Abstract
We present a longitudinal case study of a second language speaker’s changing storytelling practices over a period of nine months while interacting with her host family. We focus on how the storyteller moves the telling toward a recognizable end and, jointly with the recipient, engages in closing down the storytelling sequence. Results show an increased use of resources to anticipate the story climax, to recognizably display the story ending and to manifest the speaker’s stance; results also reveal how co-participants orient to such change in accountable ways. We discuss to what extent the documentable change can be interpreted as pertaining the speaker’s increased second language interactional competence and how it is indexically related to the changing local circumstances of the interactions at hand and tied to larger processes of socialization as the people move through time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The data collection and the present study have been carried out within two research projects generously funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (no. 100012_126868, 2009–2013; no. P300P1_158447, 2015–2016).
- 2.
Stories told in first position are brought to the floor in a different manner than stories told in second position (Schegloff 1997), and this may affect the construction of the story. In both cases, however, storytellers work actively toward making the story climax recognizable, securing recipiency and affiliation, and negotiating the closing of the sequence (Mandelbaum 2013; Stivers 2008).
References
Bolden, G., Mandelbaum, J., & Wilkinson, S. (2012). Pursuing a response by repairing an indexical reference. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(2), 137–155.
Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 29–47.
Drew, P., & Chilton, K. (2000). Calling just to keep in touch: Regular and habitualised telephone calls as an environment for small talk. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 137–162). Pearson Education Limited: Harlow.
Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27(4), 495–522.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Golato, A. (2012). German Oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 245–268.
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334.
Holt, E. (2000). Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 425–454.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic.
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). New York: Irvington.
Koschmann, T. (2013). Conversation analysis and learning in interaction. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1038–1043). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mandelbaum, J. (1989). Interpersonal activities in conversational storytelling. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 114–126.
Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 492–507). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.
Maynard, D. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago: University Press.
Mori, J., & Koschmann, T. (2012). Good reasons for seemingly bad performance: Competences at the blackboard and the accountability of a lesson. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer, & D. Day (Eds.), Evaluating cognitive competence in interaction (pp. 89–117). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ochs, E. (1997). Narrative. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 185–207). London: Sage.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2016). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing “methods” for interaction: Disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206–243). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–268). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
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: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation I-II. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). “Narrative analysis” thirty years later. The Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 97–107.
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selting, M. (2010). Affectivity in conversational storytelling: An analysis of displays of anger or indignation in complaint stories. Pragmatics, 20(2), 229–277.
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.
Svennevig, J. (2014). Direct and indirect self-presentation in first conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(3), 302–327.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Special Symbols Used in Transcripts
Appendix: Special Symbols Used in Transcripts
In addition to the transcription conventions classically used in CA, we use the following symbols:
^ | Indicates phonetic liaison between the final consonant of a word and the initial vowel of the next word |
+ | Marks the onset of a stretch of talk to which a transcriber’s comment refers |
; | Is used to separate alternative uncertain hearings, as in (alors; l'eau) |
In the translation:
AUX | Indicates an auxiliary |
DET | Indicates a determiner |
DET.FEM | Indicates a feminine determiner |
DET.MASC | Indicates a masculine determiner |
PRT | Indicates a particle |
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Berger, E., Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Tracking Change Over Time in Storytelling Practices: A Longitudinal Study of Second Language Talk-in-Interaction. In: Pekarek Doehler, S., Wagner, J., González-Martínez, E. (eds) Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57006-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57007-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)