VOL. 3 (2024)

ISSN 2952-2013 pp. 94-111

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

Interactional linguistics and teaching Spanish as a

foreign language: an empirical study in the classroom

Lingüística interaccional y enseñanza de español como lengua

extranjera: un estudio empírico en el aula

Juan Pablo Carmona García

Escuela Oﬁcial de Idiomas de Granada

Resumen:

Este artículo parte de los presupuestos de la lingüística

interaccional y aúna elementos del análisis conversacio-

nal y el análisis del discurso aplicado con el ﬁn de ca-

racterizar los intercambios comunicativos, así como las

estrategias empleadas en la negociación de signiﬁcados

y en la construcción del sentido interaccional del alum-

nado de nivel B1, según el Marco Común Europeo de

Referencia para las Lenguas (MCERL), de español para

extranjeros.

Los datos empleados para la elaboración de este trabajo

han sido recogidos durante el desarrollo de un trabajo

de campo etnográﬁco (observación participante, au-

toobservación, elaboración de un diario de campo, se-

guimiento de las clases, revisión de la programación de

departamento y del currículo, análisis de los materiales

de clase y de otros del mismo nivel), realizado en un cen-

tro de enseñanza pública de la ciudad de Granada entre

enero y junio de 2022. En total se han grabado y trans-

crito treinta y siete horas de clase en formato de audio.

El análisis de los datos obtenidos se basa en los concep-

tos de los estudios de la lingüística interaccional (Mon-

dada, 2001; More y Nussbaum, 2013), análisis del discur-

so (Gumperz, 1982; Calsamiglia y Tusón, 1999; Van Dijk,

2000; López, 2015) y análisis de la conversación (Sacks et

al., 1974, 1977; Sacks, 1992; Tusón, 1997, 2002).

Los resultados extraídos de este trabajo nos ayudan a

entender mejor el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje en

interacciones informales en el aula de español, así como

a orientar nuestra actividad docente para establecer ob-

jetivos, programar actividades, evaluar resultados y de-

sarrollar de forma más pormenorizada la competencia

comunicativa oral de nuestros estudiantes.

Palabras claves:

lingüística interaccional; análisis conversacional; análisis

del discurso; etnografía

Fecha de aceptación: 8 de mayo de 2024

Abstract:

This article is based on the assumptions of interactional

linguistics and combines elements of conversational

analysis and applied discourse analysis in order to cha-

racterize communicative exchanges, as well as the strate-

gies used in the negotiation of meanings and in the cons-

truction of the students’ interactional meaning level B1,

according to the Common European Framework of Re-

ference for Languages (CEFR), of Spanish for foreigners.

The data used to prepare this work have been collected

during the development of ethnographic ﬁeld work (par-

ticipant observation, self-observation, preparation of a

ﬁeld diary, monitoring of classes, review of department

programming and the curriculum, analysis of class mate-

rials and others of the same level), carried out in a public

education center in the city of Granada between January

and June 2022. In total thirty-seven hours of class have

been recorded and transcribed in audio format.

The analysis of the data obtained is based on the con-

cepts of interactional linguistics studies (Mondada, 2001;

More and Nussbaum, 2013), discourse analysis (Gum-

perz, 1982; Calsamiglia and Tusón, 1999; Van Dijk, 2000;

López, 2015) and conversation analysis (Sacks et al.,

1974, 1977; Sacks, 1992; Tusón, 1997, 2002).

The results extracted from this work help us to better un-

derstand the teaching-learning process in informal inte-

ractions in the Spanish classroom, as well as to guide our

teaching activity to establish objectives, schedule activi-

ties, evaluate results and develop competence in a more

detailed way oral communication of our students.

Keywords:

interactional linguistics; conversational analysis; dis-

course analysis; ethnography

Fecha de recepción: 8 de marzo de 2024

Interactional linguistics and teaching Spanish

as a foreign language: an empirical study in

the classroom

Lingüística interaccional y enseñanza de español

como lengua extranjera: un estudio empírico en

el aula

Juan Pablo Carmona García

Escuela Oﬁcial de Idiomas de Granada

Contacto:

juanpablo@eoidegranada.org

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 96 ]

The Spanish as a foreign language classroom, as a social, cultural and discursive space, is also a sce-

nario of teaching instruction in which students participate in multiple and varied situations to foster

the development of their communicative competence (Hymes, 1971; Llobera, 1995a; Cenoz, 1996;

Tusón, 1996; Gumperz, 2002; López, 2015), enabling them to act in a communicatively effective and

appropriate manner, using the verbal and non-verbal resources, as well as the strategic resources

available to them; constructing appropriate statements, according to their intentions and within the

framework of certain interpersonal relationships. Thus, in order to be appropriate, it is relevant to

know and employ “all that is implied in language use in a given social context” (Saville-Troike, 1989,

p. 23).

In this context, the development of oral expression and interaction is one of the main objectives of

the Spanish language classroom. In this sense, we bear in mind the broad classiﬁcation compiled by

Cestero (2005, p. 19) by dividing interactive communicative activities into: 1) institutionalised inter-

actions (debate, round table, colloquiums, etc.); 2) transactional interactions or transactions (inter-

views, medical consultations, didactic consultations, buying and selling interactions, etc.); 3) conver-

sational interactions or conversations, with a low degree of conventionalisation and planning, which

are not predetermined.); and 4) conversational interactions or conversations, with a low degree of

conventionalisation and planning, are not predetermined in terms of their social purpose and none

of the participants individually controls the distribution of turns.

In the second point, after this introduction, the theoretical assumptions of interactional linguistics,

conversational analysis and applied discourse analysis are explained, as well as the main conceptual

elements of each of these disciplines used in this work.

The third point explains how ethnography, as a qualitative research method, is a valuable tool for

observing, describing and analysing classroom practices. Thus, this method allows us to understand

the meaning of the use of linguistic forms employed by participants in speciﬁc settings. The main

elements of ethnographic work developed during the ﬁeldwork are participant observation and

guided interview. The oral data collected and transcribed during ethnographic ﬁeldwork are also

described here.

In the fourth section we present the analysis with results and discussion. For the analysis we follow

the indications of Gumperz (1982, pp. 35-36) for whom the analysis consists in the detailed study

of selected examples of verbal interaction, in observing whether the protagonists understand each

other and in accessing the interpretations that the speakers make of what is happening. Due to the

limitations of this paper, we focus on classroom interactions as the main element of this article.

Finally, the ﬁfth point presents the main conclusions of this work and, lastly, the bibliographical ref-

erences used.

The assumptions of this work are based on interactional linguistics, conversational analysis and ap-

plied discourse analysis.

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Framework

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 97 ]

Interactional linguistics studies the use of speech in interaction, “understood as a process of recip-

rocal and simultaneous adjustments between people to regulate and synchronise their everyday

actions or in institutional encounters” (Moore and Nussbaum; 2013, p. 43). It investigates intersubjec-

tivity and the way in which participants make explicit their interpretation of the ongoing activity, the

reciprocity of their perspectives and the cognitive processes in which they are immersed. Therefore,

its focus of study is the situated use of language, the focus on oral use and the exploitation of natural

data, collected in corpora of oral data with multimodal elements, i.e. the set of semiotic features that

accompany speech (prosody, gestures, looks or movements), as is the case in our study.

As Mondada (2001, p. 66) has pointed out, interactional data are immersed in their context of enun-

ciation and in the activities in the course of which they have been produced; thus, linguistic forms

cannot be separated from the activities in which they have appeared. Thus, one of his key concepts

for the study of interaction is indexicality, since the meaning of utterances is almost never literal.

The researcher’s task will be to analyse inferential processes and implicit assumptions. This way of

looking at interaction provides a wealth of information because it examines forms of participation,

the contribution of interlocutors, cognitive processes, problems arising from discursive negotiation

and, signiﬁcantly for our work, the verbal and non-verbal forms appropriate to the communicative

purposes of the participants.

Gumperz (1982, 1992, 1992, 2001, 2002) proposed the concept of “contextualization cues”, which is

very useful for analysing the presuppositions and expectations that operate in the interlocutionary

mechanics of the interactions we have studied. This term refers to the set of verbal and non-verbal

signs through which speakers signal and listeners interpret what kind of activity is involved, how the

semantic content is to be understood and how each utterance relates to what precedes and follows

it (Gumperz, 1982, p. 131).

Likewise, as Mondada (2001, p. 81) has also stressed, interactional linguistics leads us to posit an

interactional grammar, that is, a dynamic set of resources that acquire their meaning in interaction

and that, despite being grounded in repeated uses, are to a large extent malleable, reconstructed

and emergent (Ochs et al., 1996; Briz, 1998; Hopper, 1998; Gras, 2011, among others). This leads

us to an interactional discourse analysis, deﬁned as ‘the intersection of our analysis of human under-

standings of the world, of the conditions that produce those understandings, and of their role in the

construction of social order’ (Heller, 2001, p. 261). In the ﬁeld of language teaching, the great poten-

tial of interactional linguistics for uncovering intrinsic phenomena makes it a major tool for studying

classroom discourse, teaching approaches, modes of interaction and even teacher training itself.

From a structural organisation point of view, classroom interaction has very deﬁnite characteristics.

As Van Lier (1988) suggests, its structure responds to the expectations of the educational process.

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) described a prototypical sequence of exchange, known as IRF (Initia-

tion-Response-Feedback). Studies on classroom interaction have focused on ways of taking the ﬂoor,

the distribution of speaking turns, forms of participation or the orientation of sequences (Erickson,

1982; Seedhouse, 2004; Walsh, 2011; Batlle, 2015, among others).

Allwright (1980) studied classroom interactions in relation to turns, topics and tasks that followed one

another. More recently, Seedhouse (2004) considered that all classroom interaction has three proper-

2. 1. Interactional linguistics

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 98 ]

ties: language is a vehicle and object of instruction, learners’ productions are subject to assessment

and, ﬁnally, there is a reﬂexive relationship between pedagogy and interaction. This last relationship

has been extensively studied from the assumptions of sociocultural theory which conceives learning

as a social activity and advocates a dialogical pedagogy (Esteve, 2009, 2010; Van Lier, 2004). From

this perspective, we also speak of an interactive competence, arising from the learner’s participation

in interactive and discursive practices (Preston and Young, 2000). Thus, teaching and learning in the

classroom are activities that involve oral language use, i.e. conversation, dialogue and discussion

(Nussbaum, 1999; Tusón, 2000; Camps, 2005; Sánchez, 2005, 2009).

For his part, Llobera (1995b) established that two discourses coexist in the classroom: the contrib-

uted discourse, that is, the one brought to the classroom in the form of language samples; and the

generated discourse, that is, the one used to articulate the different discourses in the classroom. In

this didactic discourse, marked by a “didactic contract” (Edwards and Mercer, 1988), certain inter-

active adjustments also take place (González, 2001; Díaz, 2010). The most prominent of these are

repetition, elicitation, the expansion of tutorial questions or the checking of answers, conﬁrmation

and clariﬁcation.

Conversation analysis, a proposal derived from ethnomethodology, was developed in the 1960s un-

der Sacks (1992). Its focus of study is the organisation of people’s meaningful behaviour in society,

i.e. how individuals in a society carry out their activities and make sense of the world around them. It

is also interested in clarifying how actions, events, objects and order are produced and understood.

The analysis of interactions illustrates the interpretations that are relevant to the participants and

the practices in which these interpretations are realised. Pomerantz and Fehr (2000, pp. 111-114)

argue that, although there is no single method of analysis, ﬁve aspects have traditionally been taken

into account: 1) sequences, 2) the actions of sequences, 3) the packaging of actions, 4) timing and

turn-taking, and 5) the way actions are performed (identities, roles and/or relationships).

The study of verbal interaction focuses on the detailed organisation, i.e. turn-by-turn, and the level

of sequential organisation, which is mainly concerned with the thematic ordering of exchanges.

The rules governing turn-taking are heteroselection (selection of the speaker) and self-selection

(speaking without being selected). These mechanisms work because interlocutors recognise the

transitionrelevanceplaces(TRP).

On the other hand, the conversational units we have used in our study are act<movement<inter-

vention (turn)<interchange (adjacent pair) <sequence. The turn of speech is “a structural gap ﬁlled

by informative utterances which are recognised by the interlocutors through their manifest and si-

multaneous attention” (Briz, 1998, p. 52). It is perfectly identiﬁable since it is marked by the change

of speaker. Each one of these emissions, turns, is ﬁlled with interventions, that is, an utterance or set

of utterances (speech act or acts) issued by an interlocutor. These interventions can be of initiation

(i.e. interventions that try to provoke or provoke speech from another interlocutor) or of reaction

(responses, conformities, disagreements, acceptances, excuses, etc.). There is also another type of

turn, the continuator, which is subordinate to the previous intervention of the other speaker. In Span-

ish, the most typical continuators are: ajá, sí, mm, claro, ya.

2. 2. Conversational analysis

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 99 ]

Interventions are characterised by their propositional content which progresses the thematic de-

velopment of the discourse. An utterance, the maximum unit from the monologue point of view, is

made up of one or more movements, units which are related to the phonic clause or tonal group.

The movements are made up of speech acts, which are non-interactional units. The unit above the

utterance is the exchange, consisting of two successive utterances by different speakers. The most

typical minimal exchange in the organisation of speech turns is the adjacent pair which “is formed

by two successive turns which are characterised by the fact that the presence of the ﬁrst part (the ﬁrst

turn) creates the expectation that a certain second part (the second adjacent pair) will appear next”

(Tusón, 1997, p. 58). For Sacks and Schegloff (1973) they are sequences of two utterances: 1) suc-

cessive, 2) produced by different interlocutors, 3) ordered in ﬁrst and second parts, and 4) speciﬁc:

to a given ﬁrst part corresponds a given second part. Levinson (1989, p. 324) establishes the follow-

ing adjacent pairs: request/acceptance or refusal, offer-invitation/acceptance or refusal, evaluation/

agreement or disagreement, expected or unexpected question/response, accusation/refusal or ad-

mission. Broadly speaking, they can be classiﬁed into two types of exchanges: request-giving and

giving-thank-you.

Many of the works on discourse analysis, from their clear inter- and multidisciplinary perspective,

have a clear “applied” orientation in the more socially oriented studies. Thus, this discipline puts

forward diverse and interesting proposals for application in the ﬁelds of politics, law, the media and

education, which is the subject of this paper.

As Gunnarsson (2000) reminds us, applied discourse analysis cannot yet be considered a consoli-

dated ﬁeld, although most discourse analysis work contains an important applied nature. Language,

as a social tool of transformation and knowledge transmission, occupies today a very prominent

place in modern states and their bureaucratised societies. That is, all aspects related to communi-

cation, between human groups in general and between groups of professionals in particular, are a

concern for most companies and experts. Hence, most discursive studies on the different areas of

social life have tried to reﬂect, understand and offer improvements in the communicative dimension

of these same areas.

In this sense, researchers and discourse analysts have stimulated this type of work and, at the same

time, have pursued results that would dynamise the interaction between professionals, teams and

systems. In the words of Gunnarsson (2000, pp. 405-406) the focus of applied discourse analysis is:

“language and communication in real-life situations and aims to analyse, understand or solve prob-

lems related to practical action in real-life contexts. Its object of study is not language per se - what-

ever that may be - but the use of language in authentic contexts”.

On the other hand, the relationship between applied discourse analysis and applied linguistics is

clear. Although the ﬁrst studies of applied linguistics were limited, in the ﬁeld of education, to the

teaching and learning of second and foreign languages, nowadays the different studies of applied

linguistics have been extended to other social areas and not only to education. Since Harris (1952)

published a pioneering article using the term “discourse analysis” and, consequently, the focus of

linguistic attention shifts from minimal units (words or sentences) to larger units (texts and discours-

2. 3. Applied discourse analysis

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 100 ]

es), the interest in oral (and written) discourse in its contextual interrelation has modiﬁed the ap-

proaches of linguistic research itself.

Thus, the proliferation of audiovisual recording systems, together with the development of modern

computer systems, has led to an extraordinary explosion in the study of oral discourse. These the-

oretical and technological extensions have opened up new areas of applied study which have now

become fundamental. For example, we can now record teacher-student interaction on video, study

the interactional patterns they employ by means of modern computer programmes of reproduction

and transcription, and thus arrive at interesting insights into their linguistic uses.

In other words, disciplines such as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, forensic linguistics or language

planning have been consolidated or have emerged, to a large extent, on the basis of new multidis-

ciplinary approaches, new technologies and their decanted practical applications. It is no less true

that applied linguistics and applied discourse analysis have their own role in the theoretical and

methodological development of these disciplines to the point of constituting autonomous and not

always related knowledge. Thus, many theoretical linguistic studies do not present clear and appli-

cable connections to real life and, on the other hand, studies of a more applied nature do not serve

as theoretical apparatus nor do they solve any of the problems posed by more theoretical linguistics.

Likewise, many contributions from applied linguistics have been used by applied discourse analysis,

which has had in the contextual part of language its main element of connection with applied lin-

guistics. Generally speaking, this applied perspective presents a wide variety of ﬁelds rather than a

homogeneous framework of study.

In the educational context, Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) work on discourse analysis in the class-

room examines the discursive, situational and grammatical categories that appear in the corpus

of data. On the Spanish scene, the works of Unamuno (1997, 2003) and Nussbaum and Unamuno

(2006) reﬂect on the study of discourses among schoolchildren of foreign origin in Barcelona. Their

critical and ethnographic perspective reveals the conditions for the development of the linguis-

tic-discursive skills of these schoolchildren in both foreign and native languages. Nor should we

forget the work of Guasch and Nussbaum (2007) on multilingual competence.

The methodology we have employed in this work is qualitative. In the words of Angrosino (2012:

10): “qualitative research aims to approach the world `out there´ (...) and to understand, describe and

sometimes explain social phenomena “from the inside” in various possible ways”.

Within the scope of qualitative research, ethnography has been used in this research as a method

for data collection. This method involves “the collection of information about the material products,

social relations, beliefs and values of a community” (Angrosino, 2012, p. 17), which is intended to

provide a comprehensive insight into a speciﬁc educational context in order to investigate, among

other things, the teaching-learning processes of Spanish in the classroom.

More speciﬁcally, the ethnography of communication (or speech) allows us to enter, from linguistic

and cultural reﬂection, into speciﬁc social realities, in which the observation, characterisation, de-

3. Data and methodology

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 101 ]

scription and analysis of forms of communicative interaction in certain groups shows us how our

society works and how we function in it. Thus, the interest of the ethnography of communication,

as Lomas, Osoro and Tusón (1998, p. 40) have pointed out, lies in the fact that “it presents a theo-

retical framework that places in their right place the different skills that an individual need to know

and master in order to behave in a ‘competent’, that is, ‘adequate’ way in any situation”. Likewise,

this ﬁrst point details the main key concepts of the ethnography of communication, ranging from

the communicative (or speech) event, speech communities, the verbal repertoire or communicative

competence, as one of the main concepts, which is understood as the ability to know what to say to

whom, when and how to say it, and when to be silent (Cots et al., 1990).

The design of the research, as a process of reﬂection, was conceived from the outset not as a static

element, but as a dynamic one based on my own and my students’ actions. Thus, the design of the

work began with the drafting of a ﬁrst programmatic design of the ﬁeldwork. The ﬁrst areas of explo-

ration in the school, especially when the central research topic was not fully deﬁned, were based on

the professional development considerations proposed by Melief, Tigchelaar and Korthagen (2010),

namely: experience, reﬂection on practice, interaction with peers, and interaction with theory.

The project started with observation, data collection (written and oral), review of organisational, leg-

islative and didactic documentation in January 2022 and concluded in June 2022 with the recording

and transcription of the interactions in audio format. The observations started at the basic, interme-

diate and advanced levels, but were ﬁnally ﬁnalised at the Intermediate B1 level.

This research was carried out in a public school in the city of Granada where other languages are

taught (7 languages in total) and which has good facilities, internet connection in all classrooms,

sound equipment, digital whiteboards (in many classrooms), projector with screen and laptops for

each teacher.

Calsamiglia and Tusón (1999, p. 133) have pointed out that any analysis of language use must in-

clude “the protagonists of the communicative interaction that such use entails”. The proﬁle of Span-

ish learners is very heterogeneous from an ethnic, cultural, linguistic, social and religious point of

view. Students range in age from 16 to 70 years old, with diverse educational backgrounds (from

elementary school students to graduates, with a Master’s degree or PhD), as well as students in ac-

tive employment or unemployed and of diverse origins. Eighteen different nationalities have been

counted, although Moroccan students are the majority. Thus, this centre also reﬂects to a large ex-

tent the migratory and demographic movements in Spain in recent years.

Some of the students live in the city for strictly work or study reasons (they are studying for a degree,

master’s degree, doctorate or other type of studies). Another part for personal reasons, they are

married to a partner who works in the city or are simply natives of the area. Many students, especial-

ly from Morocco, are housewives. Classes are held in the mornings and afternoons. Many of them

make an extra effort after work or class to reconcile Spanish with their work, education and personal

3. 1. Research design

3. 2. Centre and participants

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 102 ]

life. However, some of them, due to their own temporary situation, in terms of work or studies, leave

the course in the middle or travel to their countries and are absent from class for long periods of

time.

The data used for this study were collected during the course of ethnographic ﬁeldwork. Firstly,

we collected and analysed material intended for pupils (guides, leaﬂets, forms, lists, websites and

textbooks) and material for internal use by teachers (school plans, regulations, curriculum plans,

legislation and analysis of classroom materials). Secondly, the materials collected during the eth-

nography are mainly the oral corpus and ﬁeld diary notes. In this sense, participant observation and

self-observation were the main tools for the collection of such material.

A total of 37 hours of class were recorded and transcribed in audio format. Eighteen communica-

tive exchanges were recorded, in which B1 level learners, grouped in pairs, performed a role-play

exercise in which they had to make requests, express opinions, make invitations and offers (with

acceptance or refusal), greet or say goodbye in informal communicative situations. The role-play

dramatisation technique has been used by Scarcella (1979), Félix-Brasdefer (2004, 2006) or Martínez

and Usó (2011), among others, as it allows the researcher to observe complex conversational inter-

actions and reﬂect an awareness of appropriate language use. We also transcribed 2 excerpts from

lectures on interactional competence teaching instruction and 3 classroom interactions in the form

of open-ended interviews.

The transcription system used is that of the Círculo de Análisis del Discurso (CAD) of the Universidad

Autónoma de Barcelona, initiated by Amparo Tusón Valls and Helena Calsamiglia (appendix 1). As

Ochs (1979) has pointed out, the interpretation of the data begins with the transcription, given that

its elaboration requires a series of theoretical and methodological decisions that will inﬂuence and

determine the subsequent analysis.

Transcripts are an essential tool for the analysis of spoken interactions. Their elaboration process is

laborious, arduous and very slow so that they are the most faithful reﬂection of the content of the

recordings. Once this process has been completed, the ﬁnal result shows aspects of the interlocu-

tionary mechanics (ways of taking the ﬂoor, overlaps, pauses, interruptions, repetitions, etc.) that are

not perceptible in the direct observation of the recordings. In this respect, Stubbs (1987, p. 35) has

pointed out that “it is a useful distancing mechanism that demonstrates complex aspects of conver-

sational coherence that we overlook as real conversationalists or observers”.

Due to space limitations, we will focus our analysis and discussion on classroom interactions on

teaching instruction of communicative exchanges. Tusón (2002) explains that the analytical proce-

dure must start from the linguistic forms situated in context, examine how these forms are articulated

together with non-linguistic elements to generate meaning and discover the social representations

that emerge from the analysis. Through this process, she continues, interactional development is

3. 3. Data obtained

4. Results and Discussion

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 103 ]

negotiated, norms are operationalised as habitual behavioural tendencies and, applied to our learn-

ers, appropriate or inappropriate uses in these communicative contexts are determined.

Instructional classes aim to provide learners with the linguistic forms necessary to express an act,

while showing them the socio-cultural norms of doing it. Traditionally, social routines were seen as

external norms that were added to the interaction, but the values of language and culture could

hardly be changed once they were established (Janney and Arndt, 1992, p. 31, cited in Escandell,

2009, p. 26). Explicit instruction, with metacommunicative discussion, is therefore of great use in

glimpsing the repertoires associated with a speech act and the norms of interaction and interpreta-

tion.

In our interactional instruction class, prior to the role-play activity we did in class, we started from the

assumption of refusal and from there, with a series of probing questions, the teacher, in cooperation

with his students, built up awareness of interactional appropriateness in Spanish. Thus, after asking

the class whether “no, gracias” is sufﬁcient in Spanish to express refusal (line 227), the instruction

process begins. The teacher makes the students aware that the non-preferred options require more

interactional elements (lines 232, 234 and 237) accompanied by justiﬁcations (line 243).

Fragment 1 (INT1_15)

Participants: EMM6 (pupil six Moroccan), EMA1 (pupil one German), EHS1 (pupil one Syrian), EMM3

(pupil three Moroccan), EMP1 (pupil one Polish), PHE1 (teacher one Spanish).

Theme: Class on teaching instruction on interactional mechanics

227.

228.

229.

230.

231.

232.

233.

234.

235.

236.

237.

238.

239.

240.

241.

242.

243.

[...]

PHE1 − no gracias \| {(F) con no gracias es suﬁciente en español /|| es suﬁciente /|}

EMM6 − no \|

EMA1 − no \|

EMM3 − muy amable \|

EHS1 − que te:: –|

PHE1 − podemos dar las gracias \| [escribe en la pizarra] muy amable \|{(F) falta algo/|}

EMM3 − todavía /|

PHE1 − aquí falta algo muy importante \|falta algo {(DC) muy muy} importante\|

EHS1 − {(fra) bon appétit \|} [Traducción: buen provecho]

EMP1 − {(F) que te aproveche /|}

PHE1 − {(F) puedes decir \| muy amable \| que aproveche \|} [escribe en la pizarra] {(F) falta algo /|}

EMM6 − todavía /|

PHE1 − todavía falta algo muy importante \|{(F) que si no lo decimos \|} la persona va a decir \| uy qué raro \| falta algo \|

EMP1 − {(F) acaba de comer \|}

PHE1 − muy bien \|

EMP1 − yuju \|

PHE1 − tenemos que dar una justiﬁcación \|

[...]

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 104 ]

Gumperz (2002) already pointed out that a signiﬁcant number of the communication problems that

arise in intercultural encounters are due to the unshared use of contextualisation cues in the use of

negotiation strategies. This results in negative and pejorative evaluations of the other, as well as the

construction of mutual stereotypes. This idea is presented in the following excerpt from the lesson

(lines 274-280). Thus, in intervention 274 it is shown that it is important to use this ritual: “cuando

queremos que “la otra persona \| no piense–| no tenga un prejuicio de nosotros \|” O piense acti-

tudes que no se corresponden con nuestra intención: “qué soso \| qué persona tan: –| tan agresiva

\| por qué habla así \|” (line 280).

Fragment 2 (INT1_15)

Participants: EMM5 (pupil ﬁve Moroccan), EHS1 (pupil one Syrian), EMM6 (pupil six Moroccan), PHE1

(teacher one Spanish).

Theme: Lecture on teaching instruction on interactional mechanics

274.

275.

276.

277.

278.

279.

280.

[...]

PHE1 − esto es muy importante \| sobre todo cuando queremos que la otra persona \| no piense –| no tenga un prejuicio

de nosotros \|

EMM5 − mm \|

PHE1 − es decir \| si nos dicen \|{(F) quiere bocadillo /| le apetece /|} y tú dices {(F) no gracias \|} el español se va a quedar

un poco \| dice uy \|

EHS1 − uy \|

PHE1 − qué soso \| y es muy –|

EMM6 − soso \|

PHE1 − qué soso \| qué persona tan:: –| tan agresiva \| por qué habla así \|

[...]

In the last fragment of the explicit instruction lesson, presented below, the teacher explains the in-

teractional ritual in his interventions 284 and 285 because these are elements of great importance:

“esto tenéis que tenerlo en cuenta \| de acuerdo /| esto se valora mucho\|” (line 288). In the inquiry

process of knowledge construction, students understand the pragmatic value of these interactional

norms: “es diplomática \|” (line 297), “si es una cultura de: la gente de aquí \|” (line 299). Indeed, be-

yond grammatical knowledge, “esto no solo es gramática\|” (line 294), the key from this perspective

is appropriateness,“porque cuando hablas un idioma \| tienes que pensar y actuar como lo hace un

español \| y esa es la diferencia \|” (line 300), i.e. “no solamente conocer las reglas\|… sino también

actuar como =actuaría= \| exacto \| un español en esa situación\|” (line 302).

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 105 ]

Fragment 3 (INT1_15)

Participants: EMM5 (pupil ﬁve Moroccan), EHS1 (pupil one Syrian), EMM3 (pupil three Moroccan),

EMM10 (pupil ten Moroccan), EHM1 (pupil one Moroccan), PHE1 (teacher one Spanish).

Theme: Lecture on teaching instruction on interactional mechanics

284.

285.

286.

287.

288.

289.

294.

295.

296.

297.

298.

299.

300.

301.

302.

[...]

PHE1 − {(F) gusta /|} {(AC) no gracias \| muy amable \| que aproveche \| se lo agradezco mucho \| es que acabo de comer \|

\| no \|} insistir mucho \| y entonces el español \|

EMM10 − {(@) hablar \|}

PHE1 − sí hay que hablar mucho \| porque una respuesta muy breve no:: –| no funciona\| como la semana que viene tenéis

que hacer pi pi pi \|[se reﬁere a la actividad de ﬁchas que vamos a hacer en clase: anexo 2]

EHS1 − ah \|

PHE1 − esto tenéis que tener lo en cuenta \| de acuerdo /| esto se valora mucho\|

EHS1 − ah \|

[…]

PHE1 − sí \| {(F) esto es solamente gramática /|} aquí \| esto no solo es gramática \|

EMM3 − no \|

EMA1 − no \|

EMM5 − es diplomática \|

PHE1 − [risas] diplomacia \|

EHM1 − si es una cultura de:: la gente de aquí \|

PHE1 − exacto \| porque cuando hablas un idioma \| tienes que pensar y actuar como lo hace un español \| y esa es la dife-

rencia \|

EMM10 − sí \| tienes que ofrecer la vida a: un día- diálogo \|

PHE1 − exacto \| tienes que parecer español \| no solamente conocer las reglas\| {(AC) que esto es sujeto \| esto es un verbo

\| esto es pretérito perfecto\|} sino también actuar como =actuaría= \| exacto \| un español en esa situación \| y esto se valora

mucho en los exámenes orales \| por ejemplo \|

[...]

After the lesson on teacher instruction on interactional mechanics and after having carried out the

role-playing activity, a classroom session was devoted to explaining the results of the experience. In

short, in intervention 58, the students’ knowledge of the interactional rules which operate as “rituals”

(Goffman, 1970) or “routines” (Coulmas, 1981) and the verbal (and non-verbal) repertoires linked to

these acts, i.e. the “utterances or fragments of utterances which already exist prefabricated in the

language to accommodate them to situations which are repeated” (Blecua, 1982, p. 56), is empha-

sised.

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 106 ]

Fragment 4 (INT1_20)

Participants: EMM8 (pupil eight Moroccan), EHS1 (pupil one Syrian), EMM6 (pupil six Moroccan),

EMM10 (pupil ten Moroccan), PHE1 (teacher one Spanish).

Theme: Role-play activity review class

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

[...]

PHE1 − lo que quiere enseñar el manual \| y también la actividad \| es que en español \| recordad \| que no basta con decir

no gracias \| es que no puedo \|

EMM8 − tienes que explicar \|

PHE1 − sino que: −| cuando la respuesta es una respuesta negativa \<0>

EMM10 − tienes que:: explicar \|

PHE1 − hay que darle mucha:: −| para que \| para que suene a español\|[cambia la voz] ay el cumpleaños \| uh es que puf de

verdad \| {(AC) no puedo \| de verdad es que −| otro día \| vale /| es que de verdad \| me viene muy mal \| es que no puedo

\|} porque si en español decimos solamente \| no gracias \| es que no puedo \<0>

EMM6 − seca \|

EHS1 − es duro \|

PHE1 − suena \| suena \|fuerte en español \|

[...]

Once we have analysed the content of the teaching instruction classes on interactional mechanics,

we can see how this research has provided us with information on the type of instruction that our

students should receive: Formal instruction rather than just learning by exposure to the medium

(Kasper, 1997; Urbina, 2009) and instruction based on the “process” as opposed to the “product”

focus advocated by interactional competence specialists by going beyond the simple use of com-

municative skills to focus on the processes leading to the acquisition of interactional competence

(Kasper & Rose, 2002; Félix-Brasdefer & Koike, 2014).

As we argued at the beginning of this paper, in communicative exchanges and meaning negotiation

processes, learners of Spanish as a foreign language do not always appropriately use contextualis-

ation cues such as rhythm, tone, tempo or emphatic intonation to express certain implicit meanings

(e.g. informative focus or illocutionary force). Similarly, we argue, along with Gumperz (2002), that

a signiﬁcant number of the communicative problems that arise in our oral data are due to the un-

shared use of contextualisation cues and interactional patterns.

In short, on some occasions the lack of appropriateness stems from a lack of knowledge of the inter-

actional rules of the different linguistic rituals or routines in which they are immersed, while on oth-

ers it is due to the use of verbal (and non-verbal) resources that are not appropriate for the commu-

nicative functions they wish to express. Likewise, the analysis detects a certain tendency to simplify

the use of linguistic exponents, extending the use of some of them to express different intentions or,

in other cases, confusion with the verbal paradigm.

On the other hand, we consider that this research has allowed us to develop through the teaching

instruction classes on interactional mechanics, on the part of the students, the recognition of how

5. Conclusions

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 107 ]

linguistic forms are used appropriately or inappropriately in context, as well as to investigate how

the interactive rituals of a sociocultural type associated with each situation operate. Consequently,

learners have been provided with a wide repertoire of verbal and non-verbal resources for use in dif-

ferent situations and interpretative frameworks; evidence that prior to explicit teaching instruction,

they were not always used in adaptable, negotiable and variable ways (Verschueren, 2002).

In conclusion, with the analysis of these data and their application to the teaching-learning pro-

cess of Spanish as a foreign language, this work helps us to better understand the development of

students’ oral uses through informal interactions in the Spanish classroom, as well as to guide our

teaching activity in order to establish objectives, programme activities, evaluate results and develop

our students’ oral communicative competence in a more detailed way.

Allwright, D. (1980). Turns, topics, and tasks: Patterns of participation in language learning and tea-

ching. En D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.), Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research (pp. 165-

187). Newbury House.

Angrosino, M. (2012). Etnografía y observación participante en Investigación Cualitativa. Morata.

Batlle Rodríguez, J. (2015). La organización secuencial de las reparaciones en interacciones entre

profesor y alumnos de español como lengua extranjera centradas en el signiﬁcado: Repercusio-

nes en la intersubjetividad y la competencia interaccional de los hablantes (Doctoral Thesis). Uni-

versidad de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Blecua Perdices, J. M. (1982). Qué es hablar. Salvat.

Briz Gómez, A. (1998). El español coloquial en la conversación. Esbozo de pragmagramática. Ariel.

Calsamiglia, H. & Tusón, A. (1999). Las cosas del decir. Manual de análisis del discurso. Ariel.

Camps i Mundó, A. (2005). Hablar en clase, aprender lengua. En C. Barragán y otros (eds.), Hablar en

clase (pp. 37-44). Claves para la Innovación Educativa, 31. Graó.

Cenoz Iragui, J. (1996). La competencia comunicativa: su origen y componentes. En J. Cenoz y J.

Valencia (eds.), La competencia pragmática: elementos lingüísticos y psicosociales (pp. 95-114).

Servicio Editorial Universidad del País Vasco.

Cestero Mancera, A. M.ª (2005). Conversación y enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. Arco/Libros.

Cots Caimons, J. M. ª, Nussbaum, L, Payrató, Ll. & Tusón, A. (1990). Conversa(r). Caplletra. Revista de

Filologia, 7, 51-72.

Coulmas, F. (ed.) (1981). Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situa-

tions and Prepatterned Speech. Mouton.

Díaz Rodríguez, L. (2010). Análisis del discurso del profesor en la clase de ELE. MarcoELE, 11. http://

marcoele.com/descargas/navas/17.diaz.pdf

Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1988). El conocimiento compartido. Paidós/MEC.

Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task

structure and social participation structure in lessons. En L. C. Wilkinson (ed.), Comunicating in the

classroom (pp. 153-181). Academic Press.

6. References

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 108 ]

Escandell Vidal, M. ª V. (2009). Social Cognition and Second Language Learning. En R. Gómez Morón,

M. Padilla Cruz, L. Fernández Amaya & M. O. Hernández López (eds.), Pragmatics Applied to Lan-

guage Teaching and Learning (pp. 1-39). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Esteve Ruescas, O. (2009). La interacción, un proceso que implica conversar. Cuadernos de Pedago-

gía, 39, 56-59.

Esteve Ruescas, O. (2010). Interacción, conciencia lingüística y desarrollo de la autonomía en el apren-

dizaje de lenguas extranjeras. MarcoELE, 10. http://marcoele.com/descargas/expolingua_2006.

esteve.pdf

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). La mitigación en el discurso oral de mexicanos y aprendices de español

como lengua extranjera. En D. Bravo y A. Briz (eds.), Pragmática sociocultural: estudios sobre el

discurso de cortesía en español (pp. 285-299). Ariel.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using conversa-

tion-analytic tools to teach pragmatics in the FL classroom. En K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Bras-

defer y A. S. Omar (eds.), Pragmatics language learning (pp. 165-197). University of Hawai’i Press.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. & Koike, D. (2014). Perspectives on Spanish SLA from Pragmatics and Discour-

se.En M. Lacorte (ed.), Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics (pp. 25-43). Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1970). Ritual de la interacción. Ensayos sobre el comportamiento cara a cara. Tiempo

Contemporáneo.

González Argüello, M.ª V. (2001). Modiﬁcaciones en el discurso del profesor de español como lengua

extranjera (Doctoral Thesis). Barcelona, Universidad de Barcelona.

Gras Manzano, P. (2011). Gramática de construcciones en interacción. Propuesta de un modelo y apli-

cación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español (Docto-

ral Thesis). Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Guasch, O. & Nussbaum, L. (2007). Aproximacions a la competència multilingüe. Servei de Publica-

cions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. (1992). Constextualization and understanding. En A. Duranti y C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethin-

king Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 229-252). Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. (2001). Interactional Sociolinguistics: a personal perspective. En D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen y

H. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 215-228). Blackwell.

Gumperz, J. (2002). Las bases lingüísticas de la competencia comunicativa. En L. Golluscio (ed.), Et-

nografía del habla. Textos fundacionales (pp. 151-163). Eudeba.

Gunnarsson, B. (2000). Análisis aplicado del discurso. En T. van Dijk (coord.), El discurso como in-

teracción social. Estudios sobre el discurso II. Una aproximación multidisciplinaria (pp. 405-441).

Gedisa.

Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 1-58.

Heller, M. (2001). Discourse and Interaction. En D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen y H. Hamilton (eds.), The Han-

dbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 250-264). Blackwell.

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 109 ]

Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. En M. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language:

Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155-175). Erlbaum.

Hymes, D. (1971). Acerca de la competencia comunicativa. En M. Llobera(ed.)(1995),Competencia

comunicativa. Documentos básicos en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras (pp. 27-46). Edelsa.

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatics competence be taught? National Foreign Language Resource

Center. http://www.nﬂrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/

Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell.

Levinson, S. (1989). Pragmática. Teide.

Llobera i Cànaves, M.(ed.)(1995a).Competencia comunicativa. Documentos básicos en la enseñan-

za de lenguas extranjeras. Edelsa.

Llobera i Cànaves, M. (1995b). Discurso generado y aportado en la enseñanza de lenguas extranje-

ras. En M. Siguan (ed.), La enseñanza de lenguas por tareas (pp. 17-38). ICE-Horsori.

Lomas, C., Osoro, A. y Tusón, A. (1998). Ciencias del lenguaje, competencia comunicativa y enseñan-

za de la lengua. Paidós.

López Alonso, C. (2015). Análisis del discurso. Síntesis.

Martínez Flor, A. & Usó Juan, E. (2011). Research Methodologies in Pragmatics: Eliciting Refusals to

Requests. ELIA, 11, 47-87.

Melief, K. Tigchelaar, A. & Kortagen, F. (2010). Aprender de la práctica. En O. Esteve, K. Melief y A.

Alsina (eds.), Creando mi profesión: Una propuesta para el desarrollo profesional del profesorado

(pp. 19-38). Octaedro.

Mondada, L. (2001). Por una lingüística interaccional. Revista Iberoamericana de Discurso y Socie-

dad, 3(3), 61-89.

Moore, E. & Nussbaum, L. (2013). La lingüística interaccional y la comunicación en las aulas. Textos

de Didáctica de la Lengua y de la Literatura, 63, 43-50.

Nussbaum, L. (1999). La discusión como género discursivo y como instrumento didáctico. Texto de

Didáctica de la Lengua y de la Literatura, 20, 9-17.

Nussbaum, L. y Unamuno, V. (coords.) (2006). Usos i competències multilingües entre escolars d’ori-

gen immigrant. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. En E. Ochs y B. B. Schieffelin (eds.), Developmental Pragma-

tics (pp. 43-72). Academic Press.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. & Thompson, S. (eds.) (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge University

Press.

Pomerantz, A. & Fehr, B. (2000). Análisis de la conversación: enfoque del estudio de la acción social

como prácticas de producción de sentido. En T. van Dijk (ed.), El discurso como interacción social.

Estudios sobre el discurso II. Una aproximación multidisciplinaria (pp. 101-139). Gedisa.

Preston, D. R. & Young, R. (2000). Adquisición de segundas lenguas: variación y contexto social. Arco/

Libros.

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Basil Blackwell.

Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7(4), 291-327.

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 110 ]

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-ta-

king for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization

of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.

Sánchez Cano, M. (2005). La conversación en el aula. En C. Barragán y otros (eds.), Hablar en clase

(pp. 81-92). Claves para la innovación educativa 31. Graó.

Sánchez Cano, M. (ed.) (2009). La conversación en pequeños grupos en el aula. Graó.

Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The Ethnograghy of Communication. Blackwell Publishing.

Scarcella, R. (1979). On speaking politely in a second language. En C. Yorio, K. Perkins y J. Schachter,

J. (eds.), On TESOL´79: The learner in focus (pp. 275-287). TESOL.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversational

Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford University Press.

Stubbs, M. (1987). Análisis del discurso. Análisis sociolingüístico del lenguaje natural. Alianza.

Tusón Valls, A. (1997). Análisis de la conversación. Ariel Lingüística.

Tusón Valls, A. (1996). El concepto de competencia comunicativa y la enseñanza del español como

lengua extranjera. En N. Sans y L. Miquel (eds.), Didáctica del español como lengua extranjera.

Colección Expolingua (pp. 223-235). Fundación Actilibre.

Tusón Valls, A. (2000). Conversar para aprender. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 96, 15-19.

Tusón Valls, A. (2002). El análisis de la conversación: entre la estructura y el sentido. Estudios de So-

ciolingüística, 3(1), 133-153.

Unamuno, V. (1997). Lenguas, identidades y escuela: etnografía de la acción comunicativa (Doctoral

Thesis). Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Unamuno, V. (2003). Lengua, escuela y diversidad sociocultural: hacia una educación lingüística crí-

tica. Graó.

Urbina Vargas, M. S. (2009). Una propuesta pedagógica para el desarrollo de la competencia prag-

mática en español como segunda lengua o lengua extranjera. Estrategias Innovativas para el

Mejoramiento. Revista de Innovaciones Educativas de la Universidad Estatal a Distancia de Costa

Rica, 11 (16). http://investiga.uned.ac.cr/revistas/index.php/innovaciones/article/view/553/454

Van Dijk, T. (ed.) (2000). El discurso como interacción social. Estudios sobre el discurso II. Una aproxi-

mación multidisciplinaria. Gedisa.

Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. Longman.

Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. Kluwer Academic

Press.

Verschueren, J. (2002). Para entender la pragmática. Gredos.

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse. Language in Action. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v3.8243

[ 111 ]

The transcription system used is that of the Círculo de Análisis del Discurso (CAD) of the Universidad

Autónoma de Barcelona. These are the conventions:

= text 1=

= text 2=

<nº sg.>

<0>

:::

text_

text-

XXX

{(@) text}

{(&) text}

{(P) text}

{(PP) text}

{(F) text}

{(FF) text}

{(A) text}

{(B) text}

{(AC) text}

{(ACC) text}

{(DC) text}

{(DCC) text}

{“text”}

+text+

[text]

{(ara) text}

{(eng) text}

{(fre) text}

−

Moment of simultaneous speech or overlapping

Short pause (less than one second)

Long pause (more than one second)

Pause duration (minimum one second). Example: <5>.

Without pause

Vowel lengthening

Vowel lengthening (more time) time

Very long vowel elongation

Interruptions

word truncation (abrupt cut in the middle of a word)

Indecipherable fragment

Pronounced with laughter

Dubious transcription

Intensity pianissimo

Intensity forte

Intensity fortissimo

High pitch

Low tone

Accelerated tempo

Very fast tempo

Slow tempo

Very slow tempo

Replacements

Phonetic or approximate transcription

Transcriber’s comments

Language change: Arabic

Language change: English

Language change: French

Descending intonation

Ascending intonation

Maintained intonation

Annex I (transcription system)