Using multimodal conversation analysis, this study examines how assessments function as interactional resources for managing second language (L2) discussion topics in conversation for learning (CFL) contexts. Drawing on nine hours of video-recorded discussions, we analyse how students initiate and expand topics through assessments directed at either the primary speaker or third parties. Our guiding research question is: How do first-position assessments in CFL discussions shape participation, topic progression, and the management of interactional contingencies? The analysis reveals that assessments directed at the primary speaker, whether positive or negative, prompt elaboration or justification, leading to extended participation. In contrast, assessments of third parties produce different interactional outcomes: positive assessments foster shared alignment without necessitating further elaboration, while negative assessments invoke moral accountability, prompting participants to justify or defend the assessed third party. Overall, this analysis highlights students’ collaborative efforts in managing assessments to create opportunities to practice L2. Furthermore, the assessment trajectories reflect the participants’ concern with managing social relationships. This study advances research on assessment-in-interaction and CFL while providing valuable insights for designing L2 speaking tasks that foster more dynamic and participatory discussions.
Al MasaeedK. (2023). Tracking learnables and teachables in L2 Arabic dyadic conversations-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, 107, 782–801.
2.
Al MasaeedK. (2024). Topical talk and repair practices through embodied and multilingual resources in L2 Arabic conversation-for-learning. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 11, 326–350.
3.
AntakiC.Houtkoop-SteenstraH.RapleyM. (2000). ‘Brilliant. Next question . . .’: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 235–262.
4.
BiberD. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97–116.
5.
BilmesJ. (1988). The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society, 17, 161–181.
6.
BilmesJ. (2019). Regrading as a conversational practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 150, 80–91.
7.
BurchA.R. (2014). Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on communication strategies. Language Learning, 64, 651–684.
8.
CliftR. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77, 245–291.
9.
DeppermannA.StreeckJ. (Eds.). (2018). Time in embodied interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources (Vol. 293). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
10.
DuffP.A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169–192.
11.
EdwardsD.PotterJ. (2017). Some uses of subject-side assessments. Discourse Studies, 19, 497–514.
12.
El MajidiA.de GraaffR.JanssenD. (2018). Students’ perceived effect of in-class debates in second language learning. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 7, 35–57.
13.
El MajidiA.de GraaffR.JanssenD. (2024). Debate as a pedagogical tool for developing speaking skills in second language education. Language Teaching Research, 28, 2431–2452.
14.
El MajidiA.JanssenD.de GraaffR. (2021). The effects of in-class debates on argumentation skills in second language education. System, 101, Article 102576.
15.
GablasovaD.BrezinaV.McEneryT.BoydE. (2017). Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics, 38, 613–637.
16.
GoffmanE. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Random House.
17.
GoodwinC.GoodwinM.H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 1–54.
18.
GoodwinC.GoodwinM.H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In DurantiA.GoodwinC. (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 147–190). Cambridge University Press.
19.
HauserE. (2008). Nonformal institutional interaction in a conversation club: Conversation partners’ questions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 275–295.
20.
HauserE. (2009). Turn-taking and primary speakership during a student discussion. In NguyenH.T.KasperG. (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 215–244). National Foreign Language Resource Center – University of Hawai’i.
21.
HauserE. (2017). Avoiding initiation of repair in l2 conversations-for-learning. Pragmatics, 27, 235–255.
22.
HeritageJ. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In AtkinsonJ.M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.
23.
HeritageJ.RaymondG. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.
24.
HollanderJ.A. (2018). Interactional accountability. In RismanB.J.FroyumC.ScarboroughW.J. (Eds.), The handbook of sociology and social research (pp. 173–184). Springer.
25.
HuhtamäkiM.GrahnI.L. (2022). Explicit positive assessments in personal training: Their design and sequential and embodied environment. Journal of Pragmatics, 188, 108–128.
26.
JeffersonG. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In LernerG. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
27.
JonesC.M. (1997). ‘That’s a good sign’: Encouraging assessments as a form of social support in medically related encounters. Health Communication, 9, 119–153.
28.
KärkkäinenE. (2006). Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk, 26, 699–731.
29.
KasperG. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal, 88, 551–567.
30.
KasperG.KimY. (2015). Conversation-for-learning. In MarkeeN. (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 390–408). Wiley.
31.
KimY. (2017). Topic initiation in conversation-for-learning: Developmental and pedagogical perspectives. English Teaching, 72, 73–103.
32.
KimY. (2019). ‘What is stoyr-steruh type?’: Knowledge asymmetry, intersubjectivity, and learning opportunities in conversation-for-learning. Applied Linguistics, 40, 307–328.
33.
KimY. (2023). Doing ‘being friends’ in conversation-for-learning: From language learner-tutor to buddies. In BushnellC.MoodyS.J. (Eds.), Navigating friendships in interaction (pp. 9–31). Routledge.
34.
KimY.CarlinA.P. (2022). Story appreciation in conversations-for-learning: Stories and gestalt-contextures. In FilipiA.TaB.T.TheobaldM. (Eds.), Storytelling practices in home and educational contexts (pp. 201–223). Springer.
35.
KorobovN. (2023). A discursive psychological approach to deflection in romantic couples’ everyday arguments. Qualitative Psychology, 10, 140–153.
36.
KrashenS. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
37.
LeylandC.RileyJ. (2021). Enhanced English conversations-for-learning: Constructing and using notes for deferred correction sequences. Linguistics and Education, 66, 1–21.
38.
LindholmC. (2024). Positive assessments, monitoring of activities, and dementia. Discourse Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456241279961
39.
LindströmA.MondadaL. (2009). Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 299–308.
40.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
41.
ManD.ChauM.H. (2019). Learning to evaluate through that-clauses: Evidence from a longitudinal learner corpus. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 22–33.
42.
MaynardD.W. (1991). Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 448–495.
43.
MaynardD.W. (2007). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 93–130.
44.
MehanH. (1979). Learning lessons: The social organization of classroom behavior. Harvard University Press.
45.
MondadaL. (2009). The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 329–361.
MortonT.LlinaresA. (2018). Students’ use of evaluative language in L2 English to talk and write about history in a bilingual education programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 496–508.
48.
MyskowG.OnoM. (2018). A matter of facts: L2 writers’ use of evidence and evaluation in biographical essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 55–70.
49.
NaoM. (2013). The preallocation of student topic nomination and negotiated compliance in conversation-for-learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 7, 251–272.
50.
OloffF.HepburnA. (2024). Multimodal transcription as process and analysis: Capturing the audible and visible. In RaymondC.W.CliftR.KendrickK.RobinsonJ.D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis (pp. 115–142). Cambridge University Press.
51.
ParkI. (2018). Reported thought as (hypothetical) assessment. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 1–12.
52.
PomerantzA.M. (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreements/disagreements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
53.
PomerantzA.M. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In SchienkeinJ. (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). Academic.
54.
PomerantzA.M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In AtkinsonJ.M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
55.
PomerantzA.M. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229.
56.
PotterJ.HepburnA.EdwardsD. (2020). Rethinking attitudes and social psychology–issues of function, order, and combination in subject-side and object-side assessments in natural settings. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17, 336–356.
57.
RaymondC.W.CliftR.KendrickK.RobinsonJ.D. (2024). Methods in conversation analysis. In RaymondC.W.CliftR.KendrickK.RobinsonJ.D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis (pp. 3–48). Cambridge University Press.
58.
RoE.LeeJ. (2024). The complexity of acts with self-deprecation in Korean reality TV shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 230, 102–125.
59.
RuusuvuoriJ. (2012). Emotion, affect and conversation. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 330–349). Wiley-Blackwell.
SchegloffE.A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In BodenD.ZimmermanD.H. (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Polity Press.
62.
SchegloffE.A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis: Volume 1. Cambridge University Press.
63.
SertO. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh University Press.
64.
SertO. (2017). Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity. System, 70, 14–25.
65.
SeurenL.M. (2018). Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51, 33–51.
66.
SidnellJ. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in re-enactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 377–409.
67.
SinclairJ.M.CoulthardM. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
68.
StevanovicM. (2023). Accountability and interactional inequality: The management of problems of interaction as a matter of cultural ideals and ideologies. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, Article 1204086.
69.
StiversT. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 31–57.
70.
TomasineJ.S. (2024). Accomplishing feedback through inscription during reading assessment interaction. Linguistics and Education, 80, Article 101282.
71.
WaringH.Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 577–594.
72.
YagiJ. (2021). Enacting burikko: Lexical learning in an English/Japanese bilingual lunch conversation. Applied Pragmatics, 3, 195–222.
73.
YangL. (2010). Doing a group presentation: Negotiations and challenges experienced by five Chinese ESL students of Commerce at a Canadian university. Language Teaching Research, 14, 141–160.
74.
Zappa-HollmanS. (2007). Academic presentations across post-secondary contexts: The discourse socialization of non-native English speakers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 455–485.
75.
ZimmermanE. (2020). Code-switching in conversation-for-learning: Creating opportunities for learning while on study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 53, 149–175.
