Classroom Discourse

ISSN: 1946-3014 (Print) 1946-3022 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcdi20

Building a semiotic repertoire for social action:

interactional competence as biographical
discovery

Søren W. Eskildsen

To cite this article: Søren W. Eskildsen (2018) Building a semiotic repertoire for social action:
interactional competence as biographical discovery, Classroom Discourse, 9:1, 68-76, DOI:
10.1080/19463014.2018.1437052

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437052

Published online: 05 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcdi20
Classroom Discourse, 2018
VOL. 9, NO. 1, 68–76
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437052

Building a semiotic repertoire for social action: interactional

competence as biographical discovery
Søren W. Eskildsen 
Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg, Denmark

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This commentary draws on the four articles in this issue to discuss Usage-based linguistics;
interactional competence from a usage-based perspective. The usage- semiotic resources; social
based conception of language knowledge as an inventory of form- action; portability
meaning pairings used for communicative purposes will be qualified
by incorporating the idea that these communicative purposes are
social actions. L2 learning is a matter of biographical discovery in
which the accomplishment of social actions is the driving force and L2
teaching should revolve around semiotic resources for accomplishing
these. I conclude by calling for further usage-based L2 research that
builds on and advances a view of language as a tool for social action.

Introduction
This commentary tackles (some of ) the nagging issues presented in the four contributions
from what Pekarek Doehler (2018) termed an ‘interactional usage-based’ (IUB) approach to
L2 learning studies. The fundamental interest in this approach is how patterns of language
use emerge out of social interaction and how they routinise as resources for social action
(Pekarek Doehler and Eskildsen 2018; Eskildsen, forthcoming). As such, the project of IUB
expands the interest of CA-driven interactional competence research by affording a usage-
based model of language (UBL) – an empirically viable, experiential, pattern-based model
of language structure – that shares with CA the core concept that (L2) learning derives from
observable phenomena in the environment (Garfinkel and Sacks 1970; Kasper 2009; Kasper
and Wagner 2014; Eskildsen and Cadierno 2015; Eskildsen and Wagner 2015; but see also
Hauser 2013 for a critical discussion). The confluence of UBL and CA implies a division of the
analytical labour between local and generic aspects of language and learning: Through CA
I investigate L2 learning, on the one hand, as social behaviour, i.e. something that people
do and demonstrably orient to in and through talk, and, on the other hand, as the occasioned
emergence of interactional competence as an inherently social resource put to use in the
here and now and always in flux and in need of calibration as environments and co-
participants change. On the other hand, I invoke UBL to account for precisely how generic
linguistic capacities grow out of recurring exemplars in experience. This translates into the
following, sometimes overlapping, L2 learning phenomena: (1) change in accomplishment

CONTACT  Søren W. Eskildsen  swe@sdu.dk

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE   69

of social actions; (2) routinisation of a particular expression for social action; (3) change in
the deployment of a particular expression; (4) change in the composition of an expression
through pattern expansion (e.g. verb variation); and (5) change in function through increased
structural variation (e.g. emergence of interrogative, inversion etc.) (Eskildsen, forthcoming).
IUB demonstrates how language emerges as a socially grounded repertoire of semiotic
resources-for-action and argues, in turn, that good teaching practices should be rooted in
this conceptualisation of language and allow for meaningful interaction in which participants
can construct learning spaces (Eskildsen and Theodórsdóttir 2017; Sert 2017).

Interactional competence – interactional repertoires

I will not go through each of the contributions in turn in this commentary but I will take
Hall’s epistemological discussion as the starting point because it seems to be crucial to a
deeper understanding of the phenomena we are interested in (cf. discussions in Hellermann’s
and Waring’s articles in this issue). In her contribution, Hall draws up the history of the term
‘interactional competence’ (IC). Tracing its epistemological roots to two sources, Hymes’
ethnography of speaking and Sacks’ interest in people’s methods to achieve social order in a
‘basic infrastructure of human sociality’ (Hall 2018, 26), Hall argues that the use of the term
in SLA has conflated the difference between, on the one hand, IC as a heuristic for a generic
human capacity for interaction and, on the other hand, objects of L2 learning. The funda-
mental points at stake here concern variability and universality, and both Hymes and Sacks
denounced Chomskyan competence because its detachment of language from its natural
habitat of use in changing environments was empirically untenable (Hymes) and because
its focus on grammatical structures was too narrow to account for the on-going human
creation of social order (Sacks). The problem when applied to the study of L2 learning is that
people are already interactionally competent; they are masterful navigators in changing
social environments and they know methods by which to engage in constructing and main-
taining social order. As such, Hall’s contribution continues the legacy of not viewing L2
learners as deficient communicators (Firth and Wagner 1997). So, Hall’s argument is, if IC
consists in this underlying human capacity for interacting, then L2 learning must be about
something in addition to this; something that builds on it. Here, Hall proposes the term
interactional repertoires to denote objects of L2 learning as new language-specific
methods.
There is an issue of perspective here. Interactional competence in the sense of a generic
capacity does not exist a priori or separate from its local instantiations, cf. Hellermann’s
contention that IC does not exist in the abstract or out of context (Hellermann 2018, 51).
Becoming a human being means to construct such interactional competence through
experience – through discovery. There are distinctly human ways of interacting that other
species do not deploy and with which we are born into this world (Lee et al. 2009), but the
actual building of interactional competence is socially accomplished and a matter of bio-
graphical experience and discovery. Whatever language they are learning and whenever
they are doing it, people must learn the new language-specific ways of accomplishing social
action by participating in interaction with local co-participants. They learn these in a very
bottom-up, trial-and-error fashion as they observe, eavesdrop, appropriate, control and
calibrate semiotic resources, picked up from the environment, for accomplishing locally
occasioned social actions. In L2 learning they are crotched by the L2 interactional
70   S. W. ESKILDSEN

competence they bring into the task of learning the new language but little is known about
the specifics of this cross-cultural influence (Pekarek Doehler and Pochon-Berger 2015).
Whatever guidance their human biographical experience affords them on the L2 road of
discovery, they can learn the ways of the new language because what people do in interac-
tion, how they put their interactional repertoires to use, is empirically observable, witnessable
and noticeable. This, in turn, is also what gives rise to the shared interactional competence
template, Levinson’s interactional engine (cf. Hall 2018). Empirical investigations of locally
contextualised L2 learning will take local affordances and contingencies as the starting point.
As Hall states (2018, 39), we do not learn first and then use. We learn as we use; knowing
how to act cannot be separated from the use of interactional resources (Hellermann 2018,
41) as situation-bound, socially visible competence (Pekarek Doehler 2018, 7).
This is, fundamentally, an accepted point of departure in the work of Pekarek Doehler
who is, perhaps, the most prominent scholar advancing our understanding of developing
L2 interactional competence by showing empirically how interactional resources emerge
in terms of diversification, increased precision, increased fittedness to local contingencies
and increased context-sentitive and recipient-designed conduct (Pekarek Doehler and
Pochon-Berger 2015; Pekarek Doehler 2018). Pekarek Doehler does not make a terminolog-
ical distinction between interactional competence and interactional repertoires, but it seems
clear to me from her research that, although she uses interactional competence as her ter-
minological touchstone, her empirical analyses reveal that she is engaging with ‘objects of
learning’ – that is, what Hall refers to as interactional repertoires – in the form of a developing
‘grammar-for-interaction’.

The social – cognitive divide

In some respects, this discussion also relates to a fundamental issue that was brought to the
fore of L2 studies by Firth and Wagner (1997), namely the social – cognitive divide. Pekarek
Doehler takes this up by investigating something that is traditionally thought of as
individualistic, monolithic, and cognitive – grammar – and turning it into something that is
socially visible, locally co-constructed and configured, and permeable and susceptible to
environmental changes. Interactional competence is between-people, not inside-people;
what is foregrounded in the research is that which is interactionally visible, but this does not
necessarily entail a dismissal of individual cognition. Rather, understanding, learning and
cognition are investigated as visible phenomena – and in the work of Pekarek Doehler
this translates into the question of investigating how L2 speakers develop ‘a grammar that
serves as an instrumental tool for conducting and coordinating L2 talk-in-interaction’
(Pekarek Doehler 2018, 5).
This resonates well with research undertaken in what Pekarek Doehler calls ‘interactional
usage-based’ research. As a usage-based researcher whose research has increasingly come
to focus on interactional dimensions of learning, I take this label to heart and agree with
Pekarek Doehler that usage-based research has not wholeheartedly accepted through
­empirical studies the primordial nature of talk in social interaction as the ontogenetic and
phylogenetic source of the linguistic inventory. Despite the fundamental assumption that
all language derives from first instances of use (Tomasello 2003), the mutually co-constructed
nature of social interactional and linguistic resources has not been systematically researched
(but see Eskildsen 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2018, forthcoming).
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE   71

However, there is a recognition of a view of grammar as an adaptive repertoire of resources

for interaction that is continually (re-)configured in response to the local, interactional uses
of language (Pekarek Doehler and Eskildsen 2018). This can be found in emergentist, dynamic
systems-based and usage-based work (Larsen-Freeman 2006; Ellis 2014, 2015; Eskildsen and
Cadierno 2015). In my own research, I have been elaborating the idea of the linguistic inven-
tory as an emergent repertoire of semiotic resources for social action (Eskildsen and Cadierno
2015; Eskildsen 2018; Eskildsen and Markee 2018). This idea has come from the usage-based
conception of language knowledge as an inventory of symbolic units (form-meaning pair-
ings, or constructions) on a continuum of schematicity, specificity and complexity (Langacker
1987; see Eskildsen 2009; and references cited there). So, while the papers in this issue all
work from the vantage point of social interaction, my own point of departure has been issues
of individual portability and the functional potentials of linguistic resources in development
(Eskildsen 2009, 2011).

Usage-based linguistics: from linguistic constructions to social action?

All this leads to a perspective on interactional repertoires that allows for portability – but it
also requires a modification of the priorities of usage-based models of language. Given that
usage-based theories ascribe crucial importance to discourse function (Goldberg 2003; Ellis
and Cadierno 2009), and that ‘a language is composed of conventional symbols shaped by
their social-communicative functions’ (Tomasello 1992, 67), that ‘[the social nature of lan-
guage] stems from the fact that it is used for social action within a context of language use
(…)’ (Larsen-Freeman 2006, 593), and that ‘the functions of language in discourse determine
its usage and learning’ (Ellis 2015, 49), one might be inclined to think that usage-based
linguistics (UBL) comes imbued with a model for investigating social interaction. Instead,
however, UBL proponents often assert that language is learned as constructions that are
experienced, processed and abstracted from usage events (Langacker 2008; Ellis and
Cadierno 2009). While I am partial to this understanding of linguistic abstractions, I am less
certain that these abstractions per se are crucial to language learning. It seems to me that
language is much more concrete – obviously this is so for language use, because people do
not visibly employ linguistic abstractions in and through talk, but this is probably also true
for language learning. Child language studies have shown that children rely substantially
on recycled language (Lieven, Salomo, and Tomasello 2009) and the same seems to hold for
adults; I have recently shown that the linguistic inventory for an adult L2 learner is empirically
traceable by recourse to lexically specific descriptions – either in the form of verbatim rep-
etitions or partially filled lexical patterns, so-called utterance schemas (Eskildsen 2014, 2017).
These findings substantiate what MacWhinney (1975) showed, namely that language is
hugely concrete and that its learning is item-based. The findings also resonate with Hopper’s
emergent grammar by giving an empirical basis to his tenet that whenever people talk, they
say something that has been said in identical or slightly different ways before (Hopper 1998;
Su 2016).
Despite this concreteness of language and the locally contextualised nature of its learning
(Eskildsen 2009), the focus in much UBL research in SLA has remained on the semantics of
schematic constructions and how lexically specific patterns drive this in development (Ellis
and Ferreira-Junior 2009a, 2009b). So, the interest has remained with semantic schematicity
and the view of constructions is based on conceptual semantics and construal, which does
72   S. W. ESKILDSEN

not easily translate into an interactional epistemology. In that sense, UBL suffers from a
general weakness in linguistics, which is also discussed in Hellermann (2018), namely the
reliance on written forms and a concern with post festum phenomena. In written data,
constructions may seem to be discrete entities and fairly easy to identify, delineate and
define, but in spoken data they are more elusive. They might be there, as for example in
negation patterns (Eskildsen 2012; Pekarek Doehler 2018), but their employment in data
changes over time as people navigate in new social environments and calibrate their semiotic
repertoire in the process. The actions which the linguistic patterns are used to accomplish
change over time and so the relation between ‘function’ and ‘construction’ becomes less
tangible. As Hellermann (2018) puts it,
one’s identity, cognition, language, and language learning are not individual cognitive
representations, but are part of the process of an unfolding history of interaction with the
world. The consequence of this is that to explain talk-in-interaction and learning, we need not
rely on intermediate mysterious internal symbolic representations of the world or internal rep-
resentations of language as an intermediate step between perception, interaction, language,
and learning. (Hellermann 2018, 43)
However, I am reluctant to give up entirely on the idea of portability of our interactional
repertoires; that we carry semiotic resources with us. UBL provides a model of language
knowledge that does not necessarily rely on representations, let alone mysterious ones, but
instead asserts lexically specific memories and an experiential theory of learning (Ellis 2015).
This allows us to abandon the idea of representation and with it that extra layer between
perception and the world. Emergent language is epiphenomenal to social actions in the
world, what Hellermann (2018) discusses as enactment; language is post festum, but so is
all recollection. Language is also something visibly done and used, perhaps as languaging,
here-and-now and because we all know that experience does matter, that there is such a
thing as development in L2 learning, it is a matter of empirical research to establish what
language users harvest from social encounters, from the feasts they indulge in. It is the task
of L2 researchers to investigate routinisation and change over time in established links, in
and through social practices, between participants’ social actions here-and-now and the
semiotic resources they put to use to accomplish these social actions. What UBL can do is
to help understand the long-term semiotic development that results from understanding
and participating in social practices. But the crucial nut to crack for L2 learners is the under-
standing of the social practices and what actions to be performed. If they don’t know what
to do, then how can they know how to do it?
Putting an interactional repertoire to good and proper use is to know what to do how
and when and to be able to package it semiotically in a way that can be readily made sense
of by others. Experienced language users routinely accomplish social actions in ways, and
by use of linguistic resources, that are recognisable to co-participants. Repair is initiated
when intersubjectivity is threatened as recognition fails. This is the catch-22 of L2 learning:
how do people learn to do something they have never done before in a way that is
recognisable to their co-participants?
The key to answering this question lies in observing, eavesdropping, overhearing, noticing
and appropriating, the doing of which presupposes an ability to monitor other people’s
actions and turn-constructions in interaction which is grounded in an understanding of
social practices (Wagner 2015). Language learning is locally contextualised, a matter of
biographical discovery, and embedded and driven by actions accomplished through
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE   73

language – the substantial research for many years by the four authors of the contributions
to this issue all attests to that, as does other conversation analytic and interactional usage-
based L2 research over the last 15 years (e.g. Brouwer and Wagner 2004; Markee and Kasper
2004; Markee 2008; Masuda 2011; Majlesi and Broth 2012; Hauser 2013; Markee and Kunitz
2013; Lilja 2014; Barraja-Rohan 2015; Kasper and Burch 2016; Eskildsen and Theodórsdóttir
2017; Kunitz and Skogmyr Marian 2017; Sert 2017; Eskildsen and Majlesi 2018; Nguyen,
forthcoming; Theodórsdóttir 2018). The pedagogical implications of this are immense but
as Waring (2018, 65) notes, ‘the good news is that interactional practices are indeed teachable
objects’. In alignment with Hall’s distinction between interactional competence and inter-
actional repertoires, Waring prefers to talk about interactional practices rather than interac-
tional competence for teaching. I believe that this contention would sit well with the
interactional competence research outlined in a recent state-of-the-art overview by Pekarek
Doehler and Pochon-Berger (2015, 236 + references listed there). The practices and social
actions they list as having been explored in L2 interactional competence research include
taking turns at talk, opening and disengaging from classroom talk, disagreeing, story-telling
and responding to such, repairing, requesting, and topic shifting. These are all teachable
objects in that they are practices and social actions that can be accomplished through par-
ticular methods, including semiotic resources. A key to L2 learning, and therefore teaching,
is that the correlation between particular semiotic resources and particular social actions is
observable and noticeable. The task of the teacher, then, is to make such correlations observ-
able and noticeable.

Conclusion
I would like to conclude this commentary by proposing a usage-based perspective on inter-
actional competence and urging usage-based researchers to take into serious consideration
the fact of the primordial nature of talk-in-interaction (Pekarek Doehler 2018). My own
research has increasingly driven me towards an action-based understanding of language
(Eskildsen 2018; Eskildsen and Markee 2018) as I have come to see the inventory of semiotic
resources, form-meaning pairings, as a repertoire of semiotic resources for carrying out social
actions. Langacker (1987) described language knowledge as an inventory of form-meaning
pairings used for communicative purposes but, using insights from CA, we can qualify the
notion of communicative purposes by proposing that these communicative purposes are
actions occasioned by local circumstances of social interaction, such as responses to and
continuations of prior turns-at-talk (Schegloff 2007; Eskildsen 2018). I will, therefore, argue
that people’s ways of carrying out social actions are the driving force for the learning of the
inventory of semiotic resources as it is conceived in UBL and that L2 teaching should be
primarily concerned with making semiotic resources for social action readily available to
students to notice and appropriate. Finally, I make a call for further usage-based research
that builds on and advances a view of language as a repertoire of resources for social action
and investigates L2 learning as an inherently social rather than individual competence
(Eskildsen 2018).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
74   S. W. ESKILDSEN

Notes on contributor
Søren W. Eskildsen is an associate professor in L2 learning at the University of Southern Denmark. His
primary research interest concerns the usage-based processes and practices in L2 learning over time as
seen through the lenses of usage-based linguistics and conversation analysis. Other interests include
the role of gestures in L2 learning. He works with both in- and out-of-class L2 data.

ORCID
Søren W. Eskildsen   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2432-9161

References
Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. 2015. “‘I Told You’: Storytelling Development of a Japanese Learning English as
a Second Language.” In Usage-based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, edited by Teresa
Cadierno and Søren W. Eskildsen, 271–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brouwer, C. E., and J. Wagner. 2004. “Developmental Issues in Second Language Conversation.” Journal
of Applied Linguistics 1: 29–47.
Ellis, N. C. 2014. “Cognitive and Social Language Use.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36: 397–
402. [Special Issue Bridging the Gap. Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language
learning and teaching, J. Hulstijn, R. F. Young, & L. Ortega (eds.).]
Ellis, N. C. 2015. “Cognitive and Social Aspects of Learning from Usage.” In Usage-based Perspectives
on Second Language Learning, edited by T. Cadierno and S. W. Eskildsen, 49–74. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Ellis, N. C., and T. Cadierno. 2009. “Constructing a Second Language: Introduction to the Special Section.”
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 111–139.
Ellis, N. C., and F. Ferreira-Junior. 2009a. “Construction Learning as a Function of Frequency, Frequency
Distribution, and Function.” The Modern Language Journal 93 (3): 370–385.
Ellis, N. C., and F. Ferreira-Junior. 2009b. “Constructions and Their Acquisition. Islands and the
Distinctiveness of Their Occupancy.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 187–220.
Eskildsen, S. W. 2009. “Constructing Another Language–Usage-based Linguistics in Second Language
Acquisition.” Applied Linguistics 30 (3): 335–357.
Eskildsen, S. W. 2011. “The L2 Inventory in Action: Conversation Analysis and Usage-based Linguistics
in SLA.” In L2 Learning as Social Practice: Conversation-Analytic Perspectives, edited by G. Pallotti and
J. Wagner, 337–373. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Eskildsen, S. W. 2012. “L2 Negation Constructions at Work.” Language Learning 62 (2): 335–372.
Eskildsen, S. W. 2014. “What’s New?: A Usage-based Classroom Study of Linguistic Routines and
Creativity in L2 Learning.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 52: 1–30.
Eskildsen, S. W. 2015. “What Counts as a Developmental Sequence? Exemplar-based L2 Learning of
English Questions.” Language Learning 65 (1): 33–62.
Eskildsen, S. W. 2017. “The Emergence of Creativity in L2 English – A Usage-based Case-Study.” In Multiple
Perspectives on Language Play, edited by N. Bell, 281–316. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eskildsen, S. W. 2018. “L2 Constructions and Interactional Competence: Subordination and Coordination
in English L2 Learning.” In What is Applied Cognitive Linguistics? Answers from the L2 Classroom and
SLA Studies, edited by A. Tyler, L. Huang, and H. Jan, 61–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eskildsen, S. W. Forthcoming. “From Constructions to Social Action: The Substance of English L2
Learning from an Interactional Usage-based Perspective.” In Ontologies of English, edited by C. Hall
and R. Wicaksono. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eskildsen, S. W., and T. Cadierno. 2015. “Advancing Usage-based Approaches to L2 Studies.” In Usage-
based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, edited by T. Cadierno and S. W. Eskildsen, 1–18.
Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE   75

Eskildsen, S. W., and 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 (Supplement 2018): 3–10.
Eskildsen, S. W., and N. Markee. 2018. “L2 Talk as Social Accomplishment.” In Speaking in a Second
Language, edited by R. Alonso Alonso, 71–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Eskildsen, S. W., and G. Theodórsdóttir. 2017. “Constructing L2 Learning Spaces: Ways to Achieve
Learning inside and outside the Classroom.” Applied Linguistics 38 (2): 148–164.
Eskildsen, S. W., and J. Wagner. 2015. “Embodied L2 Construction Learning.” Language Learning 65:
419–448.
Firth, A., and J. Wagner. 1997. “On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in
SLA Research.” The Modern Language Journal 81: 285–300.
Garfinkel, H., and H. Sacks. 1970. “On Formal Structures of Practical Action.” In Theoretical Sociology,
edited by J. C. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian, 338–366. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.
Goldberg, A. 2003. “Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language.” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 7 (5): 219–224.
Hall, J. K. 2018. “From L2 Interactional Competence to L2 Interactional Repertoires: Reconceptualizing
the Objects of L2 Learning.” Classroom Discourse 8 (1): 25–39.
Hauser, E. 2013. “Stability and Change in One Adult’s Second Language English Negation.” Language
Learning 63 (3): 463–498.
Hellermann, J. 2018. “Languaging as Competencing: Considering Language Learning as Enactment.”
Classroom Discourse 8 (1): 40–56.
Hopper, P. J. 1998. “Emergent Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language. Vol. 1, edited by
M. Tomasello, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kasper, G. 2009. “Locating Cognition in Second Language Interaction and Learning: Inside the Skull or
in Public View?” International Review of Applied Linguistics 47: 13–36.
Kasper, G., and R. A. Burch. 2016. “Orienting to Focus on Form in the Wild.” In Authenticity, Language, and
Interaction in Second Language Contexts, edited by R. A. van Compernolle and J. McGregor, 198–232.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kasper, G., and J. Wagner. 2014. “Conversation Analysis in Applied Linguistics.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 34: 171–212.
Kunitz, S., and K. Skogmyr Marian. 2017. “Tracking Immanent Language Learning Behavior over Time
in Task-based Classroom Work.” TESOL Quarterly 51: 507–535.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 2008. “Cognitive Grammar as a Basis for Language Instruction.” In Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, edited by P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, 66–88. New York:
Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2006. “The Emergence of Complexity, Fluency, and Accuracy in the Oral and Written
Production of Five Chinese Learners of English.” Applied Linguistics 27: 590–619.
Lee, N., L. Mikesell, A. D. L. Joaquin, A. W. Mates, and J. H. Schumann. 2009. The Interational Instinct.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lieven, E., D. Salomo, and M. Tomasello. 2009. “Two-Year-Old Children’s Production of Multiword
Utterances: A Usage-Based Analysis.” Cognitive Linguistics 20 (3): 481–508.
Lilja, N. 2014. “Partial Repetitions as Other-Initiations of Repair in Second Language Talk: Re-Establishing
Understanding and Doing Learning.” Journal of Pragmatics 71: 98–116.
MacWhinney, B. 1975. “Pragmatic Patterns in Child Syntax.” Stanford Papers and Reports on Child
Language Development 10: 153–165.
Majlesi, A. R., and M. Broth. 2012. “Emergent Learnables in Second Language Classroom Interaction.”
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1: 193–207.
Markee, N. 2008. “Toward a Learning Behavior Tracking Methodology for CA-for-SLA.” Applied Linguistics
29 (3): 404–427.
Markee, N., and G. Kasper. 2004. “Classroom Talks: An Introduction.” The Modern Language Journal 88
(4): 491–500.
76   S. W. ESKILDSEN

Markee, N., and S. Kunitz. 2013. “Doing Planning and Task Performance in Second Language Acquisition:
An Ethnomethodological Respecification.” Language Learning 63 (4): 629–664.
Masuda, K. 2011. “Acquiring Interactional Competence in a Study Abroad Context: Japanese Language
Learners’ Use of the Interactional Particle Ne.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (4): 519–540.
Nguyen, H. Forthcoming. “Turn Design as Longitudinal Achievement: Learning on the Shop Floor.” In
Conversation Analytic Research on Learning-in-Action: The Complex Ecology of L2 Interaction in the
Wild, edited by J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler and A. Piirainen-Marsh. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Pekarek Doehler, S. 2018. “Elaborations on L2 Interactional Competence: The Development of L2
Grammar-for-Interaction.” Classroom Discourse 8 (1): 3–24.
Pekarek Doehler, S., and S. W. Eskildsen. 2018. “Expanding Linguistic Resources in and for Social
Interaction: Research at the Interface of CA-SLA and Usage-Based SLA.” Colloquium Presented at
the International Conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL, March
24–27.
Pekarek Doehler, S., and E. Pochon-Berger. 2015. “The Development of L2 Interactional Competence:
Evidence from Turn-Taking Organization, Sequence Organization, Repair Organization and Preference
Organization.” In Usage-based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, edited by T. Cadierno and
S. W. Eskildsen, 233–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sert, O. 2017. “Creating Opportunities for L2 Learning in a Prediction Activity.” System 70: 14–25.
Su, D. 2016. “Grammar Emerges through Reuse and Modification of Prior Utterances.” Discourse Studies
18: 330–353.
Theodórsdóttir, G. 2018. “L2 Teaching in the Wild: A Closer Look at Correction and Explanation Practices
in Everyday L2 Interaction.” The Modern Language Journal 102 (Supplement 2018): 30–45.
Tomasello, M. 1992. First Verbs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wagner, J. 2015. “Designing for Language Learning in the Wild: Creating Social Infrastructures for
Second Language Learning.” In Usage-based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, edited by
T. Cadierno and S. W. Eskildsen, 75–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Waring, H. Z. 2018. “Teaching L2 Interactional Competence: Problems and Possibilities.” Classroom
Discourse 8 (1): 57–67.