Sophia University Junior College Division Faculty Journal
第 42 号, 2021, 61-88

Reformulation and Co-completion:
L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts
Sachiko Kondo
Abstract
Using conversation analysis as a theoretical and methodological framework,
this study examines how Japanese learners of English and their interlocutors, who
are speakers of English as a first language, co-construct assessment activities, in thecontext of a student exchange in the U.S. Special attention is paid to the L1 speakers’
reformulation and co-completion in response to the L2 speakers’ accounts, to justify
their assessments. The moment-by-moment analysis of the conversations between L1and L2 speakers reveals that the identities of the L1 speakers as “language experts”
and the L2 speakers as “non-experts” are occasionally salient, as the L1 speakers orientto the L2 speakers’ minimal accounts or indications of difficulty by reformulating andco-completing the L2 speakers’ utterances. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that
the L1 speakers commonly orient to understanding rather than non-understandingof the L2 speakers’ accounts. Consequently, asymmetric contributions by the L2 andL1 speakers function as a resource for successful communication, leading them toachieve intersubjectivity. Finally, drawing on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, the paper
discusses how such assistance by the L1 speakers, as needed by the L2 speakers, could
lead to the independent functioning of the L2 speakers in assessment activities in the
future, and to the further development of their interactional competence.

1. Introduction
After second language acquisition (SLA) was reconceptualized to focus on socialand contextual dimensions (Firth and Wagner, 1997), conversation analysis (henceforthCA) has increasingly contributed to enriching the database (Eskildsen & Majlesi, 2018;
Firth & Wagner, 2007; Kasper & Wagner, 2011, 2014; Mori, 2007; Pollotti & Wagner,
2011). The findings from CA data of L2 speakers suggest that although L2 speakers
may not be highly proficient, they are able to engage in social activities using a variety
of interactional resources even from the beginning of their language careers (Wagner& Gardner, 2004). One of the merits of using CA as a methodological and theoreticalframework is that it enables us to observe how the participants in conversations employ

─ 61 ─

Sachiko Kondo

the methods and procedures that ordinary speakers use to achieve intersubjectivity—
locally and interactionally—by closely attending to what each participant displays toeach other in an interaction (Dings, 2014; Heritage, 1984a; Schegloff, 1991). Specifically,
they achieve mutual understanding through their choices of recurrent, orderly
structures such as turn-taking, repair, and preference organizations (Sacks et al., 1974;
Schegloff et al., 2002).
Although much attention in the SLA field has been paid to how L2 speakers
employ such orderly structures in conversation, studies that focus on how L2 speakers’
interlocutors—such as L1 speakers and advanced peers in a particular language—
respond to L2 speakers in co-accomplishing social actions are still rarely found. The
present study fills this gap by focusing on how L1 speakers orient themselves to L2
speakers’ speech in one ubiquitous social action, namely assessment. It explores
how accounts and explanations in assessment activities are jointly accomplished(Antaki, 2004) by closely observing L1 speakers’ moment-to-moment display of theirunderstanding of L2 speaker’s actions in conversations.

2. Background
2.1 Assessment
Ordinary talk is full of assessments and judgments (Pomerantz, 1984). Assessments
are social actions in the sense that people display their evaluation of the topic, makejudgments about, and agree or disagree with one another’s evaluations (Pomerantz,
1978, 1984). Pomerantz (1984) defines that “assessments are produced as products ofparticipation: with an assessment, a speaker claims knowledge of that which he or she
is assessing” (p. 57), which reflects the social nature of assessments as people routinely
evaluate social activities that they participate in.
The most general definition of assessment is provided by Goodwin & Goodwin(1992) as “evaluating in some fashion persons and events being described within theirtalk” (p. 154). More specifically, Antaki’s proposal for four subsections under the general
heading “assessments” enables us to classify utterances as assessments: evaluations,factual claims, choices, and formulations (1994). These are defined as things that require
accounts when a disagreement occurs.
Although assessment is a widely studied social action in CA, both in mundanetalk (Antaki, 1994; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1987, 1992; Goodwin, 1984, 1986; Heritage,
2002; Heritage & Raymond, 2005; Jefferson, 1978; Liddicoat, 2007; Pomerantz, 1978,
1984; Sacks, 1992) and institutional talk (Antaki et al., 2000; Fasulo & Monzoni, 2009;─ 62 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

Lindström & Heinemann, 2009; Mondada, 2009), research on how L2 speakers become
involved in assessment activities is still limited. One exception is the studies by Ishida(2006, 2011) and Ohta (2001), both of which investigate assessments by L2 speakers ofJapanese.

2.2 Accounts in Assessment Activities
Accounts have traditionally been understood as explanations designed to exonerate
the speaker from an untoward act (Antaki, 1988; Heritage, 1988; Waring, 2007), andsuch accounts involve justifications and excuses (Cody & McLaughlin, 1990; Scott& Lyman, 1968). However, in daily interactions, we encounter accounts that do notnecessarily involve troubles (Buttny & Morris, 2001; Buttny, 1993). In his explanationsof various meanings of accounts, Buttny (1993) presents ethnomethodological andCA meanings of accounts that go beyond problem-solving interactions. Specifically,
accounts can be understood as “sense-making work through which participants engage
in explaining, attributing, justifying, describing, and otherwise finding possible sense ororderliness in the various events, people, places, and courses of action they talk about”(Baker, 2001: 781).
When people make assessments, they generally support their evaluations byproviding accounts, because assessment or subjective evaluation of any type requiresa reason for judgment. By providing accounts, speakers display how legitimate theirclaims are to other participants (Antaki, 1994; Waring, 2007) so that other participants
can agree or disagree with the assessments made by the speakers.

2.3 Reformulation and co-completion
This study investigates how the L1 speakers display their orientation to fuller
accounts by speaking for the L2 speakers when the L2 speakers display difficulties incontinuing their accounts or when their accounts are minimal. Two types of discursive
devices are observed: reformulation (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998) and co-completion of asuspended unit (Lerner, 2004).
The term reformulation (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998) is also called formulation bysome CA researchers (Drew, 2003; Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970; Heritage & Watson, 1979).
Drew (2003) explains that “formulations are a means through which participants may
make explicit their sense of “what we are talking about” or “what has just been said”.
They are “a means for constructing an explicit sense of the gist of the talk thus far” (p.
296). In the present study, reformulation is specifically defined as a formulation in which─ 63 ─

Sachiko Kondo“a speaker offers his or her interpretation of what the other meant” (Drew, 2003: 296).
This type of formulation generally takes the form of “(So) what you mean/are saying is …”
or implicitly conveys something similar.
Co-completion, another phenomenon that I will discuss in this paper, is anaffiliative utterance that is built to be adjacent to the preliminary component of the1

TCU -in-progress (Lerner, 2004). It is the production of a candidate word or phrase,
anticipating and providing “what the other was going to say” pre-emptively.

3. Methodology
3.1 Data
2

The data for the present study, taken from a larger dissertation project , arerecordings of conversations between L2 speakers in a “study abroad” context and their
L1 interlocutors. The L2 participants are six Japanese high school students who lived
in a homestay in the U.S. for 11 months from the beginning of August 2001 to thebeginning of July 2002, and attended local high schools, as part of the study abroad
3

program arranged by the American Field Service (AFS) . They were asked to choose
English-speaking interlocutors and audiotape conversations during their stay in the U.S.
The recordings for the present study were made approximately three months after they
arrived in the U.S.

L2 speakers
MinutesAyu
46

L2 speakers
Ayu
Saki
Kazu
Hide
Fumi
Eri

Table 1. Timeframes of the Recordings
Saki
Kazu
Hide
Fumi
30
36
96
30

Eri
112

Table 2. Participants in the recordings
L1 Participants
John (host father), Olivia (host mother)Ann (host mother)
Linda (host mother)
Sarah (AFS liaison)4
Kelly (host mother)
Laura (friend)

Each participant took the ACTFL-SST (Standard Speaking Test) both before theirdeparture to the U.S. (either June 23 or 24, 2001) and after their return from the U.S.
(either August 3 or 4, 2002). The ACTFL-SST is a standardized procedure for the global
assessment of functional speaking ability (oral proficiency) at the ACTFL (American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) Proficiency Guidelines levels of Novice

─ 64 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

5through Intermediate High. The results of the pre- and post-ACTFL-SST for eachparticipant are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Participants’ Levels in the ACTFL-SST

Jun. 2001
Aug. 2002

Ayu Saki Kazu Hide Fumi Eri
3
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
7
7

3.2 Method of Analysis
I have transcribed all the recordings of conversations using a modified version of
the system devised by Jefferson (2004); the conventions are provided in the Appendix
A. I identified and collected the assessments in my data and analyzed what action
each assessment is achieving and the sequential position in which it occurs. A turnby-turn analysis was conducted on sequences of assessment activity by following thegeneral analytic strategies proposed by ten Have: turn-taking organization, sequenceorganization, repair organization, and the organization of turn-design (2007). The
research question for this study is, “How do L1 speakers reformulate and co-complete L2
speakers’ accounts in assessments?”

4. Analysis
4.1 Reformulation in response to the L2 speakers’ display of epistemic uncertainty
Let us examine some examples of how L1 speakers speak for an L2 speaker byreformulating the L2 speaker’s accounts for assessments. The examples in this section
show how L1 speakers orient themselves to the accounts of L2 speakers, who use the6negative verb construction “I don’t know” (henceforth IDK) in their explanations.
In the following excerpt, the L1 speakers, Olivia and John, and the L2 speaker,
Ayu, were discussing rules about clothing in American schools. Olivia asked Ayu why
she thought that American students were upset, although they could wear whatever
clothes they chose. In discussing the issue that some students were upset because theschool prohibited them from wearing low-rise pants, Olivia reformulated what Ayu wastrying to explain:─ 65 ─

Sachiko Kondo

Excerpt 1. [Ayu: Low Rise Pants]
1
Olivia:why did you think it is like this2
you said um in American school,
3
(1)
4
John:
((clears his throat))
5
Olivia:kids can do (.) kids can wear6(0.5) whatever clothes and then7
they get upset, (0.8)
why is that.
8
9
(2)
10
Ayu:
umm (1.3) because uhh (1)11>I don’t know< wh:y (1) uhh (.)
12
the kids cannot (.) put down
13
their pa:nts, (.)because (1)14they can dye their hair:,=
15
Olivia:=°ah:°=
16
Ayu:=and the:y can (.)
17
put the jewelry:,
18
Olivia:
yeah.
19
Ayu:
and (.) they can wear whatever20
just (.)and ca- they cannot
21
wear the camiso:le, but (1)22
I- (1) ￡because￡ $hh if hhh $23(1.5) >I dunno< what24
what is problem [(th-)]25
Olivia: →[if] you’re26→ going to have ru:les27→ then you have ru:les and28→ if they’re no’gonna have ru:les29→ then they have no ru:les.
30
John:
so you think that the kids
31
should be able to pull down
32
their pants in school?=
33
Olivia:=yeah. that’s what she thinks.
is it really? you think
34
John:
35
it’s okay to pull your pants
36
down in school?==↑yeah:, because they-=
37
Ayu:
38
John:
= WOULD YOU PULL your PANTS DOWN
39
in SCHOOL?((in a challenging tone))40
Ayu:
hh. (1.8) becuz $ they just41
show (0.5) their (.)underwear
42$ ehhhh and-$43
John:
OH: ↓°yeah.°
44
Ayu:
a:nd,
45
(1.5)

─ 66 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59

John:
it’s the style.
Olivia: → what she’s saying is that
→ if they can dye their hair::→ and if they can wear their→ jewe:lry:, and they can wear
→ their other (0.8) when there→ are no rules,
then why should→ there be rules (.)about pa:nts.
→ (1.5) they’re not ↑nak↓ed,
Ayu:
uh huh,(0.5)
Olivia:they’re [ju]John:[they’re] showing underwear.
it’s just showing underwear,
Olivia:In the excerpt above, in response to Olivia’s question about why she thinks American
kids get upset although they can wear any clothes to school (1–2, 5–8), after some signalsof trouble such as a 2-second pause, perturbation, and a 1.3-second pause, Ayu begins
her answer with an account marker “because” (10). It is followed by IDK, claiming not toknow why the kids cannot put down their pants (11). Further, she lists what the kids inschool can and cannot do. The expression of IDK here is uttered in response to Olivia’squestion but does not stand alone and leads to subsequent explanation. It functions asa prefatory move to a display of epistemic uncertainty (Lindström, Maschler & Pekarek
Doehler, 2016), downgrading the content of the subsequent contribution. Ayu concludes
her account with the expression IDK (23), claiming again that she does not know why
the kids in school are upset (23–24). This is an indication of her puzzled stance on theissue and her uncertainty about her own account. Olivia orients her response to theaccounts that lack clarity and reformulates them in a summative way, with a clear
logical connection, using two conditional sentences (25–29). What Olivia says is that if
students have rules, they should have rules about clothing, but if they have no rules,
there should not be any rule at all. What Olivia is doing is revoicing and reformulating
Ayu’s accounts in lines 10–14, 16–17, and 19–24, clarifying “the sense of the gist of thetalk” (Drew, 2003, p. 296). Olivia’s reformulation helps to articulate more clearly what
Ayu was not fluently able to do.
The second reformulation is from lines 47 to 54, which occurs after John repeatedly
challenges Ayu about whether she really thinks it is acceptable to “pull down theirpants” in school (30–32, 34–36, 38–39). He uses the exaggerated expression of “pulling
down pants” instead of “wearing low-rise pants” in a challenging tone of voice. Ayu
demonstrates her irritation by saying “yes” in an emphatic way, with high rising─ 67 ─

Sachiko Kondo

intonation in line 37. She explicitly displays her positive assessment about wearing
low-rise pants, the accounts of which are first abandoned after the account marker“because” (37). Her accounts are interrupted by John’s third challenge in a stressed voice(38–39). Orienting herself to John’s question, Ayu finally provides a short account, in an
assertive tone, saying that “they just show their underwear” (40–41). John displays his
7understanding of it with a change of state marker, “oh” (43) (Heritage, 1984b) and byproviding an additional account, “it’s the style” (46). Olivia orients to Ayu’s accounts by
speaking for Ayu in an elaborative way. In line 47, Olivia reformulates the gist of what
Ayu was saying. First, Olivia explicitly states that she is speaking for Ayu by starting
her reformulation with “what she is saying is,” which is a typical initiation remark
for reformulation (Drew, 2003). She uses a conditional sentence again, reformulating
what Ayu said and her own former reformulation (25–29). This time, Olivia supports
this conditional sentence with specific examples—that there are no rules about hairand jewelry—and claims, speaking for Ayu, that there should therefore be no rules forpants (52–53). Olivia adds, “they’re not naked” (54), which is a reformulation of Ayu’s
additional account that “they just show their underwear” (40–41), produced in response
to John’s challenge.
The next excerpt shows another example of an L1 speaker’s reformulation of an
L2 speaker’s talk in an assessment activity. In a similar pattern, the L2 speaker, Hide,displays epistemic uncertainty by using the negative mental verb construction IDK
twice. Prior to the excerpt, Hide and Sarah were talking about a film, Death Man.
Excerpt 2. [Hide: Interesting Movie]

1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Hide:

Sarah:
Hide:Sarah:
Hide:Sarah: →→Hide:Sarah: →Hide:Sarah: →>I don’t know °why but°<it not so (.)￡ah::mhhh (.)

not fun?￡ but a- hmmm,(.) a- interesting to me,°I don’t know why b-°[sometimes] but- you- I think =[ () ]=you’d really li:ke x-files.
°ah.°sometimes movies that are (.)
so:: (.) ah dee:p, [you know?][uh-hu?][are (.)][yeah.]
are not really FUN to wa:tch,

─ 68 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

16
17
18
19

uh huh,Hide:Sarah: → but they’re so: interesting.
°yeah.°
Hide:Sarah: → >probably like the beach.<

Sarah’s reformulation occurs from lines 10 to 19 after Hide makes the assessmentthat the movie Death Man is not “fun” but “interesting” (1–5). Hide orients himself
to the necessity to account for his assessment, by repeating “I don’t know why”, atthe beginning (1) and at the end of his assessment (5). This expression of epistemic
uncertainty echoes Ayu’s strategy in Excerpt 1. He also displays some difficulties inaccounting for the assessment, with perturbations, first with a smiling voice in line
2 before providing the expression “fun” and second, in line 3, before providing thedescription “interesting.” Sarah orients herself to Hide’s explicit display of difficulties
and reformulates his speech, by saying that sometimes movies that are “so deep” arenot really “fun” to watch but they are “so” interesting (10–17). In this reformulation, she
recycles two expressions that Hide used—“fun” and “interesting”—and characterizes
the kind of movies that she is talking about as “deep” (11). She also strengthens her
assessments with the intensifier—“so”—twice and adds The Beach as a specific example
of such “deep movies” (19).

4.2 Provision of lexical assistance in reformulation
The next excerpt shows an example of the L1 speaker’s reformulation of the L2
speaker’s utterances in a simple, summative way using an alternative expression. The
reformulation by the L1 speaker functions both as a display of understanding of the L2
speaker’s utterances and as a linguistic support. Before the excerpt, Kelly explained that
the AFS would soon send information about an orientation conference.
Excerpt 3. [Fumi: AFS Orientation]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Fumi:

Kelly:Fumi:

Kelly:Fumi:

Kelly:

Fumi:°o:key° but- I’m kind of afraid,
beca:use I might havetournament [ at that time ][oh for basketball.]yeah:.
hu::m.
so: but I ha:ve to be there,
because it’s orientation.
yeah.==it’s not like para:de.=─ 69 ─

Sachiko Kondo

11
12
13
14

Kelly:=right. yeah. it’s-→ it’s a required thing.

but sometimes, (.) they’ll
let you: come later.

In line 1, Fumi makes an assessment that she is “afraid” and initiates her accounts
with an account marker “because” (2). She explains that she might have a basketball
tournament at the same time as the orientation (2–3). She continues her explanationthat she “has to” be there because it is an orientation (7–8). Then, she adds an example
of “parade” as different from orientation (10). What she is doing here is categorizing“orientation” as something that she “has to” attend, whereas “parade” is not in such acategory. Kelly acknowledges Fumi’s accounts with “right” and reformulates Fumi’s
explanatory categorization with a new expression, “it’s required”. Kelly’s reformulation
displays her understanding of Fumi’s explanation and at the same time presents a new
expression “required”—with emphasis—to summarize Fumi’s accounts. By stressing
the expression “required,” Kelly can be heard as doing being a language expert (Hosoda,
2006) although Fumi did not initiate a repair or word search.
The next excerpt is a more salient example of the L1 speaker providing an
expression by functioning as a language expert for the L2 speaker in an assessment
activity. Before the excerpt, Laura had asked Eri whether the attitudes of generationsin Japan had changed with the introduction of foreign influence after World War II.
Eri answered that some people had changed, and some had not, concluding that “itdepends”. To elicit more detailed accounts, Laura asked Eri for some examples. In
response to this, Eri said that her grandparents had “adjusted” after WWII. Excerpt 4
followed that conversation:
Excerpt 4. [Eri: Attitude of Grandmother]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Eri:

Laura:
Eri:
Laura:

hu but umm still uh ( my ) (1)grandmother? is very good for like(.)introducing Japanese culture
to foreign people, (.) but still (.)
right now,(.) sh- she goes umm(.)
when I said I’m going to America,
she said like (.) don’t make any(.) black boyfriends,
HUM.==that’s the yeah==[yeah.]─ 70 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Eri:

Laura:
Eri:
Laura:
Eri:
Laura:
Eri:
Laura:
Eri:[some ]thing like- like tha:t,and I was very surprised because (.)
she’s very interested inin introducing culture,(.) so it means she (.)
m:m (.)what was (that) word.
→ open minded?
yeah?
→ yes. open minded,
open minded,bu:t (.) still (that) she think thatwhite is (.) better than bla:ck,yeah,==like,(.) >you know,<[yeah.][it’s ] not right, but she think so,

In line 1, Eri provides a divergent view of her grandmother, initiating it with thecontrasting marker “but”. She explains that although her grandmother is good at
introducing Japanese culture to foreigners, she showed racial prejudice (1–8). She
supports this with the episode when her grandmother said: “don’t make any black
boyfriends” (7–8). Laura’s “HUM” in a loud voice is a display of negative feelings about
Eri’s grandmother’s utterance, to which Eri indicates agreement (10). Eri assesses
this experience of her grandmother’s attitude as something surprising (13) and tries toaccount for the assessment, starting with an account marker “because”. When she tries
to make a logical connection between her grandmother being interested in different
cultures and her personality, she enters a word search (Brouwer, 2003; Eskildsen, 2018;
Goodwin, M. H., 1983; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986; Koshik, 2002), which is projectedin her utterance in line 17 “what was (that) word”, which is an explicit word searchmarker. In line 18, Laura responds to Eri’s self-repair initiation and offers a candidate
expression “open-minded?” with a rising intonation. Eri adopts it by repeating theexpression (21), after confirmation exchanges (18–20). After the insertion of the repair
sequence of the co-constructed word search, Eri explains that although her grandmotheris open-minded, she has some prejudice against black people (22–23), and Eri assesses
that her grandmother’s prejudice is not “right” but it is the way her grandmother thinks(27). With this statement of judgment, Eri is doing being “a conscientious, morally
upright and socially aware person” (Couper-Huhlen, 2006: 84).
In this sequence of assessment activity, initiated by Laura’s question, Eridemonstrates her competence to produce extensive accounts and to organize them with

─ 71 ─

Sachiko Kondoa preface, “I was very surprised” (14), and a concluding assessment, “it’s not right”. At
the same time, Eri displays difficulties when producing accounts. This is evident in her
initiation of a word search for repair. Gardner and Wagner argue that such a repair
sequence is used “as a resource for securing intersubjectivity” (2004:12). In a larger
assessment sequence when a repair side sequence is completed and the problem isresolved, the speaker will return to the point before the repair sequence began (Brouwer,
2004; Gardner & Wagner, 2004). It seems that Eri, with the supportive orientationsof her co-conversant, is able to continue. Laura supports Eri both linguistically, by
providing a repair expression, and structurally, by asking Eri to provide examples. It
can be said that in the excerpt we have just observed, local identities of the language
expert and non-expert are particularly salient in their talk. This is especially true when
they are involved in discussing difficult issues such as social changes.

4.3 Co-completion by the L1 speakers
In the following excerpt, the L1 speaker uses co-completion to reformulate the L2
speaker’s accounts. Prior to the following excerpt, Linda asked Kazu why he chose theschool he went to in Japan. Kazu answered that he chose it because of its interesting
curriculum. Then, Kazu initiated further interaction, illustrating an example of aninteresting class in the school from line 1.
Excerpt 5. [Kazu: School near Sea]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Kazu:

Linda:
Kazu:
Linda:
Kazu:
Linda:
Kazu:
Linda:
Kazu:
Linda:
Kazu:

yeah like uh I- we could swi:m in sea? (.)
we could swim sea?
°in the sea? (.) in the sea?°
you could swim, [yeah,][yeah ]ok,
o:r we- (1) in winter there was,uhh there was running?
uh huh,but it was not on the road,but umm on the beach?
oh huhu,so it is special? (1)from other schools?
the other schools didn’t havethose physical active[ties?][yeah]
I think it (1) yeah: (in) they past days

─ 72 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Linda:
Kazu:
Linda:
Kazu:
Linda:
Kazu:
Linda:
Kazu:
Linda:
Kazu:

but I don’t know.
uh huh,but my school was very special,
I think so. (1)→ so you think your school is special→ because of the- (.) uhh
they have sea,
→ they have the ocean [or the]=[ yeah.]
=
sea
right
next
to
it.=
→
=yeah.
→ so the location was nice,yeah very ↑good.

Kazu is explaining that in his school, they had activities such as swimming in the sea
and running on the beach (1–11). In lines 13–14, he assesses that his school is special
and different from other schools. Linda elicits more accounts about this assessment by
asking a question about whether other schools did not have such physical activities (15–16), to which Kazu offers an answer that lacks clarity (17-19) with IDK, the expression of
epistemic uncertainty (19). He reiterates—with the upgrade “very”—that his school was
special (21–22) without substantiating it. Linda orients herself to it with a designedly
incomplete utterance (Koshik, 2002: 277) “so you think your school is special because ofthe- ” (23–24), explicitly repeating the assessment that Kazu has made and adding an
account marker “because”, which suspends the unit that comes after the marker. After
Kazu offers a possibility for the suspended unit, “they have sea” (25), Linda reformulates
the reasoning that Kazu provides in a full sentence: “they have the ocean or the sea rightnext to it” (26, 28). Additionally, she adds a summative assessment for these accounts,“so the location was nice” (30). This is prefaced with a conclusive “so”, and Linda offersa confirmation. In this assessment and account sequence, Linda uses not only the deviceof reformulation, discussed in excerpts 1 to 4, but two additional types of eliciting device:asking a question and using a designedly incomplete utterance.
The next excerpt shows how Ann co-completes a suspended unit that the L2
speaker, Saki, produced in an assessment activity about the previous winter being hard.
Excerpt 6. [Saki: Hard Winter]

1
2
3

Saki:
Ann:

↑last ↓year (1) it’s (.)
it was (1) ha:rd winter.

when we a say a hard winter,─ 73 ─

Sachiko Kondo

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

it was not the who:le winterwe had thre- we had nineteen days,(.) that were real ha:rd.
Saki:
ah: (.) I heard news (.)
about (.) Chicago.
Ann:um-hum,Saki:and I watched (.) on TV,(.) that (.) many people sleepAnn: → in- in the airport?
Saki:$ yeah::hahaha.$Ann:um-hum, ah:, (well) remember
that’s the windy city,
politics and wind.
Saki:[°um hum,°]
Ann:
[
uhr
] but the’re on the lake,(.) they get (.) more severe weather
than we do. even though we’re
two hours (.)from there.
we are two hoSaki:oh::::.

Ann’s pre-emptive completion “in the airport” (Lerner & Takagi, 1999; Lerner, 2004)
occurs in line 12, after Saki offers an account for her assessment that it was a hard
winter the previous year (1–2). Saki explains that she had heard some news on TV about
people in Chicago (5–8). She stops short after saying “many people sleep-” (11). Ann
orients to this and provides a candidate suspended unit—“in the airport?”—with a risingintonation (12), which is a “try marker” (Lerner, 2004: 229), inviting confirmation from
Saki. In the next receipt slot, the original speaker, Saki, acknowledges Ann’s completion
with “yeah” and laughter (13).

5. Discussion
In the present data, the identities of the L1 speakers as “language experts” and theL2 speakers as “non-experts” were occasionally salient, as the L1 speakers oriented to
the L2 speakers’ minimal accounts or displays of difficulties by reformulating and cocompleting what the L2 speakers were trying to say.
Even in the case of asymmetric participation, reformulations by the L1 speakers
and initiations of repairs by the L2 speakers eventually lead them to intersubjectivity.
As Park (2007) states in the following quotation, asymmetric contributions by the L2and L1 speakers seem to function as a resource for successful communication.

─ 74 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

From a social relational point of view, there certainly is a power structure
residing in an invoked NS/NNS interaction which affects how the participantscome to perceive themselves and each other. Nevertheless, I entertain thepossibility that an asymmetry is a resource for the successful communication
between an NS and an NNS (see Kurhila 2001). Ten Have (1991) interprets
the asymmetry between a doctor and a patient as an interactional resource forthem to perform their roles in a medical setting. The same seems to be trueof NS/NNS interaction. Asymmetry is not merely an external constraint ofparticipants’ actions, but it also provides resources for them to use in order tomove the interaction ahead.

(Park 2007: 355)

In the present data, the asymmetric participation becomes occasionally salient whenthe L2 speakers display uncertainty in carrying out accounts, by downgrading an
epistemic stance with the use of IDK and initiating lexical searches. It is found that the
L1 speakers orient themselves to such displays of difficulties and uncertainty by theL2 speakers by drawing on supportive means so that the L2 speakers can achieve theiraccounts fully. The following supportive means were observed in the present data:(1) Reformulations(2) Co-completions(3) Asking questions to elicit further accounts(4) Assisting the L2 speakers in linguistic choices
When the L2 speakers only offer minimal accounts, the L1 speakers fill the gaps in coconstructive ways by reformulations and co-completions. Asking questions to elicit
further accounts from the L2 speakers enables the L2 speakers to offer fuller accounts
that they could not have given by themselves. Although the L1 speakers generally orient
themselves to the progress of the interaction, they assist the L2 speakers when the L2
speakers seek their assistance by using a repair mechanism in conversations. As wasfound in Kurhila (2006), the analysis in the present study reveals that the L1 speakers
commonly orient to understanding rather than non-understanding of the L2 speakers’
account, and “they orient to the progress of interaction” (Kurhila, 2006: 220) even whenthe L2 speakers’ accounts are minimal and lacking in clarity. In this sense, the L2
interactions are no different from the L1 talk. Even with asymmetric participation, theinteractants demonstrated movement toward intersubjectivity.

─ 75 ─

Sachiko Kondo

Although my data analysis is based on CA and ethnomethodological theory and does
not involve external theories, it might be useful to consider connecting the outcomesof the analysis with broader sociological theories (Kasper & Wagner, 2014). These
supportive means employed by the L1 speakers can be theorized as enabling the L2
8speakers to work in their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978; Lantolf,
2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). In other words, the ways that the L1 speakers orient to
the L2 speakers’ utterances enable the L2 speakers to accomplish what they cannot doalone but can manage with the support of “more capable peers” (Vygotsky 1978: 886).
Lantolf and Thorne (2006) explain that there are two elements of the ZPD concept thathave influenced researchers in a wide variety of disciplines: One is the notion of assisted
performance, and the other is foreseeing learners’ independent functioning in the future.
Lantolf and Thorne explain the latter as follows:Another compelling attribute of the ZPD is that, in contrast to traditional
tests and measures that only indicate the level of development alreadyattained, it is forward looking through its assertion that assisted performance,
and importantly the varying qualities of assistance needed for a particular
individual to perform particular competencies, is often indicative of
independent functioning in the future. (Lantolf & Thorne 2006: 263)

When we observe the present data from the perspective of this future possibility of
independent functioning, the phenomena in the present data are indicative of the L2
speakers’ future competence to function fully on their own in making assessments andproviding sense-making accounts.
The use of supportive means by the L1 speakers can be explained by thesociocultural concept of “help” within the learners’ ZPD. Lantolf and Thorne explainthat the “mechanisms of effective help” should be both graduated and contingent on theactual needs of the L2 speakers.
A ljaafreh and Lantolf identify a number of ‘mechanisms of effective help’
relating to intervention within the ZPD. Assistance should be graduated－with no more help provided than is necessary, for the assumption is that overassistance decreases the student’s agentive capacity. At the same time, aminimum level of guidance must be given so that the novice can successfully
carry out the action at hand. Related to this is that help should be contingent

─ 76 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

on actual need and similarly removed when the person demonstrates theelements of developmentally productive joint activity. This process is dialogic
and entails continuous assessment of the learner’s ZPD and subsequent
tailoring of help to best facilitate progression from other-regulation to selfregulation. (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006:277)

(italics in original)

The analysis of the present data uncovers the nature of the “help” that the L2 speakers
are receiving. The persistent orientation to co-conversants’ actions in talk-in-interaction
enables the L1 speakers to provide graduated assistance to the L2 speakers dependingon their demonstrated needs. Such assistance is likely to be “opportunities for learning”(Eskildsen, 2018: 48), and subsequently, it can lead to L2 speakers’ future actions. The
data from the same participants recorded seven months after the first recording is notincluded in the present paper. However, Kondo (2011) observed indications of improved
features in the L2 speakers’ accounts for assessments over time. The developmental
phenomena are an empirical matter and further research is needed to investigate
the nature of longitudinal development of interactional competence (Hall et al., 2011;
Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015).

6. Conclusion
SLA literature has shown that even novice second language speakers possessinteractional competence to accomplish sense-making and achieve mutual understandingby closely monitoring the talk and actions of the co-participants (Carroll, 2004; Kondo,
2014; Mazeland & Zamah-Zadeh, 2004). The findings in the present study are consistent
with previous research, as it is evident that L2 speakers, whose proficiency levels in the9

ACTFL-SST before their departure from Japan ranged from Novice to Intermediate
Low, utilized whatever linguistic and paralinguistic resources they possessed—
including conversational mechanisms such as repair organization—to accomplish
mutual understanding in social activities. The present data provided some evidence thatintersubjectivity is possible even with limited resources because conversational practices
and activities are co-constructed and jointly achieved with their co-participants.
The study also revealed the nature of interactions between L1 and L2 speakers. The
findings were consistent with those of Kurhila (2006) and Wagner and Gardner (2004)
in terms of the following: (1) when mutual intelligibility is in danger, the L1 speakers
display understanding rather than non-understanding; (2) the identities of language
expert/non-expert become relevant only occasionally and locally when the L2 speakers

─ 77 ─

Sachiko Kondo

display uncertainty or difficulties; and (3) the L2 speakers possess competencies toutilize interactional resources to achieve intersubjectivity. Further, analysis of thepresent data might indicate that language learning is embedded in the assessment
activities accomplished by the interaction between the L2 and L1 speakers. Importantly,
it was also found that the L1 speakers offered supportive actions in accordance with theL2 speakers’ demonstrated needs.
Although the data I have analyzed is not institutional, the results can havepedagogical applications. For example, the importance of being engaged in talk-ininteraction in social life could be informative for L2 learners, especially to those who
intend to study abroad. They can benefit by knowing beforehand that talk-in-interaction
is a rich site, potentially providing them with opportunities to acquire sociocultural andlinguistic knowledge through graduated and contingent support from their interlocutors.
The achievement of intersubjectivity by the participants through moment-by-moment
actions can be “a built-in learning mechanism” (Kasper & Wagner, 2014: 194) that isvisible to participants as well as to researchers. Finally, it seems reasonable to conclude
that talk-in-interaction can provide potential opportunities for language learning andthat language can be learned through interaction.

Acknowledgement
I am thankful to the AFS Japan and the AFS New York head office for theirunderstanding of the project and for providing permission to undertake research withthe students in their study abroad program.

Notes
1

According to Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) TCUs (turn constructional units)
are unit-types with which a speaker can construct a turn. In English, TCUs can besentences, clauses, phrases, or words. TCUs make it possible for the next speaker toproject the completion point of the present speaker’s turn, and the possible point at
which a speaker change may occur is called the transition relevance place (TRP).

2

The larger dissertation project includes the same type of recordings that took placeseven months after the first recordings, which form the data for the present study.

3

AFS is one of the world’s largest not-for-profit volunteer-based organizations. It
offers international exchange programs in more than 90 countries through local
AFS organizations. AFS provides intercultural learning and volunteer opportunities
for students, young adults, teachers, and families through international exchanges.

─ 78 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

4Hide’s interlocutor, Sarah, is an AFS Student Family Liaison, whose primary role
is to maintain regular contact with her assigned AFS student and host family andprovide support when needed.

5

The test was developed by the ACTFL and ALC with adjustments for Japanesecandidates both in the content and in the levels of proficiency. The Intermediate
Mid and Intermediate Low levels are each further divided into two levels in the
ACTFL-SST (See Appendix B for the levels). ALC, based in Tokyo, Japan, is acompany that specializes in publishing books and magazines related to teaching
and learning foreign languages, especially English.

6

Lindström, Maschler & Pekarek Doehler (2016) argue that negative mental
verb constructions such as “I don’t know” function not only as the disclaiming of
epistemic access but also as various markers of epistemic stance. For example, it
can be used as a “prefatory move which signifies the speaker’s stance to what is said
in a fuller continued response turn” (p.75) as “epistemic downgrading of the content
of the speaker’s subsequent contribution” and as “a prepositioned epistemic hedge”(p.76).

7

Heritage (1984b) discusses the use of the particle “oh” to suggest that “its producer
has undergone some kind of change in his or her locally current state of knowledge,
information, orientation or awareness” (p. 299).

8

The most frequently referenced definition of the ZPD is “the distance between theactual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and thelevel of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky 1978: 86).

9

See “Table 3: Participants’ Levels in the ACTFL-SST” and “Appendix B: Correlation
Between ACTFL OPI and SST”.

References
Antaki, C. (1988). Structures of belief and justification. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing
Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods (pp. 60–73). London: Sage
Publications.
Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. London:
Sage Publications.
Antaki, C. (2004). Reading minds or dealing with interactional implications? Theory &Psychology, 14, 667–683.
Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., & Rapley, M. (2000). Brilliant. next question …”:

─ 79 ─

Sachiko Kondo

High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Researchon Language and Social Interaction, 33(3), 235–262.
Baker, C. D. (2001). Ethnomethodological Analyses of Interviews. In J. F. Gubrium & J.
A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method (pp. 777–795). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.
Brouwer, C. F. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language
learning? The Modern Language Journal, 87, 534–545.
Brouwer, C. E. (2004). Doing pronunciation: A specific type of repair sequence. In R.
Gardner, J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 93–113). London:
Continuum.
Buttny, R. (1993). Social accountability in communication. London: Sage Publications.
Buttny, R., & Morris, G. H. (2001). Accounting. In W. P. Robinson, & H. Giles (Eds.), The
New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 285–301). New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Disfluencies or interactional
achievements? In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations(pp. 201–220). London: Continuum.
Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1990). Interpersonal accounting. In H. Giles & W. P.
Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 227–255). New
York: Wiley.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2006). Assessing and accounting. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.),
Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 81–119). Leiden: Cambridge
University Press.
Dings, A. (2014). Interactional Competence and the Development of Alignment Activity.
The Modern Language Journal, 98, 742–756.
Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutionalsettings: A sketch. In P. Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies inlanguage and social interaction (pp. 293–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2018). “We’re Learning a Lot of New Words”: Encountering New L2
Vocabulary Outside of Class. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 46–63.
Eskildsen, S. W., & A. R. Majlesi (2018). Learnables and Teachables in Second Language
Talk: Advancing a Social Reconceptualization of Central SLA Tenets. Introduction
to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 3–10.
Fasulo, A., & Monzoni, C. (2009). Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 362–376.

─ 80 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, iii, 285–300.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social
accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language
Journal, 91, 800–819.
Gardner R., & Wagner, J (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second
Language Conversations (pp. 1–17). London: Continuum.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J.
C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: perspectives anddevelopments (pp. 338–66). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation.
In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies inConversation Analysis (pp. 225–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments ofcontinuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9, 205–221.
Goodwin, C., & M. H. Goodwin. (1986). Gesture and co-participation in the activity ofsearching for a word. Semiotica, 62/1–2, 51–75.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on theinteractive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1, No. 1, 1–54.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In
A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive
phenomenon (pp. 147–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, M. H. (1983). Searching for a word as an interactive activity. In J. N. Deely & M.
D. Lenhart (Eds.), Semiotics 1981 (pp. 129–137). New York: Plenum.
Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional
competence and development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 Interactional Competence andDevelopment. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann and S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2
Interactional Competence and Development (pp. 1–15). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Heritage, J. (1984a) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1984b) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.
M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation
analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C.

─ 81 ─

Sachiko Kondo

Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 127–144).
London: Sage.
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying
agreement / disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The
language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic
authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly,
68, 15–38.
Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas(Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–62). New York:
Irvington.
Hosoda, Y. (2006). Repair and relevance of differential language expertise in second
language conversations. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 25–50.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices, andapplications. Cambridge; Malden, Mass.: Polity Press.
Ishida, M. (2006). Interactional competence and the use of modal expressions in decisionmaking activities: CA for understanding microgenesis of pragmatic competence. In
K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Felix-Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics Language
Learning, Vol. 11 (pp. 55–80). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Ishida, M. (2011). Engaging in another person’s telling as a recipient in L2 Japanese:
Development of interactional competence during one-year study abroad. In G.
Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as a social practice: Conversation-analytic
perspectives (pp. 45–56). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. N.
Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 213–
48). New York: Academic Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H.
Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G., and J. Wagner (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language
acquisition (pp. 117–142). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Kasper, G., and J. Wagner (2014). Conversation Analysis in Applied Linguistics. Annual

─ 82 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 171–212.
Kondo, S. (2011). Development of interactional competence in a study abroad context:
Assessments as social actions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Sophia
University.
Kondo, S. (2014). Compliments and Responses to Compliments in L2 and L1 Speakers’
Interaction: A Discursive Approach. Sophia University Junior College Division
Faculty Journal, 34, 19–43.
Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for elicitingknowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 35, 277–309.
Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speakers. Journalof Pragmatics, 33(7), 1083–1110.
Kurhila, S. (2006). Second Language Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lerner, G. H. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation
analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lerner, G. H., & Takagi, T. (1999). On the place of linguistic resources in theorganization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanesegrammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 49–75.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.
Lindström, J., Y. Maschler, & S. Pekarek Doehler (2016). A cross-linguistic perspectiveon grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics,
106, 72–29.
Lindström, A., & Heinemann, T. (2009). Good enough: Low-grade assessments in
caregiving situations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 309–328.
Mazeland, H., & Zaman-Zadeh, M. (2004). The logic of clarification: Some observations
about word-clarification repairs in Finnish-as-a-lingua-franca interactions. In R.
Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 132–156). London:
Continuum.
Mondada, L. (2009). The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in
instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 329–361.

─ 83 ─

Sachiko Kondo

Mori, J. (2007). Border crossings? Exploring the intersection of second language
acquisition, conversation analysis, and foreign language pedagogy. The Modern
Language Journal, 91, 849–862.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment
in Japanese as a foreign language. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics inlanguage teaching (pp. 103–120). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Park, J. (2007). Co-construction of non-native speaker identity in cross-culturalinteraction. Applied Linguistics, 28/3, 339–360.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & E. Pochon-Berger (2015). The development of L2 Interactional
competence: evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair
organization, and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. Eskildsen (Eds.),
Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–267). Berlin: de
Gruyter Mouton.
Pollotti, G., and J. Wagner (Eds.). (2011). L2 learning as social practice: Conversationanalytic perspectives. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple
constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational
interaction (pp. 79–112). New York: Academic Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some featuresof preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),
Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation (Vol. I and II). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for theorganization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. R.
Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Socially shared cognition (pp. 150–
171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis andapplied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3–31.
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd edition).
London, UK: Sage.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

─ 84 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts

Wagner, J. (2015) Designing for language learning in the wild. Creating social
infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen(Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–104). Berlin:de Gruyter Mouton.
Wagner, J., & Gardner, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.),
Second language conversations (pp. 1–17). London: Continuum.
Waring, H. Z. (2007) The multi-functionality of accounts in advice giving. Journal ofsociolinguistics, 11(3), 367–391.

Appendix A: Transcription Conventions
Based on the Jefferson Transcription System
http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssjap/transcription/transcription.htm
Symbol		Meaning[ ]		Square brackets mark the start and end of overlapping speech. They
are aligned to mark the precise position of overlap.
↓

		Vertical arrows precede marked pitch movement, over and above
normal rhythms of speech. They are used for notable changes in pitch
beyond those represented by stops, commas and question marks.

→		Side arrows are used to draw attention to features of talk that are
relevant to the current analysis.
Underlining	indicates emphasis; the extent of underlining within individual words
locates emphasis and also indicates how heavy it is.
CAPITALS	mark speech that is hearably louder than surrounding speech. This isbeyond the increase in volume that comes as a by-product of emphasis.
°I know it,°“Degree” signs enclose hearably quieter speech.

that’s r*ight.

Asterisks precede a “squeaky” vocal delivery.

─ 85 ─

Sachiko Kondo(0.4)		Numbers in round brackets measure pauses in seconds (in this case,four-tenths of a second). If they are not part of a particular speaker’s
talk they are on a new line.
(.) 		

A micropause, hearable but too short to measure.

((staccato))	Additional comments from the transcriber, e.g. about features ofcontext or delivery.
she wa::nted	Colons show degrees of elongation of the prior sound; the more colons,
the more elongation.
Hhh		

Aspiration (out-breaths); proportionally as for colons.

.hhh		

Inspiration (in-breaths); proportionally as for colons.

Yeh,		“Continuation” marker, the speaker has not finished; marked by fallrise or weak rising intonation, as when delivering a list.
Question marks signal stronger, “questioning” intonation, irrespective

y’know?

of grammar.
Yeh.

	Full stops mark falling, stopping intonation (“final contour”),
irrespective of grammar, and not necessarily followed by a pause.

bu-u-		

Hyphens mark a cut-off of the preceding sound.

>he said<“Greater than” and “lesser than” signs enclose speeded-up talk.

< he said>

Occasionally they are used the other way around for slower talk.

solid.= =We had	“ Equals” signs mark the immediate “latching” of successive talk,whether of one or more speakers, with no interval.
heh heh	Voiced laughter. Can have other symbols added, such as underlining,
pitch movement, extra aspiration, etc.

─ 86 ─

Reformulation and Co-completion: L1 responses to L2 assessment accounts()		Empty parentheses indicate that the transcriber was unable tounderstand what was said. The length of the parenthesized spacereflects the length of the missed speech.

(word)		Parenthesized words and speaker designations are especially dubious.
Additional notations$ $		

Surrounds the “laughing” voice.

￡￡		Surrounds the “smile” voice.

Appendix B: Correlation Between ACTFL OPI and SST
ACTFL OPI Levels

SST Levels

Superior
Advanced High
Advanced Mid

Level 9Advanced Low
Intermediate HighIntermediate Mid
Intermediate Low

Level 8
Level 7
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4

Novice HighLevel 3

Novice Mid

Level 2

Novice Low

Level 1

The information in Appendix B was available on the official webpage of ALC Press in2010. Their webpage accessed on December 23, 2020, shows the descriptions of 9 levels(https://tsst.alc.co.jp/sst/english.html). Their webpage in Japanese announces that SST
will end its service at the end of March 2021.

─ 87 ─