___

• Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (Eds.). (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Barraja-Rohan, A.M. (1997). Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms with Conversation Analysis. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 14(supplement), 71–88.
• Cook, V. (2010). Prolegomena to second language learning. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh and C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘Learning’ in Applied Linguistics (pp. 6-22). Basingstone: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ellis, R. (2010). Theoretical pluralism in SLA: Is there a way forward? In: P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh and C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘Learning’ in Applied Linguistics (pp. 2351). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Eskildsen, S. (2011). The L2 inventory in action: Conversation analysis and usage-based linguistics in SLA. In G. Palotti and J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 Learning as Social Practice: Conversation-Analytic Perspectives (pp. 327-365). National Foreign Language Resource Center.
• Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300.
• Gardner, R., & Wagner J. (Eds.) (2004). Second language conversations. London: Continuum.
• Garfinkel, H. (1952). The perception of the other: a study in social order. PhD dissertation. Harvard University.
• 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, 209–219.
• Golato, A. (2002). German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 547–71.
• Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90–121.
• Hall, J.C., Hellerman, J., & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. Multilingual Matters.
• Hall, J.K., & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2011). L2 Interactional competence and development. In J.K. Hall, J. Hellerman, and S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 Interactional Competence and Development (pp. 1-19). Multilingual Matters.
• Hellerman, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Multilingual Matters.
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
• Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1991). Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations. In: D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure. University of California Press, Berkeley.
• Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 complimentresponse sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2025–50.
• Huth, T. (2007). Pragmatics revisited: teaching with natural language data. Die Unterrichtspraxis⁄ Teaching German, 40(1), 21–43.
• Huth, T. (2010a). Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects of elicited second language interaction. Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 537-553.
• Huth, T. (2010b). Intercultural competency in conversation: teaching German requests. Die Unterrichtspraxis ⁄ Teaching German, 43(2), 154–64.
• Huth, T., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 53–79.
• Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 201-231.
• Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: inside the skull or in public view? IRAL, 47, 11–36.
• Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215–247.
• Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (Eds.) (2003). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. WileyKoschmann, T. (2011). Understanding understanding in action. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 4254
• Kramsch, C. (Ed) (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.
• Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (Eds.) (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010). Having and doing: Learning from a complexity theory perspective. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh and C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘Learning’ in Applied Linguistics (pp. 52-68). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Liddicoat, A. (2007). Introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum.
• Liefländer-Koistinen, L., & Neuendorf, D. (1991). Auskunft erbitten. Telefongespräche im Deutschen und Finnischen: Unterschiede in ihrer interaktionalen Struktur. Akten des VIII. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Tokyo 1990, 3. München: Indicium 4, 482– 4
• Lindström, A. (1990). Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings. Language in Society, 23, 231–252.
• Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
• Mori, J., & Markee, N. (2009). Language learning, cognition, and interactional practices: an introduction. IRAL, 47, 1–9.
• Palotti, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). L2 Learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives. In G. Palotti and J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 Learning as Social Practice: Conversation-Analytic Perspectives (pp. 1-16). National Foreign Language Resource Center.
• Pavlidou, T. (1994). Contrasting German–Greek politeness and the consequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 487–511.
• Richards, K., & Seedhouse P. (Eds.) (2005). Applying conversation analysis. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave-Mcmillan.
• Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 3853
• Schegloff, E.A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In: G. Psathas, (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington: New York.
• Schegloff, E.A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151.
• Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8 (4), 189–327.
• Schegloff, E.A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3–31.
• Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: a conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Seedhouse, P. (2010). How research methodologies influence findings. Novitas ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4(1), 1-15. http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_4_1/seedhouse.pdf
• Seedhouse, P., Walsh, S., & Jenks, C. (Eds.) (2010). Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. WileySifianou, M. (1989). On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece. Language in Society, 18, 527–544.
• Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2002). A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1807-1832. Taleghani-Nikazm, C., & Huth, T. (2010). L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-ininteraction. Multilingua, 29(2), 185-202. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
• Wong, J., & Olsher, D. (2000). Reflections on conversation analysis and nonnative speaker talk: An interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 111–28.
•                                                                                                                 1 Another issue I cannot pursue further is the conceptualization of usage vs. learning as separate or the same, as in fact, in usage-based linguistics (UBL), language use and language learning are viewed as virtually indistinguishable. If language usage is the driving mechanism for progressive neuro-cognitive entrenchment of particular L2 structures over time, including interactional structures on the sequential level, then language use and language learning are indeed to be viewed as two delineable aspects of the same process, i.e., use and learning can be viewed as two sides of the same coin (Eskildsen, 2011). This duality might be acknowledged more frequently in the field at large.
•                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         2 Open role play/conversation task instructions for the respective interactants were phrased as follows. CALLER: You are yourself, today is the current date. You are calling your partner because you misplaced/lost your book on German idiomatic expressions. In order to complete your homework, you request to borrow the book from your partner. Relate all the circumstances to your real life situation. While you need to accomplish your conversational goal, you are free to talk about anything you wish in addition. You need to talk about 7-10 minutes. RECIPIENT: You are yourself, today is the current date. You will receive a telephone call from your partner. It is entirely up to you how you respond. Circumstances permitting, give your partner a compliment. You need to talk for about 7-10 minutes. 3 As Koschmann (2011, p. 435) quotes Garfinkel (1952, p. 367): “The big question is not whether actors understand each other or not. The fact is they do understand each other, that they will understand each other, but the catch is that they will understand each other regardless of how they would be understood.”
• In other words, and rephrased for the purposes of this study, this means that whatever first speaker initiates, transferred from L1 or learned from exposure to, or from pedagogical materials about, the L2, and whatever second speaker produces in response when meeting first speakers’ first actions with a given ‘next’, transferred from L1 or learned from exposure to, or from pedagogical materials about, the L2, does not always produce outcomes that are intended by either or both interactants. In talk-in-interaction, mutual ‘understanding’ is not guaranteed.