Abstract
This study investigates the use of dynamically-administered strategic interaction scenarios (D-SIS) in identifying Japanese EFL participants’ difficulties with requesting-in-interaction, and tracking their development. Informed by conversation analysis research, six Japanese EFL learners at a university in Japan carried out D-SIS tasks in two phases, with the aim of both identifying specific aspects of requesting-in-interaction that were challenging, and learner development. Analysis focuses on three particular areas of difficulty that arose for participants during the dialogic interactions—connecting request turn utterance linguistic choices to social context; pre-request expansions of requesting talk, and pre-closing sequences. A coding scheme was applied that analyzed mediation sequences in terms of the efficiency with which participants oriented to and resolved problems, allowing ZPD movement to be quantified. In combination with close qualitative analysis of the transcript data, mediation sequences provided insights into the participants’ knowledge and understanding of these areas that would not have been gained through non-dynamic methods. Results therefore provide insight into areas of difficulty for Japanese learners with regards to requesting, and provide support for the use of the D-SIS task type as a diagnostic tool in regards to request-based talk-in-interaction.
About the author
Allan Nicholas is an associate professor at the University of Aizu, Japan, having taught in Japanese higher education for several years. His research interests include sociocultural theory, dynamic assessment, conversation analysis and pragmatics.
Appendix A: A sample D-SIS task
ROLE-PLAY ONE
Person A
Where: on campus
Situation: You have lost your purse/wallet with your train ticket in it. You see your classmate and walk over to talk with him/her.
Ask your classmate to lend you some money to pay for your train fare to go back home (your home is in Saitama, 90 min from campus)
Person B Where: on campus
Situation: It is afternoon, after the last class has finished. Your classmate approaches you to talk with you.
Appendix B: Results of native speaker questionnaire regarding P, D and R values of D-SIS scenarios.
| D-SIS scenario | Power (P) | Distance (D) | Rank of imposition (R) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ask friend to lend money for train ticket | Equal | Close | Medium |
| Call parent for lift home from campus | Low-high | Close | Large |
| Ask teacher for assignment deadline extension of two days | Low-high | Far | Large |
| Ask friend for help moving house; friend had other plans | Equal | Close | Large |
| Ask to borrow music player from friend for two days | Equal | Close | Large |
| Ask parent for money for trip to Kyoto | Low-high | Close | Large |
| Ask teacher for advice regarding an assignment | Low-high | Far | Small |
| Ask friend for help regarding an assignment | Equal | Close | Medium |
Note: Based on results of questionnaire given to native speakers (n=10). Most frequently given choice for each category shown.
For each category (P, D and R), they had three options.
Power: Equal; low-high (the requestor has less power/social status than requestee); high-low (requestor has greater power/social status than requestee).
Distance: Close (familiar/know each other well); medium; far (do not each other well).
Rank of imposition: Small (request unlikely to be troublesome for requestee); medium; large (request likely to be troublesome for requestee).
Appendix C: Cognitive map
Social context:
Directness of request turn
P, D and R (Brown and Levinson 1987)
Understanding of L2 pragmatic norms
Sequential Organization of typical request-in-interaction (adapted from Sidnell 2010)
Opening
Initial sequence of talk, typically including a greeting adjacency pair.
Pre-request expansion sequence
Requestor foreshadows upcoming request. Types may include checking ability, availability, or explaining situation to requestee.
Request base adjacency pair
A request first turn, paired with a granting or refusing second turn. May be separated by an insertion sequence, in which requestee asks for more information etc.
Post-request expansion sequence
If there is one, follows the base adjacency pair second turn. May include thanking etc.
Pre-closing
Speaker and hearer create opportunity for conversation to come to an end via closing implicature environment. E.g. announcing end of conversation, summarizing conversation, making a fake arrangement.
Closing
Talk is ended, typically with a terminal sequence, when interlocutors both signal the interaction has finished.
– Other
Turn-taking: Orienting to interlocutor’s turn and take next turn; signaling end of turn signified verbally, or non-verbally, intonation falling, gaze.
Repair: Ability to repair conversations when communication breaks down
Appendix D: Transcript conventions (adapted from Jefferson 2004)
| : | Lengthened sound |
| . | Falling intonation |
| , | Slight rise in intonation |
| Incomplete/ false start | |
| (( )) | Describing something that can’t be easily represented in writing. E.g. ((laughing)) |
| (( )) | Transcriber’s notes |
| = | Turn starts with less than a beat’s rest from previous turn. Placed at end of 1st turn, and beginning of second. |
| [ ] | Overlapping speech |
| (.) | Short pause |
| (0.5) | Longer pause, more than 2/10ths second. (Doesn’t need to be exact, but internally consistent within transcript) |
| ( ) | Transcriber’s best guess at what was said, difficult to hear. If impossible to catch, leave brackets blank. |
References
Ableeva, Rumia. 2010. Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. University Park, USA: Pennsylvania State University, PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Al-Gahtani, Saad Mohammed & Carsten Roever. 2012. Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 Requests. Applied Linguistics 33(1). 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr031.Search in Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, Ali & James Lantolf. 1994. Negative Feedback as Regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal 78. 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x.Search in Google Scholar
Anton, Marta. 2009. Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals 42(3). 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01030.x.Search in Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert. 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.Search in Google Scholar
Bachman, Lyle F. & Adrian S. Palmer. 1996. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Barraja-Rohan, Anne-Marie. 2011. Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research 15(4). 479–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412878.Search in Google Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun. 2007. Students writing e-mails to faculty: An examination of E-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language, Learning and Technology 11(2). 59–81.Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Elite Olshtain. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5(3). 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, John L., Quincy, Charles, Osserman, Jordan & Pederson, Ove K. 2013. Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research 42(3). 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475.Search in Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, Marianne. 2007. Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In: Eva Alcon Soler & Maria Pilar Safont Jorda (eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning, 41–57. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_3Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew & Rachel Shively. 2007. Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The Modern Language Journal 91(2). 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x.Search in Google Scholar
Davin, Kristen. 2013. Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 17(3). 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482934.Search in Google Scholar
Di Pietro, Roberto. 1987. Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Felix-Brasdefer, Cesar. 2007. Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context 4(2). 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.4.2.03fel.Search in Google Scholar
Feuerstein, Reuven, Yaacov Rand, and Mildred Hoffman. 1979. The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fukushima, Saeko. 2000. Requests and culture. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea. 2003. Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24. 90–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.90.Search in Google Scholar
He, Agnes Weiyun & Richard Young. 1998. Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In: Richard Young & Agnes He (eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.14.02heSearch in Google Scholar
Hudson, Thom, Emily Detmer & James Dean Brown. 1995. Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report 7). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i.Search in Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In: John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.10.1007/978-1-349-92299-4_39Search in Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In: Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, Cesar Felix-Brasdefer & Alwiya Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, vol. 11, 281–314. National Foreign Language Resource Center, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i.Search in Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth Rose. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Kozulin, Alex & Erica Garb. 2002. Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International 23. 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001733.Search in Google Scholar
Lantolf, James P & Matthew Poehner. 2004. Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1. 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872.Search in Google Scholar
Lidz, Carol. 1991. Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lidz, Carol & Boris Gindis. 2003. Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive Functions in children. In: Alex Kozulin, Boris Gindis, Vladimir Ageyev & Suzanne Miller (eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context, 99–116. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840975.007Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Jianda. 2007. Developing a pragmatics test for Chinese EFL learners. Language Testing 24(3). 391–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207077206.Search in Google Scholar
Poehner, Matthew. 2005. Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Pennsylvania State University, USA, PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Poehner, Matthew. 2008. Dynamic assessment—A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Springer Science & Business Media.Search in Google Scholar
Poehner, Matthew & James P. Lantolf. 2010. Vygotsky’s teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture and Activity 17(4). 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030903338509.Search in Google Scholar
Roever, Carsten. 2005. Testing ESL pragmatics. Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-04780-6Search in Google Scholar
Roever Carsten, Catriona Fraser & Catherine Elder. 2014. Testing ESL sociopragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based battery. Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-04598-7Search in Google Scholar
Roever, Carsten & Gabriele Kasper. 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.Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1980. Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”. Sociological Enquiry 50. 104–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.1980.tb00018.x.Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8. 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.10.21832/9781847692849-020Search in Google Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko. 2007. Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics 28(1). 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml051.Search in Google Scholar
Urbanik, Paweł. 2020. Getting others to share goods in Polish and Norwegian: Material and moral anchors for request conventions. Intercultural Pragmatics 17(2). 177–220. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0009.Search in Google Scholar
Van Compernolle, Remi. 2013. Interactional competence and the dynamic assessment of L2 pragmatic abilities. In: Steven Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 327–353. London: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9781137003522_13Search in Google Scholar
Van Compernolle, Remi. 2014. Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783091409Search in Google Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev. 1998. The problem of age. In: Robert W. Rieber (ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky 5, 187–205. New York: Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4615-5401-1_6Search in Google Scholar
Walters, Scott. 2009. A conversation analysis – informed test of L2 Aural pragmatic comprehension. Tesol Quarterly 43(1). 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00226.x.Search in Google Scholar
Warga, Muriel & Ursula Scholmberger. 2007. The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2). 221–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip.2007.012.Search in Google Scholar
Youn, Soo Jung. 2018. Task-based needs analysis of L2 pragmatics in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36. 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.10.005.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
