Interaktionell kompetens

Vi har lutat oss mot konceptet interaktionell kompetens för att definiera "bra interaktion" i vårt projekt.  När man talar om interaktionell kompetens innebär det att använda språket och andra resurser, t.ex. kroppen, på ett funktionellt sätt, dvs förmågan att utföra sociala handlingar för olika mottagare och i olika sammanhang. Inom forskning studeras ofta interaktionell kompetens med hjälp av samtalsanalys. För att kunna fånga flera relevanta aspekter av ett samtal transkriberas ljud- och videoinspelningar detaljerat.  I transkripten används olika tecken och symboler för att beskriva hur tal och rörelser utförs. Dessa tecken och symboler finns beskrivna i en transkriptionsnyckel (se nedan). Att arbeta med interaktionell kompetens och fokusera på sociala handlingar innebär för många av oss ett delvis nytt sätt att tänka kring interaktion. Det ligger dock i linje med våra kurs- och ämnesplaner i språk och ger ett bredare perspektiv på samtalet i undervisning.

Interactional competence (IC)

Interactional competence (IC) is an important skill that so far has received great attention from researchers in the field of Conversation Analysis (CA – see Sidnell & Stivers, 2013), who work with audio and video recordings of naturally occurring interactions to analyze how interactions of various kinds are organized. From a CA perspective, IC refers to the ability of using language and other semiotic resources (e.g., hand gestures, eye gaze, etc.) to accomplish social actions that are recognizable to the coparticipants in interaction (see for example: Pekarek-Doehler, 2018, 2021; Skogmyr Marian & Balaman, 2018). We accomplish recognizable social actions when we use the resources at our disposal in a way that is recipient-designed (i.e., adapted to our interlocutor) and context-sensitive (i.e., adapted to the context and the purpose of communication). IC, therefore, has to do with the goal of developing the pupils’ ability to “adapt language to different purposes, listeners or readers, and contexts” (Skolverket, 2022, p. 44).

When we are interactionally competent in a language (our first language and any other language we know), it means that we know how the system of turn-taking (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) works in the specific setting (or speech-exchange system ­­– e.g., ordinary conversation, court, doctor-patient interaction, etc.) in which we are interacting. For example, in ordinary conversation, we typically take turns one at a time and overlaps (i.e., moments when two or more speakers talk at the same time) are resolved quickly.

Furthermore, in ordinary conversation turn allocation is free; that is, any participant in interaction can take the floor and there is no pre-determined order for each participant’s contribution. This is what distinguishes ordinary conversation from, for example, interaction in court or in interviews or in the classroom, where turn allocation follows specific rules and the type of contribution that each participant can make is constrained (e.g., in court, a witness is not at liberty to take the floor, but needs to be addressed by the prosecutor; a witness therefore cannot ask questions, but is only required to provide answers that are exactly fitted to the questions formulated by the prosecutor).

There is also another aspect to consider in relation to turn-taking. That is, interactionally competent speakers are able to parse (i.e., monitor) the coparticipant’s turn and identify a moment when change of speakership might occur; these moments are called transition-relevance places (see for example: Clayman, 2013). Identifying one such moment hinges on the ability to project when a turn-in-progress might be complete, using linguistic, prosodic, and pragmatic clues. That is, as we listen to a coparticipant, we monitor what they are saying on the fly, to determine whether and when their turn might be linguistically (i.e., syntactically) complete, prosodically complete (i.e., with the intonational contour of the turn marking a complete intonation unit), and pragmatically complete (i.e., when it is possible to understand which action the turn is accomplishing). In a nutshell, being interactionally competent depends on the ability to produce timely turns, that are produced somewhat in synch with our coparticipant(s).

At the same time, an interactionally competent speaker produces turns that are not only timely, but also fitted to prior talk; that is, turns that relevantly address what was said before. From an action-based view of talk-in-interaction, this means that IC has to do with the ability to produce social actions that respond to the social actions accomplished by our coparticipants in a relevant way. For example, an answer such as 2pm is a relevant contribution in response to a coparticipant’s information-seeking question, such as What time is it?. This aspect of “fittedness” therefore has also to do with sequence-organization (see for example: Schegloff, 2007): our social actions are often organized in sequences. The smallest sequence is a two-turn sequence, called adjacency pair, consisting of paired and typed actions: a first action that initiates a sequence and a second (or responsive) action that relevantly completes the sequence. In the example above, the information-seeking question is the first action and the answer providing the time is the second action. Just to mention other examples, an invitation is a first action that makes relevant two possible responses – either acceptance or rejection. Similarly, a greeting is a first action that makes relevant a second action – another greeting.

Examples and transcription key

Below you will see a few excerpts, analyzed with a conversation-analytic lens focusing on the actions accomplished by each turn. All excerpts are extracted from naturally occurring conversations. Excerpts 1-3 are examples of ordinary conversation, while Excerpt 4 is an example of classroom interaction. The transcription conventions used in the excerpts are explained in the following transcription key. 

The excerpt begins with the teacher asking Vin two information-seeking questions: the first question aims to establish whether Vin has ever been to the movies (line 01), while the second question targets the information regarding Vin’s favorite movie. Vin answers by providing the title of his favorite movie: Big (line 03). In line 04, the teacher repeats the answer, accepts it (okay) and produces a positive assessment of the movie. She then goes on by providing a minimal summary (that was about a little boy inside a big man, line 05) and asking Vin for confirmation (line 05). The teacher’s actions in lines 04 and 05 are as much directed to Vin as they are directed to the other pupils in the classroom: by repeating the movie title and producing a short summary, the teacher is attempting to involve all the pupils, in case they had not heard Vin’s response and/or in case they did not know what Big is about. In line 06 Vin confirms the teacher’s summary and adds more information: boy get surprise all the time. In line 07 the teacher accepts Vin’s contribution (yes), reformulates his turn as he was surprised and adds a tag question, showing that she is seeking Vin’s confirmation. We should note here that the teacher’s turn accomplishes also an implicit correction (or recast), since she provides an accurate reformulation of Vin’s grammatically inaccurate turn. However, she does not bring the pupils’ attention to the grammatical issues in Vin’s turn and only orients to the content of the turn, thereby moving the conversation forward. In line 08, then, the teacher provides an account for the boy’s surprise (usually little boys don’t do the things that men do) and asks for Vin’s confirmation (line 09). Vin confirms (no, line 10) and then provides his own interpretation regarding the object of the boy’s surprise (little boy no drink, line 10). In line 11 the teacher accepts the content of Vin’s turn (that’s right) and reformulates it with a recast (little boys don’t drink). 

Overall, Excerpt 4 shows the kind of interactional work that teachers and pupils accomplish in the classroom; it is through this interactional work that teaching and learning are achieved. The teachers’ and the pupils’ ability to participate in the complex interactional organization of classroom talk is called “classroom interactional competence” (see Seedhouse & Walsh, 2010).

References

Carroll, D. (2011). Teaching preference organization: Learning how to say “no”. In N.R. Houck & D.H. Tatsuki (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching natural conversation (pp. 105–118). TESOL Classroom Practice Series.

Clayman, S. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 151–166). Wiley Blackwell.

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar for interaction. Classroom Discourse 9: 3–24

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Toward a coherent understanding of L2 interactional competence: Epistemologies of language learning and teaching. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.),  Classroom-based conversation analytic Research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp. 19–33). Springer.

Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). Academic Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The architectural interaction of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.

Seedhouse, P., & Walsh, S. (2010). Learning a second language through classroom interaction. In P. Seedhouse & S. Walsh (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp. 127–146). Palgrave Macmillan.

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.

Sidnell, J., & T. Stivers (Eds.) (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley Blackwell.

Skogmyr Marian; K., & U. Balaman (2018). Second language interactional competence and its development: An overview of conversation analytic research on interactional change over time. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(8), e12285–16.

Skolverket (2022). Curriculum for compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare. Retrieved from: https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=12435