A primary undertaking in communicative language teaching is to ensure second language (L2) speakers develop the ability to interact in real-world communicative events, a skill known as interactional competence (IC). Thus far, there have been few needs analysis studies conducted on L2 IC, posing challenges when ascertaining whether the teaching and testing of L2 IC are empirically grounded. Henceforth, the researcher carried out a needs analysis to systematically investigate the IC learning needs of speakers of L2 Chinese, which in itself represents an under-investigated target language in present-day needs analysis literature. A considered methodology was utilized to elicit triangulated information from 18 participants. Content analysis of the elicited data identified seven IC learning categories: (1) social actions, (2) sociopragmatic knowledge, (3) pragmalinguistic knowledge, (4) interactional structure, (5) content knowledge, (6) linguistic resources, and (7) nonverbal resources. Results revealed disaffiliative social actions (e.g. complaining) to be most challenging. The management of social actions was mediated by speakers’ sociopragmatic knowledge (e.g. social distance) and pragmalinguistic knowledge (e.g. formality devices). Other learning categories such as interactional structure (e.g. topic development) and nonverbal resources (e.g. gaze) contributed to successful interaction at a more foundational level. Based on these findings, this article proposes a three-tier IC needs model to conceptualize the hierarchical interrelationships among the seven categories. In addition, the researcher generated lists of IC learning needs for each category and subcategory to assist language educators with developing targeted IC teaching and assessment tasks. The IC needs model and needs lists constitute a pedagogical toolkit for the systematic incorporation of IC in task-based language teaching, language curricula and language programs. This article also discusses how methodological considerations and innovations formulated in the study can contribute to needs analysis research in general.
Al-GahtaniS.RoeverC. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33, 42–65.
2.
AlhassanA. (2021). EFL postgraduate students’ learning needs on English-medium business programmes: An exploratory study. Language Teaching Research, 25, 798–816.
3.
AndréJ.S. (2013). How the Chinese lost ‘face’. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 68–85.
4.
BachmanL.F.PalmerA. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford University Press.
5.
Barraja-RohanA.M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15, 479–507.
6.
BilmesJ. (1997). Being interrupted. Language in Society, 26, 507–531.
7.
BrownJ.D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge University Press.
8.
BrownJ.D. (2009). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In LongM.H.DoughtyC.J. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 269–293). Wiley-Blackwell.
9.
BrownP.LevinsonS. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language. Cambridge University Press.
10.
CabindaM. (2013). The need for a needs analysis at UEM: Aspects of and attitudes towards change. Linguistics and Education, 24, 415–427.
11.
CamrasL.A.BakemanR.ChenY.NorrisK.CainT.R. (2006). Culture, ethnicity, and children’s facial expressions: A study of European American, mainland Chinese, Chinese American, and adopted Chinese girls. Emotion, 6, 103–114.
12.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
ChanM.K.M. (1996). Gender-marked speech in Cantonese: The case of sentence-final particlesje and jek. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 26, 1–38.
15.
ChanM.K.M. (1998). Gender differences in the Chinese language: A preliminary report. In LinH. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (pp. 35–52). GSIL.
16.
ChaudronC.DoughtyC.J.KimY., et al. (2005). A task-based needs analysis of a tertiary Korean as a foreign language program. In LongM.H. (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 225–261). Cambridge University Press.
17.
ClaymanS.E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In LawlerE.J.ThyeS.R. (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Group cohesion, trust, and solidarity (pp. 229–253). Elsevier Science.
18.
CowlingJ.D. (2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a series of intensive workplace courses at a leading Japanese company. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 426–442.
DaiD.W. (2022). Assessing interactional competence: Principles, test development and validation through an L2 Chinese IC test [Monograph under contract].
22.
DaiD.W.DaveyM. (2022a). On the promise of using membership categorization analysis to investigate interactional competence [Manuscript submitted for publication].
DaiD.W.RoeverC. (2019). A task-based needs analysis of interactional competence in Chinese as a foreign language. Individual paper. American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA. Available at: https://aaal.confex.com/aaal/2019/meetingapp.cgi/Session/1616 (accessed December 2022).
25.
DaiD.W.TaiK.W.H. (2023). Observing teachers’ interactional competence in ESOL and EMI classrooms: A translanguaging perspective. Individual paper. 2023 American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) conference, Portland, USA.
26.
DaiD.W.GrieveA.YahalomS. (2022a). Interactional competence in the online space: Affordances, challenges, and opportunities for TESOL practitioners. TESOL in Context, 30(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21153/tesol2022vol30no2art1703
DiaoW. (2014). Peer socialization into gendered L2 Mandarin practices in a study abroad context: Talk in the dorm. Applied Linguistics, 37, 599–620.
29.
DinkinsC.S. (2005). Shared inquiry: Socratic-hermeneutic interpre-viewing. In IronsideP.M. (Ed.), Beyond method: Philosophical conversations in healthcare research and scholarship (pp. 111–147). The University of Wisconsin Press.
30.
FarrisC.S. (1988). Gender and grammar in Chinese: With implications for language universals. Modern China, 14, 277–308.
31.
FarrisC.S. (1994). A semiotic analysis of sajiao as a gender marked communication style in Chinese. In JohnsonM.ChiuF.Y.L. (Eds.), Unbound Taiwan: Close-ups from a distance (pp. 1–29). University of Chicago.
32.
GalacziE.TaylorL. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15, 219–236.
33.
GilabertR. (2005). Evaluating the use of multiple sources and methods in needs analysis: A case study of journalists in the autonomous community of Catalonia (Spain). In LongM.H. (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 182–199). Cambridge University Press.
34.
GolatoA. (2002). German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 547–571.
35.
GolatoA. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90–121.
36.
GongY.LaiC.GaoX. (Eds.) (2020). The teaching and learning of Chinese as a second or foreign language: The current situation and future directions [Special issue]. Frontiers of Education in China, 15, 1–13.
37.
HallJ.K.Pekarek DohlerS. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In HallJ.K.HellermannJ.Pekarek DoehlerS. (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1–18). Multilingual Matters.
38.
HaoY.C. (2012). Second language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese tones by tonal and non-tonal language speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 269–279.
39.
HeritageJ. (1990). Intention, meaning and strategy: Observations on constraints on interaction analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24, 311–332.
40.
HolmeR.ChalauisaengB. (2006). The learner as needs analyst: The use of participatory appraisal in the EAP reading classroom. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 403–419.
41.
HsiehH.F.ShannonS.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.
42.
HuangL.S. (2010). Seeing eye to eye? The academic writing needs of graduate and undergraduate students from students’ and instructors’ perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 14, 517–539.
HuthT. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2025–2050.
45.
HuthT.Taleghani-NikazmC. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics?Language Teaching Research, 10, 53–79.
46.
HymesD. (1972). On communicative competence. In PrideJ.B.HolmesJ. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin.
47.
JackR.E.GarrodO.G.YuH.CaldaraR.SchynsP.G. (2012). Facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 7241–7244.
48.
Jasso-AguilarR. (2005). Sources, methods and triangulation in needs analysis: A critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. In LongM.H. (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 127–158). Cambridge University Press.
49.
KeC. (2012). Research in second language acquisition of Chinese: Where we are, where we are going. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers’ Association, 47, 43–113.
50.
KecskesI.SandersR.E.PomerantzA. (2018). The basic interactional competence of language learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 88–105.
51.
KramschC. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 366–372.
52.
LamD.M. (2021). Don’t turn a deaf ear: A case for assessing interactive listening. Applied Linguistics, 42, 740–764.
53.
LambertC. (2010). A task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research, 14, 99–112.
54.
LeechG.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
55.
LevinsonS.C. (2005). Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies, 7, 431–453.
56.
LiS. (2013). The role of instruction in developing pragmatic competence in L2 Chinese. In Jing-SchmidtZ. (Ed.), Increased empiricism: Recent advances in Chinese linguistics (pp. 293–308). John Benjamins.
57.
LinnellJ.D. (2001). Chinese as a second/foreign language teaching and research: Changing classroom contexts and teacher choices. Language Teaching Research, 5, 54–81.
58.
LongM.H. (2005a). A rationale for needs analysis and needs analysis research. In LongM.H. (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 1–16). Cambridge University Press.
59.
LongM.H. (2005b). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In LongM.H. (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 19–76). Cambridge University Press.
60.
LongM.H. (2013). Needs analysis. In ChapelleC. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
61.
LongM.H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
62.
MaX.GongY.GaoX.XiangY. (2017). The teaching of Chinese as a second or foreign language: A systematic review of the literature 2005–2015. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38, 815–830.
63.
MalickaA.GuerreroR.G.NorrisJ.M. (2019). From needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Research, 23, 78–106.
64.
MayL.NakatsuharaF.LamD.GalacziE. (2020). Developing tools for learning oriented assessment of interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Language Testing, 37, 165–188.
65.
MochizukiN. (2017). Contingent needs analysis for task implementation: An activity systems analysis of group writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 607–631.
66.
OliverR.GroteE.RochecousteJ.ExellM. (2013). Needs analysis for task-based language teaching: A case study of indigenous vocational education and training students who speak EAL/EAD. TESOL in Context, 22, 36–50.
67.
OrtonJ. (2014). Comparing teachers’ judgments of learners’ speech in Chinese as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 507–526.
68.
ParkM.SlaterT. (2014). A typology of tasks for mobile-assisted language learning: Recommendations from a small-scale needs analysis. TESL Canada Journal, 31, 93–115.
69.
Pekarek DoehlerS.BergerE. (2018). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39, 555–578.
70.
PloughI. (2021). A case for nonverbal behavior: Implications for construct, performance and assessment. In SalaberryM.R.BurchA.R. (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications (pp. 50–69). Multilingual Matters.
71.
PomerantzA. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In AtkinsonJ.M.HeritageJ.C. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–111). Cambridge University Press.
72.
RenW. (2022). Second language pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
73.
RobinsonJ.D. (2004) The sequential organization of ‘explicit’ apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 291–330.
74.
RoeverC. (2012). What learners get for free: Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal, 66, 10–21.
75.
RoeverC.DaiD.W. (2021). Reconceptualizing interactional competence for language testing. In SalaberryM.R.BurchA.R. (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications (pp. 23–49). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923828-003
76.
RoeverC.KasperG. (2018). Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 35, 331–355.
77.
RoulstonK. (2022). Interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. Sage.
78.
SacksH.SchegloffE.A.JeffersonG. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
79.
SatoT.McNamaraT. (2019). What counts in second language oral communication ability? The perspective of linguistic laypersons. Applied Linguistics, 40, 894–916.
80.
SawakiY. (2017). University faculty members’ perspectives on English language demands in content courses and a reform of university entrance examinations in Japan: A needs analysis. Language Testing in Asia, 7, 1–16.
81.
SearleJ.R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
82.
SerafiniE.J.LakeJ.B.LongM.H. (2015). Needs analysis for specialized learner populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 11–26.
83.
SoC.K.BestC.T. (2010). Cross-language perception of non-native tonal contrasts: Effects of native phonological and phonetic influences. Language and Speech, 53, 273–293.
84.
SwalesJ. (2001). EAP-related linguistic research: An intellectual history. In FlowerdewJ.PeacockM. (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 42–54). Cambridge University Press.
85.
TaguchiN.RoeverC. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
86.
TaiK.W.H.DaiD.W. (2023). Observing a teacher’s interactional competence in an ESOL classroom: A translanguaging perspective. Applied Linguistics Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0173
WangH. (2011). Chinese for business professionals: The workplace needs and business Chinese textbooks. Global Business Languages, 16, 27–41.
89.
WaringH.Z. (2013). ‘How was your weekend?’: Developing the interactional competence in managing routine inquiries. Language Awareness, 22, 1–16.
90.
WuR.J.R. (2011). A conversation analysis of self-praising in everyday Mandarin interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3152–3176.
91.
YounS.J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32, 199–225.
92.
YounS.J. (2018). Task-based needs analysis of L2 pragmatics in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 86–98.
93.
YounS.J. (2020). Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment: Validity evidence of interactional competence across levels. Language Testing, 37, 76–106.
94.
ZhaoJ. (2008). Concept and mode of teaching Chinese as a second language. Chinese Teaching in the World, 1, 93–107.
