrative production. Ablex.
Ensink, T., & Sauer, C. (2003). Social-functional and cognitive approaches to
discourse interpretation: The role of frame and perspective. In T. Ensink &
C. Sauer (Eds.) Framing and perspectivising in discourse (pp. 1–21). John
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.111.02ens
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings
of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1, 123–131.
Georgakopoulou, A. (1997). Narrative performances: A study of Modern Greek
storytelling. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.2307/1178705
Georgakopoulou, A., & Goutsos, D. (2004). Discourse analysis: An introduc-
tion (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/
9780748620456.001.0001
Koike, D. A. (2010). Behind L2 pragmatics: The role of emerging expectations.
In D. A. Koike & L. Rodríguez-Alfano (Eds.), Dialogue in Spanish: Studies
in functions and contexts (pp. 257– 282). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/
10.1075/ds.7.14koi
expectations in pragmatic co- construction. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D.
A. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts:
10.1075/impact.31.07koi
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English ver-
nacular. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1017/cbo9780511813313
Minsky, M. (1977). Frame-System theory. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason
(Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 355–376). Cambridge
University Press.
Polanyi, L. (1985). Telling the American story: A structural and cultural analysis
of conversational storytelling. Ablex.
Reyes, G. (2002). Metapragmática: lenguaje sobre lenguaje, ficciones, figuras.
Secretariado de Publicaciones e Intercambio Editorial, Universidad de
Valladolid.
Sanders, T., & Sweetser, E. (2009). Introduction: Causality in language and
cognition—what causal connectives and causal verbs reveal about the way
we think. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse
9
5
1

and cognition (pp. 1– 18). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/
9783110224429.1
Santana, A., Spooren, W., Nieuwenhuijsen, D., & Sanders, T. (2018). Subjectivity
in Spanish discourse: Explicit and implicit causal relations in different contexts.
Dialogue & Discourse, 9(1), 163–191. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2018.106
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, plans, and knowledge. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
(Vol. 1) (pp. 151–157). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1016/
b978-1-4832-1446-7.50019-4
Stukker, N., & Sanders, T. (2012). Subjectivity and prototype structure in causal
connectives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 169–
190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/
cbo9780511620904
Tannen, D. (1979). What’s in a frame: surface evidence for underlying expectations.
In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 137–181).
Ablex. Reprinted in Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Framing in discourse (pp. 14–
56). Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (1980). A comparative analysis of oral narrative strategies: Athenian
Greek and American English. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive,
cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 51–87). Ablex.
Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1987). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas
in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/ interview. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786752
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Context and cognition: Knowledge frames and speech act
comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0378-2166(77)90035-2
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach.
Wierzbicka, A. (1994). ‘Cultural scripts’: A new approach to the study of cross-
cultural communication. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Language contact and language
conflict (pp. 67–87). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.71.04wei
0
6
1
1
6
Part III
Teaching and Assessment

of Discourse
2
6
1
3
6
1
8
Discourse Approaches to Second
Language Reflections in Portfolio
Assessment
An Activity Theory Account of
Learner Agency
Marta Antón and Thomas Pendexter
Introduction
Since the advent of the European Language Portfolio (Little, 2013), there
has been an increasing interest in portfolios as assessment instruments
in L2 classrooms. They have been found to increase learner autonomy,
motivation, and agency (Ziegler, 2014). Reflection, with its potential
to integrate and connect learning experiences, is a key component of
e-portfolios (Landis, Scott, & Kahn, 2015). Reflective narratives are sim-
ultaneously self-dialogue and a conversation with a nonpresent audience.
Reflection can be used in L2 research as one more retrospective method
to make learners’ thoughts and feelings visible (Kim, 2019; Koike &
Blyth, 2016). As such, reflective essays may inform about development,
agency, and self-regulation in learning a second language. The concept of
agency, in particular, has attracted recent attention in second language
acquisition (SLA) (Deters et al., 2014; Larsen-Freeman, 2019). From a
sociocultural perspective, agency is not viewed as a property of an indi-
vidual, but rather as action within a social context (van Lier, 2008).
This study presents a thematic and discursive analysis focused on lan-
guage learning, and agency, understood from the perspective of sociocul-
tural theory and following the analytical framework of activity theory
(Engeström, 1987, 1999). The qualitative analysis of 31 reflective essays
written by advanced L2 learners of Spanish highlights the interrelation-
ship of action with motivation, emotion, and the context of their learning
activity. This framework underscores the view of language learning as a
sociocognitive process and yields valuable insights on the learners’ agency
and self-regulation for the assessment of learner development and for
program assessment purposes.
4
6
1
164 Marta Antón and Thomas Pendexter
Conceptual Positioning
Portfolio Assessment, Reflection, and Discourse

A growing trend in assessment over the last decades has been the
search for alternatives to standardized testing that are locally situated
and that promote “self-regulation in context” (Jenkins & Leung, 2019,
p. 104). Indeed, the development of learners’ autonomy, agency, and
self-regulation has gained due attention and has been a major goal of
European initiatives such as the European Portfolio, which Little (2013)
argues serves as a self-assessment tool where the learner’s agency is chan-
neled through the target language. Dixon (2011) asserts that the social
turn in language learning and teaching has brought about a different view
of autonomy, one that is anchored in Vygotsky’s views of interaction and
autonomy (p. 275) and needs support to be effectively built.
Attention to discourse has proven beneficial for assessment purposes.
In their discourse approach to the assessment of advanced foreign lan-
guage oral proficiency, Koike and Hinojosa (1998) advocate for a focus
on the structure of discourse in oral interviews. In their study the language
choices in written discourse did not only provide information about the
language proficiency of the learners, but also of their psychological orien-
tation toward learning.
According to Swain et al. (2011), recent turns in SLA toward social
aspects of learning have also brought a focus on narratives. Language
learners’ stories are suitable research tools to understand learning and
development in context and over time. According to Kim (2019), reflec-
tion may be considered a verbalization activity with potential to increase
motivation:
[as] learners formulate and solidify their future aspirations, they can
make an accurate assessment of where they are currently in terms of
their L2 proficiency and where they would like to be, and thus estab-
lish a clear path of action concerning how to get there.
(p. 82)
Gao (2013) views reflective thinking as an external form of internal

conversation that allows learners to gain control of their own learning
by expressing their desires and priorities within particular (changing)
contexts. This view is also held by Vitanova (2010), who believes that
reflection plays a critical role on the relationship between agency and
language learning, and considers personal reflective writing as discourse
with the self and also with the assessors. Larsen-Freeman (2019) also
recommends reflection as a tool to enhance learners’ agency, along with
narratives and learner-driven feedback.
Rodgers (2002) defined reflection as a meaning- making process
that helps us move from one experience to another with a deeper
5
6
1
Activity Theory Account of Learner Agency 165

understanding of connections between experiences and ideas. Reflection
involves description and analysis of experiences leading to intelligent
action and experimentation in a cyclical process of action and reflection.
The DEAL model (Ash & Clayton, 2009) facilitates the process of reflec-
tion by dividing it in three phases: description of the experience, analysis,
and articulation of integration of experience and learning. We used this
model in the reflective guide we gave to our learners to organize their
essays. The themes emerging from the learners’ verbalizations of their
own learning yield a retrospective look at their motivation and agency as
they discuss different learning experiences.
Agency and Sociocultural Theory

The concept of autonomy is related to views of agency and self-regulation
under several theoretical perspectives. From the lens of Complex Dynamic
Systems, Larsen-Freeman (2019) understands agency as both relational
and emergent, that is, as related to the context and emerging when spon-
taneous activity meets the world. Relatedly, from a sociocultural perspec-
tive, agency is not viewed as the property of an individual, but rather as
action within a social context (van Lier, 2008). Agency is “not simply
an individual character trait or activity, but a contextually enacted way
of being in the world” (van Lier, 2008, p. 163). It is behavioral and
situated in a particular context. Agency has been minimally defined as
“the socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (Ahearn, 2001, p. 112).
In interpreting Ahearn’s definition, van Lier (2008) stated that agency is
understood as “action potential, mediated by social, interactional, cul-
tural, institutional and other contextual factors” (p. 171). It is related to
terms such as volition, intentionality, initiative, intrinsic motivation, and
autonomy, which have been well studied in educational research. van Lier
proposed three core features of agency. First, agency involves initiative or
self-regulation by the learner. Second, agency is interdependent, that is,
it mediates and is mediated by the sociocultural context. Finally, agency
includes an awareness of the responsibility for one’s own actions vis-à-vis
the environment, including affected others. Indeed, for learning to take
place there must be action on the part of an intentional agent: “the learn-
ability question …has everything to do with human agency and inten-
tionality” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 142). Lantolf (2013) reinterpreted
agency as the ability to act through mediation, with awareness, and with
an understanding of the action’s significance and relevance. He makes a
distinction between the concepts of agency and autonomy: the former’s
individuality is based on and is derived from social relationships, cultur-
ally organized activities, and the use of artefacts. The latter is considered
a sovereign entity which is independent of social life. Studying agency
under this theoretical lens is important because “better understanding of
agency can help us find ways of creating learning environments favorable
to its emergence and development” (p. 164).
61

What sets sociocultural theory (SCT) apart from other psycholinguistic
approaches to second language acquisition is the central role it assigns
to social interaction and context in cognitive development. While other
theories pay attention to the internal operations of the mind, SCT
theorists believe that it is not possible to understand human develop-
ment independently from the sociocultural context of activities. Based
on the ideas of the Russian psychologist L. S. Vygotsky (1978, 1987), the
theory is concerned with the relationship between language and mind. In
Vygotsky’s view, human action is mediated by technical and psychological
tools or signs, such as language. One’s behavior is supported by objects in
the environment (object-regulation) or another person (other-regulation)
until learners are able to function independently (self-regulation).
Through collaboration with others in our culture we become self-
regulated. Self-regulation is best characterized as the attainment of an
individual’s potential for development in innumerable endeavors realized
through complex interactions with others in one’s culture and mediated
principally by language. In this sense, reflection can serve as a powerful
tool for transformation. Self-regulation may be aided by tools that pro-
mote internal dialogue and conscious reflection such as diaries, reflective
essays, and self-evaluative reports (Esteve et al., 2006).
Activity Theory as a Framework to Analyze Action

Activity theory (Leont’ev, 1978; Engeström, 1999) posits a model to
analyze human cognition mediated by physically and socially motivated
actions. There are three levels of activity: motive, action, and conditions.
The model underscores the importance of the interaction among indi-
vidual and social factors in the realization of activities. A graphic
representation of the activity system adapted from Engeström (1987) is
in Figure 8.1.
Human action in goal-oriented activity (motive) is shaped by the tools
available and the social context of the actions (rules, community and div-
ision of labor). Thus, performance on tasks or activities may vary from
learner to learner (Coughlan & Duff, 1994) as it is a result of the inter-
action between the individual, its motive, the tools, the social support, and
constraints given by the activity. Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001) proposed
activity theory as an appropriate framework to look at second language
learners as individual people. Brown’s (2016) study of one learner’s study
abroad experiences in Korea demonstrated the adequacy of activity
theory to analyze agency and identity.
In reflections and narratives, agency is manifested not only in the con-
tent of the actions told but in the language used to tell them. Because the
reflections in this study are retrospective of an entire program, we see the
construction of meaning about the learning activity from a diachronic
perspective in the evolving content of the reflection and also in the dis-
course itself. Reflective essays thus have the potential to achieve multiple
7
6
1
Figure 8.1 The structure of the activity system (adapted from Engeström, 1987)
purposes. On the one hand, reflection may be a way to help students

dialogue with themselves, to construct meaning about their experiences
with a deeper understanding of interconnections within the entire activity
system (how the subject, their motives, and the outcome of the activity
may change through time and space; how motives and outcomes can
be supported by mediating tools, rules, the community and division of
labor, etc.). On the other hand, reflection can engage learners in a dia-
logue with others (mentors, teachers, program administrators, etc.) in the
construction of meaning about their experiences as affected by various
agents and tools in the learning activity system. The meaning derived
from reflections may be useful for individual and program assessment
purposes, for obtaining a holistic understanding of learning as an activity
that is embedded in a context which supports or constraints the activity.
Importantly, what is learned from the reflection may be used to devise
instructional interventions aimed at facilitating the process of learning
and the learners’ identities as users of another language.
The Study
Participants and Setting

The participants in this study were 22 Spanish majors enrolled in one of
two versions of the Capstone course (seminar or internship) at a large
public urban university in the midwestern United States. The Capstone
8
6
1

is a required course that majors complete in their last two semesters in
the program. The main assignment for the course is an e-portfolio, which
includes a reflective essay, samples of student work in several courses
within the language program, and a final research project or internship
report. Other assignments include a content exam and a language pro-
ficiency exam, based on which all participants were deemed to have
reached an Intermediate Mid to Advanced level of proficiency following
criteria of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012). At the end
of the course, the e-portfolio and presentation of the research project or
internship report were evaluated by the course instructor and a faculty
panel. The first author was one of several faculty members who evaluated
the e-portfolios and student presentations. She was not the instructor for
the course and did not know all of the students.
Data Collection
Data for this study came from 31 reflective essays written in Spanish
by the 22 advanced-level Spanish majors in the Capstone course. The
essays served as an introduction to the e-portfolio; beyond that prac-
tical use, however, they also served as both a self-reflection on learning
for the individual student and as a qualitative tool to assess individual
learning. Nine students wrote an additional reflection about their
experiential learning during an internship, which they had completed
to satisfy their Capstone requirement. Given the introspective and
retrospective nature of these reflections, we wanted to see how
learners represented themselves and constructed their self-assessment
through discourse in their narrative essays. These representations
of learning within systems of activity, we hypothesized, would also
have implications for program assessment and improvement. Students
received guiding questions that prompted them to write about their
perceptions in three areas: learning the language, learning about
content areas throughout the program of study (culture, literature,
linguistics, etc.), and integration and application of the knowledge
acquired in the program. Learners were asked to reflect on their aca-
demic experience, to self-assess their language ability, and to discuss
plans to continue their academic development. Although the reflective
essays were graded, they carried low weight in the overall grade for
the portfolio (15%). Over the course of the semester, the students had
the opportunity to share a draft of their essays with their instructor,
who could provide feedback for improvement. The analysis is based
on the final version of the reflective essays.
Methodology
Following grounded methodology (Straus & Corbin, 1990), the essays
were analyzed searching for themes and patterns in order to establish
9
6
1

categories. A research assistant read the essays several times and generated
codes. Engaging in this iterative process, open coding resulted in several
themes related to the activity system of learning, which were grouped under
three major categories: reflections on motives and outcomes, reflections
on learner actions, and reflections on the learning context (rules, com-
munity, and division of labor). Language episodes in the reflective essays
that related to these categories were identified and subjected to further
discursive analysis for additional cues on the learners’ disposition toward
action leading to learning.
Agency may manifest itself in discourse through particular linguistic
forms used to describe action (or inaction) in the context of learning
opportunities. Lexical and grammatical elements may signal behaviors,
stance (i.e., attitude toward or assessment/evaluation of their actions),
and intensity (i.e., the degree of intensity or commitment toward actions).
(See Connor et al., 2012 for linguistic indicators of agency in health dis-
course.) Du Bois (2007) defined ‘stance’ as a linguistically articulated
form of social action whose meaning is construed within the broader
scope of language, interaction, and sociocultural value. Stance, Du Bois
added, is not something inherent to an individual; it manifests itself nat-
urally in the dialogic interaction between two or more people. Agency
can also be conveyed through stance or emotions, disposition, and value
judgments.
Findings
The content analysis identified several themes in the reflective essays
related to learning activity over time. Frequent themes were motives for
learning, whether intrinsic–integrative or extrinsic–instrumental (Gardner
& Lambert, 1972), and outcomes of language-learning efforts in terms of
language ability and cultural or disciplinary knowledge. Metacognitive
actions taken and regulation of emotions regarding the learning pro-
cess and outcomes (self-confidence, regulation of anxiety, etc.) were also
common themes. Another frequent theme was the effect of the learning
context: courses and external experiences, teachers, and other learners.
Within the activity system, the learning context includes rules, commu-
nity, and division of labor, as illustrated in Figure 8.2.
Table 8.1 provides an overview of the frequency of theme- related
episodes in the essays. Motivation for learning and the effect of learning
contexts were the most common themes in the essays. Outcomes in terms
of language learning, cultural and disciplinary knowledge, and self-
confidence in their ability were also vastly discussed in the essays.
In the following sections these themes are discussed within the frame-
work of systems of activity, paying attention to how the themes are lin-
guistically represented and what the discursive choices might indicate
about the learner’s agency, understood as socially and culturally mediated
action (van Lier, 2008).
0
7
1
Figure 8.2 Program-level language-learning activity system
Table 8.1 Number of episodes related to themes
Episodes Total
Motives Integrative 20 35
Instrumental 15
Tools Planning 8 8
Outcomes Evaluation of outcomes 18 18
Community, Division of labor, Courses 19 35
Rules Teachers 13
Other learners 3
Learners’ Motives Within the Activity System

Motivation emerges as an important force leading to action in the
language-learning process. In their essays, most participants alluded
to their appreciation or ‘passion’ for languages in general or for the
Spanish language in particular. Intense emotional charge, indicated by
words such as ‘passion’ or ‘love,’ often describe the drive that moves
these successful learners. The following excerpts are illustrative of this
motive:
Los elementos y conocimientos de la lingüística, la cultura y la

literatura—y un amor por la lengua extranjera en general—me han
proveído la motivación de adquirir las destrezas y habilidades que
ya tengo.
1
7

‘The elements and knowledge of linguistics, culture, and literature —
and love for foreign languages in general—gave me the motivation to
acquire the skills and abilities I now have.’
Sin embargo, lo más que yo aprendía de la lengua española, la
literatura y la cultura de todos los países hispanohablantes, lo más
que yo apreciaba todo lo que se relaciona con este idioma. A través
de los varios cursos que he tomado durante mis años en el programa,
descubrí un amor fuerte por el idioma español.
‘However, the more I learned about the Spanish language, literature,
and culture of all Spanish-speaking countries, the more I appreciated
everything related to the language. Throughout the various courses
I have studied in my years in the program, I discovered a strong
passion for the Spanish language.’
Other learners mentioned helping the Latino community in the United

States or a general interest for the culture as their main motivating factor.
Contact with the Latino community sometimes motivates the students to
choose language study in the first place, while for others the contact occurs
as part of their academic experience through service learning or study
abroad, and the experience increases or reaffirms their commitment to
studying the language. The following excerpt illustrates the participants’
expression of these motives.
Así que en esta manera se me levantó el interés en lo latino. La infancia

y mis interacciones con esa gente amable me echaron la primera
vistaza de esa cultura hispánica aunque más que nada me dejó una
impresión duradera, dirigiendo el resto de mi vida y últimamente mi
elección de la carrera.
‘Thus in this way grew my interest in all things Latino. My childhood
and my interactions with those kind people gave me my first view
of Hispanic culture, although more than anything it left me with a
lasting impression, directing the rest of my life and, ultimately, my
choice of career.’
Yet, for other participants, their choice to study the language was driven
by their goal of having an advantage in the job market or working in
translation or interpreting:
Encontré trabajo en la oficina de un taller mecánico pero extrañé a

mis compañeros y el español. Decidí que quería hacer algo utilizando
el español. Necesitaba algo para tener una ventaja que me destacara
en el mercado laboral.
‘I found a job in the office of a car repair garage, but I missed my
classmates and the Spanish language. I decided that I wanted to do
something using Spanish. I needed something to have an advantage
that would make me stand out in the job market.’
2
7
1

Interestingly, many essays revealed a change over time from an ini-
tial instrumental motivation toward integrative motivation, as in the
following example.
Para mí, éste incluía poner mis destrezas en mi curriculum vitae. Ahora,
después de ser una estudiante del programa de español, el valor de
mi educación en mi idioma segunda ha cambiado… He desarrollado
mi conocimiento de la gente y las culturas hispanohablantes, y ha
establecido una perspectiva global.
‘For me, this included adding my skills to my curriculum vitae. Now,
after being a student in the Spanish program, the value of my edu-
cation in the second language has changed … I have developed my
understanding of Spanish- speaking peoples and cultures and has
gained a global perspective.’
Motivation in the essays is described as shifting, affected by the experiences

of our participants: courses, interaction with the community, and other
learners. Shifts in motivation due to the physical and social environment
were also observed by Lantolf and Genug (2002) and Yu (2015), two
studies that used activity theory to investigate motive in L2 classroom
learning.
Language-Learning Outcomes
As a self-assessment of the individual and, in its aggregate form, of the
collective group, most participants acknowledged great improvement
in oral skills, but some mentioned weaknesses in grammar, pronunci-
ation, and fluency. All of the participants expressed satisfaction with
gains in their cultural knowledge. Their perception of interaction with
the target language community through study abroad or service-learning
experiences was overwhelmingly positive and was a theme mentioned
by almost all of them. In addition, they often connected their study of
Spanish to other disciplines, their second majors, or their work and life in
general. The following excerpt exemplifies the participants’ expression of
self-assessment of outcomes.
Mis prácticas en Univisión fueron indispensables. He aprendido que

mis destrezas son mucho más fuertes que yo pensaba. Estas prácticas
me ayudaron a aplicar el español que aprendí en la universidad al
mundo real y también a decidir lo que quiero hacer después de la
graduación.
‘My internship at Univisión was essential. I learned that my skills are
stronger than I thought. The internship helped me apply the Spanish
I learned at the university to the real world and also to decide what
I want to do after graduation.’
3
7
1
Tools of Metacognition
The reflective essays also provided evidence of the participants’ ability
to plan, organize, control, and evaluate their learning. Self-confidence in
language abilities is often reported as an outcome of the learning activity
among most of these advanced-level learners. Often, learners refer to other
elements in the activity system as contributing to their self-confidence.
Courses, teachers, or experiential learning experiences are mentioned as
contributing and supporting elements playing a role in their motivation to
persist in studying the language. The essays also revealed the important role
of affect in the degree of regulation with positive or negative effects. For
instance, one participant wrote about the effect of feeling intimidated in a
course, another was constrained by fear that he did not have the ability to
develop speaking skills. In contrast, less stressful activities were evaluated
more positively. For example, one participant wrote about the enjoyment
derived from writing essays, perceived as less stressful. In the following
excerpt, another participant discusses her internal drive to overcome diffi-
culties, which played a crucial role in her success in language learning:
Yo era famosa por mi habilidad a aprender cualquier cosa, sin

problemas. Estaba embarazosa que tal parece no pude comprenderla
[lengua]. No obstante mi motivación a sobreseer las dificultades
en aprendizaje, viene de mi voluntad a ser triunfadora en todo lo
que hago.
‘I was famous for my ability to learn anything without a problem.
I was embarrassed that I did not seem to be able to understand the
language. However, my motivation to overcome learning difficulties
comes from my will to succeed in everything I do.’
By contrast, this participant described her struggles to control her

emotions and gain self- confidence. Looking at the discourse in this
excerpt, there are revealing clues of her inability to self-regulate and gain
control over actions:
Este era lo más difícil, porque tenía que dominar mis sentimientos
de intimidación que me pusieron temer a cometer errores enfrente de
mis compañeros de clase… Como así, cuando llegó el momento en
que tenía que hablar en alto me asustaba y me enfriaba, quedando
anonadada. No pude hablar. Por eso, el miedo de hablar me volvió
una debilidad.
‘This was the most difficult because I had to dominate my feelings
of intimidation that made me afraid of making mistakes in front of
my classmates… Thus, when the moment came when I had to speak
in class I used to get scared, cold, feeling stunned. I could not speak.
That is why my fear of speaking became a weakness.’
4
7
1

Lexical choices like ‘difficult’ or ‘weakness’ provide a justification for
lack of agency regarding speaking. The amount of negative feeling in this
short excerpt (‘intimidation,’ ‘afraid,’ ‘scared,’ ‘cold,’ ‘stunned,’ ‘fear’)
is also remarkable and provides further context and justification for not
acting. Finally, this participant used only first-person imperfective verb
forms (tenía que… ‘I had [imp.] to…’) or negative expressions of ability
(no pude ‘I could not…’).
The depiction of the subject as a passive receiver of the action of the
verb is noticeable in this excerpt. For example, ‘the feelings of intimida-
tion made me afraid of…’; ‘fear of speaking turned into a weakness for
me.’ As a discourse strategy it removes agency from the subject and shifts
attention to other elements of the activity system that stand in the way of
the learner’s objectives and impede action.
The Learning Context

The learning situation and their actors was the source of abundant
comments, particularly courses and teachers. Within an activity
system, rules, the community, and division of labor enable or impede
the activity. In this case, at times, learning was aided by course con-
tent, which was viewed as a source of interest and motivation for many
participants. Literature, culture, and phonetics courses were frequently
mentioned as supporting learning and helping students achieve their
goals. Course relevance appeared as a theme in some essays; one par-
ticipant, for example, indicated that all courses were relevant for the
improvement of different skills. Another assigned relevance, from a
utilitarian perspective, to those courses perceived as useful for the
future:
Enfoqué más en las clases que sentía que me iban a ayudar en el

futuro. Entonces, he puesto más atención en las clases de que me
ayudan a comunicar y que me enseñan sobre la cultura.
‘I focused more on the classes that I felt were going to be more helpful
to me in the future. Thus, I have paid more attention to classes that
help me communicate and that teach me about the culture.’
Some identified misalignments between individual learning styles and

instructional styles in courses. For example, one participant attributed
her struggles with the study of traditional grammar to her preference for
a visual learning style. Interestingly, she chose to place herself in the dis-
course as the recipient of the verbal actions rather than the agent: ‘has
been a struggle for me.’
Soy lo que es descrito como una estudiante que aprende por medio de
la vista…por lo tanto, la gramática en el sentido tradicional ha sido
una lucha para mí.
5
7
1

‘I am what is described as a student who learns by sight…that is why
grammar has been a struggle for me.’
Similarly, this same participant perceived the course protocols (rules

in the activity system) as hindering the connection between her goal
(learning the language) and outcomes (proficiency). In this case, she
suggested that the outcomes could have been enhanced if the program
had built into their courses more opportunities for interaction with
native speakers (rules). Once again, the participant positions herself
in the discourse as the recipient of the action (‘could have helped me’)
rather than as a first-person agent.
[El programa] me pudiera haber ayudado por proveer más

oportunidades de comunicar con nativos hispanos directamente
como parte del curso.
‘The program could have helped me by providing more opportunities
to communicate with Hispanic native speakers directly as part of the
course.’
Overall, many participants wrote about the mediating role of teachers as

supporting (or placing obstacles to) their learning. Teaching style and per-
sonality have an effect on the activity of learners, particularly for those who
depend most on cognitive regulation by others. Some participants mentioned
the importance of class organization, whereas others related teaching style
to their affective reaction to the course. In many cases the teacher was
perceived as the agent of motivation for students. Several learners also
commented on the effect of the community of learners (other students) as
mediators of learning, such as native speakers helping non-native speakers
or classmates promoting critical thinking through questioning.
Ella [la profesora] me dio la motivación para continuar y demostrar

a esos profesores como yo podía mejorarme. Me dio muchos consejos
y apoyo a aceptar la crítica en una manera positiva para crecer.
‘She [the teacher] gave me the motivation to continue and to show
those teachers how I could improve. She gave a lot of advice and
support to accept criticism in a positive way to grow.’
Other learning contexts are also mentioned as mediating learning, par-

ticularly study abroad and service-learning experiences. In many of the
essays, the writers highlighted how service learning supported the devel-
opment of self-confidence about their language proficiency, as illustrated
in the following excerpt:
Las herramientas y habilidades que gané son más experiencia en

el mundo profesional y trabajo bilingüe, más confidencia en mis
habilidades, y más conexiones con la gente.
6
7
1

‘The tools and skills I gained were more experience in the profes-
sional world and bilingual work, more confidence in my abilities and
connections with people.’
Study abroad experiences also supported self- confidence, increased

motivation, and, in some cases, gave learners an object, a new goal:
Cuando miro atrás, yo sé que esa decisión cambiaría mi vida [viaje a

España]. No sólo porque viajé a otro país, pero finalmente tenía un
objetivo a lograr. Finalmente tenía algo que me hacía emoción, una
dirección, motivo de tener éxito en algo.
‘When I look back, I know this decision would change my life
[trip to Spain]. Not only because I travelled to another country,
but finally I had a goal to attain. Finally I had something that
made me feel an emotion, a direction, a motive to be successful in
something.’
A closer look at the actual discursive choices used by learners to create

their discourse may also indicate their orientation towards agency.
Consider the following excerpt where the learner reflects on the effect of
an internship experience:
Así que mejoré el habla. Ahora no tengo miedo de hablar en español.

Puedo seguir fortaleciendo el habla sin tener inhibiciones o pensar
cómo el mundo me pegaría juicios… Con esta experiencia, ahora
puedo decir con confianza que puedo enseñar la gramática a los
estudiantes sin miedo de que no sepa algunos conceptos.
‘So I improved my speaking. Now I am not afraid of speaking Spanish.
I can continue strengthening my speaking without inhibitions or
without thinking how the world would judge me… With this experi-
ence, now I can say with confidence that I can teach grammar to
students without fear of not knowing some concepts.’
Positive agency and self- confidence are expressed through several

first-
person propositional statements (‘I improved,’ ‘I can continue
strengthening,’ ‘I can say,’ ‘I can teach’), which denote a sense of
empowerment to commit actions and the ability to do so (‘I can’). This
participant also uses adverbial propositional phrases that indicate control
of emotions and lack of negative emotions (‘without fear,’ ‘with confi-
dence’). Feeling free of debilitating emotions (‘I am not afraid’) and nega-
tive judgments enables positive action. These linguistic choices present
the writer as assertive, able to take action toward their goals.
Similarly, the following participant discusses the effects of study
abroad using language that denotes how the abroad experience had a
positive effect on motivation and choices in learning:
71

Tanto me gustó mi experiencia que cuando regresé de México escogí
un programa de intercambio donde estaría mucho más independiente
que en México porque ahora sí quería experimentar todo lo que el
mundo latino me podía ofrecer.
‘I liked my experience so much that when I returned from Mexico
I chose an exchange program where I would be more independent
than in Mexico because now I did want to experience everything the
Latino world could offer.’
First-person verbs express action through propositional content (‘I liked,’

‘I chose,’ ‘I wanted’). In addition, the use of intensifiers like sí (ahora sí
quería… ‘now I did want…’) communicates a high level of engagement
with the learning activity.
In sum, the analysis of the themes and the language used in the
participants’ reflective essays through the lens of the activity theory
framework provides us with a deeper understanding of the learning
process at the individual level and of how various internal and external
factors interact in supporting (or not) motivation leading to particular
actions and outcomes.
Discussion
Reflections are particularly revealing of impactful learning experiences.
As Kim (2019) and others tell us, reflection exposes the writers’ thoughts
and feelings and makes them available for analysis. Looking at learners’
reflections on learning within the activity theory framework highlights the
strength of interconnections among learners’ goals, motives, and objectives,
and the effect of the context in which learning experiences are embedded
(courses, program rules, teachers, classmates, target language community,
etc.). Regarding the role of courses as mediating contexts for learning,
and instructors as members of the community with a role in support of
learning, the content analysis of the essays confirms that courses perceived
as interesting and relevant for the learners’ goals lead to increased motiv-
ation, that learners value high expectations and support from their
instructors, and that they also value their classmates’ contributions to a
positive learning environment (see also Park & De Costa, 2015). Service
learning and study abroad provided learning contexts that not only
offered opportunities for learning, but also boosted self- confidence as
learners came to the realization that they felt prepared for engaging in out-
side experiences. The participants’ descriptions of their learning, viewed
through the lens of activity theory, highlight social and cultural effects
of the individual capacity for action (Ahearn, 2001; Miller, 2012; van
Lier, 2008). The learners’ positive perceptions of outside experiences offer
support and encouragement for language programs to increase authentic
learning opportunities integrated with the course curriculum.
8
7
1

As the examples above illustrate, it is possible to gain insights into
the agency of the learners and how they view the context of the learning
activity by examining their linguistic choices in the discourse of their
essays (see also Stanfield, 2015). In our essay data, certain lexical markers,
first-person verb forms (‘I chose,’ ‘I decided,’ ‘I gained,’ etc.), and other
linguistic markers (e.g., intensifiers, adverbs) were associated with a high
level of engagement with learning actions. The expression of obstacles
to learning action were often signaled by placing the learner as object
of the verb (‘X taught me,’ ‘X gave me’), impersonal expressions (‘there
is a need,’ etc.), verbs in imperfective forms (‘I wanted’), expressions of
inability (‘I could not’), and negative emotions towards action (‘I was
afraid,’ ‘it scared me,’ etc.). Reflective essays often linked motives and
actions to evaluation of emotions toward actions.
Reflection and retrospective verbalization of cognitive and emo-
tional development help learners engage in dialogue with both the self
and an audience (Gao, 2013; Vitanova, 2010), where the learners con-
struct meaning on their experiences, goals, and motives, thus creating an
awareness of their own agency in learning and of the interaction among
the self and other elements in the activity system. The importance of audi-
ence in this silent dialogue cannot be underestimated. Davies and Harré
(1990) discuss the concept of positioning, the discursive process in which
selves are seen as coherent participants in jointly constructed storylines.
The process is not always intentional and depends on other people (see
also Wortham, 2001; Showstack, 2020).
It is important to keep in mind that agency and self-regulation are
not stable. Within the same learner they will vary over time and over
different activities (Lantolf & Genug, 2002). Attention to the linguistic
expression of learners’ motives and agency may serve the purpose of
alerting us to individuals that may need more mediation and support to
achieve their goals. For instance, in our data, the analysis of the reflective
essay written by a student struggling in the program yielded a surprising
amount of expressions of other-regulatory behavior and social and meta-
cognitive constraints in the areas of community, rules, and division of
labor, all of which impeded her from reaching her goal of learning and
being successful in the program despite acknowledging motivation for
success.
From a theoretical standpoint, the evidence adds support for the
value of written reflections as a way to understand learners’ perspectives
on their individual language-learning journeys, which relate to learner
agency. On a practical level, the analysis suggests important pedagogical
implications, in particular that reflection may be a powerful tool to pro-
mote learner agency and that students’ reflections may be useful in cur-
ricular planning and assessment. The learners’ subjective perspectives, as
reflected in the content and language of their essays, are relevant for self-
assessment purposes, diagnostic assessment, and curricular improvement.
This use of reflection for assessment purposes responds to the need for
alternative assessment instruments that allow for individualization.
9
7
1
Conclusion
This study suggests that reflection can be an effective mediating tool for
identity development by language learners, for self-assessment about the
process of learning in context, and for understanding learners’ agency
and motivation (Larsen-Freeman, 2019). Using activity theory as a frame-
work, we have identified themes in reflective essays written by advanced-
level English- speaking learners of Spanish as part of their Capstone
portfolio in their Spanish major. A close look at the learners’ verbalization
of their goals and their evaluation of their language-learning process in
their reflections allows us to see not only the varying degrees of agency by
particular learners, but also the context of their activity, including their
motives, tools, and support to reach their goals. The effect of emotions on
their activity in relation to the social context in which learning occurred
(courses, service learning, internship or study abroad experiences) is quite
salient. This is not surprising if we consider that “learning of any kind is
not primarily a matter of making changes to the workings of the brain
(through information processing), rather, it is a whole person, body and
mind, socially situated process” (van Lier 2008, p. 180). The insepar-
ability of cognition and emotion (Lantolf & Swain, 2019; Swain, 2013)
is encapsulated in the Russian term perezhivanie ‘lived experience’ as a
subjective meta-experience within a “dynamic meaningful system that
constitutes a unity of affective and intellectual processes” (Vygotsky,
1987, p. 50). Indeed, as it has become evident in research on L2 devel-
opment from various theoretical perspectives, attention to learners’
emotions within a whole person-context approach is necessary for our
understanding of language learning and development (Bigelow, 2019).
There are some limitations to this study. The first is that the participants
were required to write their essays in Spanish—their second language—
and, therefore, it is possible that they were not able to express their
thoughts with ease. Given that the essays were graded, a second limita-
tion may be that the evaluation frame may have influenced the content
of essays written with a teacher audience in mind. Finally, because reflec-
tion was not used systematically throughout the program of study, it is
not possible to determine the long-term effects of reflection on learners’
agency. These limitations may be overcome by future studies that may
contextualize reflection differently within a course or a program of study.
What is important to keep in mind is that looking at learners’ reflections
through the lens of activity theory provides a window to understand
their individuality as learners, their goals, motives, and reasons for their
actions while being cognizant that actions are embedded in particular
social contexts that affect the individual’s ability to act. The deeper
understanding of learners that may derive from analyzing their reflective
essays can be used to enhance self-regulatory behaviors if reflections take
the form of ongoing dialogue journals (Darhower, 2004) or if teachers
derive questionnaires, guides, or other tools (see Esteve et al., 2006) that
may help increase positive agency in the process of learning.
0
8
1
Acknowledgments
With appreciation for María Elena Patiño’s assistance in the thematic
analysis of the data.
References
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology,
30, 109–137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL
Proficiency Guidelines 2012. ACTFL.
Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting
learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of
Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 25–48.
Bigelow, M. (Ed.). (2019). Perspectives. The Modern Language Journal, 103(2),
515–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12569
Brown, L. (2016). An activity-theoretic study of agency and identity in the study
abroad experiences of a lesbian nontraditional learner of Korean. Applied
Linguistics, 37, 808–827. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu075
Connor, U., Antón, M., Goering, E., Lauten, K., Roach, P., Balunda, S., & Hayat,
A. (2012). Listening to patients’ voices: Linguistic indicators related to dia-
betes self-management. Communication and Medicine, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.
org/10.1558/cam.v9i1.1
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA
task from an Activity Theory perspective. In J. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–193). Ablex.
Darhower, M. (2004). Dialogue journals as mediators of L2 learning: A sociocul-
tural account. Hispania, 87(2), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.2307/20140862
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x
Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, E., & Vitanova, G. (Eds.). (2014). Theorizing and
analyzing agency in second language learning. Interdisciplinary approaches.
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092901
Dixon, D. (2011). Recent literature concerning the support of initiatives pro-
moting language learner autonomy around the world. Language Teaching,
44(2), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000443
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebreston (Ed.), Stancetaking
in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139– 182). John
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach
to developmental research. Orienta–Konsultit. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781139814744
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation.
In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Purnamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on
activity theory (pp. 19– 38). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003
Esteve, O., Arumí, M., & Martin Peris, E. (2006) La autonomía en su componente
estratégico: una investigación sobre la incidencia de instrumentos de mediación
1
8

en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de lenguas en adultos. In A. Camps (Ed.),
Diálogo e investigación en las aulas. Investigaciones en didáctica de la lengua
(pp. 161–182). Graó (Crítica y Fundamentos).
Gao, X. (2013). Reflexive and reflective thinking: A crucial link between agency
and autonomy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 226–
237. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2013.836204
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second
language learning. Newbury House.
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2019). From mythical “standard” to standard reality:
The need for alternatives to standardized English language tests. Language
Teaching, 52(1), 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444818000307
Kim, T.–Y. (2019). Effect of languaging activities on L2 learning motivation: A
classroom-based approach. In M. Haneda & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Perspectives
on language as action. Festschrift in honour of Merrill Swain (pp. 80–98).
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922944
Koike, D., & Blyth, C. S. (2016). A metadialogic approach to intercultural dia-
logue. Language and Dialogue, 6(2), 223–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/
ld.6.2.02koi
Koike, D., & Hinojosa, F. (1998). A discourse approach to the assessment of for-
eign language oral proficiency. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education,
3(3), 33–50.
Landis, C., Scott, S., & Kahn, S. (2015). Examining the role of reflection in e-
portfolios: A case study. International Journal of ePortfolio, 5(2), 107–121.
Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Sociocultural theory and the dialetics of L2 learner
autonomy/agency. In P. Benson & L. Cooker (Eds.), The applied linguistic
individual: Sociocultural approaches to identity, agency and autonomy (pp.
17–31). Equinox Publishing.
Lantolf, J. P., & Genug, P. B. (2002). “I’d rather switch than fight”: An activity-
theoretic study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language class-
room. In C. Kramsh (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization:
Ecological perspectives (pp. 175–196). Continuum.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (l)anguage (a)ctivity theory:
Understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (Ed.),
Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp.
141–158). Longman.
Lantolf, J., & Swain, M. (2019). On the emotion–cognition dialectic: A sociocul-
tural response to Prior. Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 528–530. https://
doi.org/10.1111/modl.12574
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.2167/
le127b.0
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic
systems theory perspective. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement), 61–
79. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12536
Leont’ev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice Hall.
Little, D. (2013). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
and the European Language Portfolio: Some history, a view of language
learner autonomy, and some implications for language learning in higher edu-
cation. Language Learning in Higher Education, 2(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1515/cercles-2012-0001
2
8
1

Miller, E. R. (2012). Language, agency, and multilingual spaces. Multilingua, 31,
441–468. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult-2012-0020
Park, J., & De Costa, P. (2015). Reframing graduate student writing strategies
from an Activity Theory perspective. Language and Sociocultural Theory,
2(1), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.v2i1.24977
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and
reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-9620.00181
Showstack, R. (2020). Making sense of the interpreter role in a healthcare
service—learning program. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/
applin/amz058
Stanfield, P. (2015). Analyzing learner agency in second language learning: A
place-based approach. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. Miller, & G. Vitanova (Eds.),
Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 173–192).
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092901-012
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded
theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second lan-
guage learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s0261444811000486
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory and second
language education. An introduction through narratives. Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093182
van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.),
Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163–186).
Equinox.
Vitanova, G. (2010). Authoring the dialogical self. John Benjamins. https://doi.
org/10.1075/ds.8
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Problems of general psychology. In R. W. Rieber & A.
S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (vol. 1, N. Minick,
Trans.). Plenum Press.
Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action: A strategy for research and analysis.
Teachers College Press.
Yu, Lu. (2015). Reexamining motive in L2 oral proficiency development: An
activity theory perspective. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(1), 85–117.
https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.v2vi1.22201
Ziegler, N. (2014). Fostering self- regulated learning through the European
Language Portfolio: An embedded mixed-methods study. Modern Language
Journal, 98(4), 921–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12147
3
8
1
9
Intersubjectivity in Co-Constructed
Test Discourse
What is the Role of L2 Speaking
Ability?
Katharina Kley
Introduction
Expanding the second language (L2) speaking construct by a
sociolinguistic–interactional component has been a growing focus of lan-
guage testing research (Chalhoub-Deville, 2003; Galaczi & Taylor, 2018;
McNamara, 1997; Roever & Kasper, 2018) for the last two decades. By
drawing on interactional competence (IC) (He & Young, 1998; Kramsch,
1986; Young, 2008, 2011), language testers emphasize the individual in
social interaction with others and thus acknowledge that interaction is
co-constructed. IC is therefore not the ability or knowledge of an indi-
vidual language user; rather, two or more participants mutually employ a
variety of resources and together construct shared meaning.
In recent years, conversation analysis (CA) has contributed immensely
to our current conceptualization of IC (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011).
CA, which was developed in sociology, focuses on how language users gen-
erate sequences of social actions (e.g., requests, complaints, invitations)
in interaction with others, and how the participants understand and
respond to one another’s contributions (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). CA-
informed IC is a set of “prosodic, linguistic, sequential and nonverbal
resources” (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011, p. 2) that conversationalists
employ to co-construct interaction. From a CA perspective, IC includes
abilities such as understanding and producing social actions, taking turns,
and repairing problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding (Kasper,
2006). Particularly, achieving intersubjectivity; that is, understanding and
being understood by one another, is a major concern for all participants
engaging in an interaction.
The current chapter offers an analysis of how second-year learners of
German achieve intersubjectivity or mutual understanding in a paired
speaking assessment. Intersubjectivity becomes visible in the practices
that the participants use to display their understanding of the pre-
vious speaker’s talk. The impact of speaking ability (low vs. high) on
displaying understanding is the focus of this CA-based analysis. The data
4
8
1
184 Katharina Kley

demonstrate differences in how understanding is displayed within the
low-and high-ability level pairs, which has implications for L2 teaching
and testing.
Background
Intersubjectivity and Displays of Understanding

CA draws on ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967; Heritage, 1984a)
and thus, in line with that sociological perspective, puts emphasis on the
accomplishment of intersubjectivity or mutual understanding in inter-
action (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). In both ethnomethodology and CA,
understanding is not considered “a mental process” (Mondada, 2011,
p. 543); rather, it “is related to the next action achieved by the co-participant
and demonstrating her understanding” (p. 543). Thus, understanding is
sequential in nature, in that each next turn shows how an interlocutor
understands the previous speaker’s turn (Sacks et al., 1974). For example,
subsequent actions through which participants display their understanding
of prior talk include providing a conditionally relevant next action (Schegloff
& Sacks, 1973) (i.e., answering a question); giving a contingent response
(Lam, 2018), where the current speaker topicalizes elements in the previous
speaker’s talk; and producing a non-minimal expansion of prior talk (e.g.,
a challenge, disagreement, repair initiation) (Schegloff, 2007).
In addition, in case the interlocutor does not understand the prior
talk, he or she may indicate failure of understanding and request clarifi-
cation from the first speaker (Schegloff et al., 1977). Moreover, the first
speaker, who monitors the second speaker’s contribution, may find the
interlocutor’s talk problematic, which may mean that the interlocutor
misunderstood the talk conveyed in the first turn. To restore intersubject-
ivity, the first speaker may repair the misunderstanding in third position
(Schegloff, 1992). Thus, problems of understanding are also displayed in
the sequential organization of talk.
Displaying Shared Understanding in Testing IC

Most language testers do not explicitly examine intersubjectivity or shared
understanding in test discourse, but recent research appears to suggest
its importance and relevance. For example, Ducasse and Brown (2009)
showed that raters consider an interaction successful when test takers
display their understanding of the partner’s contribution by suggesting a
word to the interlocutor, commenting on the partner’s ideas, and offering
or requesting clarification. Another rater study (May, 2011) came to
similar results: It also found that displaying understanding by showing
desire to engage with the conversation partner’s ideas, developing
arguments introduced by the interlocutor, and showing genuine interest
in the partner’s contributions were evaluated positively by raters.
5
8
1
The Role of L2 Speaking Ability 185

Employing CA to analyze shared understanding in test discourse, Lam
(2018) explored the use of contingent responses (the next utterance that
refers back to elements of the previous speaker’s turn and thus displays
a participant’s understanding of prior talk) in a group oral test targeted
at learners of English. Burch and Kley (2019), who were also using a
CA-based approach, investigated the extent to which test-taker pairs
display their understanding of one another’s contributions; they found
that participants, for example, expand upon each other’s talk and recycle
bits from prior turns to display understanding and stances. However,
it is important to note that achieving intersubjectivity has not been a
traditional goal of oral assessments (Seedhouse & Nakatsuhara, 2018)
and, thus, it has not been investigated systematically in IC speaking
assessments.
Interactional Development and the Interrelationship

between Proficiency and IC
A growing body of CA– SLA research that examines learners’ inter-
actional development found that IC develops over time. That is, begin-
ning L2 learners with low linguistic ability tend to also use a limited
set of techniques for accomplishing actions, such as proffering a dis-
agreement or initiating repair. In contrast, advanced learners, who have
expanded their linguistic repertoire, employ more diversified interactional
techniques and produce talk that is better tailored to recipients and are
also able to adapt to context (Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015).
For example, Pekarek Doehler and Pochon-Berger (2011) showed that
intermediate level learners of French mostly use polarity markers (e.g.,
no) at turn beginnings to indicate disagreement, whereas advanced-level
students use the turn-initial polarity markers less frequently and instead
deploy a larger number of more complex techniques (e.g., ‘but’-introduced
counter arguments or non-turn initial disagreements). Al-Gahtani and
Roever (2012) discovered that low-ability learners of English tend to
produce requests without any preliminary moves; high-ability learners,
however, commonly deploy pre-requests. This body of research is not
unimportant for language testers as the developmental stages of learners’
IC can inform assessment and the design of appropriate and meaningful
scoring rubrics.
Goal of the Study

In line with the research reviewed in this chapter, this study intends to
explore how IC manifests itself in the paired test discourse of second-
year learners of German by focusing on how the peer–interlocutors dis-
play understanding in interaction, thus demonstrating how they achieve
intersubjectivity. A CA-informed approach was chosen to closely ana-
lyze performance samples. This contribution also intends to examine
6
8
1
186 Katharina Kley

the extent to which test-taker speaking ability interrelates with displays
of understanding, as the development of learners’ ability to show
understanding has not been explored thus far. The research question for
this study is as follows: To what extent do test-taker pairs that are different
in speaking ability (low vs. high) differ in displaying understanding and
thus achieving intersubjectivity in a German paired test task?
Data and Methods
Participants and Assignment of Test-Taker Pairs

The data used in this study come from a speaking assessment conducted
with pairs of second-year learners of German. This corpus includes the
test interactions of 68 learners (34 test-taker pairs) enrolled in third-and
fourth-semester German courses (16 and 18 pairs, respectively) at a large
public university in the U.S. Midwest at the time of data collection.
Participant pairs were assigned based on speaking ability (high, mid,
and low), which was obtained through two measures: a self-assessment
checklist and the instructor’s perception of learners’ speaking ability.1
Validity evidence for the assignment of speaking level to the students
was provided, in that the grades from the students’ end-of-the-semester
speaking test and final exam were analyzed by group. Because the grades
were letter grades and thus ordinal in nature, a Kruskal-Wallis Test was
conducted. The test indicated that both the speaking test and the final
exam grades differed significantly for the three student groups (high, mid,
and low) (H = 37.891, df = 2, p<0.001 for the speaking test; H = 66.998,
df = 2, p<0.001 for the final exam). Post hoc comparisons using the
Mann-Whitney test showed that the scores for each group (high, mid,
low) were significantly different from the other two groups on both tests
at the p<0.05 level.2
Finally, each student was assigned a partner from the same course
section, with some pairs having the same speaking ability level and others
having different speaking ability levels. Three same (high–high, mid–
mid, low–low) and three different (high–mid, high–low, mid–low) ability
level combinations were obtained. For the purpose of this chapter, only
the four high–high and the three low–low ability level pairs (henceforth
high and low-ability pairs) were included in the analysis to explore the
differences in displaying understanding between the two extremes: high-
ability pairs and low-ability pairs (with both members of the pair having
the same speaking ability level).
Test Task
The paired interactions were prompted by a discussion task, which
centered on the crisis in the German newspaper industry due to the rise
of the internet. This was a familiar topic to students because a discussion
7
8
1

of media use is part of the curriculum in second-year German classes at
this institution.
The prompt consisted of a short paragraph in German with back-
ground information on the topic and a graph that visualized the decline
of the newspaper in comparison to the rise of the internet. To make sure
that students understood the problem they were to discuss, an English
summary of the issue was provided as well.
To activate test takers’ thoughts and stimulate interaction, they were
also provided with guiding questions in English. One set of questions,
fairly abstract in nature, was meant to motivate students to think about
the advantages and disadvantages of online news and to discuss their
predictions of future developments (i.e., Do you think that we will still
have newspapers in the future?). A second set of questions targeted
students’ personal reading habits and internet use (i.e., How often do you
read the news?).
Both members of the test-taker pair were presented with the same
prompt. The test takers were instructed to take five minutes to read the
paragraph (the German and/or English version) and guiding questions,
study the graph, and think about their opinion on the topic. Then, the test
takers had ten minutes for discussion of the topic.
Procedure for Data Analysis

The test interactions were video recorded and transcribed using the nota-
tional system of CA taken from Jefferson (2004) (Appendix 9.A). Body
language, such as nodding, gaze, and gestures, were also included in the
transcript when it helped in describing and understanding test takers’
interactional conduct in general and displays of understanding in par-
ticular. The analysis was informed by CA.
Results
From the corpus of paired discussions, only the interactions of the four
high-and the three low-ability pairs were included in the analysis. In this
section, excerpts from two test-taker pairs from each speaking ability
level group (low ability: Mike and Steve; Nick and Tyler; high ability:
Daniel and Jerry; Luke and Caleb) (all pseudonyms) are presented and
discussed to show the differences in the test-taker pairs’ interactional
conduct to display understanding. These pairs were chosen randomly;
the samples from their interactions exemplify the interactional conduct
found in this small dataset.
The analysis revealed that the low-ability pairs mainly engaged in
recurrent question– answer pairs and closed sequences quickly. After
a question, a conditionally relevant second pair part (i.e., an answer)
was for the most part provided without major problems, thus showing
that the first pair part was understood. However, low-ability speakers
81
188 Katharina Kley

struggled to perform an adequate response in second position to dis-
play understanding of a comment or statement made by the inter-
locutor (Excerpts 1, 3); they also rarely displayed understanding of the
previous speaker’s contribution beyond the second pair part (Excerpt
3),3 but they were able to indicate that they did not understand what
was said by the previous speaker (Excerpt 2). In contrast, high-ability
speakers were more likely to display understanding of the interlocutor’s
contributions by means of contingent responses that topicalize parts of
the previous speaker’s turn (Lam, 2018) (Excerpt 4). Co-completions
(providing a word that syntactically and semantically fits a gap that
occurred due to the current speaker’s word search) (Lerner, 1996) and
candidate understandings (a form of other-initiated repair used to dis-
play the current speaker’s interpretation of the previous speaker’s turn)
(Schegloff et al., 1977) (Excerpt 4), both of which are practices used to
demonstrate understanding of prior talk, occurred in both high-and
low-ability discourse, but their use by both groups was infrequent.
Finally, Excerpt 5 shows that high-ability talk also included predomin-
antly interview-like discourse consisting of short sequences and only a
small number of contingent responses on the previous speaker’s talk to
display understanding, which may be explained by the students’ orien-
tation to the test task.
Low-Ability Pairs
In this section, we present excerpts from the conversations of two low-
ability pairs: Mike and Steve, as well as Nick and Tyler. Mike and Steve
structured their interaction as statements or comments, whereas Nick
and Tyler engaged in recurrent question–answer pairs throughout their
interaction, which made their discourse resemble an interview rather
than a discussion or natural conversation. The data show that when a
comment or statement was delivered, low-ability speakers were more
likely to abandon the sequence and begin a new one (Excerpt 1) or claim
understanding of prior talk rather than demonstrate understanding
(Excerpt 3). It is also striking that low-ability pairs hardly expanded or
topicalized prior talk to display understanding (Excerpt 3). Thus, it was
not always clear whether or how prior talk was understood. However,
low-ability pairs deployed repair initiators to indicate trouble of compre-
hension and to achieve mutual understanding (Excerpt 2).
Excerpt 1
03 M ick=hh. (1.4) lese nich: (0.2) °ah° oft.
I read not uh often
I don’t read often.
04 (0.5)
05 M ah: (0.9) ich: (1.6) °ah° (0.8)
uh I uh
9
8
1
06 sehe::: (0.7) die (.) daily show¿ mit (0.2)

john stuart?
watch the daily show with
john stuart
I watch the Daily Show¿ with John Stuart?
s +moves head up
07 +(0.5)
s +nods
08 S +ja.
yes
09 (0.4)
10 M (°sehen°) (0.2) fü:r mei: (1.2) information.
watch for my information.
(I) watch for my information.
11 (1.3)
12 M ah:
uh
13 (1.6)
14 M ich habe: (0.2) keine freizeit.
I have no free time
I have no free time.
15 (0.8)
s +looks down
16 S +°freizeit°
free time
free time
17 (1.0)
18 S °°ja°° (0.3) °uhm° (1.1)
yes uhm
19 pt .hhhhh (1.4) hh. (0.8) uh (1.1)
20 zeitung ist (0.3) uh sehr (0.2) traditional?
newspaper is uh very traditional
newspaper is very traditional?
21 (0.6)
22 M ja,
yes
0
9
1
190 Katharina Kley

In excerpt 1, Mike begins with a longer contribution to point out that
although he does not often read, he watches the Daily Show, which is a
satirical news program (lines 3–6). He says that he has no free time (prob-
ably an account as to why he does not read the newspaper) (line 14).
While Mike delivers his contribution, Steve minimally marks receipt of the
information; he utters a ja ‘yes’ and nods (line 8), claiming understanding.
After Mike finishes his statement, Steve states that newspapers are very
traditional (line 20), which does not display that or how he understood
Mike’s previous contribution. Steve’s comment is not a relevant next action
following Mike’s account as it is not related to what Mike has said. Rather,
he ignores Mike’s prior talk, abandons the sequence, and begins a new one.
However, low-ability pairs deployed other-initiated repair to indicate
trouble of understanding of the previous speaker’s turn or elements of
that turn (Schegloff et al., 1977). The repair initiation opens up a repair
sequence with the goal to secure understanding (Excerpt 2).
Excerpt 2
45 T uhm (1.6) denkst du dass=uh: (1.5)
uhm think you that uh
46 uh: (2.2) wird es in zukunft (0.2)
uh will it in future
t +gazes at N
47 noch zeitungen +geben?
still newspapers give
do you think that there will still be newspapers in future?
48 (1.1)
49 N zudunkt,
future ((mispronounced))
50 (1.4)
51 T uh zukunft,
uh future
52 (1.6)
53 T uhh (0.8) wird=es:=uh: (0.5) zeitungen
geben¿
uh will it uh newspaper
give
will there be newspapers¿
n +gazes away from T, smiles
54 +(11.8)
1
9
55 N <verkauft ein zeitung?>

sell a newspaper
56 (4.8)
57 T uh (6.8) in (0.2) uh in zukunft uhm (0.5)
uh in uh in future uhm
t +gazes at N
58 wird leute: (0.2) uh (0.7) die zeitungen (0.3)
+lesen?
will people uh the newspapers
read
in future will people read the newspapers?
59 (0.4)
60 N o[kay]
61 T [denk]st du?
think you
do you think?
62 (0.7)
63 N ((clears throat)) uhm (1.2) ja: (0.5)
uhm yes
64 uh ick denke: (0.2) das (0.6) (…)
uh I think that
Excerpt 2 shows that after Tyler’s question about whether there will still
be newspapers in the future (lines 45–47) (a guiding question from the
task), Nick initiates repair in line 49. Because he has trouble mapping
meaning to the sound of zukunft ‘future,’ he repeats what he hears
(zudunkt instead of zukunft) (line 49). He thus directs Tyler very specific-
ally to the trouble source. Tyler, however, interprets Nick’s repair initiator
as a signal of hearing trouble and thus repeats the source of trouble (line
51) (Svennevig, 2008). As we can see, the problem is not resolved because
Nick initiates a second repair initiator, a candidate understanding,
verkauft ein zeitung? ‘sell a newspaper’ (line 55), which he uses to articu-
late his interpretation of the previous turn. After Tyler re-designs the
trouble source turn (lines 57–58, 61), Nick claims understanding by
saying okay (line 60) and begins to deliver a response to Tyler’s question
(lines 63–64).
In his response, Nick argues that the internet is good for a short period,
whereas newspapers are better for a long period. He then adds that over
the years the internet will be better than the newspaper (Excerpt 3, lines
78–79).
2
9
1
192 Katharina Kley
Excerpt 3
78 N […] das uh internet is (0.6) uh: (0.4)
the uh internet is uh
n +looks at T
79 besser (2.7) da:nn (0.2) +uh: (0.4) die
seitung.4
better than uh the
newspaper
the internet is better than the newspaper.
t +looks up briefly and then looks back down
80 +(3.0)
81 T uh (1.2) isch=uh denke (.) uhm (0.9)
uh I uh think uhm
82 die zeitung ist=uh: (1.2) uh mehr=uh: (2.8)
the newspaper is uh uh more uh
83 uh: (0.4) professional,
uh professional
I think the newspaper is more professional,
84 (0.4)
85 T und (.) uhm (0.4) viele information (0.6)
and uhm many information
86 online ist=uh (0.7) falsch (0.3)
online is uh wrong
n +nods
87 und=+uh (1.2) unverified,
and uh unverified
and lots of information online is wrong and unverified,
88 (0.4)
89 N ja
yes
yes
90 (0.2)
91 N uh:
uh
n +looks down
92 +(1.4)
93 N das is gut,
that is good
that is good,
3
9
1

In Excerpt 3, Tyler takes the floor (line 81) after Nick’s response and
a three-second pause. Instead of expanding or referring to what Nick
has said, which would show that or how he understood Nick’s response,
Tyler starts a new sequence in which he shares his view on newspapers
and online news, namely that newspapers are more professional and that
lots of information online is wrong or unverified (lines 81–87). Thus, it is
not clear whether or not Tyler understood Nick’s contribution.
In response, Nick nods (line 87), acknowledges receipt of informa-
tion (line 89), and then performs an assessment (line 93), which closes
the sequence. Both the acknowledgment token and the assessment claim,
but do not display, his understanding of Tyler’s previous contribution
(Mondada, 2011; Sacks, 1992). That is, Nick may or may not have
understood; it remains unclear if mutual understanding between the
two participants was achieved. It should also be noted that formulations
such as acknowledgment tokens (‘mm’), assessments (‘that’s good’),
agreement tokens (‘yeah’), and other formulaic agreement responses (‘I
agree with you’) are considered inadequate displays of understanding in
speaking assessment contexts, especially when deployed right after the
interlocutor’s contribution (Lam, 2018), as Nick does in Excerpt 3. For
raters, these formulations provide interactional support in conversations
and are thus evaluated positively, but at the same time they are not
considered credible evidence of understanding of prior talk due to the
fact that test takers may use these minimal responses to conceal their
nonunderstanding (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Lam, 2018).
High-Ability Pairs
In comparison to the low- ability speakers, the high-ability pairs
commented and expanded on prior talk for some parts of their inter-
action; they topicalized part of the previous speaker’s contribution in
their own utterance and thus displayed their understanding of what was
said before. An example for such an interaction pattern can be taken
from Daniel and Jerry’s conversation in Excerpt 4.
Excerpt 4
063 D uhm (0.5) pt ja viele: information (0.2)
uhm yes lots of information
064 .h uhm auf (0.2) die internet ah: .h sind
über (.)
uhm on the internet are
about
j +slightly nods
065 D uhm (0.2) berühmte leute:, .h +uhm
uhm famous people uhm
lots of information on the internet is about famous people,
4
9
1
194 Katharina Kley
066 J oh ah like=ah (.) tabloid[s,]

oh uh like uh tabloids
oh like tabloids,
j +nods
067 D +[ja] [tabloids uhm]
yes tabloids uhm
yes tabloids uhm
068 J [ja ja ]
yes yes
069 (0.8)
070 D und ah .h (1.2) ah weil (0.2)
and uh uh because
071 uh diesen (.) artikele (0.5) uh (0.7)
uh these articles uh
072 einfach (0.2) uh: (0.2) zu schreiben sind,
(0.2)
easy uh to write are,
because these articles are easy to write,
073 uhm (0.4) .hh[h]‌
uhm
074 J [uh] sie sind nicht über you know=
uh they are not about you know
075 =wissenscha:ft oder wirtschaft.
science or business
they are not about you know science or business.
076 D ja .h ja o-
=
yes yes
077 J =uh politik (.) es is (0.4)
uh politics it is
politics
078 you know uh ce-(0.6) pt uh celebrities,
[un]d und=
you know uh uh celebrities
and and
079 D [ja]
yes
yes
5
9
1
080 J =hollywood.
Hollywood
it is you know celebrities and Hollywood.
081 D ja [uh nicht] über: welt=uh probleme. (.)
yes uh not about world uh problems
yes not about world problems.
082 J [(°° °°)]
083 D [uhm] .h ja isch (0.8) isch sehe: nicht oft=
uhm yes I I see not often
084 J [mhm]
085 D =.h ein artikel über: (0.3) uh: (0.5)
an article about uh
086 .h (0.6) ukrain (0.4) oder uh:: (0.3) pt uhm
(0.3)
ukraine or uh uhm
I don’t often see an article about Ukraine or
087 J venezuela[: und ja ]
Venezuela and yes
Venezuela and yes
088 D [ja venezuela] uhm .h auf die
internet uh: (0.7)
yes Venezuela uhm on the
internet uh
yes Venezuela on the internet
089 [uh ( )]
uh
090 J [ja sie ha]ben viele kra-krawall? (0.2) in
(0.6)
yes they have lots of riots in
d +nods
091 J in ukraine +an venezuela.
in Ukraine and Venezuela
yes they have lots of riots in Ukraine and Venezuela.
d +nods
092 D +.h [ja]
yes
6
9
1
196 Katharina Kley
093 J [un] (.) so an uh (0.7) viele mensch

hat (.)
and so on uh lots of people
has
094 keine idee, (.)
no idea
and so lots of people have no idea,
095 D ja uhm .h [isch ]
yes uhm I
096 J [sie sind] (0.5) über (.)
celebrities (.)
they are about
celebrities
097 gelesen.=
read
they have read about celebrities.
Prior to this excerpt, Daniel argued that the information in online art-
icles is not always justified. Now, he brings up a new idea: He claims
that lots of information online is about famous people (lines 63–65).
Jerry produces a change-of-state token oh (Heritage, 1984b) and then
delivers a candidate understanding (Schegloff et al., 1977) by saying
like=ah (.) tabloids with minimal rising intonation (line 66). Here, Jerry
displays his understanding of Daniel’s statement seeking Daniel’s con-
firmation. With this construction, Jerry also creates the opportunity for
Daniel to elaborate on his idea (Heritage, 1984b). After Daniel confirms
and repeats tabloids in line 67, he expands on his own statement in that
he provides an account as to why he thinks that there are lots of articles
about famous people, namely that these articles are easy to write (lines
70–72).
In lines 74–80, Jerry paraphrases Daniel’s argument by saying that
these articles are not about science, business, or politics but about
Hollywood and celebrities, thus suggesting that science, business, and
politics are more important but also more difficult to write about. Jerry’s
contribution, which can be considered a contingent response (Lam, 2018)
because he topicalizes parts of Daniel’s previous talk, demonstrates his
understanding of what Daniel has said. Daniel adds that topics like
Hollywood and celebrities are not world problems (line 81).
In the following turns, Daniel expands on his own contribution stating
that he does not often see an article about Ukraine (lines 83–86), which
for him is an example of a country that deals with considerable problems.
The conjunction oder ‘or’ in line 86 indicates that Daniel wants to add
another country as an example, but the disfluencies, such as the delays
7
9
1

and the non-lexical perturbations, suggest that he searches for a word
(Schegloff, 1979). Jerry provides the name of another country (Venezuela)
that fits in the category of countries with serious problems at the time
when their interaction took place; Jerry thus co-completes Daniel’s turn
(line 87) (Lerner, 1996), showing how he understood Daniel’s con-
tribution. Daniel accepts the suggestion made by Jerry, in that he uses
Venezuela to continue with his turn (line 88).
Jerry builds on Daniel’s statement that there are hardly any online
articles about Ukraine and Venezuela by sharing his own knowledge on
the topic, namely that there are riots in these two countries (lines 90–91).
Thus, Jerry again refers back to elements of Daniel’s prior talk (Lam,
2018); he recycles the names of the two countries that they have been
talking about: Ukraine and Venezuela. Daniel nods and acknowledges
Jerry’s assessment of the situation in these countries. Jerry extends that a
lot of people do not know anything about these riots; they just read about
celebrities (lines 94, 95–96). Here, Jerry ties his comment to what Daniel
said at the beginning of this excerpt, namely that lots of online articles
are about celebrities.
This excerpt shows that Daniel and Jerry produce contingent
responses (Lam, 2018), co-completions (Lerner, 1996), and candidate
understandings (Schegloff et al., 1977), all of which display understanding
of the previous speaker’s talk. In comparison to low-ability discourse, the
pair does not easily abandon a sequence, but instead produces utterances
that refer back to elements of the previous speaker’s turn, thus showing
their understanding of the arguments made by the interlocutor.
However, the analysis also revealed that similar to the discourse of
low- ability combinations, high- ability speakers also structured their
interactions as recurrent question– answer pairs with rather abrupt
sequence closures. Nevertheless, some displays of understanding beyond
the second pair part occurred, as shown in Excerpt 5.
Excerpt 5
01 L uhm (0.5) so uh::m (2.4) liest du: die
zeitung?
uhm so uhm read you the
newspaper
do you read the newspaper?
02 (0.5)
03 C uh:m (0.9) <ich lese: nu:r> (0.5)
uhm I read only
04 °uhm° (0.8) nur im internet,
uhm only in the internet
I read only only in the internet,
8
9
1
198 Katharina Kley
l +nods
05 +(1.0)
06 L °pt° <uhm ich auch.> (.)
uhm I too
me too.
07 uhm ich habe: (0.5)
uhm I have
08 nie eine zeitung lesen.
never a newspaper read
I have never read a newspaper.
09 (0.7)
10 C °uh hm°
11 L uhm (2.0) uh (0.7) benutzen (0.3) benutzt du?
(0.5)
uhm uh use use you
12 uhm (1.5) deine: (.) handy? oder die
computer.
uhm your cell phone or the
computer
do you use use you your cell phone or the computer.
13 (0.4)
14 C °uhm°
uhm
15 (0.9)
16 C uhm (0.7) nu:r mein handy.
uhm only my cell phone
only my cell phone.
17 (0.9)
18 L .h uhm (4.2) denks (0.3) denkst du: (0.7)
uhm think think you
19 dass (1.2) wir: (0.7) die zeitung (2.3)
brauchen,
that we the newspaper
need
do you think think that we need the newspaper.
20 (1.8)
21 C uhm (0.3) ja::
uhm yes
91
22 (0.4)
23 C ich glaube wir brauchen die zeitung weil,
(1.2)
I think we need the newspaper because
l +nods
24 menschen kein (0.8) +computers haben.
people no computers have
I think we need the newspaper because people don’t have
computers.
25 (0.5)
26 L pt=uhm ich denke auch. (1.5)
uhm I think too
I think so too.
27 .Hh aber hh. uhm (0.9)
but uhm
28 ich denke in die pf-in die zukunft¿ (0.3)
I think in the in the future
29 uhm (0.9) wir: (0.8)
uhm we
30 werden nicht (.) die zeitung brauchen.
will not the newspaper need
but I think in the in the future we will not need the newspaper.
31 (2.0)
32 C ja ich glaube das auch.
yes I believe that too
yes I believe that too.
Table 9.1 Frequency distribution of contingent responses, co-completions, and

candidate understandings produced by high and low-ability pairs
Contingent Co-completions Candidate

responses understandings
High ability
Daniel and Jerry 4 1 1
Helen and Deb 5 1 1
Luke and Caleb 2 - -
Cora and Kathy 4 - -
Low ability
Mike and Steve - 1 1
Nick and Tyler 1 - -
Wes and Jake 2 - -
02 1
0
2
200 Katharina Kley

Excerpt 5 displays the first three sequences (lines 1–8, 11–16, 18–32) of
Luke and Caleb’s interaction. As the dominant participant in this con-
versation, Luke initiates all information-seeking questions. He begins by
asking Caleb if he reads the newspaper (line 1), a question that is very
similar to one of the guiding questions. Caleb’s response is nonconforming
(Raymond, 2003); it seems that a mere yes or no to Luke’s polar question
would not capture Caleb’s point, namely that he reads the news, just not
in a newspaper. Luke minimally receipts Caleb’s response and nods (line
5). He also provides a formulaic response ich auch ‘me too’ and then
briefly expands that he has never read the newspaper (lines 6–8). Here, he
explicitly relates to what Caleb said and thus displays his understanding
of Caleb’s response.
It seems as if Caleb wants to add something, as indicated by the softly
delivered non-lexical perturbations (line 10), but then Luke asks another
information-seeking question in lines 11–12, and Caleb responds in line
16. Here, Luke does not acknowledge Caleb’s response; neither does he
demonstrate that he understood Caleb’s contribution. Luke and Caleb
abandon the sequence and move on to the next question.
The next sequence begins with Luke asking whether Caleb thinks that
we need newspapers (lines 18–19). In response to this polar question,
Caleb produces a type- conforming response by saying ja ‘yes’ (line
21) (Raymond, 2003). In the following lines (23–24), he expands on his
affirmative response by giving an account; he thinks that some people
might not have a computer, which is why newspapers are still necessary.
Using the formulaic response ich denke auch ‘I think so too’ (line 26),
Luke agrees with Caleb’s response, which by itself does not clearly dem-
onstrate whether or how he understood (Lam, 2018; Mondada, 2011;
Sacks, 1992). However, with the contrasting conjunction aber ‘but’ (line
27), Luke initiates an expansion that constrains his agreement; he argues
that newspapers will not be needed in the future after all (lines 28–30),
referring back to and challenging Caleb’s point. He thus demonstrates
how he understood Caleb’s contribution. After a 2.0-second delay (line
31), Caleb agrees, again by using a formulaic response ja ich glaube das
auch ‘yes I think so too’ (line 32), which is a claim of understanding and
does not show whether or how he understood Luke’s contribution (Lam,
2018; Mondada, 2011; Sacks, 1992).
Discussion
Summary of Findings
The analysis revealed that low-ability discourse is characterized by short
sequences that usually comprise one adjacency pair, a question–answer
pair in most cases. The sequences were sometimes closed with a minimal
expansion (e.g., okay) (Schegloff, 2007) or a formulaic response (e.g., ich
1
0
2

auch ‘me too’). A conditionally relevant second pair part to a question
(an answer) was mostly provided, suggesting that the first pair part was
understood. However, low- ability speakers had difficulty performing
an adequate response in second position to display their understanding
of a comment or statement made by the co-participant (Excerpts 1, 3).
In addition, low- ability participants rarely displayed understanding
of the previous speaker’s contribution beyond the second pair part in
form of contingent responses or non-minimal expansions (Excerpt 3).
Repair sequences to restore intersubjectivity existed (Excerpt 2); they
demonstrate that the participants are able and willing to repair a lack
of understanding of prior talk and restore intersubjectivity. Overall,
however, low- ability speakers displayed their understanding of prior
talk in a rather minimal fashion, which seems to be mostly due to the
use of formulations (e.g., acknowledgment tokens, agreement tokens,
assessments, formulaic responses), which do not clearly demonstrate
understanding of prior talk, and the abrupt abandonment of sequences
after an adjacency pair or even after the first pair part. Therefore, it
is unclear if intersubjectivity could always be achieved between the
participants in low-ability interactions.
In contrast, high-ability speakers were more likely to expand on
prior talk beyond the second pair part to display understanding of
prior talk (Excerpt 4). They made use of contingent responses (Lam,
2018) by topicalizing elements of the previous speaker’s talk in their
own contribution. In addition, co-completions (providing a word that
syntactically and semantically fits a gap that occurred due to the current
speaker’s word search) (Lerner, 1996) and candidate understandings
(a form of other-initiated repair used to display the current speaker’s
interpretation of the previous speaker’s turn) (Schegloff et al., 1977),
both of which display understanding of the previous speaker’s con-
tribution, occurred in both high-and low-ability talk but were rarely
used by both student groups. The frequency distribution of how many
contingent responses, co-completions, and candidate understandings
were produced by the different student pairs included in this study can
be viewed in Table 9.1.
Finally, like low-ability talk, the interactions of the high-ability pairs in
some places also resembled an interview and were characterized by mostly
short sequences and recurrent question–answer pairs with formulations
that claim understanding and only some contingent responses to display
understanding of prior talk (Excerpt 5). This interactional conduct by
high-ability speakers may be attributed to the students’ orientation to the
test task.
All in all, despite the fact that the group of test takers included in
this study was not that heterogenous with regard to speaking ability
(given that all students were enrolled in sections of the same second-
year German classes at the same institution), it appears that not all
2
0
202 Katharina Kley

interactional resources to display understanding are available to the
low-and high-ability pairs to the same degree, particularly with regard
to contingent responses or topicalizations of prior talk (Lam, 2018),
which are a lot more prevalent in high-ability discourse (see Table 9.1).
Thus, in line with previous research on interactional development in
L2 learners, a somewhat more diversified set of techniques to display
understanding seems to be available to high-ability pairs (cf. Pekarek
Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015). One of the reasons may be that pro-
cessing the target language takes more effort for the low-ability speakers,
whose vocabulary and grammatical resources are more limited, than
the high-ability speakers. As Al-Gahtani and Rover (2013) point out as
well, it may take less effort and be more efficient for test takers of low
speaking ability to focus on available interactional resources, such as
responding to a question and initiating a new sequence by means of an
information-seeking question instead of expanding on their partner’s
contribution.
Implications for Rating Scale Development

The findings of this study have implications for rating and the design of
a scoring rubric in the context of the present test setting. That is, test-
taker pairs who are able to perform contingent responses on the previous
speaker’s contribution to display understanding, should receive a higher
rating than test-taker pairs who for the most part are unable to make use
of this interactional resource. In that respect, as the analysis showed, low-
ability pairs will most likely not (or only minimally) topicalize elements of
the previous speaker’s contribution to display their understanding, which
instructors have to anticipate and may want to take into consideration for
grading.
Expectations, Frames, and Task Orientation

Although the task was designed to elicit a discussion from the students,
all test-taker pairs both high and low ability, with the exception of one
low-ability pair, engaged in question–answer sequences to some extent.
The analysis revealed that recurrent question–answer pairs were preva-
lent in low-ability discourse, but stretches of interview-like discourse
were also present in high-ability talk. For example, Daniel and Jerry, a
high-ability pair, did not engage in a naturally sounding conversation
for their entire interaction; rather, they changed frames (e.g., Goffman,
1974; Koike, 2012) during their talk; that is, they moved back and forth
between an interview-formatted conversation with formulaic responses,
acknowledgment tokens, and some expansion and a natural conversation
that is characterized by a number of comments and expansions, as we
have seen in Excerpt 4.
3
0
2

In her analysis of native speaker–learner discourse, Koike (2012) also
found that the pairs in her dataset engaged in frame mixing, in that they
moved between interview-like institutional talk and personal talk frames.
She showed that the participants’ expectations toward the interaction
may diverge, resulting in the use of different pragmatic resources and thus
in a change of frames. In the context of the present study, further research
is needed to determine why participants like Daniel and Jerry transitioned
between frames in their interaction and were unable or unwilling to stay
within a personal talk frame, as intended by the test designer.
In addition, Mike and Steve, a low-ability pair (Excerpt 1), did not
deploy any questions throughout their entire interaction, but rather
only comments and statements, whereas Luke and Caleb, a high-ability
pair (Excerpt 5), engaged in recurrent question– answer pairs only,
using formulaic responses with a couple of contingent responses on the
previous speaker’s talk. The test designer intended students to engage
in a discussion in the sense of a natural conversation, but Luke and
Caleb must have associated the test task with the institutional frame of
language proficiency interviews (task-as-workplan vs. task-as-process)
(Breen, 1989; Seedhouse, 2005), which would explain the types of
actions used. It is understood that participants construct their inter-
action (e.g., take turns, develop topics) in a way that hinges on their
understanding and expectation of the kind of interaction that should
occur based on the assessment task given (Ross, 1998, 2017; see also
Koike, 2012). It is likely that the task frame of the present assessment
was not clear to students. Koike (2012) argues along similar lines. Her
analysis showed that participants’ transitioning between frames is pos-
sibly due to differences in expectations created by unclear assignments.
In the present study, the outer frame of the task was labeled as a dis-
cussion (and not as an interview), whereas within the inner task frame,
students were provided with guiding questions, which may have caused
confusion as to what exactly the task frame of the assessment is (see
Ross, 1998, 2017).
Task orientation and expectations have effects on scoring and the
validity of the test. Since expectations, which are the representations
of one’s background knowledge and world experiences (Koike, 2010,
2012), vary from one individual to the next, it is crucial to clearly
define what is expected of students in the assessment. The issue with
the prompt used in the present study is that it might have included
too much information (texts, graph, guiding questions) for students to
grasp. Particularly the guiding questions, which were meant to facili-
tate discussion, might have contributed to students’ engagement in
recurrent question–answer pairs. Interestingly, all test-taker pairs who
were asking questions used some of the guiding questions for their
interactions. Hence, discussion tasks with short and straightforward
prompts on interesting topics could help to elicit a natural conversation
4
0
2
204 Katharina Kley

from students. Further research is needed to investigate what task
characteristics are most suitable for students to engage in a natural con-
versation if that is the goal of the assessment.
Another option to remedy this issue of students’ expectations of and
orientations to test tasks is to teach IC. In the context of the present study,
teaching IC could include making students aware of the interactional
resources that can be used to achieve, maintain, and restore intersubject-
ivity. Instructors could bring samples of natural conversations into the
classroom and ask students to analyze these conversations for instances
of displays of understanding and then practice such conversations (Betz
& Huth, 2014; Kunitz & Yeh, 2019; Waring, 2018). If students are not
taught IC (as was the case in the present study), they may not be aware
of the interactional resources that are available to them and thus not use
them in the first place.
Conclusion
Displaying understanding is an important subconstruct of IC. As this
study showed, displaying understanding seems to be closely linked to
students’ speaking ability. This relationship even appears to be rather
sensitive, given that the test-taker pairs included in this study came
from the same classroom. It should be emphasized as well that students’
orientation to and expectations of the test task also appear to have
an effect on interactional conduct and on how test-taker pairs display
understanding. It was argued that the findings have implications for
the development of a scoring rubric and task design. However, a total
of only seven test-taker pairs were included in this study. The analysis
should be repeated for a larger dataset to corroborate the findings.
Lastly, it would be interesting to identify other resources of showing
understanding that students at higher proficiency levels (e.g., at the
third and fourth years of language instruction) use compared to novice
learners, for example. Research is also needed to investigate how shared
understanding is displayed when the members of the test-taker pair
differ in their speaking ability.
Acknowledgments
I am very grateful to the volume editors and the anonymous reviewers
for their helpful comments and valuable suggestions on earlier versions
of this manuscript.
5
0
2
Appendix 9.A
Transcription Conventions
. falling (final) intonation

? rising intonation
¿ rise, weaker than a question mark, stronger than a comma
, low-rising intonation
↑ marked rising shift in intonation
↓ marked falling shift in intonation
[ start of overlap
] end of overlap
= latching
(0.3) length of silence
(.) micro pause (less than 1/10 of a second)
: lengthening of the preceding sound
wor- an abrupt cut-off
word marked stress/emphasis
WORD loud volume
°word° decreased volume
.h .hh in-drawn breaths
h. hh. out-breaths
haha laughter tokens (different vowels)
>word< speeded up delivery
<word> slowed down delivery
((coughs)) verbal description of actions
() sample of talk that is unintelligible to the analyst
(word) unclear or probable item
+ marks where embodied action occurs in relation to talk
Notes
1 For information on how the speaking ability level ratings were assigned based
on these two measures, see Kley (2015).
2 The Mann-Whitney test showed that there was a significant difference [U = 25,
p<0.001 for the speaking test; U = 10, p<0.001 for the final exam] between the
high and low-ability groups, which this chapter focuses on.
3 In CA, sequences are built on a basic unit called an adjacency pair. An adjacency
pair consists of a first-pair part (the initiation of an action) and a second-pair
part (the reaction or response to that initiation). It is important to note that
the type of the second-pair part is constrained by the type of the first-pair part
(i.e., question-answer; offer-acceptance/decline; greeting-greeting) (Schegloff &
Sacks, 1973). After the second-pair part was delivered, the speaker of the first
turn can, for example, close the sequence by using a minimal expansion (i.e.,
okay) or extend the sequence and perform a non-minimal expansion in third
position (i.e., topicalization, disagreement, repair initiation) (Schegloff, 2007).
4 Nick pronounces zeitung ‘newspaper’ as seitung.
6
0
2
206 Katharina Kley

References
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization
of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/
applin/amr031
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2013). “Hi doctor, give me handouts”: Low-
proficiency learners and requests. ELT Journal, 67(4), 413–424. https://doi.
org/10.1093/elt/cct036
Betz, E., & Huth, T. (2014). Beyond grammar: Teaching interaction in the
German language classroom. Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 47(2),
140–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/tger.10167
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K.
Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524520.014
Burch, A. R., & Kley, K. (2019). Assessing interactional competence: The role
of intersubjectivity in a paired-speaking assessment task [Conference pres-
entation]. American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference,
Atlanta, GA.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives
and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1191/
0265532203lt264oa
Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation
to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265532209104669
Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations,
operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 15(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Harper & Row.
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and
development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2
interactional competence and development (pp. 1–15). Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-003
He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse
approach. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse
approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.14.02he
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change- of-
state token and aspects of its sequential
placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.). Structures of social action:
Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511665868.020
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices
and applications (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–
31). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA.
AILA Review, 19, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.07kas
7
0
2

Kley, K. (2015). Interactional competence in paired speaking tests: Role of paired
task and test-taker speaking ability in co-constructed discourse. (Publication
No. 3711677) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.5anh6zh2
Koike, D. A. (2010). Behind L2 pragmatics: The role of emerging expectations.
In D. A. Koike & L. Rodriguez-Alfano (Eds.), Dialogue in Spanish: Studies
in functions and contexts (pp. 257– 282). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/
10.1075/ds.7.14koi
Koike, D. A. (2012). Variation on NS- learner interactions: Frames and
expectations in pragmatic co- construction. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D.
A. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts:
10.1075/impact.31.07koi
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The
Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4781.1986.tb05291.x
Kunitz, S., & Yeh, M. (2019). Instructed L2 interactional competence in the first
year. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing interactional
competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 228–259). Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-10
Lam, D. (2018). What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker
contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing,
25(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758126
Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in
conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E.
Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar
(pp. 238– 276). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511620874.005
May, L. A. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features
salient to raters. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 127–145. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15434303.2011.565845
McNamara, T. F. (1997). “Interaction” in second language performance
assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446–466. https://
doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.4.446
Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential
achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing “methods” for
interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2.
In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional
competence and development (pp. 206–243). Multilingual Matters. https://
doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-010
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 inter-
actional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organ-
ization, repair organization and preference organization, In T. Cadierno & S.
W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning
(pp. 233–270). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-012
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives
and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–
967. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752
8
0
2
208 Katharina Kley

Roever, C., & Kasper, G. (2018). Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional
competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 35(3),
331–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128
Ross, S. J. (1998). Divergent frame interpretations in oral proficiency interview
interaction. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse
approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 333– 353). John
Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.14.18ros
Ross, S. J. (2017). Interviewing for language proficiency: Interaction and inter-
pretation. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60528-9
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. II) (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4, Part1), 696–
735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T.
Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 12): Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–
286). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_012
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided
defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology,
97(5), 1295–1345. https://doi.org/10.1086/229903
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conver-
sation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
cbo9780511791208
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–
327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Seedhouse, P. (2005). “Task” as research construct. Language Learning, 55(3),
533–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00314.x
Seedhouse, P., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2018). The discourse of the IELTS Speaking
Test: Interactional design and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Svennevig, J. (2008). Trying the easiest solution first in other- initiation of
repair. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2007.11.007
Waring, H. (2018). Teaching L2 interactional competence: Problems and pos-
sibilities. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19463014.2018.1434082
Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction: An advanced resource book.
Routledge.
Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in learning, teaching, and testing.
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching
and learning (Vol. 2) (pp. 426– 443). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203836507.ch26
9
0
2
10
Changing Expectations
through Drama-Based Pedagogy
An L2 Spanish Conversation Course
about Study Abroad
Lynn Pearson
Introduction
Among Dale Koike’s significant contributions to second language (L2)
Spanish pragmatics and discourse is her work on the role of frames
and expectations in interactions (Koike, 2010, 2012, 2015). These phe-
nomena are “the motivation for at least some of the variation in prag-
matic resources used by interlocutors” (Koike, 2012, p. 176). Koike’s
research demonstrates how participants access various pragmatic and
discursive resources to co-construct their talk. Within the context of L2
acquisition, some expectations of learners include their working hypoth-
eses about pragmatics from their first language (L1) and L2 systems. The
question for L2 pedagogy is how to effectively teach expectations that will
provide learners with the necessary background knowledge to partici-
pate in interactions. Koike (2008) proposed an L2 pragmatic grammar;
that is, a system of pragmatic expressions and their uses, which has the
objective of teaching language forms in a “situated context that illustrates
the social dynamics of talk” (p. 47). Learners can develop awareness of
how various factors affect pragmatic and linguistic features in discourse
as a basis for formulating appropriate expectations about interactions in
the target language.
Koike’s (2008) L2 pragmatic grammar reflects the evolution in peda-
gogy to present pragmatic forms in the context of interactions (Félix-
Brasdefer, 2008a, 2008b; Koike & Pearson, 2005; Mir, 2018; Mwinyelle,
2005) instead of teaching individual speech act strategies and linguistic
routines (Mir, 2018; Pearson, 2006; Tateyama, 2001). Teaching L2
pragmatics in the classroom environment requires opportunities for
learners to communicate in diverse situations to facilitate target language
acquisition. To respond to this need, this chapter presents a model for a
Spanish conversation course that teaches pragmatics in interactions using
drama-based pedagogy (Babayants, 2011; Dawson & Lee, 2018; Even,
2008; Kao & O’Neil, 1998; Winston & Stinson, 2014). This instruc-
tional approach has been used in many subject areas, including foreign
languages, and it offers activities to foster learners’ communication in
0
1
2
210 Lynn Pearson

different contexts with various interlocutors. Drama-based techniques
share commonalities with strategies used in L2 pragmatics pedagogy
to help learners reflect about speakers’ motivations as they participate
in interactions. The course aims to develop interactional competence
(Young, 2011), which includes pragmatics knowledge and the ability
to co-construct talk in interactions. The materials and activities of the
Spanish conversation course address the topic of study abroad to help
learners begin to formulate new expectations for interacting with Spanish
speakers.
The chapter begins with a description of the concepts of frames and
expectations to analyze pragmatics and discourse and their relevance for
L2 instruction as featured in Koike’s work (Koike, 2003, 2005, 2008,
2010, 2012). Then, drama-based pedagogy is described as an approach
to include various situations and participants that evoke new frames for
interactions for classroom learners. Previous models of conversation
courses to develop interactional competence are discussed. Finally, an L2
Spanish conversation course with drama-based activities is presented; the
goal of the course is to foster interactional competence with emphasis on
pragmatic features of the target language and their use in dialogue.
Frames and Expectations in Discourse

Koike’s work on pragmatics and discourse in L1 and L2 Spanish has
examined how speakers’ expectations and frames affect strategies
in interactions. In various studies (Koike, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010,
2012), her analyses establish the dynamic nature of talk, which stems
from evolving perspectives of participants to affect the content of their
contributions in conversations. This section outlines key concepts for
designing a L2 Spanish conversation course to aid learners in success-
fully realizing interactions; specifically, frames, scripts, expectations, and
alignment. In addition, it discusses how instruction can help learners
acquire the pragmatic knowledge for successful interactions.
Two concepts important in examining speakers’ language use are
“frames” (Minsky, 1980) and “scripts” (Schank & Abelson, 1977),
which represent how information is organized in the brain and accessed
as individuals encounter various situations. As summarized by Koike
(2012, p. 176), scripts are “generalized episodes of memory” that allow
individuals to interpret the input and compensate for missing informa-
tion; frames are “knowledge structures” that provide “stereotyped situ-
ations that are relevant to the situation at hand.” Frames are constructed
through personal experiences or accounts of others’ experiences
(Bednarek, 2005). These structures are diachronically and culturally
dependent (Tannen, 1993; Yule, 1996) as individuals acquire frames
through socialization. Frames play a role in the cognition, interactions,
and cultural expectations of speakers. Cognitive frames help individuals
interpret input and process it using previous information (Fauconnier
12
Changing Expectations 211

& Sweetser, 1996). In interactions, frames present a system of linguistic
choices for a specific context (Fillmore, 1975), and the responses of
participants stem from their evaluation of the interlocutors’ intentions
during the talk (Gumperz, 1982).
Frames are subject to varying degrees of stability (Bednarek, 2005).
Some frames are considered stable (e.g., a bedroom, a wedding ceremony),
because they evoke images of typical objects (e.g., bed, nightlight, etc.)
or expressions (e.g., I now pronounce you husband and wife). For other
situations, there is more fluidity due to roles of the different participants
and other factors. Goffman (1974) views frames as dynamic to reflect
transitions in discourse and uses the concept of keys, which are frames
embedded in other frames with different content. Ensink (2003) proposes
the category of transformational frames for interaction to describe the
shifts in language use as speakers move to a different type of talk. Changes
in frames can lead to variation in pragmatic resources as speakers modify
their talk to reflect public or private discourse.
Individuals apply expectations about verbal and non-verbal communi-
cation, which are derived from the previous knowledge that form frames
and scripts (Koike, 2010, 2012). Expectations may be temporary; they
address the current moment of a situation before evolving due to the new
information (Winter, 1998). In studies of L1 acquisition, expectations
appear to play an important role for children learning new words as
conversations with caregivers provide frameworks for the classification
of input and the development of working hypotheses about words and
referents (Callahan & Sabbagh, 2004). For L2 learning, expectations
affect how learners employ their L1 knowledge to undertake prag-
matic acts in the L2 leading to pragmatic transfer from the L1 (Kasper,
1992; Kecskes & Papp, 2000). During the acquisition process, learners
build their L2 pragmatic competence to deploy grammatical items and
illocutions appropriately in interactions (Koike, 2012).
Koike (2012) found that L2 Spanish learners adjust their expectations
as the interaction proceeds. The study participants had limited linguistic
proficiency in Spanish, but they were able to modify their production
based on the expectations formed through knowledge of conversational
norms in their L1 and L2, popular culture topics in Spain, and conventions
for turn-taking. For example, one learner resorted to strategies that could
be considered impolite (e.g., talking loudly) to claim turns in an inter-
action dominated by the native speaker. After establishing her participa-
tion, the learner and native speaker proceeded to exchange opinions by
co-constructing the talk to facilitate a successful interaction.
Another feature of dialogue is alignment as speakers modify their stances
in talk depending on what is said, reflecting their evolving expectations
(Koike, 2003). The concept of ‘footing’ from the work of Goffman (1981)
proposes that changes in speakers’ positions in talk occur in response to
perceived threats to face by what is said or understood, which then affects
ensuing interaction. Various theories of linguistic politeness (e.g., Brown
2
1
212 Lynn Pearson

& Levinson, 1987; Grice, 1975; Leech, 1983) give priority to the content
of individual utterances issued by the speakers.
Arundale (1999, 2003) proposes an alternative model for politeness
as co-constituted by interlocutors during interactions. Speakers’ moves
to address their interlocutor’s face depend on the latter’s interpretation
of whether the utterances support or threaten. In the instance of incor-
rect interpretations, speakers may move to revise the intention of their
initial utterances. In Arundale’s model, pragmatic and discourse strat-
egies may be considered polite if alignment between the interlocutors is
achieved. Also, the expectations of each participant influence their inter-
pretations about whether the contributions of the other person are polite
or impolite. Koike (2005) describes alignment as the cooperation of the
interlocutors in interactions to reach a level of mutual understanding of
each other’s social and cultural orientations.
In intercultural interactions, misunderstandings between speakers with
different expectations may arise about the communication in specific situ-
ations or frames (Koike, 2012). L2 pedagogy can help learners develop
their communicative competence to use language appropriately. The
study by Koike and Pearson (2005) shows how instruction about dialogic
features can change expectations to facilitate appropriate interpretations
and responses by L2 learners. In lessons to teach Spanish suggestions,
learners were provided information about the function of the discourse
marker Bueno mira ‘Well look’ to signal disagreement with the turn of
the previous speaker (Carranza, 1999). This item marked a transition to
a different frame during an interaction between two friends, in which one
had offered a suggestion to help the other solve a problem. Rather than
accept the suggestion, the speaker employs the discourse marker and then
lists reasons to reject the idea.
The L2 grammar of pragmatics formulated by Koike (2008) calls
for language instruction situated within interactions. The L2 pragmatic
grammar consists of pragmatics, language structures, vocabulary, and
culture, but it also includes the interlocutors’ knowledge of situations
(e.g., frames or scripts) and their expectations about the discourse.
Koike presents pragmatic forms in contextualized dialogues in video
and written transcripts. Learners use a series of questions to analyze the
pragmatic and linguistic aspects to discover how the selection of gram-
matical forms relates to various aspects of the interaction (e.g., the rela-
tionship among the participants, the context, linguistic and sociocultural
expectations). The information about the dialogue may also include pos-
sible dialectal differences that affect strategy choice (e.g., an imperative
or a question as a request) (Curcó, 1998; Félix-Brasdefer, 2005; Placencia
& Márquez Reiter, 2005). Teaching L2 pragmatics will benefit learners
by highlighting the role of frames or scripts in creating new expectations
for learners about different situations so that their production and inter-
pretation in discourse is appropriate and helps them avoid communica-
tion breakdowns. Inspired by Koike’s work, I examine instruction and
3
1
2

activities in drama-based pedagogy, which offer ways to provide learners
with frames and scripts reflecting the Spanish pragmatic and discur-
sive norms.
Drama-Based Pedagogy and L2 Teaching

The instructional approach of drama-based pedagogy utilizes teaching
strategies based on drama activities, such as games, improvisation, panto-
mime, and role play. Drama-based pedagogy has been used in all levels of
education (primary, secondary, and university) to teach content in diverse
subject areas (Dawson & Lee, 2018). Drama techniques for education
have been called ‘drama pedagogy,’ ‘drama education,’ ‘drama in edu-
cation,’ ‘applied drama,’ ‘process drama,’ ‘role play,’ or ‘improvisation,’
among other names. Dawson and Lee (2018) distinguish drama from
theatre, which is oriented toward a product, namely a performance for an
audience. In contrast, drama emphasizes process to facilitate exploration
and reflection by learners. Drama is composed of interactions between
participants to communicate meaning (Via, 1987), which offers varied
opportunities for language use to develop interactional competence in
target languages.
Drama-based pedagogy has been utilized in L2 instruction as a frame-
work for activities for language and culture learning (Dundar, 2013;
Even, 2008; Giebert, 2014; Kao & O’Neill, 1998; Maley & Duff, 1982;
Piazzoli, 2014; Winston & Stinson, 2014). Kao and O’Neill (1998)
observe commonalities between drama and language, particularly the
importance of context for communication and socially constructed
expression. The introduction of drama into language teaching creates a
variety of roles, contexts, and relationships, all of which require different
patterns of language use. Even (2008) outlines how techniques of drama-
based pedagogy can contribute to L2 acquisition by promoting inter-
action, fostering grammatical awareness with use of structures in context,
and providing ways for learners to work with literary texts in addition to
class discussions.
Instruction with drama- based pedagogy conforms to the goals of
communicative language teaching to develop communicative compe-
tence (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Spada, 2007). Various
theoretical models of L2 acquisition support drama- based pedagogy
for learning languages. For example, the Interaction Hypothesis (Long,
1996) supports the role of interaction in acquisition when learners nego-
tiate for meaning in conversations and receive feedback about their pro-
duction to develop their competence. The collaborations by learners and
instructors to undertake drama activities may benefit L2 acquisition as
predicted by sociocultural theories, which view learning as a social pro-
cess (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978).
Other factors in L2 acquisition that may interact in positive ways with
drama-based pedagogy include anxiety and motivation. Learners’ anxiety
4
1
2
214 Lynn Pearson

about speaking in the L2 may be reduced through participation in drama
activities (Even, 2008; Galante, 2018). Speaking activities that reflect
real-life language use can increase motivation for learners to use the L2
in (Giebert, 2014; Maley & Duff, 1982). Kao (1995) found that dramatic
tension in drama-based activities led to active participation on the part
of L2 learners.
Drama-based pedagogy can be implemented through a variety of activ-
ities. Kao and O’Neill (1998) categorized different drama approaches
according to the degree of control of learners’ communication. Closed
or controlled drama approaches include scripted dialogues from instruc-
tional material, plays written in the target language, and language games
requiring the repetition of certain phrases. Semi-controlled activities con-
sist of simulations and improvisational role plays. Open communication
tasks allow for spontaneous discourse in scenarios, situations, or topics
in which the speakers develop the roles. Similarly, process drama elicits
reflection on the part of the participants about their experiences along
with language practice through role plays and other activities. Dundar
(2013) describes other activities in which learners compose their own
scripts based on a situation or a story for subsequent performance. Even
(2008) outlines reflective activities, such as hot seating (participants are
questioned about their roles and motivations) and still images (participants
freeze in the scene and may improvise based on the situation).
With regard to fostering L2 pragmatic competence, drama- based
pedagogy employs many of the same activities used to teach pragmatics
in target languages (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Koike & Pearson, 2019).
The approach of drama-based pedagogy allows learners to transcend
the limitations of the classroom and its prescribed roles for students and
instructors (Even, 2008). Fictional situations and characters provide a
safe space for using new language forms and linguistic behaviors, some of
which may seem impolite to learners in their L1 cultures.
In the only study to apply drama-based pedagogy to L2 learning,
Babayants (2011) details the activities of an intensive acting course for
learners of English as a foreign language. The investigation features two
case studies of learners participating in a Theatre Boot Camp to prepare
a musical production, which was the site for collection of data to docu-
ment the learners’ pragmatic development within the Zone of Proximal
Development (Vygotsky, 1978). There were three sources of pragmatic
input in the course: the spoken portions of the musical script of the
musical, the acting exercises (e.g., improvisations), and the use of the
target language during rehearsals and other activities. The participants
in the study received training for common speech acts for interacting
in rehearsals (e.g., greetings, suggestions, compliments). The analysis
revealed that the content of the script had minimal impact, but that the
learners benefited from the community of teachers and fellow learners,
all of whom were required to use English at all times, which enabled
the learners to experiment with the pragmatic expressions. Some acting
5
1
2

exercises for character development functioned well, but others resulted
in L1 transfer in the learners’ interactions. Babayants’s (2011) investiga-
tion demonstrates that drama-based pedagogy can be more than simply
the learners’ production of phrases in role plays. However, mastering the
words in the script did not produce sufficient gains in L2 pragmatic com-
petence on the part of the learners.
Drama-based pedagogy provides many different activities to develop
the pragmatic knowledge needed for successful interactions. The instruc-
tional strategies can be useful for classroom L2 learners to communicate
and negotiate the complex nature of frames and expectations in discourse.
L2 Conversation Courses
Conversation courses are regular offerings in university foreign language
programs with the purpose of developing speaking skills (Brooks, 1992;
Hertel & Dings, 2017; Wilkinson, 2001). While drama-based pedagogy
can be adapted for instruction at all levels and for different topics, conver-
sation courses with their emphasis on oral skills and interactions are well
suited to the activities incorporating drama to practice the target language
and develop awareness of pragmatic and cultural aspects. In a study of
language majors, Hertel and Dings (2017) report that current students and
program alumni place high value on advanced conversation courses for
their linguistic and career goals, second only to study abroad. One learner
described the process of achieving success in L2 acquisition as “learning to
express yourself and convey your thoughts and ideas to other humans. It
is also about understanding what another person means when they speak,
and understanding their vocabulary, tone, and choice of words” (Hertel
& Dings, 2017, p. 705). The inclusion of drama-based activities may offer
a richer context to foster interactional competence in the L2.
The classroom context poses limitations of teaching communica-
tive and discourse competence in a classroom context (Brooks, 1992;
Wilkinson, 2001). A negative aspect of some conversation courses is the
insufficient attention given to the intersection of language and culture
in general. Brooks (1992) observes that grammar and vocabulary may
be emphasized over culturally appropriate ways to speak in interactions.
Wilkinson (2001) calls for conversation courses to include target lan-
guage discourse norms and the sociocultural beliefs that affect that usage.
Learners need to develop awareness of “ritual constraints” (Hatch,
1992) about how pragmatic and discourse features are used in different
languages and cultures. The concepts of frames and expectations can
address the need to provide instruction about cross-cultural differences.
The speech act of greetings can present sociocultural complexities due
to the expectations of participants about the application of the greeting
formulas (Hola, ¿cómo estás?), gestures, gaze, and/or the choice of not
to realize the act (Wilkinson, 2001). Misunderstandings in intercultural
contexts may occur due to the linguistic and cultural scripts that are
6
1
2
216 Lynn Pearson

activated in certain situations. Wilkinson presents the example of an L2
learner in France who was frustrated because her smiles or greetings to
acknowledge strangers on the street, appropriate for U.S. discourse norms,
were met by stares and frowns from the French people she encountered
who evidently were not accustomed to this behavior. Both parties in this
situation show negative reactions. The American student viewed French
people as hostile and responded with her own glares, while the French
strangers in the interactions rejected what they perceived as overly effu-
sive attention from someone they did not know. Wilkinson recommends
teaching L2 discourse by focusing on cultural differences between the
target culture and that of the learners as a basis for learning how to use
pragmatic features and organize talk. The presentation of a frame for street
encounters and corresponding expectations can aid learners to correctly
interpret their interactions with native speakers and respond appropriately.
Conversation courses can be designed with contexts that evoke
different types of frames. Sinka (1983) details a conversation and compos-
ition course based on tourism in Germany. Her objective was to provide
a unifying context for the development of communicative competence
instead of a series of unrelated situations about grammar and vocabu-
lary topics. The content covered the experiences of American tourists
before, during, and after their travels. The speaking activities required
students to interact in various simulated situations to plan their trip to
Germany, negotiate service and social interactions while in the country,
and report about their experiences after returning to the United States. In
the interactions, the learners changed roles frequently to assume roles of
U.S. students or German hosts, tourists or service personnel, and so forth.
They also explored cultural differences and stereotypes. Sinka reports
that this course reduced students’ self-consciousness about conversing in
the classroom with instructors and classmates because they were focused
on their different roles.
Teaching conversation in the L2 in the classroom presents the challenge
of creating environments to facilitate the acquisition of interactional
competence. The use of a central theme as seen in Sinka (1983) provides
a variety of contexts for expressing pragmatic functions in the target lan-
guage. The next section outlines a proposal for a conversation course
based on study abroad.
Conversation Course with Drama-Based Pedagogy: A Model

In this section, I describe a model for a conversation course using
drama-based pedagogy to help learners acquire L2 pragmatic know-
ledge with the objective of building interactional competence. The course
described here is a gateway course in the curriculum of the Spanish
major at my university because students must take it before enrolling in
advanced courses in literature, culture, and linguistics, as well as before
studying abroad. The organizing theme of the course is study abroad,
7
1
2

which is particularly relevant for students who plan to study and live
in a target language environment during their university careers. Like
the course described by Sinka (1983), the study abroad topic activates
various frames for participants and situations. This instructional model
also employs concepts from Koike’s (2008) L2 grammar of pragmatics;
namely, the focus on pragmatics in interactions and instructional strat-
egies to facilitate new expectations on the part of the learners. The course
also utilizes drama- based pedagogy as an approach for pragmatics
instruction (Babayants, 2011) with the goal of transcending the discourse
rules of classes so that “the people in the classroom must speak and write
as if they were somewhere else” (van Lier, 1996, p. 25). The conversa-
tion course follows guidelines outlined by Koike and Pearson (2019) for
teaching pragmatics to include input, consciousness raising, and practice.
The components of the course include an introduction to pragmatics,
research about study abroad and collaborative work to construct a story
line for a semester in a Spanish-speaking place, pragmatic analysis of
dialogues, and various drama activities to produce discourse with revised
expectations.
Introduction to Pragmatics
The first activity of the course introduces students to pragmatics as a
form of consciousness raising about this aspect of language. Although
the teaching of L2 pragmatics has been extensively studied, information
about pragmatics is not covered sufficiently in many L2 courses. Children
receive explicit training from parents and caregivers about pragmatics
in their L1 (Schiefflelin & Ochs, 1986), and as adults they design their
communication for specific contexts and hearers with automaticity honed
from their early years of explicit instruction, as well as ample oppor-
tunities to observe and participate in interactions. Consequently, as L2
learners, they do not start with conscious awareness about pragmatics
in their L1. It is, therefore, important to demonstrate to them how indi-
viduals modify their language to perform communicative actions, such
as requesting, apologizing, complimenting, etc. In Félix-Brasdefer and
Cohen (2012), the authors use the example of a written request for a rec-
ommendation letter by a student to a professor so that learners can observe
the indirect request form “I was wondering if you would be willing…”
(p. 660). Pearson (2018) provides a unit with dialogues showing the tú vs.
usted distinction. Following Koike (2008), students answer questions to
analyze formality markers and to formulate varying types of requests to
different hearers (e.g., a roommate vs. a professor) in their L1.
Research on Study Abroad

Research activities have been used in instruction for L2 pragmatics
(Kinginger, 2008; Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, 2006; Rose, 2012; Shively,
8
1
2
218 Lynn Pearson

2010) so that students learn to focus on target language speech act forms.
The research activity for this conversation course guides learners to gather
information from returned study abroad students about their experiences
and create descriptions about different events and interactions during
study abroad. Students in the conversation course conduct individual
interviews outside of class, or the returned students may visit classes to
speak about their experiences. In the interviews, the topics for questions
include daily life in the study abroad context, relationships with host fam-
ilies and friends, and memorable experiences (trips, food, cultural events,
etc.). These topics have been shown to be representative of students’
intercultural knowledge during study abroad programs (see Czerwionka
et al., 2015). The returned students will also be asked about communica-
tion difficulties and misunderstandings during their stays abroad, which
the conversation class students use to learn about the possible role of
pragmatic differences in conflict situations. An alternative to interviews
is to use resources for study abroad students, such as selections from
Maximizing Study Abroad (Paige et al., 2009) and various blogs about
student experiences, such as Go Abroad (n.d.) and The Study Abroad
Blog (Nault, 2020).
The information from the research serves as the basis for the course
content and activities. Students can share their research findings in class
about the different topics in short presentations in which they describe
aspects of study abroad: the daily activities, participants, and stories
about different experiences. Guided by the instructor, the learners can
develop a series of frames occurring during a study abroad semester. They
may identify various roles for the interactions (students, instructors, host
family members, friends, service personnel, etc.), along with situations
that evoke specific expectations about the discourse (e.g., a visit to a res-
taurant, a conflict with a host family member). These situations will, in
turn, provide the outline for pragmatics instruction and drama-based
pedagogy activities during the course. Similar to Sinka’s (1983) course,
the learners will participate in a pretend study abroad semester composed
of frames identified from the research activities.
Pragmatics and Drama-Based Pedagogy

After the creation of various situations during the study abroad semester,
the course focuses on several useful speech act forms and the application
of drama-based pedagogy to provide varied opportunities for practice
and learning. The drama activities present new frames and corresponding
pragmatic expressions. Some examples of speech acts include requests,
apologies, complaints, compliments, and suggestions.
As an example, I describe sample activities for teaching a single speech
act, Spanish requests, which were investigated by Koike (1989) in one
of her early studies on interlanguage pragmatics. The request speech act
has been extensively studied among native Spanish speakers (Blum-Kulka
9
1
2

et al., 1989; Félix-Brasdefer, 2005; Placencia & Márquez Reiter, 2005)
and in L2 Spanish (Cohen & Shively, 2007; Czerwionka & Cuza, 2017;
Hernández, 2016; Pinto, 2005; Shively, 2011). This speech act occurs
frequently in various contexts, including study and travel abroad. Koike
(1989) was among the first to propose a pragmatic continuum of politeness
for Spanish request forms based on the level of illocutionary force to be
understood by the hearer and the degree of explicitness for various strat-
egies. The most direct strategies for requests are conveyed with command
forms (Habla ‘Speak-informal’ / Hable ‘Speak-formal’) and statements of
want or need (e.g., Quiero /Necesito ‘I want’ /‘I need’). More indirect
strategies are questions with the verb poder ‘to be able’ and other verbs
(e.g., ¿Puede hablar? ‘Can you-formal speak?’). Speakers also modify their
requests with other strategies (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989): lexical softeners
(por favor ‘please’), morphological changes in the verb form (e.g., con-
ditional ¿Podrías hablar? ‘Could you- informal speak?’), diminutives
(e.g., Hazme un favorcito ‘Do-informal command me a little favor’), and
grounders to explain the request. A key difference between Spanish and
English requests is the Spanish preference for hearer- orientation (e.g.,
¿Me puede dar las aspirinas? ‘Can you-formal give me the aspirins?’)
over speaker-orientation (e.g., ¿Puedo tener las aspirinas? ‘Can I have the
aspirins?’) (Callahan, 2011; Czerwionka & Cuza, 2017; Shively, 2011).
Instruction in Spanish requests may include dialogues prepared for the
learners as input, such as the example below from Pearson (2018) with
follow-up questions for analysis:
Situation: a conversation between two students in the library who are
taking the same class. Next week, there will be a test in the class. One
student missed a lecture and needs the notes. The student talks to her
classmate about the problem.
MARIBEL: Hola, Jorge. ¿Cómo estás?

Hi Jorge. How are you?
JORGE: Bien. ¿Y tú?
Fine. And you?
Bien. Sabes que perdí la clase de química el lunes pasado y
MARIBEL:
vamos a tomar el examen 2 esta semana. ¿Me puedes prestar
tus apuntes?
Fine. You know that I missed chemistry class last Monday
and we are going to take the exam 2 this week. Can you lend
me your notes?
JORGE: ¿Mis apuntes?
My notes?
Sí, puedo hacer las copias inmediatamente aquí en la
MARIBEL:
biblioteca.
Yes, I can make copies right away here in the library.
JORGE: Bueno, aquí tienes mi carpeta.
Ok, here is my folder.
0
2
220 Lynn Pearson

MARIBEL: Muchas gracias. Te la devuelvo enseguida.
Thanks a lot. I will return it to you right away.
JORGE: Tranquila, no hay prisa. Voy a estar aquí hasta las 9.
Relax, there’s no hurry. I am going to be here until 9.
Questions for Analysis

The following questions provide guidance to identify the request and
other pragmatic features in the dialogue. Depending on the proficiency of
the students, they can be written in Spanish or English.
1. What is Maribel asking Jorge?

2. Is this a…? a. command b. suggestion c. request
3. Is Maribel speaking in a direct way or an indirect way?
4. How would you ask for your classmate’s notes in English? How is
that strategy different from the Spanish request?
5. Is Maribel addressing Jorge formally (usted) or informally (tú)?
Why is she using this treatment? How does Jorge address Maribel
and why?
6. What other information does Maribel include when talking to Jorge?
7. What does Jorge say in response to Maribel’s question?
The questions to analyze different aspects of the request act reflect the
components of Koike’s (2008) pragmatic grammar. Learners can iden-
tify the speech act as a request and the conventionally indirect strategy
in ¿Me puedes prestar tus apuntes? ‘Can you-informal lend me your
notes?’ The hearer-orientation in Spanish is highlighted as compared
to English requests along with the informal address with the pronoun
tú used between classmates. The questions also ask about other strat-
egies in the conversation: an explanation about missing class and an
assurance about copying the notes right away to reduce the impos-
ition of the request on the hearer. The learners can compare dialogues
in other situations and with different participants, which elicit other
frames to observe the types of request strategies and responses. The
same dialogue presented above can be changed to a conversation
between a student and a professor in which the student requests an
extension on a paper.
After the pragmatics instruction, the course uses activities framed
within drama-based pedagogy to practice and reflect on the situations
and participants. The learners begin with more controlled activities
before moving to more spontaneous communication (Kao & O’Neill,
1998). First, the students use written dialogues as scripts to act out situ-
ations, which allows them carry out the communicative action without
the challenge of inventing their own utterances, as recommended by
Babayants (2011). Later, the learners can interact with role plays or
improvisations based on situations and roles created by the instructor.
1
2

The more controlled tasks will prepare students to work in process
drama activities (O’Neill, 1995) by using the pretend study abroad as a
context to create their own situations and roles to explore. Process drama
involves reflection activities for the participants about their motivations and
perceptions about the situations, especially those that may pose interper-
sonal and intercultural conflicts. For example, an interaction may take place
between a host mother and a student, who requests some changes in the food
offerings. The students invent background details for their characters, which
will affect their talk and possibly present complications in the response to
the request (e.g., the host mother has just purchased the week’s food and the
student is having digestive problems from some of the food served).
The learners can produce cross-cultural interactions that may engender
potential misunderstandings between interlocutors and apply their know-
ledge about pragmatic differences between the L1 and L2. An example
is seen in Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen (2012), which provides information
about teaching a complex act of rejecting invitations or offers. The socio-
cultural norm in Hispanic cultures is to repeat the invitations after the
rejection as a way of showing positive politeness (a desire for inclusivity),
which may be interpreted as aggressive or intrusive by U.S. listeners.
The process drama activities can address the different expectations of
the participants about issuing and rejecting invitations or offers in a
low-stakes environment. Learners can improvise conversations based on
revised frames for these speech acts to help them interpret the intentions
of their interlocutors and respond appropriately.
Drama- based pedagogy and L2 pragmatic instruction share many
of the same strategies and activities. Drama activities provide increased
opportunities for practice and reflection about target language pragmatics
to successfully participate in interactions. The context of a pretend study
abroad semester presents a variety of frames that the learners can use for
their conversations to connect linguistic and pragmatic features with the
context. The process drama activities allow learners to explore potential
conflicts and revise their expectations to prepare for interactions with
speakers of the target languages.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented an instructional approach for L2 pragmatics
with drama-based pedagogy motivated by the work of Dale Koike in L2
Spanish pragmatics. The conversation course provides learners with input
and practice to change their expectations for communicating in the study
abroad context. The organizing theme of study abroad supplies a variety
of relevant situations to create interactions between different participants.
The drama-based pedagogy activities allow learners to reflect about the
factors that influence the choice of pragmatic strategies and practice in
multiple ways, which lets them explore expectations based on personal
and sociocultural factors.
2
222 Lynn Pearson

Finally, I end this chapter with a tribute to Dr. Dale Koike, whose work
has defined the fields of pragmatics and discourse in Spanish and Portuguese.
Her generous support to me and her other graduate students has enabled
us to succeed as instructors and researchers. I am truly honored to have
been her student, her collaborator on various projects, and her friend.
I wish her the very best for many new adventures. ¡Felicidades, Dale!
References
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for
an alternative politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–153. https://doi.org/
10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru
Arundale, R. B. (July, 2003). The interactional achievement of politeness: A
theory of constituting face in using language. [Conference presentation.]
International Pragmatics Association Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Babayants, A. (2011). Acting and second language pragmatics: Pedagogical
intersections. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Toronto.
Bednarek, M. (2005). Frames revisited: The coherence- inducing function
of frames. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 685–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pragma.2004.09.007
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Requests and apologies. Ablex.
Brooks, F. B. (1992). Communicative competence and the conversation course:
A social interaction perspective. Linguistics and Education, 4(2), 219–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(92)90015-o
Brown, P., & Levinson S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Callahan, L. (2011). Workplace requests in Spanish and English: A case study of
email communication between two supervisors and a subordinate. Southwest
Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 27–57.
Callahan, M., & Sabbagh, M. (2004). Multiple labels for objects in conversations
with young children: Parents’ language and children’s developing expectations
about word meaning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 746–763. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.746
Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. W. Oller
(Ed.), Issues in testing research (pp. 333–342). Newbury House.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1
Carranza, I. (1999). Winning the battle in private discourse: Rhetorical–logical
operations in storytelling. Discourse and Society, 10(4), 509–541. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0957926599010004004
Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in
Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building interven-
tion. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 189–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x
Curcó, C. (1998). ¿No me harías un favorcito?: Reflexiones en torno a la
expresión de la cortesía verbal en el español de México y el español peninsular.
In H. Haverkate, G. Mulder, & C. Fraile Maldonado (Eds.), La pragmática
lingüística del español: recientes desarrollos (pp. 129–172). Rodopi.
3
2

Czerwionka, L., Artamonova, T., & Barbosa, M. (2015). Intercultural knowledge
growth: Evidence from student interviews during a short-term study abroad.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49, 80–99. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.06.012
Czerwionka, L., & Cuza, A. (2017). A pragmatic analysis of L2 Spanish
requests: Acquisition in three situational contexts during short-term study
abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(3), 391–419. https://doi.org/10.1515/
ip-2017-0016
Dawson, K., & Lee, B. K. (2018). Drama-based pedagogy: Activating learning
across the curriculum. Intellect.
Dundar, S. (2013). Nine drama activities for foreign language classrooms: Benefits
and challenges. Procedia– Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1424–1431.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.206
Ensink, T. (2003). Transformational frames: Interpretative consequences of frame
shifts and frame embeddings. In T. Ensink & C. Sauer (Eds.), Framing and
perspectivising in discourse (pp. 63– 90). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/
10.1075/pbns.111.04ens
Even, S. (2008). Moving in(to) imaginary worlds: Drama pedagogy for foreign
language teaching and learning. Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German,
41(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1221.2008.00021.x
Fauconnier, G., & Sweetser, E. (Eds.). (1996). Spaces, worlds, and grammar.
University of Chicago Press.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2005). Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests.
In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistic
Symposium (pp. 66–78). Cascadilla Press.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008a). Pedagogical intervention and the development of
pragmatic competence in learning Spanish as a foreign language. Issues in
Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 49–84.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008b). Teaching Spanish pragmatics in the classroom:
Explicit instruction of mitigation. Hispania, 91(2), 477–492. https://doi.org/
10.2307/20063733
Félix-Brasdefer, J., & Cohen, A. D. (2012). Teaching pragmatics in the foreign
language classroom: Grammar as a communicative resource. Hispania, 95(4),
650–669. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2012.0124
Fillmore, C. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cogen,
H. Thompson, G. Thurgood, K. Whistler, & J. Wright (Eds.), Proceedings
of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 63–90).
University of California. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315
Galante, A. (2018). Drama for L2 speaking and language anxiety: Evidence
from Brazilian EFL learners. RELC Journal, 49(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0033688217746205
Giebert, S. (2014). Drama and theatre in teaching foreign languages for pro-
fessional purposes. Recherche et Pratiques Pédagogiques en Langes de
Spécialité—Cahiers de l’APLIUT, 33(1), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.4000/
apliut.4215
Go Abroad. (n.d.). Study abroad. www.goabroad.com/articles/study-abroad
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Harvard University Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.),
Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
4
2
224 Lynn Pearson

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/cbo9780511611834
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge University Press.
Hernández, T. A. (2016). Acquisition of L2 Spanish requests in short- term
study abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and
International Education, 1(2), 186–216. https://doi.org/10.1075/sar.1.2.03her
Hertel, T. J., & Dings, A. (2017). The undergraduate Spanish major curriculum:
Faculty, alumni, and student perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 50(4),
697–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12294
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where lan-
guage and culture meet. Longman/Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315833842
Kao, S.– M. (1995). From script to impromptu: Learning a second language
through process drama. In P. Taylor & C. Hoepper (Eds.), Selected readings
in drama and theatre education: The IDEA ’95 papers. (pp. 88–101). IDEA
Publications.
Kao, S., & O’Neill, C. (1998). Words into worlds: Learning a second language
through process drama. Ablex.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203–
231. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839200800303
Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Erlbaum.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606464
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of
Americans in France. Modern Language Journal, 92, 1–131. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00821.x
Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech
acts in interlanguage. Modern Language Journal, 73, 279–289. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06364.x
construcción en el español de las Américas: acercamientos discursivos (pp.
11–23). University of Ottawa/Legas Press.
Koike, D. A. (2005). La alineación en el marco de un modelo dinámico de
la cortesía verbal. In J. Murillo Medrano (Ed.), Actas del 2o Coloquio
Internacional del Programa EDICE (Estudios de la Cortesía en Español) (pp.
319–342). Programa EDICE–Universidad de Costa Rica.
Koike, D. A. (2008). A grammar of L2 pragmatics: Issues in learning and teaching.
In S. Katz and J. Watzinger- Tharp (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 grammar:
Theoretical approaches and their application in the L2 classroom (pp. 35–52).
Heinle.
Koike, D. A. (2010). Behind L2 pragmatics: The role of expectations. In D. Koike
contexts (pp. 257–282). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ds. 7.14koi
expectations in pragmatic co- construction. In J. C. Félix- Brasdefer &
D. A. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts:
10.1075/impact.31.07koi
Koike, D. A. (2015). Changing frames in native speaker and learner talk. In D. A.
Koike & C. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communi-
ties (pp. 253–285). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.27.09koi
5
2

development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008
Koike, D., & Pearson, L. (2019). Pragmática. In J. Muñoz-Basols, E. Gironzetti, &
M. Lacorte (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Language Teaching:
Metodologías, contextos y recursos para la enseñanza del español (pp. 348–
361). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315646169-24
Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.) (2000). Socio-cultural theory and second language learning.
Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315835976
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413– 468). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-
012589042-7/50015-3
Maley, A., & Duff, A. (1982). Drama techniques in language learning. 2nd ed.
Martínez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E. (2006). A comprehensive pedagogical frame-
work to develop pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: The 6Rs
approach. Applied Language Learning, 16(2), 39–64.
Minsky, M. (1980). A framework for representing knowledge. In D. Metzing
(Ed.), Frames, conceptions, and text understanding (pp. 1–25). de Gruyter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110858778-003
Mir, M. (2018). Teaching and learning about Spanish L2 compliments in short-
term study abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition
and International Education, 5(2), 230–257. https://doi.org/10.1075/
sar.18004.mir
Mwinyelle, J. (2005). The acquisition of pragmatic competence in an L2 class-
room: Giving advice in Spanish. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
University of Texas.
Nault, N. (2020). The study abroad blog. http://thestudyabroadblog.com/
O’Neill, C. (1995). Drama worlds: A framework for process drama. Pearson
Education.
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., & Lassergard, J. P. (2009).
Maximizing study abroad: A student’s guide to strategies for language and cul-
ture learning and use (2nd ed.). Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition.
Pearson, L. (2006). Patterns of development in Spanish L2 pragmatic acquisition:
An analysis of novice learners’ production of directives. The Modern Language
Journal, 90, 473–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00427.x
Pearson, L. (2018). Pragmatics instruction in second language at the novice level:
Creating meaningful contexts for the acquisition of grammatical forms. In D.
Dumitrescu & P. Andueza (Eds.), L2 Spanish pragmatics: Learning and teaching
(pp. 214–231). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276182-12
Piazzoli, E. C. (2014). Engagement as perception-in-action in process drama for
teaching and learning Italian as a second language. International Journal of
Language Studies, 8(2), 91–116.
Pinto, D. (2005). The acquisition of requests by second language learners of
Spanish. Spanish in Context, 2(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.2.1.01pin
Placencia, M., & Márquez Reiter, (2005). Spanish pragmatics. Palgrave. https://
doi.org/10.1057/9780230505018
6
2
226 Lynn Pearson

Rose, M. (2012). Grammar in the real world: Enhancing grammar lessons with
pragmatics. Hispania, 95(4), 670–680. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2012.0129
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding.
Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781036
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986). Language socialization across cultures.
Shively, R. L. (2010). From the virtual world to the real world: A model of
pragmatics instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1),
105–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01063.x
Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal
study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030
Sinka, M. M. (1983). Journey though Germany: Simulating tourist experiences
in the conversation and composition course. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching
German, 16(2), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3530136
Spada N. (2007). Communicative language teaching. In J. Cummins & C.
Davison (Eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching, Vol.
2 (pp. 271–288). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_20
Tannen, D. (1993). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying
expectations. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14–56). Oxford
University Press.
Tateyama. Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines:
Japanese sumimasen. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 200–222). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
cbo9781139524797.015
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy
and authenticity. Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315843223
Via, R. A. (1987). “The magic if” of theater: Enhancing language learning through
drama. In W. M. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language teaching (pp. 110–123).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard University Press.
Wilkinson, S. (2001). Noticing discourse: A point of departure for (re)designing
the conversation course. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 523–533. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02100.x
Winston, J., & Stinson, M. (2014). Drama education and second language
learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315541020
Winter, S. (1998). Expectation and linguistic meaning. Lund University Cognitive
Science Kungshuset.
Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and
testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching
and learning, Vol. 2 (pp. 426– 443). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203836507.ch26
Yule, G. (1996). The study of language. Cambridge University Press.
7
2
Afterword
Co-Construction and Frames in a
Post-Digital Age
Rachel Showstack, Lori Czerwionka,
and Judith Liskin-Gasparro
As we conclude this project, we are in a very different moment of history

from where we were when we started. We began this endeavor before the
COVID–19 pandemic, and we write this Afterword during a time in which
COVID–19 and the ways it has altered our world are on everyone’s mind.
In the same way that Koike’s work provided new ways to understand
co-construction and pragmatics by focusing on communicative resources
in dialogue, contextual variables, multilingual identity construction in
public discourse, and second language (L2) learning and interactions, the
current situation is making us think about co-construction and frames
in discourse in new ways. If this book were to be written five years from
now, it would cover different topics; Koike’s ideas will set the stage for a
new body of work that will emerge from the current global context.
We are living in a post-digital society, in which doing things digitally
and reconfiguring how things are done digitally is the norm (Cramer,
2015). As the result of the pandemic, we have entered a new post-digital
age, one in which the use of technology for interaction has exponentially
expanded to new populations, for new purposes, and in new contexts. We
know that humans can use language and other communicative resources
in face-to-face interaction to co-construct discourse—a hug to commu-
nicate gratitude (Czerwionka et al., this volume), a blend of eye contact
and smiles to co-construct humor (Gironzetti, this volume), certain lin-
guistic combinations to create affiliation (Yasui, this volume) or specific
types of stances and discourse contributions to co-construct identities
(Colcher, this volume), but in virtual environments co-construction has
new challenges and also new resources.
In terms of challenges, when we are not showing our faces in Zoom
or other video conferencing applications, gestures are limited to the use
of a thumbs-up emoji or an applause icon on a black box; avoidance
of gaze and talk in virtual interactions has become acceptable in some
contexts. For those who show their faces on the screen during these types
of interactions, their attention may be focused away from the device and
toward a non-participant subject (e.g., the family cat) or a different source
of interactional input (e.g., an email, text message, website) that other
participants do not see or hear. On social media like Facebook, we can
8
2
228 Rachel Showstack et al.

‘like’ or ‘love’ a post, share it, or express agreement in the comments, but if
our opinion differs from the perspective expressed in a post, we may have
fewer options for co-constructing alignment than in a face-to-face disagree-
ment, which can potentially lead to greater polarization. Kligler-Vilenchik
et al. (2020) suggest that different social media platforms (i.e., Facebook,
Twitter, and WhatsApp) shape the way that polarization unfolds over
time. As a final example of the challenges of virtual interactions for co-
construction, researchers from a community-based project that explored
Spanish-speaking patients’ experiences observed that the use of remote
interpreting devices in health care (e.g., tablet, phone) seems to affect the
negotiation of common ground between patient and provider (Martínez
et al., under review). These findings suggest that some aspects of interper-
sonal communication that occur with face-to-face interpreting may be lost
when the interpreter provides remote services.
Although digitally mediated interactions can increase the poten-
tial for misunderstanding and polarization in some contexts, they also
have the potential to increase the diversity of alignment strategies used
with different synchronous and asynchronous modes of communication
(e.g. email, text messages, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), where diverse
pragmatic norms and affordances and individual histories and sensitiv-
ities shape what we can do and how our expression will be understood
(Gershon, 2010; Vraga et al., 2015). Technology and other materials can
provide enhanced opportunities for co-construction, increased agency,
and new ways to create communities and develop social relations. For
example, groups collaborate using online documents that allow mul-
tiple people to write simultaneously and video chat applications to
connect geographically distant people in real- time. This year these
types of materials have been incorporated more than ever before into
L2 classrooms, among many other school and work environments, to
facilitate activities and assessments previously done in person (e.g., Kley,
this volume; Pearson, this volume). Regarding increased agency, Antón
and Pendexter (this volume) provide evidence that when materials like
L2 learners’ e-portfolios are integrated with notions of discourse, those
learners obtain enhanced agency in the co-construction of the meanings
of language-learning experiences.
The practices that are under development in these digital environ-
ments may challenge or replace our prior notions of the cultural norms of
politeness and impoliteness in interaction (e.g., Ehrhardt-Urbino, 2014;
Graham, 2017; Maros & Rosli, 2018). In a study that Koike conducted
with students from her final cohort of dissertation advisees, Koike, Garre
León, and Pérez Cejudo (forthcoming) draw on Koike’s (2012, 2015)
frames- based approach to examine users’ perceptions of politeness
and impoliteness on the Twitter feed of the Real Academia Española.
They found that while their limited data suggested a possible relation-
ship between the identities of users (i.e., national and gender identities)
and their perceptions of impoliteness, individual users also indicated
9
2
Afterword 229
different expectations for politeness in this context. Koike et al. (forth-
coming) suggest that politeness theory needs to be reexamined for social
media contexts due to both asynchronicity and the diversity of individual
experiences that users bring to interactions in online environments.
Prior research has addressed virtual interaction and pragmatics (e.g.,
Hoffman & Bublitz, 2017), but we are in need of continued research
on the ways in which co-construction occurs across media formats and
the impact of digitally mediated communication on (im)politeness norms,
especially considering the new COVID–19 related virtual environments
and users. Posthumanist approaches to applied linguistics are particularly
relevant to the current questions about digitally mediated communica-
tion, as they help us to grapple with understanding how technology or
any material object is incorporated into human interaction. The two are
no longer separate, but are united in how they shape communication,
relationships, and meanings. As stated by Bucholtz and Hall (2016), a
posthumanist approach “dissolves the discourse–materiality dichotomy
by analyzing semiosis as a process that emerges in the mutually constitu-
tive actions that take place between human bodies and the other entities
with which they interact” (p. 187). It has been claimed that technology
complicates interpersonal communication by adding a level of distance
(Pennycook, 2018). The challenges and affordances of virtual interactions
that we have reflected on in this Afterword demonstrate the complex
nature of human–technology–human interactions. It is likely that tech-
nology has the potential to complicate or even deteriorate co-constructed
interaction in some situations, albeit while enhancing it and allowing
for increased participation of diverse voices in others. Koike’s ideas on
co-construction and frames are crucial components of the processes of
polarization, co-construction, and perceptions of politeness in virtual
environments, and her scholarly work will continue to contribute to our
understanding of future interactions.
In the current global context, there is no lack of data to analyze. As
research continues, we encourage scholars to consider the topic of con-
text, as we have done in this volume, along with the posthumanist con-
cept that interaction is no longer limited to humans, but it is the result of
the intertwining of humans and materials. This way of approaching the
study of interaction will result in the identification of posthumanist ana-
lyses of the issues that intersect with co-construction (e.g., gesture, cul-
tural norms, interaction, frames, conversational organization, identity).
Frames and co-construction are everywhere. We are always interacting
as who we are, and we co-construct our social positioning with our
interlocutors who have similarly arrived at the interaction with their
“knapsack of privileges, identities, and histories” (Sun & Young, 2018).
In this post-digital age with quickly changing technologically affected
interactions, Koike’s ideas about co-construction, frames, politeness, and
pragmatics will help us to understand the processes of alignment afforded
in different contexts with different interlocutors and tools, with significant
0
3
2
230 Rachel Showstack et al.

implications for improving intersubjectivity in varying, and sometimes
even contentious, interactions. As current and future researchers build
on existing studies related to interaction in new environments and from
posthumanist perspectives, the insights from Dale April Koike’s work will
provide the tools for understanding how the process of co-construction
works in these emerging interactional contexts.
References
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2016). Embodied sociolinguistics. In N. Coupland
(Ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates (pp. 173– 197). Cambridge
University Press.
Cramer, F. (2015). What is “Post-digital”? In D. M. Berry & M. Dieter (Eds.),
Postdigital aesthetics: Art, computation, design (pp. 12– 26). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ehrhardt-Urbino, C. (2014). Politeness and face work in German forum commu-
nication. In K. Bedijs, G. Held, & C. Maaß (Eds.), Face work and social media
2 (pp. 83–107). LIT Verlag.
Gershon, I. (2010). Breaking up is hard to do: Media switching and media ideolo-
gies. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(2), 389–405.
Graham, S. L. (2017). Politeness and impoliteness. In C. Hoffman & W. Bublitz,
(Eds.), Pragmatics of social media (pp. 459–491). de Gruyter Mouton.
Hoffmann, C., & Bublitz, W. (Eds.). (2017). Pragmatics of social media. de
Gruyter Mouton.
Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Baden, C., & Yarchi, M. (2020). Interpretive polarization
across platforms: How political disagreement develops over time on Facebook,
Twitter, and WhatsApp. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 1–13.
Koike, D. (2012). Variation in NS–learner interactions: Frames and expectations
in pragmatic co-construction. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D. A. Koike (Eds.),
Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts (pp. 175–208). John
Benjamins.
Koike, D. (2015). Changing frames in native speaker and learner talk. In D. A.
Koike & C. S. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal commu-
nities (pp. 253–285). John Benjamins.
Koike, D., Garre León, V., & Pérez Cejudo, G. (forthcoming). Twitter and the
Maros, M., & Rosli, L. (2018). Politeness strategies in Twitter updates of female
English language studies Malasyian undergraduates. The Southeast Asian
Journal of Engish Language Studies, 23(1), 132–149.
Martínez, G., Dejbord-Sawan, P., Magaña, D., Showstack, R., & Hardin, K.
(under review). Pursuing testimonial justice: Language access through patient-
centered outcomes research with Spanish speakers.
Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. Routledge.
Sun, C., & Young, R. (2018, March 24). Life can only be understood backwards,
but it must be lived forwards [Conference presentation]. American Association
for Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL, United States.
1
3
2
Afterword 231
Vraga, E., Thorson, K., Kliger-Vilenchik, N., & Gee, E. (2015). How individual
sensitivities to disagreement shape youth political expression on Facebook.
Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 281–298.
Zoom. [Computer software]. https://zoom.us/
2
3
Epilogue
Dale Koike and Research on
Pragmatics in Interaction: Mentor,
Collaborator, Friend
J. César Félix-Brasdefer
It is my pleasure to write a personal tribute to my colleague and dear

friend Dale A. Koike, a pioneer and well-respected researcher in the fields
of pragmatics, discourse in interaction, and second language acquisition.
I would like to share with the editors, authors, and readers of this volume,
published in her honor, some memories of my personal encounters with
Dale at conferences and through co-authored articles, co-edited volumes,
and linguistic interactions over the years.
Dale is one of those rare linguists who has made significant contributions
to the fields of interlanguage pragmatics, discourse analysis, pragmatics in
interaction, and pragmatic variation in Spanish and Portuguese. In fact,
her interests in variation began with her dissertation, A Sociolinguistic
Analysis of the Infinitive in Colloquial Brazilian Portuguese, directed by
John Bergen, an outstanding linguist at the University of New Mexico.
Her teaching and publications have inspired many graduate students, for-
eign language teachers, and researchers in pragmatics, applied linguists,
and second language acquisition. Among the topics she has investigated
are various aspects of the acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge, deixis,
co-constructed discourse, frames in discourse, research methods, instruc-
tion and assessment of communicative competence, and the develop-
ment of interactional competence. Her passion for these areas begins
in the classroom, develops in the many dissertations she has supervised
over the last three decades, and continues as a colleague and collabor-
ator with her doctoral students, who have gone on to distinguish them-
selves in their academic positions, such as Joseph Collentine (Northern
Arizona University), Lori Czerwionka (Purdue University), Abby Dings
(Southwestern University), Vivian Flanzer (University of Texas at
Austin), Karol Hardin (Baylor University), Christina Isabelli (Gonzaga
University), Judith- Liskin Gasparro (University of Iowa), Jeff Micho
(Furman University), Jerome Mwinyelle (East Tennessee State University),
Lynn Pearson (Bowling Green State University), and Rachel Showstack
(Wichita State University), among many others.
My engagement with interlanguage pragmatics began in 2001 at
the 11th Colloquium on Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and
Romance, held at the University of Texas at Austin. I was then a graduate
32
Epilogue 233
student under the supervision of Professors Andrew Cohen and Carol
Klee (University of Minnesota), and I attended this conference because
I wanted to meet Professor Dale Koike. After my presentation, I had the
honor of meeting her and talking with her about current topics in L2
pragmatics. I also cited her work in my dissertation, in particular her
seminal article on the acquisition of pragmatics, “Pragmatic Competence
and Adult L2 Acquisition: Speech Acts and Interlanguage” (The Modern
Language Journal, 73, 1989), “Requests and the Role of Deixis in
Politeness” (Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 1989), and “Negation in Spanish
and English Suggestions and Requests: Mitigating Effects?” (Journal of
Pragmatics, 21, 1994). In March 2004, I attended her plenary presenta-
tion at the II International Colloquium of the EDICE Program (Estudios
del Discurso y Cortesía en Español) in San José, Costa Rica. Her presen-
tation, “La alineación en el marco de un modelo dinámico de la cortesía
verbal,” inspired young researchers at the conference to examine polite-
ness from an interactive and dynamic perspective.
When I started my faculty appointment at Indiana University in fall of
2003, my interactions with Dale took a different turn as I began to analyze
topics in interlanguage pragmatics, pragmatic variation, and applied lin-
guistics. In my undergraduate classes I used her co-edited textbook with
Carol Klee (University of Minnesota), Lingüística aplicada: adquisición
del español como segunda lengua (Wiley, 2002, 2013) and in my graduate
classes we read many of her articles, including two co-authored with
colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin: “Interactional Frames and
Construction Grammar” (2014) with Carl Blyth, which deals with issues
related to frames and interaction; and “Pragmatic Transfer from Spanish
to Portuguese L3” (2004) with Vivian Flanzer, which focuses on current
issues in pragmatic transfer and L3 acquisition.
Given our mutual interest in pragmatics and discourse, Dale and
I continued to see each other at conferences and other professional
venues. In 2010, I invited Dale to be part of a panel at the Hispanic
Linguistics Symposium at Indiana University that addressed issues of
pragmatic variation. Our dear colleague Bobbie Lafford (Arizona State
University) was also a member of the panel. In 2014 we both attended the
second International Conference of the American Pragmatics Association
at UCLA, where we had another opportunity to discuss current issues
in pragmatics and co-constructed discourse. And in the spring of 2018,
I was invited to give a talk at the University of Texas at Austin, entitled
“Responding to Rudeness in an L2: Learning Context and Pedagogical
Implications,” where we had a delightful conversation on the pragmatics
of interaction and implications for teaching and assessment.
These professional encounters evolved organically into a decade of
academic collaborations, starting with Pragmatic Variation in First and
Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues (John Benjamins,
2012), which we co-edited. Two years later we co-authored a chapter
entitled “Perspectives on Spanish SLA from Pragmatics and Discourse”
4
3
2
234 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

for the Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics, edited by our colleague
and friend Manel Lacorte (University of Maryland). In our chapter, we
offered a review of the state of the art of current issues in L2 pragmatics
and discourse, including research on Spanish pragmatics related to L2
speech acts, deixis, implicature, and discourse. Dale’s insights on the
pragmatics of co-constructed discourse, as explained in the Introduction
and in many chapters of this volume, constituted a core component of
this chapter.
My most recent pragmatics and discourse project with Dale was to
co-edit the Routledge Handbook of Spanish Pragmatics (33 chapters,
Routledge, 2021), under the direction of Routledge Series Editors Manel
Lacorte (University of Maryland) and Javier Muñoz-Basols (University of
Oxford). This monumental project has enabled us to expand our know-
ledge of pragmatics, and working together has reinforced our friendship.
Our collaboration even extended to working on the proposal during the
winter break and then the final revisions on New Year’s Eve! Dale’s fre-
quent emails, attention to detail, and detailed revisions were a constant
reminder of the scholarly commitment that is needed to bring an idea to
fruition. One of the highlights of the handbook is the chapter on research
methods, masterfully written by Dale, entitled “Research Methods for
Spanish Pragmatics.” Despite the challenges of such complex under-
taking, we had fun during our telephone conversations as we discussed
the details of chapter drafts, deadlines, and the final proofs.
As I reflect on the many linguistic interactions between us over the last
20 years, I am, as always, inspired by Dale’s passion for the pragmatics
of discourse. Her influence extends to future generations of students
and researchers in pragmatics in interaction, as well as to teachers and
researchers of language learning in foreign and study abroad contexts.
Dale’s recent interests mark a research agenda that has continued to
expand— to new learner populations, innovative research methodolo-
gies, and insightful research questions: the pragmatics of interaction of
heritage language learners, co-constructed dialogue of native speakers of
Spanish and Portuguese, third-language acquisition, interactional com-
petence, and the interface of pragmatics and intercultural competence,
as evidenced in her 2021 article “Pragmática e interculturalidad en la
adquisición del español como L2,” to be published by the Asociación
para la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera (ASELE).
Thank you, Dale, for your friendship, your kindness, your scholarship,
and for your many years of service and expertise that have expanded the
emerging field of the pragmatics of interaction.
5
3
2
Index
activity system 167, 169–170, 174 86; of speech acts 100, 104–105,
activity theory 163, 166–167, 177 106–107; see also negotiation
affective expressive sounds see compliment–compliment response
multimodal analysis 95–96, 99–103, 106–107, 108–109
affiliation 59 see agreement confirmation 31, 35–37, 40–41
agency 163, 165–166, 169, 177–178; connectives: causal 136, 140;
and digitally mediated interactions contrastive 138
228; see also epistemic positioning; context 2–6, 109, 137, 139–140,
sociocultural linguistic approach 145; second language learning
agreement 30, 32–34, 40, 46–47, 49, 169, 174, 177, 179, 209–210; and
54, 59, 62, 100–102, 107–108, 128; sociocultural theory 163, 165
lack of display of understanding conversation analysis 23, 46–47,
193; see also alignment 49–50, 69, 72–73, 183–184,
alignment 211–212, 228–229 see also 215–216
intersubjectivity correction 71; and repair 71
appreciation token see gratitude corrective feedback 68, 69, 71
expression
assessments 26, 31–32, 34–35, DEAL model 165
36–37, 38, 39, 40–41, 148, digitally mediated communication
154–155, 193, 197 227–230
autonomy 165 domains of knowledge and
experience/expertise 23–24, 27–28,
broadcast talk 24–25, 41n1 40; see also epistemic positioning
drama-based pedagogy 209, 213;
causal relations: analysis of causal and second language pragmatics
domain 143–144; epistemic 136, pedagogy 209, 217–221; in second
140–141, 143–144; semantic language teaching 213–215
(content) 136, 140–141, 143;
speech act 140–141 entitlement 31
causality 137, 140–142; and epistemic(s) 40–41, 140–142, 144,
evaluation 142; and narrative 149; downgrading authority 30,
structure 155; in narratives 137; 33; epistemic authority 26, 28, 30;
semantic 136, 150 epistemic domains 24, 26, 30, 33;
change-of-state token 47–49, 62; epistemic positioning 24, 27, 28,
change-of-state token oh 31–32 30–32, 34, 39–41; epistemic rights
co-construction 2–3, 4, 115, 139, 140, 27–28, 31, 35, 40; see also causality
153, 157, 228–230; of affiliative evaluative: expressions 99; language
stance 47; of discourse 115; of 138, 142, 144–145, 155, 156; see
humor 116; of social structures 70, also assessments
6
3
2
236 Index
expectations 136–140, 142, 146, 148, membership categorization devices
151–152, 154, 155–157, 203–204, 25–26, 30, 41n2
209; clash with 154; in second mental model 139–140; see also frame
language acquisition 209, 211–212; metacognition 172–173
see also frame; structures of metapragmatic: communication 141;
expectation reflection 141–142; test for causal
domain 143, 155
film: pear film 136, 142; retelling 137, multimodal analysis 99, 104, 120;
139, 142, 155 see also gratitude expression;
frame(s) 115–116, 136, 138–140, multimodality; non-verbal
155–157, 202–203, 210–211; multimodal communicative resources
and co-construction 139; and see multimodal analysis
cultural scripts 139; interactive multimodality: in discourse 97,
frame 139; knowledge frame 106–107, 117–118, 128–130
136–137, 140, 142, 157; and
second language acquisition narrative 136, 137, 142, 155; second
211–212, 218; see also script language 164
negotiation: of discourse 115; of
gaze 99; aversion 126–127; functions humor 116; see also co-construction
118 non-verbal: resources in
gender 25 communication 99, 117–118,
gift–gift response 96, 103–106, 107, 128–130; see also multimodal
108–109 analysis; smiling
gratitude expression 93, 94
oh see change-of-state token oh
heritage language speaker 68,
69–70 politeness: linguistic 94, 107, 109,
humor: co-constructed 116; 211–212
conversational 116–117; failed positioning see epistemic positioning;
124–125, 128–129; interactional identity work
116–117; markers 129; pragmatic grammar 210, 220
performance 117, 130 pre-beginning elements 48; see also
turn-initial
identity 2, 4, 25, 30, 37, 40, 70, preferred/dispreferred response
85, 179 47
implicature 139, 141 process drama 214, 221
indexicality 68, 70, 72
inference 145–150, 152, 156 race 25
institutional roles 24–25, 27, 30, reflection 164, 177–179
36–37, 40 repair 71
interactional: achievement 25, 47, repetitional responses 31, 34–35,
108; competence 183–185, 210; 38–41
humor 116–117; linguistics 47, requests 218–219
63 response design 25, 30–32, 41
interactive frame see frame
interjections: marked 34–40; script 115–116, 138; cultural script
unmarked 32–34 139; see also frame
intersubjectivity 183–185 see also second language assessment 163; 178;
agreement; co-construction discourse 164, 183, 185–186;
irony 120, 126–127 portfolio 164
self-regulation 166, 178
knowledge frame see frame smiling: in conversation 118;
individual intensity 121–122;
laughter 117–118, 125; see also intensity scale 120; matching
humor; multimodal analysis behavior 123–124
7
3
2
Index 237
social media 228–229 structures of expectation 136, 139,
sociocultural theory 165–166 156; see also expectation
speech acts 93, 108, 109–110, study abroad 217–218
141–142; co-constructed
speech acts 97, 101, 106–107; territories of knowledge 24, 27, 30, 40
second language 209, 214–215, thanking see gratitude expression;
218 speech acts
sports commentary 24–25, 32, turn-initial: elements 48; position 48;
41n1 see also pre-beginning elements
8
3
2

Contexts of Co-Constructed Discourse - Interaction, Pragmatics, and Second Language Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Contexts of Co-Constructed Discourse - Interaction, Pragmatics, and Second Language Applications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contexts of Co-Constructed Discourse - Interaction, Pragmatics, and Second Language Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

Contexts of Co-​Constructed Discourse

This collection showcases cutting-​edge developments in co-​construction in dis-

Lori Czerwionka is Associate Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at Purdue

Rachel Showstack is Associate Professor of Spanish at Wichita State University.

Judith Liskin-​Gasparro is Associate Professor Emerita of Spanish and Applied

Routledge Studies in Applied Linguistics

Researching Interpretive Talk Around Literary Narrative Texts

Analyzing Discourses in Teacher Observation Feedback Conferences

Learning-​Oriented Language Assessment

Language, Mobility and Study Abroad in the Contemporary

Contexts of Co-​Constructed Discourse

The Ambiguity of English as a Lingua Franca

For more information about this series, please visit: https://​www.

Edited by Lori Czerwionka,

First published 2022

We dedicate this book to Dr. Dale Koike as a Festschrift, to

1 Introduction: Context and Co-​Construction in Interaction,

2 Institutional Roles as Interactional Achievements: The

3 [A/​aa ‘oh’ + demo ‘but’]-​Prefaced Affiliative Response

4 Corrective Feedback and the Ideological

5 Multimodal and Co-​Constructed Speech Acts:

7 Epistemic Causality in Spanish Narratives as Evidence

8 Discourse Approaches to Second Language Reflections

9 Intersubjectivity in Co-​Constructed Test Discourse:

10 Changing Expectations through Drama-​Based

Afterword. Co-​Construction and Frames in a

Epilogue. Dale Koike and Research on Pragmatics in

Marta Antón is Professor of Spanish at Indiana University–​ Purdue

2 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

Co-​Construction and Context

Three Themes of the Volume

4 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

6 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

Scholarly Contributions by Dale April Koike

Edited Volumes and Special Editions

8 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

Chapters in Books or Proceedings

10 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

12 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

14 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

Ph.D. Dissertations Supervised by Dale April Koike

2020 Salvatore Callesano. Perceptual dialectology, mediatization,

2010 Lori Czerwionka. Mitigation in Spanish discourse: Social

16 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

1998 Jeffrey Reeder. An acoustic description of the acquisition of

18 Lori Czerwionka and Rachel Showstack

24 C. W. Raymond and H. R. Cashman

Data, Participants, and Institutional Roles

The Epistemics of Sports Commentary 25

Membership Categorization Devices (MCDs)

26 C. W. Raymond and H. R. Cashman

The Epistemics of Sports Commentary 27

28 C. W. Raymond and H. R. Cashman

The Epistemics of Sports Commentary 29

06 que la mejor sobre el terr>en<o de juego,

30 C. W. Raymond and H. R. Cashman

The Epistemics of Sports Commentary 31

(4) [Heritage, 2002, p. 199]

This collection showcases cutting-edge developments in co-construction in dis-

Judith Liskin-Gasparro is Associate Professor Emerita of Spanish and Applied

Learning-Oriented Language Assessment

Contexts of Co-Constructed Discourse

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.

1 Introduction: Context and Co-Construction in Interaction,

3 [A/aa ‘oh’ + demo ‘but’]-Prefaced Affiliative Response

5 Multimodal and Co-Constructed Speech Acts:

9 Intersubjectivity in Co-Constructed Test Discourse:

10 Changing Expectations through Drama-Based

Afterword. Co-Construction and Frames in a

Marta Antón is Professor of Spanish at Indiana University– Purdue

Co-Construction and Context

Gay’s turn design—the oh-preface followed by a repetition (oh it does, cf.

Describing the state of play is wholly within the play- by-

Through the non- downgraded (and indeed, possibly upgraded; prin-

[A/aa ‘oh’ + demo ‘but’]-Prefaced

[Aa ‘oh’ + demo ‘but’]-Prefacing of Affiliation

Turn-Initial Elements in a Responsive Turn

Japanese Particle a/aa and Conjunction demo

Here, B recounts her first-hand experience and says that as a high

Kristina expresses distaste for non-standard Spanish by reacting with a