Language Teaching Research 10,1 (2006); pp.

53–79

How can insights from conversation

analysis be directly applied to
teaching L2 pragmatics?
Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm University
of Kansas

This paper revisits the question of why pragmatics should be taught in the
foreign language classroom and demonstrates how this can be achieved
effectively with materials informed by conversation analysis (CA). Since
findings in CA describe systematic action sequences underlying verbal
activities that display cross-cultural variation, they capture pragmatics in its
most natural locus: the conversational encounter. It will furthermore be
demonstrated that L2 learners may benefit from instruction with CA-based
materials with the ability to anticipate, interpret and produce, socio-
pragmatically appropriate verbal behaviour in the target language.
CA-based materials thus provide a rich resource for language teachers
based on solid empirical evidence, and effectively enable L2 learners to
engage in cross-culturally variable language behaviour inside and outside
of class.

I Introduction
The teaching and acquisition of L2 pragmatics has received a great deal
of attention in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Studies
on the acquisition of L2 pragmatics have focused not only on the L2
learners’ comprehension and production of pragmatics but also on the
development of L2 learners’ pragmatic abilities (Kasper and Dahl,
1991; Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993; Kasper and Schmidt, 1996;
Bardovi-Harlig, 1999; Rose and Kasper, 2001; Kasper and Rose, 2002).
In the last few years, another direction of studies has focused on the

Address for correspondence: Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Department of Germanic Languages and

Literatures, The University of Kansas, 1445 Jayhawk Blud., Room 2077 (Wescoe Hall), Lawrence,
KS 66045, USA; e-mail: nikazm@ku.edu

© 2006 Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd 10.1191/1362168806lr184oa

54 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

effects of explicit teaching of L2 pragmatics and the development of

pragmatics in L2 learners (Bardovi-Harlig, 1996; see Rose and Kasper,
2001 for a collection of studies). These studies on L2 pragmatic instruc-
tion have examined the effect of implicit versus explicit teaching
approaches on specific aspects of L2 pragmatics and suggest that
explicit instruction may be effective for developing soci-opragmatic
proficiency.
It should be pointed out that the majority of these classroom-based
studies used models of speech acts not based on naturally occurring
data samples as instructional material to teach L2 socio-pragmatic
norms.1 They provided their learners with models of L2 sociocultural
norms which are usually exclusively based on native speaker intuition.
Native speaker intuition, however, affords somewhat idealized versions
of social interaction. Furthermore, like most previous studies on inter-
language pragmatics, the findings of these studies are based upon
the examination of elicited data (for example, discourse completion
tests). While such data may demonstrate learners’ explicit knowledge
of the L2 socio-pragmatic norms, they tend not to reflect learners’
ability to apply their socio-pragmatic knowledge in naturally occurring
conversation.2
Our paper offers a novel approach for explicitly teaching L2 socio-
pragmatics by providing L2 learners with authentic exemplars from L2
social interactions that are based on findings in conversation analysis
(CA). These materials provide L2 learners not only with explicit infor-
mation about socio-pragmatic norms, but also with opportunities to
practise and use the learned L2 socio-pragmatic norms inside and out-
side of class as they interact with one another in the target language. In
the course of this paper, we will review problematic aspects in teaching
socio-pragmatic norms and introduce basic aspects of CA and relate this
field of inquiry to foreign language teaching. We subsequently present a
teaching unit on telephone openings that illustrates how CA materials
may be incorporated into the foreign language classroom effectively.
Finally, we demonstrate that L2 learners may benefit from this kind of
teaching with the ability to anticipate, interpret and produce the target
language socio-pragmatics norms. For this purpose, we briefly discuss
two data examples that illustrate L2 learners’ active use of the learned
socio-pragmatic norms under the demanding conditions of real-time
talk-in-interaction in the target language.
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 55

II Teaching socio-pragmatic norms

The notion of pragmatics has been defined by various scholars in the
fields of linguistics, second language acquisition, and pedagogy. Crystal
(1997: 301) views pragmatics as: ‘The study of language from the point
of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints
they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects
their use of language has on other participants in the act of communica-
tion’. Pragmatics in this definition refers to speakers’ knowledge about
social conventions and the ways they interact with one another in partic-
ular social situations according to those conventions. The nature of these
conventions may be partly universal and partly culturally specific
(Gumperz, 1982; 1992). Moerman (1988) notes that speakers experience
and produce their cultures, their roles and their personalities when inter-
acting with one another. When participants converse, they approach
encounters with certain assumptions about the situation and their
co-participants. According to this anthropologically inspired approach to
CA, their interaction is dictated by their cultural norms, i.e. what can be
said and what should not be said in particular situations, as well as the
ways to say what can be said. If speakers belong to the same culture,
none of these assumptions need to be stated or even consciously recog-
nized; they are learned through socialization in daily life.
However, if speakers belong to two different cultures pragmatic inter-
ference may occur due to differing conceptions of the social activity in
which the speakers are engaged (Gumperz, 1982; Taleghani-Nikazm,
1999; 2002a; Golato, 2002). That is, participants may have different cul-
tural knowledge of specific situations and thus may have different inten-
tions and different expectations of the process of an action. Based on
their native language cultural norms and the specific context, they may
perform a specific action with a different expectation. Participants may
thus misunderstand one another because of the intercultural differences
in their intentions, expectations and performance of social actions. This,
however, may occur if the non-native speakers are not aware of the
socio-pragmatic differences between their native culture and the L2
culture. In acquiring one’s native language, one also learns the accept-
able ways of interacting in the native culture. Part of growing up is the
socialization of speakers into their culture (Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986).
When non-native speakers converse in another language, they frequently
56 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

tend to behave according to the socio-culturally appropriate norms of

their native language rather than those of the target language, often
regardless of their level of proficiency (Eisenstein and Bodman, 1986;
Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1990; Taleghani-Nikazm, 1999; 2002a;
Golato, 2002). As a result of such pragmatic interference, misinterpretation
of the intent of the action is possible. Considering how differences (often
quite small and subtle) in conversational norms may lead to problems
and misunderstandings in native–non-native interactions, it becomes
clear that teaching socio-pragmatics ought to be an important component
of L2 teaching.
Kasper (1997) notes that learners do not acquire a sufficient level of
L2 pragmatic ability because the target language they encounter in the
L2 classroom lacks a sufficient range of relevant exemplars of social
interaction. It has also been suggested that even language teaching
course books are lacking in this respect (Scotton and Bernstein, 1988;
Wong, 2002; Huth, 2005). As we know, what learners ultimately learn
in the target language and how they learn to do it are closely connected
to the quality and quantity of opportunities they are given to develop
the competency. If we are to understand pragmatics as social interac-
tion between two or more interactants (Gumperz, 1977; Leech, 1983;
Crystal, 1997), then we ought to use instructional materials and activities
that represent such a view. That is, learners must be exposed to exem-
plars of authentic interactional moments in order to explore L2 socio-
pragmatics with the goal of helping them to become aware of the L2
sociocultural norms that operate in the target language. The aim of this
paper is to propose an approach to teaching L2 pragmatics that utilizes
conversation analytic findings in the language classroom in order to
increase pragmatic awareness and consequently facilitate development of
learners’ L2 pragmatic ability.

III Theoretical framework: conversation analysis as a resource

We argue that CA provides useful teaching materials that are consistent
with a social-interactionist understanding of pragmatics, situating prag-
matic rules of language use in talk-in-interaction. A small number of
scholars have acknowledged the general potential of CA for teaching
L2 pragmatics (Barraja-Rohan, 1997; Crozet and Liddcioat, 1997;
Seedhouse, 2004; Huth, 2005). Crozet and Liddicoat (1997) approach
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 57

CA from a perspective that considers the demands of an integrated

cultural curriculum. While providing a line of argument similar to the one
developed here, Barraja-Rohan’s (1997) case for CA remains largely at
the level of theory. We intend to underscore and further develop the ideas
of both by illustrating in detail how CA-based materials may be used for
teaching pragmatics and show how they may equip L2 learners with
useful socio-pragmatic strategies.
This section reviews basic tenets and concepts in CA in order to
highlight the direct ties of this academic inquiry to crucial issues in
teaching pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. Specifically,
we demonstrate that CA is able to describe highly systematic patterns
of conversational action that may be cross-linguistically variable. The
sequential organization of verbal activities within a language commu-
nity as described by CA provides solid empirical evidence about socio-
pragmatic rules underlying language use for teachers, and may empower
L2 learners with the ability to provide relevant next actions in conver-
sation in the target language. Therefore, we argue, CA-based materials
are a valuable resource for teaching L2 pragmatics.

1 Co-construction of a common set of procedures

With its roots in sociology, research in CA incorporates descriptive,
ethnomethodological knowledge (Garfinkel, 1967). Founded by Harvey
Sacks in collaboration with Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, its object of study is, in a general sense, the
social organization of everyday conduct by social actors as evident in
their language behaviour. Specifically, CA investigates naturally occur-
ring conversation with particular regard to the orderly properties that
underlie social action and make social action intelligible for interactants
as it is instantiated in talk-in-interaction (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984).
CA research is entirely based on naturally occurring conversation which
is captured on audio- and video-tapes and subsequently transcribed for
detailed analysis. Natural data of this kind allow CA researchers to
analyse recurrent, identifiable patterns in talk-in-interaction, focusing on
how verbal activities such as greetings, requests, compliments, among
others, are co-constructed by social actors.
The term ‘co-construction’ stipulates that verbal activities are inher-
ently collaborative in nature and presuppose a common set of procedures
58 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

to which social actors orient (Garfinkel, 1967). Accordingly, giving a

compliment, answering the phone, or rejecting an invitation must be
viewed as accomplishments that result from a collaborative effort as
participants contribute to the present verbal activity on a turn-by-turn
basis. It is important to note that verbal activities constitute interactional
achievements rather than mechanized recitations of prescribed routine
formulae (Schegloff, 1981; 1986; 1995) because speakers rely on their
co-participants’ interpretation of current conversational actions in order
to project relevant ‘next’ contributions.
CA shows that this kind of collaborative behaviour works the way it
does because co-participants mutually project ‘what ought to come
next’, based on inference as they orient towards socio-pragmatic rules of
language use. Since CA is able to describe these systematic patterns in
sequences in a given language community, research results may be
cross-culturally compared in order to determine similarities and differ-
ences in socio-pragmatic behaviour as instantiated in talk-in-interaction.
Pragmatics in this sense are operable not on the level of lexis or syntax,
but are rather manifest in the systematic back and forth of conversation
as speakers take turns at conversational moves and counter moves, such
as asking and answering a question, issuing an invitation and either
accepting or rejecting it. The next section will discuss this in more detail.

2 Paired action and relevant next turns

Rules underlying sequences and turn-taking have been demonstrated
to be indicative of mechanisms that point towards a set of procedures in
the Garfinkelian sense that are widely shared among the members of a
language community (Sacks et al., 1974; Atkinson and Heritage, 1984).
While intracultural variation in lexis or syntax by speakers, due to extra-
neous factors, such as gender, age and social strata, may vary consider-
ably, the mechanisms underlying sequences and turn-taking seem to
hold across these variables (Schegloff, 1987). It must be emphasized that
turn-taking and the realization of sequences go beyond the sentence
level. The proverbial devil in this process lies in the subtle details of
conversationalists’ ability to provide relevant ‘next’ turns in response to
‘first’ turns as required by the sequential organization of a particular
language. In other words, a crucial skill for speakers in a language
community is the ability to provide a contribution to the ongoing
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 59

conversation that relevantly refers to that which has been uttered

before.3 This skill enables speakers to meet a particular conversational
move (such as a compliment) with a relevant ‘next’ move (such as a
compliment response). Speakers tacitly know that some ‘first’ moves
may project only a limited range of ‘second’ moves from which the
conversationalist may subsequently; otherwise, orderly conduct in
conversational encounters would not be possible.
This basic mechanism governing how two utterances are relevantly
connected to one another is referred to as conditional relevance of paired
action (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984; Heritage, 1984). For example, a
question relevantly projects an answer, a request can either be granted or
declined, and invitations may be accepted or rejected (Davidson, 1984;
Heritage, 1984; Schegloff, 1995). While this might appear as stating the
obvious, research in CA has shown that the particular organization of
relevantly connected utterances (i.e. sequences) appear to be culturally
variable at times (Pavlidou, 1994; Golato, 2002; Taleghani-Nikazm,
2002a; Wong, 2002).
A ‘how are you’ sequence, for example, constitutes a common
everyday-life routine in American English (AE). Often used as a con-
versational opener, it is generally reciprocal and thus entails two adja-
cency pairs.4 Consider the following telephone opening routine adopted
from Levinson (1983: 312):
01 (ring)
02 A: hello
03 B: hello rob. this is laurie.
04 how’s everything
05 A: pretty good.
06 how ‘bout you.
07 B: jus’ fine. the reason I called was . . .

The ‘how are you’ sequence featured in this data segment (lines 03–05)
may be extracted and described in the following sequential arrangement:
A: how is everything Question Adjacency pair I
B: pretty good. Answer
B: how ‘bout you Question Adjacency pair II
A: jus’ fine. Answer

In everyday-life conversational German, however, this particular

sequence is organized differently. Taleghani-Nikazm (2002a) shows that
German speakers may not necessarily follow this particular sequential
60 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

pattern as part of a telephone opening routine, but rather start the first
topic of conversation already after the first adjacency pair. In contrast to
AE speakers, German speakers often may not reciprocate the ‘how are
you’, but rather begin a first topic instead of inquiring after the other
participants’ well-being.
It may be emphasized at this point that findings in CA do not show
that particular structures do not vary. Variations do occur due to varying
contextual influences. However, these can be regarded as specific, local
adaptations of a structural blueprint that is otherwise applied (Schegloff,
1986). CA researchers apply a cautious policy of quantification, docu-
menting sequence types in terms of what speakers do overwhelmingly,
often, generally, or rarely, depending on what the particular data corpus
reveals. See Schegloff (1993), however, for a detailed and accessible
discussion of the numerous difficulties and pitfalls that emerge when CA
is linked to the well-developed system of quantification commonly
practised in the social sciences.
For our purposes, it is sufficient to note at this point that AE speakers
generally reciprocate a ‘how are you’, whereas German speakers may
often not do so. We are thus confronted with a cross-cultural difference
concerning the sequence structure of a verbal activity that requires rele-
vant ‘next’ actions, according to different sequential arrangements. The
speakers of either language community draw from different sequential
blueprints regarding relevant next actions. This may have consequences
for cross-cultural communication: two conversationalists rely on differ-
ent frameworks in inferring their ‘next’ conversational moves, they are
likely to experience communication problems.

IV L2 learners and pragmatic transfer

At this point in the discussion, the relevance of CA for teaching L2 prag-
matics in the foreign language classroom starts to take shape. When
interacting in the target language, L2 learners transfer and apply
pragmatic resources from their native language. This is referred to as
‘pragmatic transfer’ and plays a major part in cross-cultural miscommu-
nication (Gumperz, 1977; 1982; Thomas, 1983; Kasper, 1992; Jaworski,
1994). Positive pragmatic transfer denotes the transfer of similar prag-
matic strategies and mostly goes unnoticed by participants. Negative
pragmatic transfer occurs when pragmatics differ across languages and
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 61

may have detrimental effects on cross-cultural communication. It has

been demonstrated that this mechanism holds true for the sequential
level of conversation (Golato, 2002; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002a; Huth,
2005). In other words, when speakers transfer their native sequential
knowledge of a particular verbal activity such as in the ‘how are you’
sequence above, they are likely to produce adjacent turns that do not
relevantly project one another. This may have negative consequences for
communication.
In fact, Golato (2002) and Taleghani-Nikazm (2002a) show how such
negative pragmatic transfer on the sequential level may lead to disflu-
ency or disruptions within conversation in cross-cultural encounters.
As their conversation analytic examinations demonstrate, disruptions
occur precisely at or after juncture points at which the sequential organ-
ization of the languages involved differ. In other words, disruptions
occur when a given ‘next’ turn deployed by a speaker does not match the
co-participants’ projection of what may constitute a relevant next turn.
This kind of miscommunication is marked with hesitations, pauses,
cut-offs and repair efforts by participants. CA is thus able to isolate and
describe pragmatic failure as it is manifest in naturally occurring
conversation. Curiously, these disruptions often remain unresolved.
Speakers, while demonstrably noticing and orienting towards the current
trouble, generally do not address it explicitly. Golato (2002: 567) com-
ments: ‘The research to date suggests that when learners transfer prag-
matic resources from one language to the next, communication can be
impeded or even break down, but rarely do second language learners get
overtly corrected.’ It may be hypothesized that speakers may simply not
be aware of the possibility that the cause of miscommunication lies in
the sequential organization of verbal activities.

1 CA as a resource for teaching materials

Research in CA thus shows that one key to cross-cultural miscommuni-
cation in everyday-life conversation lies in the subtle detail of providing
relevant ‘next’ turns in response to ‘first’ turns within sequences under-
lying particular verbal activities that are cross-culturally variable.
CA-materials illustrate cross-culturally variable sequential organizations
underlying particular verbal activities and hence have the potential to
enable students to anticipate, interpret and produce relevant conduct in
62 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

the target language, based on sequence structures. Providing relevant

‘next’ actions as required by the sequence organization of the target
language is an important strategy for L2 learners to negotiate social
interaction in conversational encounters. Thus we come back to our
central point: if it is in talk-in-interaction where pragmatics are demon-
strably functional, CA-based materials constitute a suitable tool for the
teaching of pragmatics in the foreign language classroom.

2 Empirical evidence vs. native speaker intuitions

A last caveat remains to be addressed with regard to the kind of evidence
both language teachers and SLA researchers use in classrooms and in
experiments. What is it that makes CA findings unique? It is, after all,
no news that cross-cultural differences exist in pragmatics. It remains,
however, to be specified what both researchers and teachers consider to
be reliable information about socio-pragmatic behaviour within a lan-
guage community. For the most part, studies on pragmatics draw on
‘native speaker intuitions’, i.e. the knowledge of native speakers about
their own verbal behaviour. Given native speakers’ (i.e. everybody’s)
natural competence in their own language, it may appear rather surpris-
ing that native speaker intuitions about pragmatic aspects of language
use have proven to be potentially inaccurate. Investigating compliment-
ing behaviour of native speakers of German, Golato (2003) convincingly
shows how the perception of native speakers about their own conversa-
tional conduct differed from their actual conduct. This became evident
after comparing strikingly different results brought forth by two data
sets: (1) unelicited data that featured actual instances of pragmatic
behaviour based on natural, authentic transcripts of talk-in-interaction;
(2) data about speakers’ perception of their socio-pragmatic behaviour as
elicited by discourse completion tasks (DCT).
Golato first analysed German native speakers’ complimenting behav-
iour as evident in natural conversational data and was surprised that in a
total of 50 compliment sequences, she could not find a single instance of
‘Danke’ (‘thank you’) in speakers’ compliment acceptances. Drawing
from her own native speaker intuition as a German, she would have
expected that German speakers generally accept compliments with such
a token of appreciation. Intrigued by her conversational data, she subse-
quently developed DCTs that featured situations in which respondents
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 63

were to react to compliments and administered them to the same people

whose conversations she had previously recorded and analysed. The
results were strikingly different. In the DCTs, native speakers over-
whelmingly stated that they would accept compliments with ‘Danke’
which was in stark contrast to their actual interactional behaviour, where
no ‘thank yous’ could be found at all.5
CA has thus demonstrated that what people think they do in conver-
sation and what they actually do may be incongruent. If abstract prag-
matic knowledge and actual pragmatic performance differ, it appears to
be highly problematic to rely solely on native speaker intuitions in both
language teaching and SLA research. Research in CA, on the other hand,
is exclusively based on actual instances of verbal behaviour as it is man-
ifest in naturally occurring conversation. Hence, conversation analysts
start from the ‘bottom’ of the raw conversational data and work their
way ‘up’ to formulate theoretical claims. Thus, CA affords solid empir-
ical evidence about pragmatics that go beyond the scope of perception
and intuition of native speakers or other tentative assessments of
observers of the target language culture.6
Another advantage of CA-informed studies is its ability to investigate
speech acts in their sequential environment. Some speech acts are not
concluded within a mere adjacency pair, but are rather co-constructed
(see above) over multiple turns. Co-construction hinges upon the collab-
orative work of two or more interactants. To reiterate: with every conver-
sational move, with every turn issued, a speaker does tacit inferential
work as he or she anticipates, interprets, and produces relevant next
turns. Heritage (1984: 242) calls this mechanism the ‘doubly’ contextual
character of communicative action:

The context-renewing character of conversational actions is directly related to the fact

that they are context-shaped. Since every ‘current’ action will itself form the immediate
context for some ‘next’ action in a sequence, it will inevitably contribute to the frame-
work in terms of which the next action will be understood.

A DCT is not equipped to deal with the facts that every single
utterance in naturally occurring interaction is inevitably co-constructed,
situated in a particular sequential environment, and bound to the
context-shaping and context-renewing properties of turns in talk-in-
interaction. This has caught the attention of researchers in interlanguage
pragmatics (e.g. Kasper, 2005).
64 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

To conclude this section, we therefore argue that it would be desirable

that foreign language teachers put the findings of CA to useful work in
teaching pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. The next section
will describe how this may be accomplished as we showcase the instruc-
tional potential of CA-based materials that describe differences in the
sequencing of everyday telephone openings in AE and German.

VII Using CA materials in the foreign language classroom

Barraja-Rohan (1997) provides a first discussion of the general instruc-
tional potential of CA findings, focusing on adjacency pairs and the gen-
eral systematicity of conversational action.7 In this section, we discuss
in detail what particular kinds of CA-based materials may be considered
for foreign language teaching, specify concrete teaching goals, and sug-
gest how they may be achieved in the classroom. While pedagogical
details are not at the heart of this paper, we take into consideration some
basic didactic principles in our suggestions.
In order to use CA data for teaching pragmatics in the FL classroom,
it is desirable that CA studies be available for both the native language
of L2 learners and the target language, so as to enable a contrastive
cross-linguistic analysis (however, findings on the target language only
may be considered as well).
The advantages of CA data for the FL classroom are manifold. First,
CA-based materials are authentic since they are based on recordings of
naturally occurring interactions among native speakers. Second, teach-
ers are presented with materials that may train all four skills (speaking,
listening, reading, writing), since the data can be made available in
the form of printed transcriptions, video or audio examples. Third,
CA-based materials meet the demands of task-based instruction. In the
framework of communicative language teaching, communication
requires two or more autonomous participants, is understood as the
expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning, and should pri-
marily happen among learners in the classroom (Lee, 2000; Ellis, 2003;
Lee and VanPatten, 2003). CA-based materials offer blueprints of
sequences of conversational action (e.g. invitation – acceptance/
rejection) and thus effectively engage L2 learners in communicative
situations as they practice target language pragmatics and jointly
co-construct the verbal activity at hand.
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 65

1 Goals: focus on relevant next actions

The goal of teaching pragmatics with CA-based materials is, accord-
ingly, to enable students to anticipate, interpret and produce the target
language sequences underlying particular verbal activities so that they
may act socio-pragmatically appropriately when engaged in real-time
talk-in-interaction in the target language culture.
The kind of learning involved in this task is of relevant concern for
setting learning goals in the classroom and may be addressed within the
framework of recent CA studies which approach language learning from
a social-interactionist perspective.8 In keeping with the mechanisms
of co-construction and the situatedness of interaction, Mondana and
Pekarek-Doehler (2004), for example, develop a concept of learning that
rests on a notion of distributed cognition among interactants, which is
situated in the intersubjective space between interactants. In other
words, learning is not seen as an event taking place solely in the cogni-
tive isolation of a particular learners’ brain, but rather from a perspective
that regards learning as an inherently collaborative process situated in
the interactional matrix between interactants. Young and Miller (2004)
demonstrate how this process can be observed with CA in real-
time interaction. Both studies suggest that interactional learning orients
towards sequence structures and turn-taking, characterizing learning as
a gradual change in members’ participation in specific discursive
practices. Learning and using L2 sequences in the framework of L2
pragmatics as suggested in this paper can thus be understood as
L2 learners’ ability to orient towards the task design (i.e. sequences)
underlying particular L2 speech acts, when they use the L2 for commu-
nicative purposes.

2 Instructional phases
Classroom research focusing on pragmatic development in L2 learners
strongly suggests that pragmatics are taught more successfully with an
explicit approach (Tateyama, 2001). A focus on the structure underlying
the sequences as visible in the CA transcripts is thus a necessity. We
suggest that teaching units on conversational sequences include the
following aspects: (1) general in-class reflection about conversational
practices and their systematic nature; (2) a contrastive in-class analysis
66 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

of sequences in the target language and the native language; (3) presen-
tation of the materials with authentic transcripts and audio and video
materials (if available); (4) practice of the target language sequences
within a communicative context; (5) reflection and evaluation of the
cultural import of the practised structures. In the following, we shall
explain these aspects in detail by reporting how first and second
semester American learners of German at an American university were
exposed to CA-findings that feature cross-cultural differences in every-
day telephone openings in German and AE.

a In-class reflection about conversational practices: Students prac-

tised a telephone call in class and talked about how they answer the
phone in their native language. The discussion was directed at how
mutual recognition is achieved, what kind of greeting formulae are used,
and how and when first topics may be initiated. By turning L2 learners’
attention towards such conversational details, their attention was effec-
tively directed at the systematic nature of conversational action as they
became attuned to the sequences identified by CA-research: (1) mutual
recognition/identification; (2) greetings; (3) transition into the first topic
(particulars of these sequences will be explained in detail below).

b Contrastive in-class analysis of L1 and L2 sequence structure: To

find data about telephone openings sequences, CA-based studies on
telephone openings (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973; Godard, 1977; Schegloff,
1979; Schegloff, 1986; Sifianou, 1989; Lindström, 1990; Liefländer-
Koistinen and Neuendorf, 1991; Houtkoop-Streenstra, 1991; Hopper,
1992; Pavlidou, 1994; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002a; Wong, 2002) were
screened for apparent cross-cultural differences. The relevant findings
for a cross-cultural analysis between German and AE can be found in
Schegloff and Sacks (1973), Schegloff (1979), Pavlidou (1994) and
Taleghani-Nikazm (2002a). The findings of theses studies were used for
creating worksheets and transparencies for the teaching unit. We shall
briefly discuss two examples to illustrate the differences meriting the
instructional unit here outlined.
Consider first Levinson’s (1983) example shown above. The
example shows how systematically both participants open up their
telephone conversation. We can identify a summons–answer sequence
(lines 01 and 02), greeting tokens (‘hello rob’, line 03), and an
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 67

identification/recognition sequence (lines 02 and 03). This is followed

by a ‘how are you’ sequence (lines 04 through 07). It is only after this
systematic exchange that speakers direct their focus on the first conver-
sation topic. The important aspects of this telephone opening are that AE
speakers prefer to recognize/identify each other by voice sample as in
lines 01–03, in which Rob provides only his voice which proves to be
sufficient information for Laurie to identify him. Second, speakers
engage in a ‘how are you’ sequence that is reciprocal, i.e. consisting of
two adjacency pairs (see discussion above).
Now consider the following example taken from Taleghani-Nikazm
(2002a: 1818):
01 ring
02 Karen: karen dippmann,?
karen dippmann,?
03 Dina: hallo ich bin’s.
hello it’s me
04 Karen: jai, hallo
yeah, hello
05 Dina: hi, hui
hi, oh,
06 Karen: du hast mich inspiriert
you inspired me
07 Dina: .hhh warum
.hhh why
08 Karen: ich habe heute machmittag pumpkin gemacht
I made pumpkin this afternoon

Note how Karen states her full name and thus self-identifies in line 02.
Dina, in turn, also self-identifies in line 03. Arguably, the rising intona-
tion in the answerer’s self-identification (line 02) puts constraints on the
caller’s next turn (line 03), prompting reciprocal self-identification, i.e.
the answerer conveys a message similar to ‘this is who is speaking on
this end of the line, and who is on the other?’ Mutual recognition/
identification in this example is achieved in line 04. While greeting
tokens are exchanged in lines 04 and 05, no ‘how are you’ sequence
occurs. Instead, Karen initiates the first topic in line 06.
The differences in AE and German everyday telephone openings may
be summarized as follows: While AE speakers prefer identification/
recognition by voice sample, German speakers prefer self-identification
by stating their names. While AE speakers often go through a reciprocal
‘how are you’ routine, German speakers may often not engage in ‘how
68 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

are you’ sequences at all or, if they do so, may not reciprocate them. It
is furthermore possible that German speakers topicalize a ‘how are you’
if it occurs, effectively making the inquiry after one’s well-being a locus
for the first topic. In sum, in both languages relevant next turns as part
of everyday telephone openings are differently arranged. Starting with
the summons–answer sequence and ending with the transition into the
first topic, different conversational moves (i.e. ‘first’ and ‘next’ turns) are
relevant at different positions within the sequence.

c Using written transcripts, audio and video materials: After L2

learners had completed the pre-activation activities outlined in (1)
above, worksheets featuring the above differences between AE and
German telephone opening sequences were used in class. L2 learners
participated in analysing the sequential organization of German tele-
phone openings (i.e. who performs what kind of conversational action
and in which succession). The transcripts were furthermore comple-
mented with audio materials which provided ample opportunity for
activities improving listening skills while reinforcing the newly intro-
duced structures. It may be added that students grasped the significance
of ‘when to say what’ without being taught particular concepts of CA.

d Practising sequence structures with role-plays: After repeated

exposure to the differences of telephone openings in AE and German
and several follow-up activities involving audio examples, L2 learners
engaged in role plays in which the target language structures were prac-
tised. L2 learners thus actively engaged in cross-culturally different
verbal behaviour and tried to act socio-pragmatically appropriately in
the target language. It is crucial that such structures be practised within
a situational context given by the teacher, effectively providing students
with meaningful tasks that allow for the joint co-construction of the
verbal activity at hand. L2 learners thus practised the new sequences in
communicative situations (i.e. they simulated calling each other while
performing a communicative task such as inviting each other out for
dinner). Simulating a telephone call, students sat back to back and con-
versed with several conversation partners in quick succession, so as to
have restricted sensory access to one another.

e Reflection and evaluation: discussing the cross-cultural differences:

After practising in pairs, students discussed the new structures in class
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 69

and evaluated them with regard to their cultural import. We found that
L2 learners were fully aware of the different structures which they could
apply rather effortlessly. However, there was a general consensus among
learners that answering the phone ‘German style’ was slightly difficult
regarding the unilateral ‘how are you’ sequence. This shows how strong
the underlying expectations about what may come ‘next’ in talk are
based on the native language of L2 speakers. However, this also shows
that students’ awareness of the sequential arrangement of German
telephone openings was effectively heightened with regard to both
structure and socio-pragmatic import.

VIII Are CA-based materials effective?

So far, the present paper has discussed how CA-based instructional
materials may be used in teaching L2 socio-pragmatics. The following
section addresses the question whether learners are in fact able to use the
taught L2 sequences. The teaching unit described above was incorpo-
rated into the regular German language curriculum at the University of
Kansas. Learners’ interactions were recorded before and after the
instruction. In the following we provide two samples of the recorded
interactions to illustrate learners’ L2 pragmatic development, focusing
on L2 learners’ demonstrable orientation towards the task-design (i.e.
sequence structures) underlying typical AE or German sequence struc-
tures in their talk.

1 Participants
The participants in the study included 23 first-year German students at
the University of Kansas. The German language classes met five days a
week for 50 minutes. The majority of students enrolled in the German
language classes to fulfil their foreign language requirement. In general,
these students have little opportunity for interacting with native speak-
ers of German outside of the classroom. The explicit instruction via
CA-based materials was used on three sets of students in two different
semesters – once during the spring semester of 2000 in a first-semester
German class while a similar but improved set of instructional material
was incorporated in two sections of second-semester German language
class during the fall semester of 2003. The majority of students were
70 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

audiorecorded before and after CA-based instructions. Conversations

between students were transcribed according to Gail Jefferson’s (1984)
transcription notation.

2 Procedure and analysis

Data for this study consist of telephone conversations between learners
of German which were audiotaped and transcribed. The first data set
(pre-instruction) was collected at the beginning of the semester prior to
the explicit instruction in L2 socio-pragmatic conventions. The second
set (post-instruction) was collected towards the end of the semester. Five
weeks transpired between the explicit instruction phase and the second
recordings. Using conversation analysis, both data sets were examined,
particularly in regard to learners’ interactional behaviour when opening
a conversation in German on the phone. In the next subsections, we pres-
ent only two data excerpts that exemplify typical interactional behaviour
of learners before and after CA-based instructions.

3 Pre-instruction interactional behaviour

Before learners received the explicit instructional materials, they were
given a task that included calling each other outside of class in order to
invite their co-participant to a party. An analysis of the pre-instruction
recorded telephone conversations between learners shows transfer of L1
socio-pragmatic norms when opening a conversation on the phone in the
target language. The next data segment exemplifies such a case. This is
a conversation between two learners of German at the elementary level.
The phone call was conducted outside of class. The task required one
learner to call the other and invite their co-participant to a party using the
target language. In the transcript, the top line is the original talk. The
English translation is provided in italics in the second line.
01 ring
02 todd: hello?
hello?
03 kar: hello
hello
04 todd: guten tag
good day
05 kar: .hhh uh guten tag. wie geht’s?
.hhh uh good day. how are you?
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 71

06 todd: uh mir geht’s gut und du?

uh i am fine and you?
07 kar: .hhh uh nicht besonders gut
.hhh uh not particularly well
08 todd: nein?
no?
09 kar: uhm:: tsk machst du am wochenende
uh:: tsk you do on the weekend

In this data segment, Karen and Todd move through exactly the same
opening sequences suggested for AE. They perform: (a) a summons-
answer sequence (lines 1–2); (b) an exchange of greeting tokens (lines
3–5), and (c) a reciprocal ‘how are you’ (lines 5–8). In particular, the
preference for voice sample recognition and the reciprocal ‘how are
yous’ illustrate how learners orient to conversational patterns of their
native language when using the L2 in interactive situations. Pragmatic
transfer occurs because learners had not received explicit instruction on
how to appropriately open telephone conversations in Germany.
Therefore, when they were put in a situation in which they had to pro-
duce spontaneous speech, they transfer socio-pragmatic rules from their
L1 in order to open a telephone conversation in L2.

4 Post-instruction interactional behaviour

The second set of data was collected 5 weeks after students received
explicit instruction on socio-pragmatic norms which described how
German speakers open telephone everyday conversations. The analysis
of the post-instruction telephone conversation openings shows that the
majority of learners were able to use the L2 sequences taught in class
when performing an everyday phone conversation opening, as illustrated
in the data segment below.
01 ring
02 karen: karen graham?
karen graham?
03 todd: hallo hier ist todd
hello this is todd
04 karen: oh hallo todd wie gehts
oh hello todd how are you
05 todd: oh mir geht’s gut? aehm was machst du am Samstag
oh I am fine? uhm what are you doing on saturday
06 karen: am samstag hm:.hh ich weiss nicht
on saturday hm:.hh i don’t know
72 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

Similar to German native speakers, Karen answers the phone with self-
identification and a rising intonation (line 2). This is followed by her
co-participant’s (Todd) self-identification – a feature that is also
common in German telephone conversation opening (line 3). After dis-
playing her recognition oh hallo todd (oh hello todd), Karen inquired
about Todd’s well-being wie geht’s (how are you) (line 4). Todd in turn
responds to Karen’s inquiry (line 5) and continues with a pre-invitation
was machst du am Samstag (what are you doing on Saturday?). Note
that Todd does not reciprocate Karen’s ‘how are you’, but instead devel-
ops his response into the initiation of the first topic. Overall, the analy-
sis of this segment demonstrates characteristics of German telephone
opening sequences. Comparing this data segment with the previous one
which illustrates a conversation between the same speakers before the
explicit instruction, we can observe that Karen and Todd operate accord-
ing to German behavioural patterns taught in class.
The analysis of the recorded data segments demonstrates that (a) L2
pragmatic knowledge can be explicitly taught by using examples of L2
naturally occurring conversational activities, and (b) working with
CA-based instructional materials has a positive effective in teaching and
learning pragmatic aspects of the L2, by enabling learners to anticipate,
interpret and produce the relevant next interactional behaviour in L2
based on sequence structures.

IX Conclusion
The present paper makes a contribution to the growing body of work that
discusses ways in which CA can serve SLA and foreign language peda-
gogy (Barraja-Rohan, 1997; Markee and Kasper, 2004; see MLJ special
issue, 2004 for the collection of studies). In this paper we demonstrated
the following: (a) how findings from CA-based studies may effectively
be utilized in teaching L2 pragmatics, and (b) how CA can serve as a
methodological resource to document, identify, and analyse learners’
learned pragmatic behaviour in real-time interaction in the target lan-
guage. Specifically, we proposed that CA-based materials are able to
provide detailed socio-pragmatic information that is in accordance with
a social-interactionist definition of pragmatics. We demonstrated that
explicit instruction of one particular socio-pragmatic norm using
CA-based instructional materials had a positive effect on learners’
German pragmatic learning.
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 73

One concern that foreign language instructors may have is how much
background in CA they need in order to teach with CA-based materials.
We suggest that instructors need to know basic CA concepts such as
those we discussed in the present paper. Such knowledge may help
instructors to present CA findings to their students in an informed
manner. For L2 learners, on the other hand, it is not necessary to know
CA metalanguage. As was mentioned above, L2 learners extrapolate
from their L1 interactional knowledge and naturally grasp the signifi-
cance behind the temporal unfolding of sequences just by looking at
them, intuitively understanding that the crux lies in ‘what comes next’
within a sequence.
Another issue related to developing and implementing CA-based
instructional materials in the FL curriculum is the availability of CA
studies which offer empirical analyses of various social activities in
other cultures than English. In recent years, there have been a large
number of conversation analytic studies on real-time conversation in a
wide range of diverse languages which have explored social actions in
their sequential context.9 These studies offer exemplars of interactional
social activities that may be used for teaching L2 pragmatics. Such data
excerpts may be accompanied by instructional activities that provide
opportunities for learners to expand their knowledge about L2 socio-
pragmatic information and to practise those learned verbal patterns in
interactions inside and outside of the classroom.
There is also the question of what CA can do for language textbook
design. It has been noted that dialogues in textbooks do not follow pat-
terns of naturally occurring talk and are mainly designed to introduce
new grammar and/or vocabulary. As a result, they fail to discuss L2 socio-
pragmatic norms and cultural differences underlying speakers’ verbal
behaviour (Scotton and Bernstein, 1988; Han, 1992; Wong, 2002; Huth,
2005). Therefore, we suggest that research findings in CA can serve as a
valuable source for teachers and textbook designers to incorporate
authentic dialogues in the target language that demonstrate the ways
speakers behave verbally and non-verbally in various social situations.

Notes
1 Yoshimi’s study is the only one that used spontaneous conversations between an instruc-
tor and a native speaker of Japanese as a model.
2 Liddicoat and Crozet’s study is the only one in Rose and Kasper’s edited volume that
have used videotaped interaction between learners as a tool for data collection.
74 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?
3 An utterance in natural, real-time talk-in-interaction never occurs in temporal, thematic,
or otherwise contextually determined independence, but is inevitably bound to the pre-
vious conversational action(s) leading up to it. CA researchers call this the sequential
context of an utterance or its ‘situatedness’ (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). In fact, in
CA it is regarded as a methodological imperative to examine any given conversational
move by reference to its sequential context. Thus, CA research must be sharply differ-
entiated from speech act research in the tradition of Searle (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969).
4 Schegloff and Sacks list five characteristics of adjacency pairs (Schegloff and Sacks,
1973: 295-96): An adjacency pair is (1) a sequence of two utterances which are
(2) adjacent, (3) produced by different speakers, (4) ordered as a first part and a second
part, and (5) typed, so that a first part requires a particular second part (or range of
second parts).
5 Golato’s data are based on 25 hours of non-elicited videotaped dinner-table
conversations and 6 hours of audiotaped telephone conversations between close
friends and family members. The data corpus consists of a total of 50 compliment
sequences.
6 In response to the comments of one of the anonymous reviewers we emphasize that
DCTs are by no means intended to be portrayed as a research method of the past in this
paper. Nor do we dismiss DCTs as inappropriate for research in pragmatics. We share
positions with Kasper and Rose (2002) who argue in favour of a complementary
multiplicity of research methods in pragmatics. We focus on pragmatics as they are
manifest in turn-taking and sequences. Accordingly, we turn towards a methodology
(CA) that is able to address these phenomena adequately. It would be inconsistent with
our theoretical approach if we considered DCT-informed studies in this paper.
7 While Barraja-Rohan (1997) points out the general potential of paired action and pref-
erence structure for foreign language teaching, she does not specify what it is exactly
that can or should be taught and how that may be accomplished. We intend to do just
that with this paper.
8 See Markee and Kasper (2004) for a summary of the studies addressing the current
debate concerning CA for SLA with particular consideration for how CA may specify
a concept of language learning in general and for SLA research in particular.
9 See Auer, 2000; Egbert, 1996; 1997; Golato, 2000; 2002; 2005; Günthner, 1996; 1999;
Schuetz, 2001; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002a; forthcoming, for German; Ford and Mori,
1994; Fox et al., 1996; Hayashi, 1999; 2003; Hayashi et al., 2002 for Japanese;
Sorjonen, 2001a; 2001b for Finnish; Taleghani-Nikazm, 1999; 2002a; 2002b for
Persian, among others.

X References
Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J., editors, 1984: Structures of social action.
Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Auer, P. 2000: Pre- and post positioning of wenn-clauses in spoken and
written German. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Kortmann, B., editors,
Cause-condition-concession-contrast: cognitive and discourse perspec-
tives, Mouton de Gruyter, 173–204.
Austin, J. 1962: How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1996: Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing prag-
matics and pedagogy together. Pragmatics and Language Learning 7:
21–39.
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 75

—— 1999: Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: a research

agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49(4): 677–713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Dörnyei, Z. 1999: Exploring the interlanguage of
interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda for acquisitional pragmat-
ics. Language Learning 49 (4): 677–713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. 1990: Congruence in native and non-
native conversations: status balance in the academic advising session.
Language Learning 40: 467–501.
Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. 1997: Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms
with conversation analysis. In Liddicoat, A.J. and Crozet, C., editors,
Teaching language, teaching culture, Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, Series S, 14: 71–88.
Crozet, C. and Liddicoat, A.J. 1997: Teaching culture as an integrated part
of language teaching: an introduction. In Crozet, C. and Liddicoat, A.J.,
editors, Teaching language, teaching culture, Australian Review of
Applied Linguistics, Series S, 14: 71–88.
Crystal, D. 1997: The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge
University Press.
Davidson, J. 1984: Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and
proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J.M.
and Heritage, J., editors, Structures of social action. Studies in conver-
sation analysis, Cambridge University Press, 102–28.
Egbert, M. 1996: Context-sensitivity in conversation: eye gaze and the
German repair initiator bitte? Language in Society 25(4): 587–612.
—— 1997: Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in
multiperson conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 611–34.
Eisenstein, M. and Bodman, J. 1986: ‘I very appreciate’: expressions of
gratitude by native and nonnative speakers of American English.
Applied Linguistics 7: 167–85.
—— 1993: Expressing gratitude in American English. In Kasper, G. and
Blum-Kulka, S., editors, Interlanguage pragmatics, Oxford University
Press, 64–81.
Ellis, R. 2003: Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ford, C.E. and Mori, J. 1994: Causal markers in Japanese and English con-
versations: a cross-lingustic study of interactional grammar. Pragmatics
4(1): 31–61.
Fox, B.A., Hayashi, M. and Jasperson, R. 1996: Resources and repair: a
cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A.
and Thompson, S., editors, Interaction and grammar, Cambridge
University Press, 185–237.
76 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

Garfinkel, H. 1967: Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.

Godard, D. 1977: Same setting, different norms: phone call beginnings in
France and the United States. Language in Society 6: 209–19.
Golato, A. 2002: German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 34:
547–71.
—— 2003: Studying compliment responses: a comparison of DCTs and
recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1): 90–121.
—— 2005: Compliments and compliment responses: grammatical design
and sequential organization. John Benjamins.
Gumperz, J.J. 1977: Language and social identity. Cambridge University
Press.
—— 1982: Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.
—— 1992: Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. and
Goodwin, C., editors, Rethinking context: language as an interactive
phenomenon, Cambridge University Press, 229–52.
Günthner, S. 1996: From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position
in German clausal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics 6(3):
323–56.
—— 1999: Wenn-Sätze im Vor-Vorfeld: Ihre Formen und Funktionen in der
gesprochenen Sprache. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 11: 34.
Han, C. 1992: A comparative study of compliment responses: Korean
females in Korean interactions and in English interactions. Working
Papers in Educational Linguistics 8: 17–31.
Hayashi, M. 1999: When grammer and interaction meet. A study of
co-participant completion in Japanese conversation. Human Studies 22:
475–99.
—— 2003: Joint utterances construction in Japanese conversation. John
Benjamins.
Hayashi, M., Mori, J. and Takagi, T. 2002: Contingent achievement of
co-tellership in a Japanese conversation: an analysis of talk, gaze, and
gesture. In Ford, C.E., Fox, B.A. and Thompson, S.A., editors, The
language of turn and sequence, Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. 1984: Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Hopper, R. 1992: Telephone conversations. Indiana University Press.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. 1991: Opening sequences in Dutch telephone
conversations. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D.H., editors, Talk and
social structure. University of California Press, 232–51.
Huth, T. 2005: Talking perspective: conversation analysis and culture in the
German foreign language classroom. PhD thesis, University of Kansas.
Jaworski, A. 1994: Pragmatic failure in a second language: greeting
responses in English by Polish students. IRAL 32(1): 41–55.
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 77

Jefferson, G. 1984: Transcription notation. In Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J.,

editors, Structures of social action, Cambridge University Press, ix–xvi.
Kasper, G. 1992: Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research. 8: 201–31.
—— 1997: The role of pragmatics in language teaching education. In
Bardovi-Harlig, K., editor, Beyond methods: components of second
language education. McGraw Hill: 113–36.
—— 2005: Speech acts in interaction: towards discursive pragmatics. Paper
presented at the 16th international conference on pragmatics and
language learning, Bloomington, IN.
Kasper, G. and Blum-Kulka, S., editors, 1993: Interlanguage pragmatics.
Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. 1991: Research methods in interlanguage pragmat-
ics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13: 215–47.
Kasper, G. and Rose, K.R. 2002: Pragmatic development in a second
language. Blackwell.
Kasper, G. and Schmidt, R. 1996: Developmental issues in interlanguage
pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 149–69.
Lee, F.J. 2000: Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. McGraw
Hill.
Lee, F.J. and VanPatten, B. 2003: Making communicative language teach-
ing happen. McGraw-Hill.
Leech, G.N. 1983: Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Levinson, S. 1983: Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Liefländer-Koistinen, L. and Neuendorf, D. 1991: Auskunft erbitten.
Telefongespräche im Deutschen und Finnischen: Unterschiede in ihrer
interaktionalen Struktur. [Telephone conversations in German and Finnish:
differences in their interactional structure]. Akten des VIII. Internationalen
Germanisten Kongresses, Tokyo 1990, Volume 4: 482–94.
Lindström, A. 1990: Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone
conversation openings. Language in Society 23: 231–52.
Markee, N. and Kasper, G. 2004: Classroom talks: an introduction. Modern
Language Journal 88: 491–500.
Moerman, M. 1988: Talking culture. Ethnography and conversation
analysis. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mondana, L. and Pekarek-Doehler, S. 2004: Second language acquisition
as situated practice: task accompishment in the French second language
classroom. The Modern Language Journal 88: 501–18.
Pavlidou, T. 1994: Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the conse-
quences. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 487–511.
Rose, K.R. and Kasper, G. 2001: Pragmatics in language teaching.
Cambridge University Press.
78 How can insights from conversation analysis . . .?

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. 1974: A simplest systematics

for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):
696–735.
Schegloff, E.A. 1979: Identification and recognition in telephone conversa-
tion openings. In Psathas, G., editor, Everyday language: studies in
ethnomethodology, Irvington, 23–78.
—— 1981: Discourse as an interactional achievement: some
uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences.
Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on
Languages and Linguistics 1981, Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk,
Washington, DC.
—— 1986: The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9(2/3): 111–51.
—— 1987: Between micro and macro: contexts and other connections. The
micro-macro link. In Alexandro, J.C., Giesen, B., Münch R. and
Smelser, N.J., editors, The micro-macro link, University of California
Press, 207–34.
—— 1993: Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1): 99–128.
—— 1995: Sequence organization. Unpublished manuscript.
Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. 1973: Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4):
289–327.
Schieffelin, B.B. and Ochs, E. 1986: Language socialization across cultures.
Cambridge University Press.
Schuetz, H. 2001: On causal clause combining: the case of ‘weil’ in spoken
German. In Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., editors, Studies in inter-
actional linguistics, John Benjamins, 111–40.
Scotton, C.M. and Bernstein, J. 1988: Natural conversations as a model for
textbook dialogue. Applied Linguistics 9: 372–84.
Searle, J.R. 1969: Speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Seedhouse, P. 2004: Conversation analysis, applied linguistics, and second
language acquisition. Language Learning 54: 223–62.
Sifianou, M. 1989: On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behav-
ior: England versus Greece. Language in Society 18: 527–44.
Sorjonen, M. 2001a: Responding in conversation: a study of response
particles in Finnish. John Benjamins.
—— 2001b: Simple answers to polar questions: The case of Finnish. In
Seltig, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., editors, Studies in interactional
linguistics, John Benjamins, 405–31.
Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 1999: Politeness in native/nonnative speaker interac-
tion: some manifestations of Persian Taarof in the interaction among
 Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm 79

Iranian speakers of German with German native speakers. PhD thesis,

University of Texas, Austin.
—— 2002a: A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation open-
ings between native and nonnative speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 34:
1807–32.
—— 2002b: Persian telephone openings. In Pavlidou, T.-S. and Luke, K.K.,
editors, Telephone calls: unity and diversity in conversational structure
across languages and cultures, John Benjamins.
—— In press: Request sequences: the intersection of grammar, interaction
and social context. John Benjamins.
Tateyama, Y. 2001: Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routine:
Japanese sumimasen. In Kasper, G. and Rose, K., editors, Pragmatics
in language teaching, Cambridge University Press, 200–22.
Thomas, J. 1983: Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2):
91–112.
Wong, J. 2002: ‘Applying’ conversation analysis in applied linguistics:
evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks.
International Review of Applied Linguistics 40(1): 37–60.
Young, R.F. and Miller, E.M. 2004: Learning as changing participation:
discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language
Journal 88: 519–35.