Interactional Competence in Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing

By R. Young. 2011

175 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Effects of Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency on Communicative Adequacy in Oral Task Performance (2014, background): “Under Pallotti’s definition, adequacy is related to the notion of interactional competence as it involves determining “what a person does together with others” (Young 2011: 430).”
Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “The main trunk of the tree represents the interlocutors, who are colocated, as a pair or a group, within a shared time and space, regardless of whether they are interacting face-to-face or online; Young refers to them as “ interactional partners ” (2011, p. 428).”
What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence (2018, methodology): “Within Young’s model of IC, a “weak” view of IC is that “an individual’s knowledge and employment of [identity, linguistic, and interactional] resources is contingent on what other participants do” (Young, 2011, p. 430).”