Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Korean Overview
- Part II Phonetics and Phonology
- Part III Morphology and Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Sociolinguistics and Psycholinguistics
- Part VI Language Pedagogy
- Chapter 26 The Genre-Based Approach to Korean Language Teaching: A Curriculum Application
- Chapter 27 Towards Integrated Performance Assessment
- Chapter 28 Interactional Competence in the Korean Language
- Chapter 29 From Bilingual Speakers to Korean Heritage Language Learners
- Chapter 30 Language Policy and Its Effect in South Korea
- Index
- References
Chapter 28 - Interactional Competence in the Korean Language
from Part VI - Language Pedagogy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 September 2022
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Korean Overview
- Part II Phonetics and Phonology
- Part III Morphology and Syntax
- Part IV Semantics and Pragmatics
- Part V Sociolinguistics and Psycholinguistics
- Part VI Language Pedagogy
- Chapter 26 The Genre-Based Approach to Korean Language Teaching: A Curriculum Application
- Chapter 27 Towards Integrated Performance Assessment
- Chapter 28 Interactional Competence in the Korean Language
- Chapter 29 From Bilingual Speakers to Korean Heritage Language Learners
- Chapter 30 Language Policy and Its Effect in South Korea
- Index
- References
Summary
Chapter 28 draws on findings from conversation analysis, pragmatics, and interactional linguistics studies of Korean language, to offer an overview of L1 Korean speakers’ routinized procedures and practices for turn-taking and repair organization, both of which are tied to the grammatical structures and pragmatic features of Korean. The discussion of each practice touches on pedagogical implications for L2 contexts, drawing on a number of recent empirical studies that have documented L2 interactional development processes.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics , pp. 800 - 831Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Barraja-Rohan, Anne-Marie. 2011. Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research 15(4): 479–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina. 2009. Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs 76(2): 121–43.Google Scholar
Brouwer, Catherine E., and Wagner, Johannes. 2004. Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1: 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, Michael and Swain, Merrill. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, Asta. 2007. A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal 91(1): 45–62.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and Heritage, John. 2002. The News Interviews: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creider, 2007. Pragmatically completed unfinished turns (PCUUs). Unpublished manuscript, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Farina, Clelia, Pochon-Berger, Evelyne, and Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2012. Le dévelopment de la compétence d’interaction: Une étude sur le travail lexical. Travauxs Neuchatelois de linguistique 57: 101–19.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–84.Google Scholar
Gardner, Hilary, and Forrester, Michael. 2010. Analysing Interactions in Childhood: Insights from Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1996. Transparent vision. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 370–404.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, and Hayano, Kaoru. 2013. Proffering insertable elements: A study of other-initiated repair in Japanese. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., Sidnell, J., eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 293–321.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, and Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2015. Turn formats for other-initiated repair and their relation to trouble sources: Some observations from Japanese and Korean conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 87: 198–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, and Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2006. A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. Studies in Language 30(3): 485–540.Google Scholar
He, Agnes W. 2004. CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. Modern Language Journal 88: 536–50.Google Scholar
He, Agnes W., and Young, Richard F.. 1998. Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In Young, R. and He, A. W., eds., Talking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Hellermann, John. 2007. The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal 91(1): 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, John. 2008. Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hellermann, John. 2009. Practices for dispreferred responses using no by a learner of English. Interactional Review of Applied Linguistics 47: 95–126.Google Scholar
Hellermann, John. 2011. Members’ methods, members’ competencies: Looking for evidence of language learning in longitudinal investigation of other-initiated repair. In Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., and Pekarek Doehler, S., eds., L2 Interactional Competence and Development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 147–72.Google Scholar
Hellermann, John, and Pekarek Doehler, Simona 2010. On the contingent nature of language-learning-tasks. Classroom Discourse 1(1): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Raymond, Geoffrey. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38.Google Scholar
Huth, T., and Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen. 2006. How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research 10: 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1966. Two types of linguistic relativity. In Bright, W., Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 114–58.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1967. Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues 23(2): 8–38.Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 2004. Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal 88: 551–67.Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 2006. Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review 19: 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskaes, Istvan, Sanders, Robert E., and Pomerantz, Anita. 2018. The basic interactional competence of language learners. Journal of Pragmatics 124: 88–105.Google Scholar
Kim, Eun Ho. 2013. Development of interactional competence in L2 Korean. The use of Korean interpersonal endings -canh- and -ketun. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Kim, Eun Ho. 2014. L2 speakers’ use of Korean sentence-ending suffix -ketun: A conversation-analytic perspective. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 22(1): 23–60.Google Scholar
Kim, Haeyeon. 1999. The form and function of questions in Korean conversation. Tamhwa wa inji [Discourse and Cognition]. 6(2): 211–47.Google Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie. 2013. Reshaping the response space with kulenikka in beginning to respond to questions in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 57: 303–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1999a. Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation: Types and functions. Tamhwa wa inji [Discourse and Cognition]. 6(6): 141–68.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 1999b. Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and sequences in Korean conversation. Human Studies 22: 425–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2001. Confirming intersubjectivity through retroactive elaboration: Organization of phrasal units in other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation. In Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Studies in Interactional Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 345–72.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2007. Sequential organization of post-predicate elements in Korean conversation: Pursuing uptake and modulating action. Pragmatics 17: 573–604.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Suh, Kyung-hee. 2002. Demonstratives as prospective indexicals: ku and ce in Korean conversation. In Akatsuka, N. and Strauss, S., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 10. Stanford, CA: Center for Study of Language and Information, pp. 192–205.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2013. Answering questions about the unquestionable in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 57: 138–57.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2015. A distinct declarative question design in Korean conversation: An examination of turn-final ko questions. Journal of Pragmatics 79: 60–78.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin, and Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2014. Initiating repair with and without particles: Alternative formats of other-initiation of repair in Korean conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(4): 331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri. 2015. Resisting the terms of polar questions through ani (‘No’)-prefacing in Korean conversation. Discourse Processes 52(4): 11–334.Google Scholar
Kim, Younhee. 2009. The Korean discourse markers -nuntey and kuntey in native-non-native conversation: An acquisitional perspective. In Nguyen, H. and Kasper, G., eds., Talk-In-Interaction: Multilingual Perspectives. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, pp. 317–50.Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2005. Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kramsch, Claire. 1986. From language proficiency to interactional competence. Modern Language Journal 70: 366–72.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sangl. 1999. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 327–58.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee. 2015. Two forms of affirmative responses to polar questions. Discourse Processes 52: 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masuda, Kyoko. 2011. Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. Modern Language Journal 95(4): 519–40.Google Scholar
Mori, Juko. 2004. Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal 88: 536–50.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young, and Park, Yong-Yae. 2017. Interactional uses of acknowledgment tokens: “ung” and “e” as responses to multi-unit turns in Korean conversation. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. H., and Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct. Studies of Talk-in-interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 145–66.Google Scholar
Packett, Andrew. 2005. Teaching patterns of interaction of English for specific purposes. In Richards, K. and Seedhouse, P., eds., Applying Conversation Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 235–50.Google Scholar
Park, Jae-Eun. 2016. Turn-taking in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 99: 62–77.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Pochon-Berger, Evelyne. 2015. The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In Cadierno, T. and Eskildsen, S., eds., Usage-based Perspectives on Second Language Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 233–68.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–67.Google Scholar
Ross, Steve J., and Kasper, Gabriele, eds., 2013. Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Journal of Sociology 70: 1075–95.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uhhuh” and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, D., ed., Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23: 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail, and Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2): 361–82.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, Paul. 2004. Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching 38: 165–87.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, Paul, and Walsh, Steve. 2010. Learning a second language through classroom interaction. In Seedhous, P., Walsh, S., and Jenks, C., eds., Conceptualising “Learning” in Applied Linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 127–46.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2010. An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2772–81.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Hayashi, Makoto. 2010. Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko. 2001. Adverbials for turn projection in Japanese: Toward a demystification of the “telephatic” mode of communication. Language in Society 30(4): 559–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko. 2015. Action-projection in Japanese conversation: Topic particles wa, mo, and tte for triggering categorization activities. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko. 2014. Development of interactional competence in Japanese as a second language: Use of incomplete sentences as interactional resources. Modern Language Journal 98(2): 518–35.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 481–506.Google Scholar
Wong, Jean, and Waring, Hansun Zhang. 2010. Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy: A Guide for ESL/ELF Teachers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina. 2006. Initiating repair and beyond: The use of two repeat-formatted repair initiations in Mandarin conversation. Discourse Processes 41(1): 67–109.Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2006. Interrogatives with question words as complaint utterances in Korean conversation. In Vance, T.J., and Jones, K., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 14. Stanford, CA: Center for Study of Language and Information, pp. 423–34.Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2007. Application of conversation analysis to teaching Korean language and culture. The Korean Language in America 12: 126–44.Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2010. Questions and responses in Korean. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2782–98.Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2012. Other-initiated repair as language learning resources. In Byon, A. S. and Pyun, D. O., eds., Teaching and Learning Korean as a Foreign Language: A Collection of Empirical Studies. Columbus, OH: National East Asian Languages Resource Center, Ohio State University, pp. 9–23.Google Scholar
Young, Richard F. 2002. Discourse approaches to oral language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19: 105–32.Google Scholar
Young, Richard F. 2008. Language and Interaction: An Advanced Resource Book. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, Richard F. 2011. Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In Hinkel, E., ed., Handbook of Research in Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Routledge, pp. 426–43.Google Scholar
Young, Richard F. 2014. What is interactional competence? AL Forum of the Applied Linguists Interest Section of TESOL International Association. Available at: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolalis/print/2014-08-27/8.html [last accessed September 21, 2020].Google Scholar
Young, Richard F., and Miller, Elizabeth R.. 2004. Learning as changing participation: Negotiating discourse roles in the ESL writing conference. Modern Language Journal 88: 519–35.Google Scholar
Young, Richard F., and Lee, Jina. 2004. Identifying units in interaction: Reactive tokens in Korean and English conversations. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(3): 380–407.Google Scholar