In this conversation analytic study, we analyze the use of response tokens by L2 Speakers of German at different proficiency levels in face-to-face German-language interaction to show how the competence of interaction is to be understood on a gradient (from less to more competent) rather than as an absolute.
L1 German speakers use various lexically distinct tokens to claim understanding, index remembering, and display affective and epistemic stances (cf. Betz & Golato, 2008; Golato & Betz, 2008; Golato, 2010, 2012). Similarly, in L2 conversation, a speaker’s choice and placement of response tokens has consequences for the unfolding interaction. Therefore, using response tokens appropriately in L2 conversation is a crucial aspect of interactional competence (Taleghani-Nikazm, 2019). Our paper offers a conversation-analytic investigation of German L2 speakers’ use of response tokens in everyday and instruction-related face-to-face interaction at different levels of competence. Consider the following excerpt: 06 Chel: .hhh u:h woher kommst du. .hhh u:h where are you from. 07 Katr: ich komme aus (.) deutschla(h)nd hehehe £überraschu:ng£, i’m from (.) germa(h)ny hehehe £surpri:se£, 08 => Chel: o:ka:y.+ [u:h. 09 Katr: [genau.=aus leipzig? [exactly.=from leipzig? Kathrin produces her answer (line 07) to Chelsea’s question (line 06) with laughter and a smile voice, thereby marking it as laughable and self-evident (cf. Kaukomaa et al., 2013). Chelsea, the L2 speaker, produces her response - a lengthened okay (line 08) - in a sequential context where a response claiming understanding is fitted. However, her okay does not show affiliation with the laughability Kathrin conveys. Research on German suggests that a response token marking an affective change of state would be more fitted. We analyze L2 speakers’ tokens responses for the token choice (e.g., oh vs. ach), sequential placement (cf. Heritage, 1984), prosody (cf. Barth-Weingarten, 2011; Golato & Fagyal, 2008), and immediacy of production. We demonstrate that the ‘fittedness’ and ‘recognizability’ of a response - two elements central to the study of interactional competence (cf. Pekarek Doehler, 2018) - are not absolutes but rather exist on a gradient. Studying L2 speakers’ response tokens provides insight into how to assess interactional competence in language education.
