The use of German turn-final ODER in GFL counseling: interactional-linguistic and longitudinal insights into its functions and adaptive dynamics in counselor and learner practices

Abstract

This study investigates the turn-final use of ODER as a question tag in the context of foreign language (learning) counseling. Grounded in interactional linguistics, the study adopts a longitudinal interactional approach, analyzing two counseling cycles—each comprising seven sessions—conducted by one novice advisor with two different learners. The analysis traces the advisor's and learners' functional calibrations and changes in the use of ODER, highlighting co-adaptive developments in its pragmatic value, taking into account diverse L1 backgrounds and interactional behaviors of the learners. Beyond its well-documented epistemic functions, ODER displays discourse-specific uses related to engaging in resource-oriented joint reasoning, participation and interactional framework management, and regulating discourse trajectories and progressivity. Notably, ODER emerges as a pragmatic resource for mitigating anticipated dispreferred actions. In the advisor's turns, this becomes visible following practices that transform or suspend role-based expectations, reposition the learner as a co-arguer, or mitigate specific advisory practices such as empathic perspective-taking, “bringing home the point,” interventions in reasoning, or transforming resistant and disaligning stances. For the learners, this mitigating function develops progressively, in parallel with a pragmatically sedimented use of ODER as a prompt for brief feedback on language-related hypotheses or languaging-related checks. In one learner's case, diversified uses of ODER are evident, indicating co-adaptation to the advisor's practices. Overall, the study's longitudinal, case-contrastive design underscores the need for novel multidimensional approaches that foreground co-adaptation and its dynamics—integrating both perspectives over time—while accounting for multiple phenomena, particularly functionally related ones.

1 Introduction

Question tags (QTs) are multifunctional interactive resources that operate at the macro-grammatical level (Haselow, 2012, 2020), within the domain of intersubjective grounding (Wiltschko, 2021), supporting mutual alignment (Hagemann, 2009; Lanwer, 2019). Despite the solid empirical foundation, including research on their diachronic development through processes of pragmaticalization, most studies focus on corpus-based, form-driven analyses in narrow contexts aimed at identifying prototypical functions. However, these approaches often overlook the specific discursive demands, interactional histories, processes of co-constructive development, and co-adaptive dynamics that shape their context-specific pragmatic meaning and multifunctional profiling in a given discourse. Similarly, there is a lack of research addressing the variation in their usage within particular institutional contexts, especially with regard to their role in calibrating epistemic, deontic, and emotional stances (Stevanovic and Peräkylä, 2014), in pursuing specific interactional goals, in exploiting ambiguity as a resource (Stevanovic and Koski, 2018), or balancing intersubjectivity with progressivity (Heritage, 2007). This also involves the development of shared inferences, negotiating their status in interaction, thereby projecting certain practices and sequential patterns (Gubina and Deppermann, 2024). Furthermore, asymmetrical interactional contexts—featuring participants with differing linguistic backgrounds and pragmatic socialization—can give rise to differing understandings of QTs, divergent uses, and adaptive dynamics, resulting in specific co-constructed meanings (Deppermann, 2018a,b) and co-adaptive variations. This study aims to fill some of these research gaps by analyzing one specific question tag—ODER (or)—within the developing research field of foreign language learning (FLL) counseling (Lazovic, 2025a,b, 2026a,b,c). Drawing on an interactional-linguistic and longitudinal perspective, the analysis addresses two complementary foci, by examining on the one side novice advisors' use of ODER, focusing on its specific functional calibration and changes over time, thereby documenting adaptive dynamics within and between advisory cycles involving two different learners. On the other side, the study analyzes the use of ODER in learners' turns to trace its specific interactional functions and (developmental) changes over one semester. Comparing two GFL learners with different L1 backgrounds and interactional behaviors at equivalent proficiency levels allows for the examination of learners' variation. Since ODER exhibits multiple parallel functions—from managing participation frameworks to mitigating and intersubjective grounding—the contribution of this study lies not only in analyzing its multifunctionality in advisory interactions or learner-specific fine-tuning of its function within a novel context. Most importantly, the study situates them within the framework of co-constructive and co-adaptive development, through the analysis of reciprocal changes, relating shifts in advisory practices to changes in learners' turns. Before presenting the study and its findings (Sections 4–6), an overview of the general functions of QTs (Section 2) and the specific functions of ODER (Section 3) is provided.

2 Question tags as interactional resources

As resources for regulating listener orientation (Rehbein, 1979) and response elicitation, question tags (QTs) function as resources for fine-tuning affective or epistemic stances (Imo, 2011) and managing processes of intersubjectification (Kimps, 2007; Haselow, 2012; Wiltschko, 2021). QTs have been conceptualized in various ways: as interjections (Zifonun et al., 1997), operators (Fiehler, 2015), discourse markers (Hagemann, 2009), final particles operating at a macro-grammatical level (Haselow, 2012, 2020), dual-mind syntax phenomena (Haselow, 2024), or from a construction-grammatical perspective as form–function pairings (König, 2020). Despite differing conceptualizations, QTs are generally recognized as processing cues carrying procedural meaning (Fretheim, 2015; Post, 2015), operating on discourse-functional macro-levels and generating interfaces between linguistic structure and interpretative agency (Lo, 2024). They position the utterance within the social–interactional coordinates of ongoing talk, shaping its specific meaning across illocutionary, propositional, and interpersonal levels, and integrate units into the interlocutors' shared mental model of discourse, thereby managing participation frameworks, common ground, and epistemic landscapes (König, 2017; Haselow, 2015). Their multidimensional nature and the co-constructed and context-sensitive functions pose conceptual challenges for classifying such fluid forms, calling for a more discourse-functional and open designation, which is why the term question tag is preferred here over discourse marker or final particle. This aligns with the crucial need to account for interlocutors' subjective understandings of QTs, providing insights into their conceptualizations and potential changes through interactional experience, acquisition, and use (in L1 and L2)—while identifying the interactional, functional, and formal aspects that organize and cluster QT types.

The classification of QTs draws on multiple dimensions, encompassing both the formal properties of the tag and its anchor utterance, as well as the ways in which they, as a cluster, facilitate the allocation of turns. Building on previous research (Kimps, 2007; Kimps et al., 2014; Barron et al., 2015), three further dimensions can be distinguished: (1) action-related dimension, capturing the continuum between explicit questioning, question–statement hybrids, and statements, as well as the projective value of QTs in initiating specific actions. (2) Attitudinal dimension, related to the expression, mitigation, or other forms of adaptation of interpersonal attitudes, ranging from disagreement to neutral or empathic stances; a distinction can also be made between exhibitive (speaker-oriented) and protreptic (addressee-oriented) QTs, aiming to influence the beliefs or mental states of the co-participant (Hagemann, 2009). (3) Managing epistemic landscapes and gradients (Heritage and Raymond, 2012): This aspect concerns the modification of the speaker's epistemic stance and the epistemic positioning of the interlocutor. QTs index thereby an updating of shared knowledge, invite or cancel inferences, and indicate adding and modification, as well as how the current utterance relates to the ongoing discourse (Haselow, 2012). This process constitutes a form of procedural indexing or “epistemic referencing with zooming effect, which retrospectively lifts a given linguistic act out of the ongoing flow of discourse and renders it as an object of reflection” (Rehbein, 1979, p. 73). QTs trigger joint inferencing and collaborative constructions (Haselow, 2024, p. 526), inviting the synchronization of a shared mental model (Lanwer, 2019) and fostering a sense of We-ness (Etelämäki, 2021). Regulating epistemic positions, they shape agency and dynamics of negotiation (Heritage and Raymond, 2012).

Although QTs may be associated with a specific primary function, their interpretation is inherently context-sensitive and co-constructed in situ (Wiltschko et al., 2018). Factors shaping their functional calibration include specific interactional, multimodal configurations and dynamics (Clausen and Scheffler, 2022; Barron et al., 2015), the distribution of agency, multiple addressivity, and dynamics of affiliation and epistemics (Tsai, 2019). These are mediated by social relations, interactional styling, politeness, and in-group dynamics (Gómez González, 2016; Chiu, 2023; Moore and Podesva, 2009), or related to age-specific usage (Andersen, 1998) and transfer from other contexts (Degenhardt, 2025). Their status also varies according to the stages of their pragmaticalization as well as their functional clustering with related phenomena (Hancil et al., 2015), which accounts for the coexistence of parallel realizations that enable different perceptions and conceptions of their functionality. This becomes evident in the case of the use of ODER, analyzed in the present study, which is undergoing a gradual process of cooptation (Heine et al., 2015, p. 124), exhibiting several functional profiles: (1) as a turn-taking resource, thereby proposing an alternative that is implied but not explicitly expressed, semantically related to its disjunctive conjunction meaning; (2) as a clause-final particle, fulfilling discourse-related functions such as mitigating the force of an assertion or suggestion; and (3) as a fully desemanticized discourse marker, no longer restricted to utterance-final position. While the first two uses appear relatively widespread and overlap with other co-existing phenomena (like ne, König, 2017), the third use is observed primarily in the Swiss German-speaking regions. This dynamic of pragmatic upgrading illustrates a shift from semantic meanings toward intersubjective functions, accompanied by a change in scope—from governing propositions to influencing segments of discourse on a macro-pragmatic level (Hancil et al., 2015, p. 210).

Context-specific analyses demonstrate QTs' multiple functions: as a means of thematic and focus management (Hagemann, 2009); as reception regulative devices that invite specific inferences, guide interpretation (Fretheim, 2015; Kreuz et al., 1999), or mitigate dispreferred responses or potential rejection (Sohn, 2015); and as interaction-regulative resources that reduce asymmetry and open up participation opportunities for less powerful interactants (Winefield et al., 1989). In narrative discourse, QTs can function (Mithun, 2012) as co-construction facilitators, highlighting key elements, marking offline commentary, or allowing expansion without disrupting the narrative flow. In educational settings, specific functions have been identified within teachers' instructional practices (Michalovich and Netz, 2018)—related to topic identification during introductory phases and as checks of topic comprehension before closure, thereby emphasizing key points during summarization. However, their use in instructional contexts has likewise been shown to have a counterproductive effect by coercing learners to align, thereby limiting opportunities for genuine participation and reinforcing epistemic as well as social asymmetries. Longitudinal studies indicate that this can change. In counseling contexts (Winefield et al., 1989), clients use QTs more frequently than counselors, suggesting changes in the use, enabling them to express increasing confidence and agency and shifting the anchoring of QT—from an initial grounding in facts and shared knowledge toward inner experience and self-understanding, transforming QTs from alignment checks or hedges for dispreferred actions into expressive acts for co-constructing understanding. However, it is equally important to examine adaptive changes in the use of QTs by both parties and whether specific functions evolve over time—a focus pursued in the present study. By examining the specific functions of turn-final ODER in both advisors' and learners' turns during foreign language learning counseling from a longitudinal perspective, the study addresses the participants' co-adaptivity and development of discourse-specific functions.

3 The case of German turn-final ODER

The adjunctive connector ODER (or) is used as a question tag in contexts where the speaker presents shared assumptions but also treats an alternative as possible or likely (Zifonun et al., 1997, p. 384). It can further function to appeal to shared knowledge in prompting listener confirmation or to presuppose doubt, contradiction, or skepticism on the listener's part, thereby inviting collaborative work on divergent knowledge (Rehbein, 1979, p. 64). It indicates presupposed knowledge being offered for discussion, intersubjective validation, or negotiation while preventing divergence and ensuring alignment (Lanwer, 2019). In a conversation-analytic study, (Drake 2015) demonstrates that ODER as QT can be employed as an epistemic downgrade, indexing the speaker's stance of uncertainty and creating space for unproblematic disconfirmation while gesturing toward an unspoken alternative. Through ODER, speakers position themselves as unknowing or holding a lower epistemic status relative to their interlocutor, who is indexed as more knowledgeable. However, ODER allows participants to disentangle epistemic status from uncertainty by signaling reduced commitment to the proposition. ODER orients the interlocutor toward different alternatives and invites more intersubjectively oriented elaboration, facilitating joint meaning-making (Drake, 2015). As a resource that opens interactional space for producing and elaborating potentially disconfirming second alternatives, it relaxes the preference for response confirmation. Drake points to its prosodic quality, demonstrating that final rising intonation implies relatively certain knowledge accompanied by an inference of understanding, whereas final level intonation signals uncertainty and lowers the interactional barrier for rejecting the prior utterance.

Analyzing ODER from a construction-grammatical perspective in relation to epistemic stance—thereby considering the character of knowledge (inferred, shared, situated within or beyond the situation), degrees of epistemic access, and the epistemic nature of the proposition (contradiction, expansion)—König (2020) confirms previous findings and extends them by distinguishing three constructions. First, declarative clauses followed by ODER with final rising intonation, with the speaker displaying low epistemic authority, offering presuppositions for ratification or prompting elaboration via a candidate formulation that signals uncertainty or lack of information. Second, in interrogatives followed by ODER with rising intonation, the speaker likewise indexes low epistemic authority but orients even more directly to the hearer as epistemic knower, prompting elaboration, proposing a candidate understanding, or marking uncertain inference. Third, with syntactic fragments with ODER, the speaker assumes high epistemic authority and uses the construction as a framing device to mark a prior response as correct or request additional specification.

König (2020) highlights the relevance of ODER in institutional contexts, where interlocutors must negotiate their epistemic positions—an aspect particularly relevant to the present study. ODER functions as a resource for projecting an elaborated response, serving as a narrative-generating device to formulate a follow-up question that builds on the prior turn or inferences, inviting the recipient to provide extended responses. In an advisory context, ODER, in combination with practices such as the reuse of previous turns, summaries, and reenactments, which serve as tying devices, generates a bridge for self-transformative actions (Yasui, 2023) and enables the potential shift of focus (Audet, 2011), generating cooperative transformation zones (Goodwin, 2015, p. 216) and challenging (Svinhufvud et al., 2017, p. 211) the co-participant, thereby creating hybrid spaces for the co-construction of new knowledge and solutions to support future actions (De Weck et al., 2017). It can allow the counselor to engage in stance-taking, model reasoning processes, and propose candidate solutions or engage in subtle corrections (Antaki et al., 2005) without disrupting the epistemic balance, while mitigating the intervention, shifting toward a collaborative orientation and engaging in co-constructed practices. Another potentially important context of use is prefaces as stepwise entries into clients' perspectives or vivid illustrations that demonstrate epistemic and affective alignment, thereby supporting self-regulation (Muntigl et al., 2014, 2023). Of particular importance is how ODER contributes to balancing discursive progression when steering the interaction toward a particular trajectory while remaining sufficiently open to take up client-initiated impulses, thereby allowing the progression to be negotiated. Given that the counseling trajectory, despite its structured progression (Pick, 2017)—from assessing needs through the co-construction of the counseling focus, mental restructuring, and the preparation of new approaches and solutions, to the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of concrete steps—often unfolds in a dynamic and inconsistent manner, frequently due to latent issues or internal conflicts that require adaptive handling, it seems particularly relevant to examine what function ODER fulfills in these transitional positions. ODER's discourse-regulating function is documented, particularly in relation to disagreement, which is preemptively acknowledged while offering a space for clarification, suggesting agreement (Siebert-Ott, 1984). Similar analyses in English illustrate additional uses, such as its trail-off use to manage the delicacy of questioning and display sensitivity to the interlocutor's epistemic status (Stokoe, 2010). They are often combined with rhetorical strategies such as “bringing home the point,” which typically follow repeated efforts to achieve a particular interactional goal or to reopen negotiation (Jefferson, 1981). Given that the context-specific use of ODER in situations of epistemic and interactional asymmetry within FLL advisory settings has not yet been systematically investigated, there is a need for context-sensitive and longitudinal analyses that capture its functional range, potential changes, and the dynamics of interlocutors' adaptivity. The present study addresses this gap by examining its pragmatic value and the dynamics of change over multiple counseling sessions, thereby relating the use of L1-speaking advisors and L2-speaking learners.

4 The present study: data, procedure, and analytical preface

The present study analyzes the use of ODER as QT in the context of FLL counseling from an interactional-linguistic and longitudinal perspective. First, it examines the use of ODER in learners' turns to trace its specific functions in learner language, including its multiple interactive functions and sequential design in relation to the preceding utterance and sequential embedding. This allows for consideration of developmental changes over the course of one semester across multiple counseling sessions. Comparisons between two GFL learners with different L1 backgrounds and interactional behaviors but equivalent proficiency levels enable the identification of both similarities and differences. Second, the study investigates novice advisors' use of ODER, focusing on its functional calibration and changes over time, thereby examining dynamics of adaptivity through comparison of its deployment within individual and between different counseling sessions, and between two cycles with two different learners.

4.1 Study context, participants, and data collection

This study is part of a multidimensional, longitudinal analysis of pre-service GFL teachers' interactional practices, acting as FLL novice advisors in their third semester of a master's program (Lazovic, 2025a,b, 2026a,b,c). The student teacher advisors (A) provide FLL counseling to learners (Ls) of German as L2/3 within a service-learning context, covering proficiency levels from B1 to C1. Advisors offer individualized support aimed at enhancing the Ls' language skills through a variety of adaptive activities by developing learning strategies, recommending resources, providing feedback and encouragement, and supporting self-reflection and problem-solving. Rather than applying a specific advising approach, the focus is on adapting the counseling process in response to learners' specific developmental needs. Neither the As nor the Ls have any prior or alternative experience with FLL counseling, and they do not interact beyond this specific context. This creates a unique interactive environment characterized by constant contextual parameters, without influences from parallel or competing interactional contexts. Learning-related biographical information and a pre-assessment of language skills were collected in writing before the start of counseling to inform the design of the interventions. Additional data on learning progress and interactional activity—particularly initiative, responsiveness, and potential resistance—were gathered through ongoing observations, recordings, and the As' reflections, which significantly shape the counseling approach. The data consist of audio recordings from 14 counseling pairs, each spanning one semester with seven sessions.

The study adopts a case-based approach, focusing on one novice advisor's counseling activity over 1 year across two cycles with learners of distinct L1 backgrounds at the B2.2 proficiency level. The learners (Ls) are, in the first case, a female learner with L1 Chinese, and in the second cycle, a male learner with L1 Polish. Both Ls are international students with a similar academic background (German Language and Communication Studies) as well as multilinguals learning German as L2 and also three other languages. This suggests a potentially high degree of linguistic flexibility and potentially well-developed variation competence. However, no systematic data on their variation competence were collected to avoid overburdening participants with additional testing procedures that might compromise authentic behavior. Through the counseling sessions, it became evident that both had receptive exposure to other German varieties spoken in Austria and Switzerland and to some German dialects, albeit in an unsystematic and rather ad-hoc manner. The counseling foci revealed that both lack experience in authentic peer and everyday interactional contexts and display a certain insecurity when using spoken language outside institutional settings. In both cases, the counseling focus lies mostly on lexical acquisition and strategy-related issues, with more general reflections on language learning, whereas pragmatic phenomena are addressed mainly with regard to word order, appropriateness, and comprehensibility, and in rare cases, to modal particles or to differences in adapting one's speech style in academic and everyday contexts. Despite a high level of proficiency, where pragmatic transfer and overgeneralization are expected to decrease, certain phenomena remain evident, pointing to underlying L1 or other L2 influences that may account for the results observed. Some differences emerged between the participants in both learning and interactional behavior: L in the first case displayed lower autonomy, a stronger rule-based orientation, and a preference for structured guidance, whereas the L in the second case showed greater independence, was more application-oriented, and demonstrated a higher degree of reflective competence. In their interactional behavior, the L in the first case demonstrated higher initiative but also more pronounced resistance to counseling and competitive orientation, whereas in the second case, the L showed less resistance but also less initiative and reticence. These served as important factors shaping the overall counseling process, thereby influencing the A's use of ODER. The female novice advisor is an L1 speaker of German and a student of GFL didactics. She comes from the North Lower Rhine region, where a previous study by Lanwer (2019) has already documented uses of ODER as an alignment marker. In her linguistic repertoire, she predominantly applies standard varieties, although she shows awareness of different dimensions of variation. She speaks one additional foreign language (L2) but does not actively use further languages. However, no systematic data on her variation competence were collected, which would be essential for future research to determine more precisely whether the observed patterns result from adaptive variation or development. Accordingly, changes observed are interpreted with caution—as discourse-functional adaptations to emerging interactional demands and, on the other hand, as co-adaptive behavior in relation to the learner. A's reflections, accordingly, point to a strong learner orientation and sensitivity to the learners' preferred practices, suggesting co-adaptive interactional orientation. Throughout the case analysis, the abbreviations A (for advisor) and L (for learner) are used.

4.2 Analytical procedure

The present analysis draws on audio recordings collected across two counseling cycles, each comprising seven advisory sessions, totaling 16 h of recorded interaction over the course of 1 year. This dataset enables, on the one hand, a micro-longitudinal analysis of changes in the L's use of ODER (time frame: 6 months) and a subsequent comparison of the two cases; and on the other hand, a mid-longitudinal analysis of the A's use of ODER (time frame: 12 months), allowing for a comparison of her case-specific interactional behavior. The analysis is grounded in interactional linguistics (Auer et al., 2020; Couper-Kuhlen and Selting, 2018; Imo and Lanwer, 2019), which provides the methodological tools to examine the micro-level organization and the situated emergence of meaning and co-construction of practices. The complementary quantitative insights into the use of ODER across different functions, over time, and across cases reveal general tendencies and serve as a reference point for embedding the fine-grained, longitudinal interactional analysis. The chronologically organized multi-case analysis provides the basis for subsequently comparing different practices in the L's and the A's respective uses. To reconstruct changes over time, the study employs longitudinal interactional analysis, following the studies of Nguyen (2012), Berger and Pekarek Doehler (2018), Deppermann (2018b), Pekarek Doehler (2021), Skogmyr Marian (2023), and Nguyen and Malabarba (2025). By ensuring comparability of the phenomena under investigation, the analysis takes into account the principles of increasing shared ground, changing interactional history, the adaptation of practices in response to varying demands and developmental processes, as well as co-adaptivity as multidimensional processes of ongoing mutual adaptivity (Konzett-Firth, 2020). Data presentation follows a case-based approach, illustrating typical realizations and their dynamics of change over time—which are related in the Discussion.

In examining changes in interactive behavior, we start from the assumption that, in response to locally emerging communicative needs, practices and multimodal resources are functionally recalibrated, their functional potentials expanded, or new forms are co-constructively developed (Pekarek Doehler, 2011, 2021). Adaptive changes thus embody situated interactive learning processes (Pekarek Doehler, 2018). This is particularly the case in this study, as both co-participants are operating within a new interactional context with novel communicative goals and, as novices, within unfamiliar action frameworks. Differences in their status as L1 speakers and learners require ongoing mutual orientation and adaptive behavior, which explicitly constitute a central interactional principle for A. Given the limited time frame, the lack of access to the use of ODER beyond the present interactional setting, and the analytical constraints resulting from the exclusive focus on ODER as an interactional resource, these processes are treated here as adaptive micro-learning processes, which initially manifest as local phenomena and, over time, develop into new stable interactional values through co-adaptive dynamics, whereby multiple distinct usage patterns or functional values may coexist in parallel. However, since we do not have full access to participants' competence with respect to question tags and ODER, we refrain from making strong claims about learning. At a later analytical stage, once a more comprehensive view of the overall process is available, it becomes possible to interpret these developments in terms of learning. In the case of ODER, neither its syntax nor its semantics change, but its functional value is shaped by its sequential embedding, the quality of the preceding utterance, and the subsequent turn; the co-adaptive orientation toward the co-participants' use and response, therefore, constitutes a central driving force. The adaptive processes are evident here in the changes in its sequential embedding, the design of the preceding utterance, prosodic design relative to the preceding utterance and next turn, the increased frequency of specific functions, functional expansion across diverse contexts of use, and the development of new pragmatic values, all elaborated throughout the analysis to understand how adaptivity manifests here.

To distinguish local adaptation from adaptive development, the analysis follows the approach adopted in prior studies conducted in the same context (Lazovic, 2026a, 2025b). The data are analyzed according to three time frames: an initial phase (uses in the first two sessions), a middle phase (uses in sessions 3–4), and a final phase (uses in sessions 5–7). This organization aligns with the participants' self-organizing framework for joint planning and progress monitoring while providing a good foundation for systematic comparisons, with each phase spanning approximately 2 months. This is further supported by specific interactional dynamics across time: interactions during the first two sessions are primarily oriented toward the stabilization of practices and shared common ground. This phase makes it possible to situate ODER's starting position within the overall trajectory and to trace the initial uses. In the second time frame, the counseling contexts become increasingly consolidated, extended across new thematic domains, and learners' agency becomes more salient while shared practices become more evident. Analytically, this phase is particularly relevant for examining not only quantitative changes in the frequency of ODER but also potential qualitative shifts in its use and indications of an expansion of its functional potential, following an increased general co-adaptive orientation. The final time frame displays further differentiation of uses, emerging from the accumulation of interactional experience. This phase is characterized by heightened mutual alignment and provides insights into which uses may show signs of relative stabilization toward the end of the process. In doing so, the analysis foregrounds changes across time by comparing typical realizations from different time frames (typically the first and last time frames), taking into account both qualitative developments—such as functional expansion and new functional value absent in prior uses—and quantitative aspects, allowing for the distinction of locally contingent phenomena from adaptive developmental processes.

In order to broaden the perspectives on adaptivity and to move beyond approaches that focus on a single participant, developmental perspectives, or functional adjustments to specific communicative contingencies, this study adopts a novel approach: by tracing two adaptive trajectories of the participants separately in an initial analytic step, with the aim of obtaining a more comprehensive picture of the pragmatic value of ODER and its developmental history before relating these trajectories to one another in discussion. This allows us to capture co-adaptive phenomena once the individual adaptive trajectories have been systematically understood. This should be understood as an exploratory approach toward a potential future methodological perspective, rather than as a fully established framework, aimed at enabling a more fine-grained, longitudinal, and multidimensional understanding of co-adaptive dynamics. Co-adaptivity is not used as a global explanatory label but is expected to become observable in two ways: in the advisors' trajectories, co-adaptivity is evidenced by variation in the frequency and functional deployment of ODER across different cases, indicating orientation to the specific interactional demands of individual counseling situations, in relation to specific learners' uses of ODER, and to the developmental processes of the learner, as well as learners' responsiveness to its use, supporting specific pragmatic values. In the learners' trajectories, this is evident in changes that can be analytically related to the advisors' uses of ODER, the advisors' responses to its use, or in responsive positioning to the advisors' prior uses. A comparative perspective across cases further enables the analysis to capture how learners display different co-adaptive responses to similar interactional resources.

Co-adaptive orientation is used here as a more specific and analytically apt term for this learner-centered counseling context for several reasons: First, ODER reveals distinct dynamics in the validation of their functions and pragmatic meanings that are not fully captured by accounts focusing solely on co-construction. Second, given the learner-centered nature of the counseling setting, advisors are required to continuously adapt to learners' ongoing developments, interactional contributions, and learning-related dynamics. The notion of co-adaptivity thus captures not only locally situated adjustments but also adaptations that unfold over time and are shaped by learners' interactional behavior, emerging competencies, and responses to advisors' practices. Third, initial asymmetries orient participants away from immediate co-construction, rendering interaction better described as co-adapting, as advisors—and, reciprocally, learners—continuously adjust their practices in response to one another's developing resources. Resources such as ODER come to foster a more pronounced co-constructive orientation before a more fully co-constructive mode of interaction can emerge. At the same time, the relationship between co-constructive and co-adaptive processes warrants further analytical elaboration. Future research is needed to examine more systematically how co-adaptation and co-construction interact over time and under varying conditions of interactional asymmetry. Especially since ODER functions as a means to elicit greater co-adaptivity from the other participant—in the sense of enhancing intersubjective orientation—its own co-adaptive change dynamic proves highly significant.

4.3 Analytical preface

In total, 1,066 occurrences of ODER were detected, including instances where it functions as a connector. This relatively high overall frequency of ODER can be explained by the counseling context, which aims to collaboratively develop alternative courses of action to support an open, resource-oriented mindset oriented toward jointly exploring alternatives. ODER appears as a reflex of the focalized mental operation that supports divergent thinking and exploratory reasoning, reflecting a non-finalizing, co-constructive, alternative orientation. Focusing only on occurrences in turn-final position, 441 instances were identified, of which 185 realizations were classified as QTs with a similar distribution across both datasets (see Figures 1, 2), and 256 as general extenders (König and Stoltenburg, 2013). The use of ODER as a general extender, previously examined as etcetera-formulas, differs from QT use in that they are typically combined with other elements (e.g., ODER so/ was, ODER irgendwas, ODER was auch immer), mostly in reference to lists and signaling potential continuability while invoking a jointly shared knowledge domain. Although their use as a general extender is not analyzed further, their high frequency in the middle of counseling cycles suggests a strong facilitating function that supports joint reasoning. The analysis is based on the 185 realizations of ODER as a QT, sequentially identified through interactional-linguistic analysis. Since these consistently occupy a clear turn-final position, are not combined with other elements typical of general extenders, and do not produce any ambiguous cases, all coding was conducted by a single analyst (see table for decision rules; Table 1). Given these clear operational criteria and the well-defined dataset, no additional intercoder reliability procedures were necessary.

Figure 1

Figure 2

QT frequency is notably higher in the first cycle (with 108 occurrences and an average of 15 realizations per session, Figure 1) than in the second (with 77 occurrences and an average of 11 per session, Figure 2). Despite this difference, both cases exhibit a comparable temporal pattern characterized by an initial increase followed by a subsequent decline in usage frequency. Speaker-specific distributions further highlight a key distinction in the QT use of ODER between the two cases: in the first case, the female learner with L1 Chinese overwhelmingly dominates its use (90 occurrences, approximately 12 per session), whereas the advisor contributes only 18 occurrences in total (2 per session). This asymmetry contrasts with the second case, where the usage is more balanced: the advisor produces 42 occurrences (6 per session) and the learner 35 occurrences (5 per session), suggesting an aligned co-orientation. The observed differences in the L's use of ODER cannot be solely ascribed to the learner's gender (with evident higher use in the female than in the male learner turns) but rather arise from the complex interplay of multiple factors, including the L1–L2–L3 nexus, cross-linguistic interference, interactional preferences, and different pragmatic mappings—an interplay whose detailed examination extends beyond the scope of this study. The L's initiative, resistant behavior, agency, and engagement in deepening reflection—each varying between the two cases—shape the use of ODER in advisory turns. In the second case, the L's initial hesitation and low self-initiation prompt the A to use ODER more frequently to foster co-constructive participation. By contrast, in the first case involving an active, self-initiating L, ODER occurs less often and primarily serves to provide greater structure, developing specific functions to manage L's resistant behavior. The following sections offer detailed interactional-linguistic insights into its use, first in learners' turns (Section 5) and then in the advisor's practices across two counseling cycles (Section 6).

5 The use of ODER as QT in learner language

Both Ls use ODER initially frequently with questions (35%) or fragments (15%) for seeking confirmation and eliciting (Mills, 1981; Cheng and Warren, 2001), but tend to increasingly use it with statements (50%), which are not limited to narratives but progressively embedded within complex elaborative and reflective practices, indicating progression toward intersubjective functions. The anchor utterances are mostly words-to-be-checked, uncertain formulations, and rephrasings or checking recognized intentions and meanings from the previous turns (40% in the first case, 70% in the second), language-reflective hypotheses (20% in the first case, 15% in the second), and to a lesser extent factual, general knowledge statements (15% in both cases). The difference lies in the use with negative self-assessments, observed only in the first case (25%).¹

Grounded in interactional analysis and secondarily informed by Praat measurements (Boersma and Weenink, 2025),² the prosodic design of ODER in both cases exhibits a largely consistent pattern: rising intonation, at low volume, aligning substantially with the preceding utterance's contour (in 80% of cases). As it is not the central focus of this study, such prosodic trajectories warrant detailed multimodal investigation in future research, particularly in relation to other associated phenomena (Lazovic, in prep.). However, for descriptive purposes, it can be noted here that reduced speech rate and intensity and sometimes unclear speech jointly attenuate the directive or expectative force of the utterance and, through their neutral quality, facilitate a symmetrical transition to the next turn of the STA, thereby softening the asymmetric question-answer dynamics across turn transitions. At the same time, this design indexes reduced epistemic certainty without undermining the speaker's interactive status, prospectively preparing prosodic alignment in the subsequent turn (Drake, 2015). Over time, this pattern is modified in some cases through pauses, increased volume, heightened prominence, and more marked rising intonation, signaling a more assured stance, greater directivity, or a challenging stance toward the advisor, reflecting the already documented overgeneralization of rising intonation in contexts requiring a falling contour to signal certainty (Verdugo and Trillo, 2005). In rare cases, vowel lengthening is used to invite joint reasoning or signal moments of reflection. A further variation concerns the prosodic relationship between ODER and the preceding utterance, contributing to the attenuation or intensification of its force. Taken together, these effects form a prosodic cascade, where local adjustments in pitch, loudness, and timing cumulatively recalibrate epistemic stances, regulate interactional symmetry, and shape the projection of the subsequent turn. These fine-grained adjustments indicate alignment with similar prosodic patterns in the advisor's use (Section 6). Given the functionally consistent use of ODER, the analysis begins with the second case (Example 5.1), followed by the first case, whose usage exhibits greater functional diversity (Example 5.2).

Example 5.1. Case 2, Session 1 (Min. 39.56–41.15)

Example 5.2. Case 2, Session 5 (Min. 21.18–21.54)

5.1 The case of pragmatic specialization and sedimentation of turn-final ODER

In the case of L with L1 Polish, ODER is used constantly (in 85% of occurrences) as a confirmation prompt, requesting verification of formulations or language-related hypotheses (about lexical and structural usage and contextualization), thereby developing a specific function and initiating language-related episodes as side sequences. Through repeated occurrence, this becomes pragmatically sedimented, and ODER is used as the sole indicator, projecting similar responses without explicitly seeking clarification or feedback. The following example from the first session documents this (Example 5.1): The sequence begins with L expressing his counseling-related expectations, relating them to a preferred thematic context and formulating possible goals for counseling (über FUSSBALL sprechen, line 2, talk about football). He elaborates on this (WEIL, because), illustrating it by referencing a real-life context-related need (lines 3–5). In doing so, he formulates his expectation in an epistemically mitigated and face-saving manner, employing subjunctive forms (würde, wäre, would), hedging (ein bisschen, a bit), discourse marker and interjections (also, na, so/well). He proceeds with his illustrative formulation of his expectations by exemplarily demonstrating a specific speech act (lines 6–7, damit ich sagen kann, so I can say). During this illustrative formulation, a noticing or constructing-the-gap moment becomes evident. L explicitly articulates his lack of knowledge regarding formulation (ich weiß nicht wie das auf deutsch heißt, line 7, I don't know how you say this in German), highlighting his learning need and expectation for counseling support. This is followed by an attempt to formulate a prototypical speech act of ball-passing (ball REICHen, line 8, hand over the ball), and an explicit request for verification (sagt man das so, line 8, do you say it like that). Notably, ODER occurs twice, despite the fact that both utterances already feature an explicit interrogative structure and marked seeking linguistic check. The lack of responsiveness by A in supporting the formulation, despite pauses and explicit question marking, is potentially perceived as resistant, and the own move is possibly treated as dispreferred. In both realizations, ODER exhibits rising intonation, more prominently marked compared to the preceding utterance, increased volume, and in the first case, it also features vowel lengthening, all indicating a heightened salience that solicits co-construction, developing an explicit clarification check functionality.

ODER functions not only as an indicator of epistemic uncertainty, inviting confirmation or correction, but also as a trigger for opening up the interactional space for symmetrical interaction. Positioned within a practice of self-relativization, it signals an epistemically proximate position and helps to temporarily mitigate uncertainty without undermining the learner's epistemic status and agentive position (Drake, 2015). This is confirmed by the following turn of A, who—despite her higher epistemic position as an L1 speaker—offers another solution (with another verb ZUspielen, line 10, pass me the ball), but in a co-constructive manner, employing multiple epistemic downgrades (ich glaube, (.) ich würde, line 9, I think, I would) approximation with eher (rather), first-person framing, without correcting or rejecting the previous solution. Subsequently, L's epistemic position remains stable despite this implicit corrective move; L repeats the new verb and acknowledges and comments on it as something self-intended/self-taught or expected (SOLCHE sachen meineich, line 11, exactly those kinds of things). Control over the discursive progression remains with L, who continues to steer the interaction actively and to maintain symmetrical positioning (ich weiß, line 12, I know) and agentive control when further reflecting on differences between L1 and L3. ODER serves to regulate the discursive progression and manage a potentially disruptive side sequence since it helps to avoid an explicit corrective and asymmetrical mode while subtly influencing A's behavior toward greater involvement in dispreferred language-related or corrective actions, which are avoided in the course of interaction in favor of other advisory goals, supporting learning autonomy. ODER prompts a co-constructive response—not oriented toward correction, but toward the exploration of alternatives, in a context where the advisor generally refrains from providing form-focused feedback and engaging in language-related sequences.

This use remains functionally constant, but with increased frequency across sessions, there is a reduction in the pre- and post-indexing practices, indicating the seeking of verification or epistemic uncertainty. ODER is used solely to project A's confirmation check or languaging-related feedback. ODER simply follows a yet-to-be-verified formulation (inserted in narratives and elaborations), enabling feedback or adjustments without disrupting the discursive flow or affecting epistemic and interactional symmetry. This is demonstrated in the following Example 5.2 from the fifth counseling session. The sequence is situated within L's reflection on the collision of authentic experiences in German-speaking contexts and previous expectations (ich dachte, line 3, I thought) using repeated underspecified references (das, so, hierher, lines 2–3 that, so, here), epistemically downgrading (vielleicht, line 1, maybe) and indicating delicacy, as displayed by restarts and discourse markers (ähm also/ja, lines 2–3, uhm well/yeah). When reorienting from the previous action (line 3), L interrupts this with an adversative connector, indicating a break or change in his action plan (aber, line 3, but), followed by a concluding statement delivered with high epistemic certainty as a resigned acceptance formulation (das ist halt so, line 3, that's just how it is). The sequence is reorganized (also, line 4, well) again, and a possible causal explanation is offered (line 4), through self-positioning in the social sense as being part of “an international milieu.” This is then followed by ODER with rising intonation, projecting the advisor's co-constructive follow-up. In this sequential position, ODER could potentially invite co-constructive argumentation and joint reasoning, but A does not continue co-constructively in this way; rather, A further confirms the formulation as acceptable with a supportive and confirming response (line 5), responding to it as inviting a check of the formulation sequence and its acceptability.

The use of the modal verb (kannst, line 5, can) and the modal particle (RUHIG, line 5, safely/definitely) frame L's utterance as an option and ratified it as acceptable without evaluating it, thereby acknowledging and encouraging continuation. The use of du supports agentivity and mitigates the potential epistemic or interactive asymmetry, supporting the continuation. This follow-up from A supports the pragmatically sedimented function of ODER as a marker inviting languaging-related feedback. L concludes with a brief confirmation (ja, line 6, yes), and continues the previous topic but without further elaboration while drifting off into fragments (ja, ja, das ist ja, line 6, yeah, yeah, this is yeah), inviting A's co-constructive or guiding-eliciting moves. A extends here with another question, inviting a more detailed elaboration of the unspoken aspects of the learner's expectations (WIE hattest du es dirVORgestellt, line 7, how had you imagined/expected). A co-constructs the function of ODER in alignment with L's previously consistent projections, demonstrating a co-adaptive response by providing a non-evaluative, symmetrical, and co-constructive response.

Despite this functionally consistent use, L demonstrates a functional extension in its use within the advisory cycle, employing ODER as a resource for renegotiating epistemic and interactive roles, thereby shifting toward greater co-constructive engagement and symmetry. This is particularly evident when A challenges L epistemically, and ODER helps mitigate disalignment and dispreferred responses, transforming them into joint actions. The following Example 5.3 from the fourth session documents this: The sequence is embedded in a talk about youth language, and the extract begins with L's exemplary mention of a few youth language expressions (KRASS oder (.) GEIL, line 1, amazing or awesome), which displays L's epistemic access to the topic. A's follow-up question (line 2) is formulated in a way that challenges both L's epistemic authority (weißt_du, do you know) and his in-group affiliation (through the ambiguous use of we), inviting L to formulate hypotheses or activate further knowledge to elaborate more on its use. A attempts to position L as knowledgeable and upgrade his epistemic status by orienting to L's presumed knowledge of the matter; however, the question—formulated from a position of epistemic authority—renders this epistemic upgrading move problematic (Reineke, 2016, p. 202), despite the use of an epistemic disclaimer (weißt_du, do you know), which mitigates the expectation and displays reduced commitment to the knowledge claim. Instead of answering, L produces an understanding-checking question (line 3), thereby orienting (also, well like) to possible ambiguity in A's prior turn and initiating negotiation of the activity's focus. L offers a candidate reformulation (woher das STAMMT, where it comes from) that displays his understanding of A's intended meaning while projecting collaborative meaning construction. By addressing specific lexical items from A's question as free topic (KRASS, line 3, amazing), L explicitly orients to its topical focus. In selecting a generic, unpersonal formulation instead of the ambiguous wir, L further distances himself from the ambiguous in-grouping. The turn-final ODER operates as a mitigating device, marking the response as dispreferred relative to the projected question–answer sequence. At the same time, it supports focus alignment, moderates the emerging asymmetry, and triggers mutual reorientation toward intersubjective understanding. This leads to A's reformulation of the question (WANN benutzen wir das, line 4, when we use it). Rather than treating L's prior turn as problematic, A designs this paraphrase in a neutral, confirmatory, convergent, and co-constructive way. ODER reappears in L's subsequent turns, accompanying L's assumptions and hypotheses concerning semantic equivalence (ÄHNLICH wie, line 5, similar to) and usage differences (wirdjetztÖFTER benutzt als, line 9, is used more ofen than). In these contexts, ODER indexes a high degree of epistemic certainty while simultaneously opening space for negotiation and co-construction. This use demonstrates both a marked increase in the frequency and density of ODER and the emergence of a new functional profile.

Example 5.3. Case 2, Session 4 (Min. 53.31–53.55)

The first instance (line 5) is preceded by the conclusive marker also (well like) and an extended, explicative paraphrase as co-constructing action (ÄHNLICH wie, line 5, similar to), indicating epistemically symmetrical action. The turn is designed as co-constructive, as part of a joint inferential process, while ODER at the same time secures a safe space for potential correction and transforms the prospect of negative assessment into the potential for collaborative, joint action. The co-occurrence of discourse markers signals inviting engagement in inferential joint reasoning. It functions as a means of aligning intersubjective understanding and preventing potential divergence or dispreferred responses. This use further allows L to move from a reactive position, merely providing responses, to an interactionally more guiding role, thereby re-positioning A to co-construct and respond to the learner's perspectives and remarks, reorienting him to more co-adaptivity. This is further extended by two additional paraphrases (line 6), serving to secure intersubjective understanding of the prior contribution and displaying the epistemic certainty on L's part. A confirms in the following turn by adding a co-constructive, concluding contribution (alles ist quasi ein SYNONYM, line 7, it's all quasi synonym for cool) slightly hedged with quasi before closing the sequence with a discourse-structuring confirmation (geNAU, line 8, exactly). At this potential sequence-closing point, L continues with an adversative ABER (line 9, but) and a further co-constructive remark introducing a new aspect (ÖFTER benutzt, line 9, more often used), formulated as a statement, indicating some repositioning or introduction of dissonant, unexpected, or contradictory action. This leads to a further topic development while potentially introducing some dissonance with A's prior turn regarding equivalence and differentiation. Here, ODER functions to invite symmetric, co-constructive continuation while moderating the challenging situation, where L is repositioning and introducing a potentially divergent element. L deploys ODER in contexts of epistemic self-upgrading or interactional repositioning, where his epistemic position is challenged or where prior turns project him into a position of presumed knowledgeability, functioning as a resource to mitigate dispreferred responses and project symmetric co-constructive actions in the mode of joint reasoning. As the analysis of the advisor's use will show (Section 6.2), this use reflects co-adaptive behavior through the adoption of similar functional uses and positional patterns as those employed by the advisor.

5.2 The case of pragmatic diversified use of turn-final ODER

In the case of the female learner with Chinese as L1, ODER occurs not only following utterances that initiate languaging-related feedback (40%), propose language-related hypotheses (20%), and deliver factual statements (15%), but also formulate (self-)assessments (23%), and in some cases, after directives performing pragmatic mitigation. Its use varies both within single interactions and across sessions, showing a decrease after self-assessments and factual statements and an increase in other uses. In contexts in which ODER is used to invite language-related side sequences—either to check the appropriateness of a formulation or to advance a languaging-related hypothesis—it parallels the previously discussed case, displaying increasing functional specialization and sedimentation, as illustrated in Example 5.4.A. ODER typically appears immediately after a word or structure (WEGzunehmen, oder, line 1, to take away), prompting brief feedback in a joint construction mode (ABzugeben, line 2, to give them up). This is then followed by a repetition (line 3) and continuation, without interruption or sequential delay.

Example 5.4. Case 1, examples from session 4 and 5

Similarly, in language-reflective hypotheses, as illustrated in Example 5.4.B, ODER supports L's participation in joint reasoning and a co-constructive dynamic. Building on the prior turn, L continues in a collaborative manner, thereby adding potential explanations and introducing a new, potentially divergent or rejectable idea (werden solchewörter INTERJEKTIONEN genannt, oder, line 1, are such words called interjections). In doing so, L repositions herself in a symmetrical way, displaying increased initiative and agentive involvement. At the same time, ODER initiates co-constructive moves from the advisor and directs the interactional flow toward joint construction, thereby reinforcing symmetrical co-participation. A's follow-up move supports this: A verbalizes her ongoing thinking activity (ichüberlege grade, line 2, I'm just thinking/wondering), thereby displaying a momentary stance of cautious consideration rather than superior knowledge, offering an alternative interpretation that does not upgrade her epistemic status over L but aligns with L's prior reasoning while gently re-specifying it (sogar auch eine partikel, line 2, might actually even be a particle). A refrains from claiming epistemic primacy and instead orients to a symmetrical participation framework, calibrating her stance to preserve alignment with L's perspective, introducing an alternative interpretation as a collaborative expansion.

The second most frequent use of ODER is when following assessments that display negative self-evaluations and emotionally negative stances—such as feelings of burden, heightened self-expectation, and anticipated negative consequences—thereby referencing normative or contextual standards (Examples 5.5.A–C). These utterances often stem from the L's anticipation of others' perspectives, as self-evaluations in light of external norms or expectations, as in Example 5.5.B (where her own sentences are deemed too short), Example 5.5.A (where self-expectations are assessed as unrealistically high), or Example 5.5.C (where positive textual outcomes are negatively framed as contextually contingent rather than indicative of true competence). Through self-distanced negative assessments, L performs an intersubjective move by preemptively integrating the anticipated critical perspective and indicating high uncertainty regarding normative appropriateness or others' perceptions while soliciting empathic alignment. This repositions A into an advocative role of empathic understanding, typically eliciting affiliative responses—such as reassuring comments with expressions of surprised reinforcement (Example 5.5.A), affirmations, positive evaluations, or comparative evaluations related to prior performances (Example 5.5.B), or empathetic co-reasoning that takes the L's perspective, as the examples clearly demonstrate (Example 5.5.C). ODER functions as a call for empathic alignment, triggering A's more empathic, affiliative responses and fostering alignment through perspective-taking.

Example 5.5. Case 1, examples from different sessions (2, 4, 5)

Another similar use is evident in Example 5.6, within a request for further explanation during sentence paraphrasing. L introduces her inquiry about the word's existence (gibt esdieses WORT, line 1, does this word exist) with ABER (line 1, but) and the key word being prominently realized as a right dislocation (ZUSAMMENstoßen, line 1, colide), thereby indexing a momentary dissonance in the sentence correction process. A responds minimally with confirmation and repetition (ja, zusammenstoßen, line 2), without expanding on explanation or contextualization. This prompts L's pragmatic intervention: She reformulates her intent as an explicit question about application (wie kann man daswort ANWENDEN, line 3, how can this word be used), with ODER functioning as a mitigation when repairing A's limited uptake of the previous implicit projection of explanation sequence in the question. L's follow-up acts as a corrective to A's misalignment, addressing and mitigating an intersubjective rupture when re-establishing shared pragmatic understanding. ODER, paired with laughter (line 3), softens this intervention, preserving interactional symmetry, harmony, and indicating co-constructive orientation, thereby triggering more intersubjective orientation from the co-participant. A's subsequent turn evidences uptake: Rather than a simple response, A displays her situated thinking activity (ganz SPONTAN muss ich denken, line 4, spontaneously I have to think), framing it as co-constructive, intersubjectively oriented, and produces an illustrative formulation with the verb in focus (line 5). A thereby adopts a shared, action-processual perspective before addressing the application-related issue, enacting collaborative problem-solving. In this case, ODER repairs an intersubjectivity rupture, projecting empathic alignment while mitigating the corrective force of potentially dispreferred action.

Example 5.6. Case 1, Session 5 (Min. 4.42–5.55)

Following factual statements and common ground assertions, ODER functions less to signal genuine epistemic uncertainty than to “stage” it, thereby supporting epistemic repositioning that fosters more co-constructive modality and interactional symmetry.This enables L to assume a prominent interactive role, reposition and actively manage intersubjective alignment, and steer the interaction, mostly in a position preceding a dispreferred action (rejection), with expected high agentive involvement. The following Example 5.7 demonstrates this in the closing phase, where L is implicitly navigated toward self-initiating the formulation of self-directed learning tasks, actively reinforcing her agency. L displays engagement through explicit references to planning and concrete learning activities (vielleichtkann ich einen TEXT schreiben, line 1, maybe I can write a text). After initially setting a goal, thereby epistemically downgrading it through the use of vielleicht (line 1 and 2, maybe), thereby treating it as tentative rather than certain, L subsequently relativizes this through a temporally restrictive formulation that withholds firm commitment (wenn ich ZEIT habe, line 2, if I have time). With the adversative connector ABER(but) and a formulation break, L preliminarily signals the rejection of the previously proposed idea. L invokes a shared factual reference to the upcoming holiday (DIESE und nächste woche gibt es einen FEIERtag, line 3, there is a public holiday this and next week), known to both interactants, introducing an objectively constraining circumstance that hinders the attainment of this goal. This is followed by ODER, serving to frame L as collaborative and co-constructive, positioning her as agentively and epistemically symmetrical, thereby supporting her repositioning out of obligatory asymmetrical positions toward more symmetrical ones while securing a collaborative and jointly oriented co-constructive stance. L invites A to align, tactically constructing the symmetry, which is evidenced in next-turn response of A that affirmatively confirms and symmetrically reciprocates this orientation (ja, genau, line 4, yes, exactly). Following A's brief confirmation, L first invokes external circumstances as factual constraints (trip to Dresden, line 5) before relativizing the attainability of the projected goal and implicitly withdrawing from it (time constraints, line 6), a move that is accompanied by a moment of laughter. In response, A adopts a co-constructive and symmetrical stance, acting in an aligned manner that foregrounds the learner's perspective (du kannst es ja ruhig verSUCHen, line 7, you can definitely give it a try), but treats the goal as achievable by reframing constraints as opportunities (es ist ein bisschen länger zeit, line 8, there is a bit more time). In doing so, A lowers self-imposed expectations regarding text length (es muss kein SEHR langer text sein; nicht DREIseiten, lines 8–9, doesn't have to be a very long text, less than three pages) and positively remodels the evidential grounds for potential rejection by reframing them as an advantage, namely as allowing for more time. Although this rejection is not co-constructively ratified, ODER enables L to interactively reposition herself in a symmetrical way in order to prepare a dispreferred action, frame it co-constructively, and display an expected agentive and epistemically stable stance, thereby actively involving A in an aligned, co-constructive manner, leading to her addressing potential dissonance consensually and from a learner-oriented perspective, working toward a solution.

Example 5.7. Case 1, Session 5 (Min. 55.34)

Another fact-following use of ODER occurs in narrative contexts in which the L seeks enhanced supportive feedback or overt affiliative participation, as illustrated in Example 5.8. ODER follows a statement concerning the size of a monument (diekirche ist die größeste auf der welt, line 2, it's the largest church in the world), which interrupts the narrative flow at a critical point in order to solicit stronger supportive feedback or to call for increased intersubjective orientation before constructing the point of the story. This use reflects ODER's role in interface-level coordination in contexts marked by interactional dominance or a temporary loss of control over intersubjective understanding, where it functions to regulate and restore a more balanced interactional framework. As in the previous example, L interrupts not to express genuine doubt but more to construct symmetry, inviting A to align and expand rather than to treat it as a repairable knowledge deficit. Without multimodal data, the precise trigger of this intervention remains indeterminate. However, A's subsequent turn reveals clear alignment and orientation toward expansion, rather than any effort to repair some knowledge deficit: A responds with a tentative confirmation (kann gut sein, line 3, that could be) that explicitly indexes epistemic uncertainty, relative knowledge with a direct statement of not knowing (dasweiß ich auch SELBST nicht, line 3, I don't know myself either), while mitigating this lack of knowledge through an expanding complimentary remark concerning the monument's prominence (GANZ berühmt, line 4, really famous), indicating co-constructive orientation. Following this with brief confirmation, L resumes the narrative at the point of interruption and introduces an affective component (wieder zwei stunden in der schlange, line 6, stand in line for 2 h). The insertion of this intersubjective understanding check at this juncture may serve multiple interactional purposes: It may function as a preparation for upcoming narrative tension, as a means of enhancing recipient involvement, enabling joint reasoning that incrementally builds interactional we-ness, or as a strategic construction of epistemic asymmetry that enables L to reposition herself interactionally as more knowledgeable, compensating for her previous epistemic asymmetrical positions. Importantly, this effect appears to be particularly salient, as A subsequently makes her participation in the narrative flow explicit and produces overt understanding and affiliative claims (DAS glaube ich, line 7, I believe that). Overall, ODER emerges here as a flexible interactional resource for managing narrative progression, intersubjective understanding, and collaborative involvement in key transitional positions.

Example 5.8. Case 1, Session 4 (Min. 15.04)

6 The use of ODER in the advisor's turns

Oriented toward building on L's prior turns and prompting reflective engagement, A deploys ODER primarily in moves following up L's statements (75% of occurrences), thereby stating (50%), or eliciting (40%), and sometimes as inquiry fragments (10%), consistently across both cycles. In the first cycle, these advisory follow-ups are locally tied to the preceding utterance (50%) or exhibit a general stating character (30%), whereas only 15% are inferential and 5% draw from shared discourse knowledge. This changes in the second cycle, where 60% of utterances preceding ODER have an inferential character, primarily derived from the anticipated learner's perspective, expressing empathic cognitions; 15% relate to general knowledge or express generic shared perspectives, and another 15% derive from the shared discursive memory.³ These developments suggest that the advisor increasingly adopts an empathic perspectival stance and uses the transactive memory system for intersubjective grounding. The prosodic design corroborates the findings reported by Drake (2015) and König (2020), with the vast majority of cases (90%) displaying rising intonation. Since prosody is not the primary focus of this study, these prosodic patterns deserve a more detailed multimodal examination in future research, especially in connection with related phenomena (Lazovic, in prep.). Nevertheless, for descriptive purposes, it is worth noting here that the prosodic configuration relative to the immediately preceding utterance proves to be central, with three recurrent patterns: an approximative contour closely aligning with the prior intonation; a marked intonational upstep; and a slightly reduced contour following a prior question with strongly rising intonation. In most cases (80%), ODER is produced with marked rising intonation, while the preceding utterance exhibits a less marked contour, typically slightly rising or falling. The prosodic marking on ODER thus carries a prompting character, which can be accounted for by its specific advisory functionality: Rather than mobilizing a canonical question–answer format, this design implements symmetrical elicitation strategies resembling a claim-plus-challenge configuration, thereby inviting increased co-constructivity and repositioning L as a co-arguer in the emerging reasoning process. In addition, fine-grained phonetic details—such as subtle differences in vowel lengthening, accentuation, and frequent voice modulation—appear to play an important role and warrant further detailed investigation to understand the dynamics of fine-grained calibration of epistemic and affective stances.

Regarding its discourse-functional use, ODER recurs across both cycles in several key contexts: It accompanies discourse-structuring moves in transitive phases (Siebert-Ott, 1984) as well as summary actions, steering the discourse and the L toward further elaboration and engagement (König, 2020). It also supports the learner's narrative flow, integrated into practices of highlighting, focusing, and concluding (Mithun, 2012), thereby supporting thematic structuring and functional calibration of L's narration within the advisory context. Furthermore, ODER appears in combination with indirect recommendations or suggestions, to delegate solution-finding onto the learner, as bringing home the point (Jefferson, 1981). Across both cycles, ODER serves as an epistemic up-/downgrading device (Drake, 2015), mitigating interactional and epistemic imbalances, and repositioning the learner toward more autonomous action and engagement. The central differences documented across the two cycles become evident through the adaptive calibration of ODER to the learner's interactional resistance, activity, and initiative. In the first cycle, ODER is primarily used in contexts characterized by prior divergence, resistance, or the need for transformative intervention. In the second cycle, ODER follows actions that display empathic cognition grounded in emotional implicatures (Schwarz-Friesel, 2013, 2010). Here, it is also used to activate the learner and to deepen reflection through practices of highlighting, refocusing, and perspective shifting. These adaptive uses are demonstrated in the following analyses, first in the initial case (Example 6.1) and subsequently in the second case (Example 6.2).

Example 6.1. Case 1, Session 2 (Min. 34.04–34.24)

Example 6.2. Case 1, Session 4 (Min. 3.58–4.27)

6.1 The use of ODER in advisory turns in the first counseling cycle

ODER in the first counseling cycle initially follows actions aimed at checking the interpretation of the learner's intended meaning, preceding corrective feedback, as illustrated in example (Example 6.1): A paraphrases her understanding of the L's intention (line 1), introducing this with the concluding, inferential marker also, thereby producing a candidate understanding of the L's intended message. She subsequently reframes this understanding as a tentative interpretation (ich vermute, line 3, I guess) of L's intention, thus epistemically downgrading her claim and projecting confirmation or correction, framing this as an understanding clarifying action (das wolltest du sagen, line 3, that's what you meant). The following ODER, produced with rising intonation that is markedly higher than that of the immediately preceding utterance, functions as a direct elicitation device indexing epistemic uncertainty. In this sequential position, it serves as a key resource for mitigating epistemic asymmetry and opening up a space for co-construction. This proves to be an important preparatory action, as it paves the way for the learner's subsequent self-initiated self-correction (ich guck noch mal durch, line 4, let me look), where L engages in verifying and revising her prior formulation. ODER relaxes the negative valence of asymmetrical, potentially corrective feedback and transforms the sequential trajectory toward collaborative problem-solving, projecting self-initiated self-correction.

As interaction progresses, explicit comprehension checks and overt displays of intersubjectivity decrease over time. Instead, joint practices and collaborative reasoning increasingly come to the fore. Accordingly, A increasingly uses ODER to mitigate the pressure of epistemic authority when L explicitly requests a correction or explanation, actions that disturb the epistemic balance. In this context, ODER functions as an epistemic self-downgrading device, subtly used for epistemic repositioning of L as knowledgeable, thereby fostering epistemic symmetry, as illustrated in Example 6.2, from the fourth session. The sequence unfolds within a narrative context in which L recounts personal experiences involving ill-fitting clothing (die LANGE hose past mir gar nicht, line 1, the long pants don't fit me). Upon noticing a lexical gap, L explicitly requests assistance in utterance completion (EINE gummi, wie sagt manäh, line 2, an elastic how do you say), supplementing this with a descriptive paraphrase that specifies the function of the target item (damit es nicht nach UNTENgefallen ist, line 3, so they wouldn't fall down). A responds (line 4), first with a response cry (oh, no) reflecting her emotional engagement and affective alignment with the story, shifting the focus away from lexical formulation. She offers a candidate completion for the missing word (ein GÜRTEL, line 4, a belt), prefaced with the discourse marker ALSO and followed by ODER, produced with a strongly rising intonation relative to the prior utterance, serving to neutralize the potential epistemic asymmetry. This sequential design separates the proposing of a candidate from the subsequent move of self-relativization and intersubjective check accomplished through ODER. In doing so, the suggestion is framed not as a unilateral correction or an authoritative completion in a filling-the-gap practice, but rather as an invitation to collaboratively co-construct the relevant lexical item. Through ODER, A opens interactional space for co-construction and joint reasoning, repositioning L epistemically, agentively, and as self-determining while reducing her own epistemic primacy.

L continues in a co-constructive mode, producing several turns that replicate the same pattern with ODER (lines 5, 7), thereby confirming and reusing A's formulations, until the word is ultimately jointly negotiated and finally formulated by L and integrated into the story (line 9). Throughout this sequence, A employs multiple resources to subtly reposition L epistemically: by proposing alternative candidate solutions as suggestive joint constructions (line 6), through repetitions accompanied by epistemic change-of-state tokens “ah” (marking L's contribution as newly informative), and by closing and concluding the language-related side sequence with “okay” (line 8), which signals both acceptance of the solution and a transition back to the ongoing narrative activity. This sequence illustrates the sequential matching and alignment of L's language to the use of ODER in A's responsive activity, central to activating a co-constructive orientation.

The second functional context, in which A increasingly employs ODER—from the midpoint of the counseling cycle onward—occurs in sequences marked by L's prior displays of internal resistance, rejection, divergence, or negatively valenced assessments that disrupt solution-oriented trajectories. Here, A deploys ODER in actions designed to navigate L from a resistant stance toward agentive, co-constructive resource orientation and more convergent co-argumentation. The practice of intersubjective grounding, followed by ODER, functions as a key bridging and transformative device, as illustrated in Example 6.3 from the third session: The sequence begins with L's shallow reflection on a previously recommended but formerly frequently employed learning strategy (früherhabe ich immer SO: gemacht, line 1, I used to do it that way before), foregrounding its negative outcomes (!GAR! keine vokabeln gelernt, line 2, no vocabulary learned), thereby providing argumentative grounds for its rejection. Implicitly indicating rejection of A's previous recommendation and a negatively oriented stance, L softens this by constructing the lexical and inferential gap (dann habe ich diealso, line 3, so I have this well) followed by laughter, inviting A's completion. A responds with empathic alignment, inferencing, and explicating the previously omitted, negatively valenced word (verGESSEN, line 4, forgot them) in a joint construction way, normalizing this through laughter and agreement tokens (line 4). Rather than pursuing further recommendations, A builds on this and fosters further elaboration on the learning process and strategies with an open-ended question targeting “how” or “which” (wie hast du dann vokabeln, also WELCHEvokabeln lernst du, line 5, so how do you learn well which words do you learn), to highlight agentivity, process and goal orientation, and A's co-constructive, convergent stance as well as to epistemically upgrade L in a negatively valenced context.

Example 6.3. Case 1, Session 3 (Min. 10.46–11.25)

A then adopts a generic actional perspective, situated in the process of learning new vocabulary (nimmst du, schlägst es auf, line 6, do you take, and open it), thereby specifying a concrete illustrative action as a candidate solution and anchoring further elaboration. This is followed by ODER, produced with strongly rising intonation relative to the prior utterance, which serves to mitigate and relativize both the intersubjective projection and the advisory intervention, aimed at shifting the trajectory of the reasoning from an evaluation of negative aspects to a process-oriented action perspective. ODER opens up space for negotiation and reorients the L toward co-construction, transforming the resistant, rejecting stance into a joint and convergent orientation. While the previous questions are relatively general and open, the illustration establishes a reflective trajectory oriented toward positive, agentive, process and solution orientation, fostering process understanding rather than expanding reasoning on rejection, anchoring and steering the elaboration. After transforming the focus and shifting the reflection to a new level, ODER frames it in a symmetrical and aligned manner, opening space for co-construction. ODER thus mitigates the suggestive and directive force of the projection and the intervention, reframing it as joint reasoning, thereby positioning L symmetrically and allowing for possible rejection. ODER invites explorative, deepening actions that seek alternative courses of action, rather than definite, normative ones and confirmations, relaxing expectations or projections. The subsequent turn (lines 7–8) confirms this, as the learner adopts a more symmetrical, epistemically and agentively confident stance, engaging co-constructively by illustrating and elaborating on her own strategy in a convergent and intersubjectively oriented way, focusing on process and solutions. ODER emerges as a regulator of L's resistant and divergent stance, facilitating its transformation into co-constructive, elaborated, intersubjectively aligning actions while strengthening agentivity, responsivity, epistemic symmetry, and reflection engagement, which are central to advisory work.

Over the course of the counseling cycle, similar uses deployed in response to the learners' resistant actions increasingly involve utterances with suggestive inferences, initiating new reflective cycles, foregrounding solution-relevant aspects, and introducing indirect suggestions, serving as anchors for more process-oriented, deeper reflection-in-action. Concrete, situated, illustrative, and addressee-oriented formulations, which simulate in situ processing and adopt an actional perspective, are used to foster greater reflective involvement from the learner, followed by ODER repositioning the learner as an active problem-solver and engaging more deeply in reflection, as illustrated in the following Example 6.4. The sequence begins after the L rejects the proposed strategy, at which point the A first ratifies and legitimizes L's approach as absolutely acceptable (das ist ja VOLLKOMMEN inordnung, line 1, that's totally fine). The A simulates the L's reasoning (wenn du sagst, line 1, if you say), as simulated self-talk (OKAY, ich habe gelernt, line 2, okay, I learned), foregrounding her agency, self-determination and process understanding (SO und SO: gelernt, this or that way), thereby framing the strategy use as self-evident and authorizing to perform the action (DARFST du, line 3, you are allowed/may). Through this disclaimer, A alleviates the prior disalignment triggered by the previous advice and strengthens L's epistemic and agentive position. Most importantly, through simulated self-talk in the process, taking the L's perspective and focusing on action awareness and process understanding (line 2), A bridges from initial negativity and output orientation to positive, actional process orientation. A then follows up with a generic question (wie bist du VORgegangen, line 4, how did you go about it), which raises awareness of the strategy in use by focusing on the how of its action execution, emphasizing situated processing during activity (line 4) and procedural self-regulation during task performance (NOTIZENdabei gemacht, line 5, taking notes while doing it), thereby fostering agency and upgrading L's epistemic status as knowledgeable. The illustrative, situated, and concretizing question about note-taking (line 5) carries an implicitly suggestive implication with inferential character regarding in situ processing, subtly steering the starting point for the L's reflective process. Following this, ODER, produced with strongly rising intonation relative to the preceding question, functions to relativize the suggestive inference, used as intersubjective grounding, and creates an opening for L to proceed co-constructively, elaborating more deeply, oriented toward convergence and symmetry while affording space for alternative action trajectories. At the same time, it reduces the potential asymmetry triggered by the prior comment-closing activity, in which A acted on behalf of the learner and intervened in a transformative manner. ODER proactively supports the transformation of the resistant and rejecting stance into alternative thinking, exploratory, co-constructive action, and convergence orientation.

Example 6.4. Case 1, Session 6 (Min. 4.02–4.55)

Following A's turn, L positions herself symmetrically by elaborating on her own strategy, while also rejecting the previous suggestive illustration. L first announces the disalignment cooperatively through multiple indicators, such as the vagueness marker ähm, laughter, exhalation, and the adverb leider (unfortunately, line 6). She then builds a sequence of situated deliberation within the activity, before fully rejecting A's inferential suggestion (mach ich KEINE notizen, line 8, I don't make notes), thereby softening this with laughter. A responds expressively with a surprising interjection (oh) and a confirmation (inordnung, line 9, that's fine), after which L continues co-constructively elaborating on her strategy. This reveals the potential of the previous advisory practice to elicit greater elaboration, reflection, and space for L's self-determined and co-constructive, intersubjectively oriented actions, opening space for rejection and disalignment. However, it demonstrates an inherent design problem in A's first-cycle interventions; when framing something as shared, they generate a perspectival mismatch. This tension, on the other hand, is mitigated through the use of ODER, which serves to moderate the misplaced empathetic inference, its calibration, and intersubjective projection—an aspect particularly crucial for novice advisors. It further allows for moderating the learner's resistant stance, supporting an orientation toward alignment and co-argumentation, and developing a hinge technique that introduces regulative intervention at a discursive juncture, thereby epistemically, agentively, reflectively, and co-argumentatively upgrading L's interactional position. It helps balance intersubjective grounding and learner orientation with progressively scaffolding discourse and learning processes.

6.2 The use of ODER in advisory turns in the second counseling cycle

During the second counseling cycle, the use of turn-final ODER increases markedly, indicating heightened variation, but most importantly greater empathic orientation and stronger alignment with the learner's perspective in the preceding utterance. Example 6.5 illustrates this: The sequence begins with A firstly addressing a recognized inconsistency in the categorizing of certain words as “youth language,” relating this to personal experience (lines 1–2). A then relativizes the possibility of clear distinction (isthalt auch mal SCHWER zu sagen, line 3, it's kind hard to say), and closes the sequence with the topos of “gradual transitions” (das ist immer einFLIEßenderübergang, line 4, kind of a gradual transition), and a reorganizing discourse marker (geNAU, line 5, right). A then steers the discursive progression from a relatively general reflection, without direct relevance for the L and the advisory activity, toward a more learner-centered, goal-oriented trajectory, working to bridge the potential intersubjective disconnection with previous general comments, thereby initiating a new reflection cycle (lines 6–7). A adopts an agentive perspective of L, highlighting the beneficiary (die FRAge, die sich für DICH, line 6, the question that probably came up for you) and repositioning to agency (WIElernst du solche wörter am besten, line 7, how do you best learn these kinds of words). A displays an empathic inference related to L's expectation and goal-related intention, thereby employing several epistemic downgraders (quasi, glaube_ich, line 6, probably, I think), and a confirmatory tag ne (right). A is thereby transforming the discourse progression and setting a new focus from the L's perspective, changing the level of reflection and the advisory orientation. Similar practices of learner-perspective taking in transitional positions that organize advisory action have previously been documented in novices' simulated self-talk practices (Lazovic, 2026a). A's subsequent ODER (line 7) performs additional multiple functions: On the one hand, following the intersubjective claim as empathic alignment with suggestive projection, it mitigates this intersubjective grounding intervention. On the other hand, it relaxes the discourse-pragmatic shift and negotiates discourse progression, highlighting ODER's transitive and bridging function at discursive junctions where the course of interaction is redirected. It further repositions L in a symmetrical manner, transforming the interactional framework by redistributing the epistemic and interactional imbalance resulting from A's prior high activity and dominance in concluding the previous sequence. It opens space for co-construction, supports involvement, epistemically upgrades the learner, and strengthens L's agency. L responds affirmatively, glossing the question as “good” (line 8) without elaboration, treating A's move as a check for alignment on focus, equivalent to his own use of ODER, rather than recognizing ODER's elicitative potential for co-constructive expansion. A then pursues a question framed as an elicitation of L's self-initiated self-response (kannst du SELBERbeantworten, line 9, can you answer it yourself ), characteristic of indirective advising contexts to foster learner autonomy in problem-solving. As such questioning may be interpretable as counselor resistance (by withholding information, suggestions, or guidance in favor of prompting self-exploration), A's intersentential laughter, mitigation with vielleicht (maybe), and the hedging verb verSUCHen (try) function to alleviate this interactional delicacy. The prior use of ODER can thus be seen as preparing this interactive, agentive, and epistemic repositioning of L and mitigating the projected shift in the participation framework, eliciting a more elaborated response. This contributes to the functional recalibration of the prior projection with ODER, with implications for L's co-adaptive development and expansion of its functional potential.

Example 6.5. Case 2, Session 2 (Min. 39.07–39.49)

In the middle phase of the counseling cycle, an increasingly empathic orientation is evident in the utterance preceding ODER—manifested through references to or displays of inferences related to L's affective experiences and emotional stances in learning processes. This is illustrated in Example 6.6. The sequence is embedded in L's relatively neutral report on recent learning activities involving oral presentation and a new, previously unpractised format in L2 (a seminar presentation; refeRAT, das habe ich noch_NIE auf deutsch gemacht, lines 1–2, referat, I have never done that in German before). Despite its ostensibly neutral framing, the report subtly indexes a novel and emotionally charged experience, for instance, through the emphasis on lack of prior experience, the repetition, and the use of the modal verb must (muss, lines 2–3), indicating emotional pressure that further reinforces this sense of epistemic constraint and agentive uncertainty. A further uncertainty regarding the course of events is additionally marked by the epistemic uncertainty phrase mal sehen (we'll see, line 4). In response, A initially bridges the moment with laughter and then poses a highly emotionally attuned question (bist du schon NERVÖS, line 5, are you already nervous), bringing an empathic inference about L's emotional state explicitly to the surface. In doing so, A displays emotional responsivity (Lazovic, 2025b) grounded in emotional implicature, offering intersubjective alignment based on this empathic projection. Within this action, ODER plays a crucial mitigating role, softening the potentially exposing empathic claim while facilitating aligned, symmetrical engagement on a potentially delicate or hidden topic, and opening space at this affective junction for topical expansion.

Example 6.6. Case 2, Session 3 (Min. 52.36–53.31)

L follows with ratification (ja:, line 6, yeah), treating empathic projection as aligned, but softening the prior claim (ein bisschen, a little) and shifting this topically in the following elaboration, thereby unpacking emotional appraisals (managing social pressure through comparison with L1 German-speaking peers), which sequentially opens new counseling-relevant topics (im kurs gibt es ausschließlichDEUTSCHE studierenden, line 7, almost everyone in the course is a native German speaker). ODER relaxes the potentially intrusive nature of the empathic projection as intersubjective grounding and aligning, mitigating its potential face-threatening implication while opening space for rejection, preventing an overly affiliative or overly close interactive approach. Conversely, in a sequential environment tending toward topic closure, ODER also enables renewed learner involvement and loosening the structural rigidity of the exchange, thereby inviting co-constructive engagement and negotiation of the discourse trajectory. This underscores ODER's role as both a pragmatic softening device and an interactional resource for fostering agency, collaborative meaning-making, and joint reasoning in sequences where learner participation is declining, while enabling the topicalization of empathically recognized, yet previously backgrounded, aspects of the interaction, as well as balanced negotiation of topical progression.

Similar practices occur frequently in responsive actions following L's narrative episodes, particularly facilitating the co-construction of “narrative peaks” and enabling A's interventions to guide L's narration toward greater intersubjective orientation, contributing to the joint construction of the key message, as already documented (Mithun, 2012). Realized in sequences of potential pre-closings, ODER functions as a re-engagement prompt, encouraging further elaboration and advisory functional extension of the narrative space, and supporting intersubjective orientation and alignment, regulating the recipient design in L's talk.

Another significant change in the second advisory cycle relates to the increased use of ODER in follow-up questions that indirectly suggest a desirable action or solution, thereby supporting deeper reflection similarly to already documented practices of bringing-home-the-point (Jefferson, 1981). This is illustrated in the following Example 6.7 from the first session, beginning with L's self-disclosure of his deceptive behavior in situations of non-understanding (tue ich so, ob ich das verSTANDen habe, lines 1–2, I just pretend like I understood it), whereby L mitigates this potentially negatively evaluated delicate moment through laughter. Following affiliative laughter alignment (line 3), A responds with an alternative question related to the follow-up learning actions. A first proposes an aligned option that affiliates with L's prior turn, thereby normalizing a potentially dispreferred but feasible action (lässt du das GUT sein, line 3, then you let it be), and then presents a preferred, suggestive course of action (guckst SCHNELL in einem wörterbuch noch_mal nach, line 4, quickly look it up in a dictionary again), both framed as equally valid. Importantly, both solutions are formulated from the actional, situated L's perspective and related as alternatives. In doing so, A is subtly steering L toward a preferred solution in the sense of bringing-home-the-point. A displays an empathic, non-evaluative, and aligning stance through perspective-taking in situated reasoning, thereby subtly repositioning L as an active problem-solver. Turn-final ODER (line 4), produced with a strongly marked rising intonation relative to the preceding utterance—which is formatted as a statement with high epistemic value—serves to relativize the claim and to mitigate its suggestive projection. This design frames the prior contribution as co-constructive, inviting the consideration of alternative options rather than asserting a unilateral solution, while simultaneously upgrading L's position. ODER opens space for L's self-determined preference without normative or evaluative pressure, restricting the question's suggestive force and facilitating co-constructed progression in non-directive advising.

Example 6.7. Case 2, Session 1 (Min. 14.44–15.05)

L responds in the next turn with a confirmatory but relativizing response (MANCHMALschon, line 5, sometimes), accompanied by an indicative laugh token, indicating disalignment and mitigating potential embarrassment. A follows with an aligning repetition (line 6) before reformulating to sharpen the implicitly communicated opposite of the prior inference (aber nicht immer, line 6, but not always)—thereby foregrounding the rejection of the previous solution and normalizing the action of doing dispreferred actions (okay, line 6) and relaxing the delicate moment with laughter. This supports ODER's previous role in opening space for dispreferred responses, mitigating suggestive projections, and framing them co-constructively, reducing normative pressure for L to align with A's projection, expectation, or preference. This also indicates that L is unfamiliar with this use and instead interprets it as an alignment check, comparable to L's own use, which changes over time through A's follow-up interventions, calibrating its intended meaning and co-constructing its component “allowing rejection and opening space for symmetrical positioning.”

This functional embedding of ODER increases progressively across the course of the counseling cycle, following L's increasingly frequent reflections, reshaping his reasoning or navigating toward advisory-specific, solution-finding trajectories. Following summarizing-concluding or pointing actions that provide intersubjective grounding, ODER functions as a resource to elicit deeper reflection and steer the interactional trajectory in a goal-oriented manner. It exhibits dual roles—mitigating the advisor's intervention in the ongoing reasoning and epistemically repositioning and reorienting L into a co-argumentative mode. It proves central for disrupting question–answer patterns, fostering a co-constructive dynamic of joint reasoning that agentively and epistemically upgrades L within a framework of symmetrical co-argumentative participation. The following Example 6.8 from the fourth session illustrates this. The sequence begins with L sharing contrastive linguistic experiential insights across multiple languages (türkisch undspanisch haben den gemeinsamen WORTschatz, lines 2–3, Turkish and Spanish have shared vocabulary; die wörter im türkischen sind denwörtern im polnischenähnlich, line 5, many Turkich words are very similar to Polish words), and also illustrating this with an example (line 4), thereby expressing epistemic surprise and indicating positively valenced perceptions of language relatedness and lexical similarity (wirklich komisch; line 1, really strange). The turn closes with an explicit display of inner epistemic surprise (man hätte das NIE gedacht, line 5, you would never have expected that). All utterances thus have a generalizing, generic character, without direct reference to the learner. A responds with a summarizing-pointing move, deriving a learner-relevant conclusion (lines 7–9), relating it directly to L and epistemically upgrading L as knowledgeable, highlighting his beneficiary role, agency, and positive aspects for learning processes. Introduced by an epistemic surprise token (ACH ja, line 7, oh yeah) and the conclusive discourse marker ALSO (so/well), and through perspective-taking from L's stance (das ist für DICH, line 7, for you this is), framed as summarizing-pointing inference highlighting the beneficiary position (LEICHter, line 7, easier). A emphasizes L's agentive and resource orientation and aligns previous general statements with learning processes, orienting the reflection toward advisory goals, thereby pursuing joint reasoning and actively co-constructing the point. When foregrounding advisory-relevant aspects, A guides reflection toward more process-oriented reasoning on the use of resources. This further shifts the reflective trajectory from concrete episodes to generalized learning strategies and orientations, recipient-designed to enhance L's reasoning on multilingual resources. The utterance preceding ODER is realized as an attributional, positively valenced account of L's existing knowledge (!SO! viel wissen hast, line 9, you already know so much) and is formulated as a causal appraisal (weil, because), highlighting the positive consequence, reinforcing resource-oriented reasoning and self-attributions within the learning process, which strengthen L's learning identity. A adopts a stance of facilitative co-reasoning by pointing and summarizing, thereby transforming the level of reflection and steering it toward the advisory goal. ODER, produced with a marked intonational upstep, reframes this concluding summary, which could potentially be understood as topic closing, as a co-reasoning claim, involving learner in joint reasoning and expanding reflection. It mitigates the moment of reorientation and intervention in the reflection flow while opening up space and repositioning the learner as an active co-arguer in the unfolding reasoning process. L confirms (lines 10–11) and continues co-constructively with reasoning that reuses prior arguments and culminates in a jointly constructed “lifelong task” topos (eineLEBENSlange AUFgabe, lines 12–13, a lifelong task), displaying joint reasoning. L subsequently elaborates further in a co-constructive way without additional elicitation from A (beginning with line 14, thereby reusing the previous topos as a starting point).

Example 6.8. Case 2, Session 4 (Min. 29.34–30.41)

ODER supports a transformative advisory intervention in a reflection-eliciting follow-up action, building on the previous turn. By using a statement as facilitative intersubjective grounding rather than a question, A repositions L as a co-arguer, enhancing his interactional status and fostering co-argumentative engagement and deeper, more focused elaborations. A performs an intervention in the language-related reasoning, thereby reshaping and transforming the reflection quality and conceding primacy to L while recipient-designing L as a primarily knowledgeable co-constructor. ODER thereby mitigates the advisory intervention, framing it as joint reasoning and involving L in an even more upgraded interactional position as agentively, epistemically, and co-argumentatively higher positioned. At this point, signaling potential closure, where L yields the floor and anticipates guidance from A, ODER acts as a discursive pivot resisting closure, supporting the reopening of interactional space, thereby collaboratively disengaging from this expected guiding role and repositioning L into a more leading and co-argumentative position.

7 Concluding discussion

In examining the use of ODER as a question tag in FLL counseling from a longitudinal interactional-linguistic perspective, this study analyzed novice advisors' deployment of ODER over the course of 1 year in two counseling cycles, each consisting of seven sessions with two different learners. The study further investigated learners' use of ODER and their changes throughout the counseling sessions, enabling two-case comparisons in the interplay between advisory and learner deployments. ODER's high general frequency corresponds to the context-specific interactional orientation toward exploration of alternatives, joint reasoning, and co-constructive solution development. ODER usage differed markedly across counseling cycles: In cycle 1, a highly active yet resistant L deployed it approximately six times more frequently than A, with greater functional variability; in cycle 2, with a less initiative/resistant L, A and L usage is balanced, while A increased frequency and functional variability despite stable L usage within learner turns. While L1 advisor predominantly employs ODER with statements, learners gradually develop its use with statements while initially deploying it with questions. Overall, ODER exhibits a general developmental trajectory—from a turn-taking regulative and eliciting resource, supporting more symmetrical interactional structures, toward more differentiated functions of intersubjective grounding and pragmatic mitigation—analogous to the gradual co-optation process described by Heine et al. (2015), leveraging its functional ambiguity particularly for mitigating dispreferred actions.

Its functional value becomes apparent, inter alia, in its prosodic design: An intonational upstep following the neutral contour of the preceding utterance transforms a statement into a question, and the default question–answer sequence into a more symmetrical elicitation format approximating a claim-plus-challenge configuration, thereby indexing a degree of self-relativization or epistemic downgrading of the prior claim without compromising the speaker's epistemic authority (Drake, 2015; König, 2020). At the same time, it frames the claim as open for co-construction within a shared reasoning space, thereby facilitating engagement and repositioning the co-participant as a symmetrical co-arguer. As a multifunctional resource operating at the macro-pragmatic level (Haselow, 2020, 2024), ODER has an important epistemic function, which depends on the relative epistemic positions and interactional roles of the speakers: L, as a participant in epistemically subordinate position, uses this in contexts of epistemic self-upgrading, while A, in an epistemically dominant position, uses it for self-downgrading and upgrading of L. It thereby introduces a relativizing component, creating space for alternatives, negotiation, and cooperative consolidation of the intersubjective ground. Another important aspect, alongside its epistemic one, is its function at the deontic level (Stevanovic and Peräkylä, 2014): As it presupposes a cooperative, alternatives-oriented, and self-relativizing stance, it serves to mitigate potentially dispreferred actions in contexts where a sequence displays some form of disalignment, dispreference, or violation of interactive expectations, as anticipated or projected by the speaker, or where it relates to some anticipated but not explicitly addressed divergence. By framing such actions as cooperative, joint, and convergence-oriented, and by involving the co-participant in an intersubjectively oriented manner, ODER becomes highly productive in managing dispreferred actions on the deontic level, mitigating pragmatically, rendering them acceptable, and opening up a space for negotiating the quality or appropriateness of the action. At the same time, epistemic downgrading serves this deontic functionality, illustrating how epistemic and deontic dimensions are closely intertwined yet distinct domains of interactional control (Stevanovic and Peräkylä, 2014). This results in a certain functional ambiguity, since what is being signaled is uncertainty and self-relativization, which serves to secure a deontic position to actively engage in a particular course of action. This is evident when an epistemically higher-positioned participant (A) elicits dispreferred aspects, repositions or reorients L, withdraws from an interactive obligation or role expectation, disengages cooperatively, intervenes transformatively, or performs other potentially dispreferred actions for L. This is also observable in L's uses when they reject something, initiate a follow-up question instead of providing an answer, or self-initiatively continue at a possible closing point. The third dimension relates to affective orientations and emotional orders (Stevanovic and Peräkylä, 2014; Stevanovic and Koski, 2018), as relaxing sequential projections and interactional expectations, along with its mitigating function, ODER signals an affiliative, supportive, and positively valenced action. This is further reinforced by the empathetic character of the preceding utterance, which often already signals empathetic cognitions, inferences from L's perspective, perspective-taking assumptions, or emotional implicatures, and through ODER, this is mitigated and presented for negotiation while simultaneously being presented as cooperative and oriented toward alignment.

To begin with learners' use: Both Ls employ ODER predominantly to prompt languaging-related checks or brief feedback on language-related hypotheses. ODER serves interactional position-building for self-initiating actions that, on the one hand, interrupt or expand the current trajectory and, on the other, transform potentially negative feedback into co-constructive joint actions. It helps them in self-positioning as agentive and epistemically symmetrical, enabling them to maintain stable epistemic status (Drake, 2015) in contexts of epistemic uncertainty and agentive control over discourse progression. It further serves to engage A in the potentially dispreferred action of form-focused feedback, given its orientation toward other higher-priority advisory goals. Through repeated use, ODER develops over time a sedimented specialized pragmatic meaning, serving as a single, intersubjectively recognizable indicator with clear projective qualities, leading to routinized, co-constructive feedback actions of A, seamlessly integrated into the ongoing interaction.

In both cases, ODER evolves over time toward a pragmatic mitigating function and supports intersubjective grounding (see Tables 2, 3). While in the initial instances ODER primarily serves to actively elicit the interlocutor's engagement in doing intersubjective grounding, in later uses, following statements already doing intersubjective grounding, it leads to a functional shift in the use of ODER. The learner with L1 Chinese exhibits greater functional diversification (Table 2), reflected in frequency and in a wider range of uses: ODER is, on the one hand, used to mitigate pragmatic repair actions after intersubjective ruptures, in interventions that address A's violation of intersubjective understanding, or to proactively ease dispreferred actions, such as rejections and releases from interactional obligations; on the other, it functions to elicit empathic alignment: The preceding utterance contains a negative self-assessment incorporating the anticipated other's critical perspective, thereby positioning A in an advocacy role to engage with L's perspective, prompting affiliative support and eliciting empathic alignment. Through such re-perspectivization, L displays and induces a perspectival shift in the co-participant, thereby facilitating an empathic interface and reinforcing alignment. This perceiving the situation or inferencing from the other's point of view (Corti and Gillespie, 2016) displays empathic cognitions, very explicitly used in an advisory context (Lazovic, 2026a,b), which are here co-adaptively developed, following A's frequent use of ODER when adopting, anticipating, or simulating the learner's perspective. Similar practices are evident in narratives, where L involves A more explicitly before the story's key point, facilitating interactional interface and the sense of we-ness and strengthening shared stances within asymmetric positions (Tables 2, 3). The learner with L1 Polish shows initially consistent use but expands this gradually in reactive positions toward functionality as a mitigator of dispreferred responses (Table 3), regulating expectancy violations in epistemically challenging positions, and when co-constructively expanding the trajectory with new, potentially divergent information, thereby softening interactional self-upgrading.

This developmental trajectory toward a pragmatically mitigating function, parallel to its functional specialization and diversification, aligns with other studies documenting increases in intersubjective orientation, cooperative negotiation, and joint actions (Berger and Pekarek Doehler, 2018; Pekarek Doehler, 2011), as well as the use of resources strengthening solidarity and acceptance (Skogmyr Marian, 2023) in cases of dispreferred actions. The findings also show the interplay of diversifying and streamlining the uses (Pekarek Doehler and Balaman, 2021), calibrating them for specific actions. An increasing proactive use related to following actions further supports the already evidenced rise in pre-moves and anticipatory orientations in the L2 context (Skogmyr Marian, 2023). Similarly, (Ishida 2009) documents the increased use of NE as QT in positions where the speaker takes control over the trajectory—such as introducing new topics, eliciting recipient responses during extended tellings, or emphasizing reconfirmation. Ishida notes a shift from using NE to display the speaker's own alignment to using it to pursue alignment or agreement from the co-participant, a pattern that is likewise evident in the present data. In this context, an equivalence can be observed with the discourse particle ALSO, which, as documented longitudinally (Schirm, 2022, 2024), develops additional uses related both to discourse-organizational functions and to repairing or anticipating problems of intersubjectivity, recalibrating its use as part of new actions while taking on a variety of interactional roles. However, the documented differences between the learners can be explained by the interaction of several factors: Differing starting points in their L1 backgrounds, enabling sequential structures and pragmatic inferences that afford the development of certain functional readings for ODER—which appear to be more salient in L1 Chinese (Chiu, 2023; Tsai, 2019; Qiyun, 2010), with its richer system of QT particles, than in Polish; differing dynamics within the multilingual nexus; and variations in the learners' FL socialization contexts. At the same time, the learners display individual interactive styles, along with differences in activity levels, interactional resistance, and communicative needs, which are also variably enacted in the all-female setting of the first case vs. the mixed-gender dynamic of the second, pointing more to individual variability (Masuda, 2011) and context-related factors (Doval-Suárez and González Álvarez, 2018). Interactional expectations toward A and responsiveness to L's perspective vary accordingly: In the first case, these reflect a more pronounced competitive and resistant orientation of L, in contrast to the autonomous stance of the second learner, who adopts a more reserved, wait-and-see approach, inviting A's empathic involvement. Most importantly, the learner's ability to extract macro-pragmatic meanings and their uptake competence, as well as the support during the co-construction of pragmatic meanings, seems to be of particular relevance, which is very specific in the case of ODER. Accordingly, the second L, despite a more frequent and varied use of ODER in advisory turns, demonstrates a tendency to decode the function of ODER in line with his own use as a clarification check, producing dispreferred responses that lead to explicit adjustments in A's follow-up moves, co-constructing its pragmatic meaning and contributing to L's co-adaptive development of ODER's mitigating functionality in performing dispreferred actions. The same can be assumed for L in the first case, co-adaptively following A's use. The use of ODER can also be linked to its perceived effect on the advisor, who appears more symmetrical, affiliative, and epistemically tentative, contributing co-constructively and elaborating more, with ODER becoming a means for steering the advisory activity and discourse. The co-adaptivity is evident in changes that can be analytically related to the advisors' uses of ODER, the advisors' responses to its use, or in responsive positioning to the advisors' prior uses. The developmental dynamics of other practices supporting intersubjective grounding may also play a significant role, warranting further multidimensional investigation into their development and specialization for certain domains. This requires new approaches to longitudinal analysis that can capture multiple phenomena simultaneously, tracing their variation across the discourse and in relation to the co-adaptation of the interactants.

Advisors' uses of ODER are consistent in both counseling cases in practices of discourse-structuring, redirecting moves in transitory phases (Michalovich and Netz, 2018), or expanding possible pre-closings; supporting L's narrative flow (König, 2020; Mithun, 2012), thereby highlighting, concluding, or building upon L's previous statements. Used as epistemic self-downgrading, indicating open space for alternatives, and aligned interface with joint-reasoning orientation, ODER serves to reorganize the interactional framework, repositioning L toward a more self-determined, symmetrical, and co-argumentative role, upgrading L's epistemic and agentive position. It frames the previous statement as a question but transforms the question-answer format into a co-constructive interactional co-reasoning modality, repositioning L as a co-arguer. ODER regulates the symmetrical participation framework, which is essential when extending or restarting action space and facilitates the redistribution or deferral of epistemic asymmetries that may have accumulated through the advisor's dominant discursive moves. In the first counseling cycle, this falls into two functionally aligned domains (Table 2): It serves to release certain roles and expectations regarding correction or input that create epistemic asymmetries, thereby delegating collaborative responses and opening space for co-construction. A shifts the locus of response formation from her own domain of expertise to a jointly shared epistemic space, thus transforming the projected next action into a joint accomplishment or repositioning L to carry it out independently. On the other hand, it increasingly appears at discursively reorganising points (Siebert-Ott, 1984), used to reorient the learner and transform previously evident resistant behaviors or stances (Rehbein, 1979; Bernasconi, 2023), toward greater convergence, symmetrical, and co-argumentative engagement (Reineke, 2016), thereby repositioning L as co-constructively working toward a solution. ODER typically follows suggestive illustrative actions, highlighting the situated, agentive perspective in the action process and eliciting process- and solution-oriented reasoning. As the preceding utterance functions as an intersubjective grounding move, ODER mitigates potentially misplaced inferences, assumptions, and projections, thereby inviting exploratory, co-constructing actions and transforming resistant stances and reasoning, as well as opening spaces for negotiation for topical progression. ODER thus forms an interface for discourse organization and interpretative agency (Lo, 2024). Evolving from reactive moves after explicit rejections or displayed resistance, it gradually develops proactive uses, serving as anticipatory scaffolding that preempts potential rejections.

In the second counseling cycle, there is not only a significant increase in the frequency of ODER, but also an expansion of its functional potential and greater variability in its use. Three functional domains are particularly evident (Table 3): mitigating practices associated with bringing-home-the-point in suggestive, indirect acts of navigating toward new solutions; transformative interventions that build on previous turns through summary, concluding, and pointing-structuring moves, which may be facilitative, deepening, or transformative-reorienting in nature; and mitigating empathetic perspective-taking practices. Notably, these changes are reflected in the quality of the preceding utterance, which tends toward more inferential and empathic propositions that convey emotional implicatures or explicitly adopt the learner's actional and processing perspective, showing less generic character and stronger addressee alignment, and drawing on the transactive memory system for intersubjective grounding. As intersubjective grounding moves or offers, these claims serve as suggestive or challenging interventions, or invite expansion and reorientation. As a mitigator of empathic alignment moves and emotional implicatures (inferred expectations, intentions, attitudes, emotional states, affective orientations), ODER moderates their projective force, potential interactional loads, and overly close interactive approaches, while simultaneously projecting more intersubjectively oriented elaborations and alignment moves in the learner's subsequent turns. In doing so, ODER enacts intersubjectivity by designing conversational infrastructure (Couper-Kuhlen et al., 2021), pursuing intersubjective grounding moves as offers for alignment, and activating procedural knowledge of alternative constructions' pragmatic implications (Auer and Lindström, 2021, p. 105), thereby inviting more intersubjectively tied actions, proactively framed as such, as evidenced in L's co-adaptive uses. The sequences with ODER support the intersubjective orientation of the L and recipient-designed actions while triggering emergent and aligned L2 reasoning, as L displays increased epistemic tokens and thinking procedures during turn-taking.

What particularly stands out in this advisory context is that preceding utterances reveal an empathic operation as the foundation for intersubjective offers, co-constructing intersubjective ground—evident not only in explicit empathic references and emotional implicatures but also in cognitive empathic practices such as adopting the learner's perspective, formulating understanding, or anticipating comprehension to support L, thereby displaying an empathic orientation and offering an affiliative claim for ratification, which proves especially productive for engaging and activating anchors for self-advancing the learning process and overcoming resistances, similar to stepwise entries into others' perspectives, supporting self-regulation (Muntigl et al., 2014, 2023). This functions as a step toward L's reperspectivization, prompting self-distanced repositioning and potentially reframing their perspective in the process of working toward intersubjective understanding. As previously documented, this empathic alignment in the preceding utterance is evident in the uses by the first learner, indicating its potentially co-adaptive development. ODER functions in A's uses as a bridge in an interface position between an intersubjective grounding move/offer, based on empathic operation—mediating perspectives on intersubjective understanding—and a subsequent one inviting alignment as an operation for reconciliation through confirmation, expansion, adaptation, or correction, particularly in contexts anticipating discrepancy or divergence, thereby indexing a convergent, affiliative, joint co-constructive orientation. As intersubjectivity emerges dynamically through reciprocal actions (Deppermann, 2019; Lindström et al., 2021), ODER reveals its bridging position by regulating different intersubjective orientations—presupposed, anticipatory, emergent (Deppermann, 2019)—and inviting co-participants' activity toward alignment to achieve an adequate level or state of intersubjectivity (Raymond, 2019). Given that this is a highly specific context in which A, aligned with learner orientation, pursues empathic perspectivizations, intersubjectivity is grounded in these empathic perspective-taking practices and interactionally mirrored in the utterance preceding ODER, thereby inviting work toward alignment between the self and the mirrored intersubjective understanding. It remains to be examined in other contexts whether ODER similarly deploys analogous empathic practices—potentially stabilizing this pattern or employing other forms of intersubjective claims/offers.

The evident differences across cycles reflect, on the one hand, novices' inductive professional learning processes, comparable to those reported in related studies (Nguyen, 2012; Nguyen and Malabarba, 2025; Lazovic, 2025a,b, 2026a,b,c). These co-adaptive processes are reflected in the different calibration of ODER's functionality across increasingly differentiated contexts and in the recipient-designed actions preceding it, which are grounded in empathic cognitions; in shifts from reactive to more proactive uses oriented toward preparing subsequent interventions; in the expansion of its functional range and specialization for particular advisory actions, including eliciting co-constructed and elaborated responses, reorganizing trajectories and interactional frameworks, regulating responsiveness, and deepening reflection through intersubjective pre-grounding; and in increasing alignment toward L, shifting from discrepancy in the use in Cycle 1 to greater alignment in Cycle 2. On the other hand, these interactional co-adaptations indicate designing actions to fit L's agency, initiative, and resistance: Greater self-initiative and resistance correlate with streamlined ODER uses, while restraint and low initiation trigger expanded, more diversified, empathically attuned deployments that perspectivize L's stance based on empathic cognitions, fostering co-construction, solution guidance, reasoning enhancement, and L's elevation to co-arguer status. The findings underscore co-adaptivity in aligning ODER's functionality to L's actions and developmental trajectories: As L's responsive behavior evolves, reflective activity deepens, and common ground expands, ODER increasingly facilitates co-constructive argumentation, reframing previous actions as arguments and joint reasoning. Designed as intersubjective claims inviting argumentative positioning, thereby embedding core advisory interventions, this further indicates a convergence with the functionality observed in the learner's use of ODER. This highlights not only the contexts of negotiation of ODER's functionality but also the process of co-adapting as a multidimensional adaptation to the co-participants—not only their general interactive behavior and evolving new actions in the developmental process, their specific use of this resource or situations of negotiation of its pragmatic meaning, but also their adaptive behavior and interactional effects on L, in terms of the recognized effectiveness and functionality of the resource. The differing adaptivity matrices across the two cases can account for why A employs ODER less functionally in the first case than in the second, reflecting different dynamics of alignment and disalignment with L's uses or designing it specifically to support the co-adaptive behavior of the co-participant, underscoring ODER's role as an interactional resource for projecting and inviting co-adaptivity.

Yet, grasping these co-adaptive dynamics demands a method attuned to the relational interplay of multidimensional adaptations—encompassing negotiation, dis/alignment, diversification, ad-hoc recalibration, and functional specialization—to trace how the pragmatic potential of such resources emerges interactionally, changes in co-adaptive sense, and stabilizes its functional value toward context-specific readings. Due to the single-case design of this study, related to novice advisors and only two types of FL learners—lacking multimodal data, pre-post assessments, data on participants' variation competence, and insights into ODER usage across other action contexts—this analysis has notable limitations. These limitations necessitate further empirical investigation into ODER's functional dynamics across interactional histories and developmental trajectories, including comparisons with other question tags and practices in similar functional domains. Larger datasets spanning diverse action contexts and discourse types are required to validate observed tendencies and trace change dynamics over time. Future research should juxtapose objective sequential analyses in varied settings against participants' subjective interpretations and readings of question-tag functionality—in L1 and other languages—to distinguish ad-hoc from systematic tendencies in their organization, networking within the pragmaticon, and potential changes in learning in interactional processes through co-adaptation. Additionally, practical implications extend to equipping advisors with strategies for calibrating ODER deployment more specifically in design for different advisory actions and to distinct advisee profiles, informed by detailed examinations of adaptation to heterogeneous co-participants (Auer and Lindström, 2021).

References

• 1

  AndersenG. (1998). Are tag questions questions? Evidence from spoken data. Paper presented at the 19th ICAME Conference, Belfast.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AntakiC.BarnesR.LeudarI. (2005). Self-disclosure as a situated interactional practice. Soc. Psychol.44, 181–199. doi: 10.1348/014466604X15733

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AudetC. T. (2011). Client perspectives of therapist selfdisclosure: violating boundaries or removing barriers?Couns. Psychol. Q.24, 85–100. doi: 10.1080/09515070.2011.589602

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AuerP.BauerA.BirknerK.KotthoffH. (2020). Einführung in die Konversationsanalyse. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AuerP.LindströmJ. (2021). “On agency and affiliation in second assessments. German and Swedish opinion verbs in talk-in-interaction,” in Intersubjectivity in Action. Studies in Language and Social Interaction, eds. J. Lindström, R. Laury, A. Peräkylä, and M.-L. Sorjonen (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 81–106. doi: 10.1075/pbns.326.05aue

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BarronA.PandarovaI.MuderackK. (2015). Tag questions across Irish English and British English: a corpus analysis of form and function. Multilingua34, 495–525. doi: 10.1515/multi-2014-0099

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BergerE.Pekarek DoehlerS. (2018). “Tracing change over time in storytelling practices: a longitudinal study of second language talk-in-interaction,” in Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction, eds. S. Pekarek Doehler S, J. Wagner and E. González-Martínez (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 67–102. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BernasconiB. (2023). Polyfunctional particles in spoken Russian: the case of čto li. J. Pragmat. 208, 77–90. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2025). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program]. Version 6.4.45. Available online at: https://www.praat.org (accessed December 19, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ChengW.WarrenM. (2001). She kows more about Hong Kong than you do isn't it: tags in Hong Kong conversational English. J. Pragmat. 33, 1419–1439. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00080-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  ChiuL. L. (2023). Chinese tag questions: the CP/DP pro-form analysis. Linguistic Rev. 40, 499–525. doi: 10.1515/tlr-2023-2009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  ClausenY.SchefflerT. (2022). A corpus-based analysis of meaning variations in German tag questions evidence from spoken and written conversational corpora. Corpus Linguist. Linguistic Theory18, 1–31. doi: 10.1515/cllt-2019-0060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  CortiK.GillespieA. (2016). Co-constructing intersubjectivity with artificial conversational agents: people are more likely to initiate repairs of misunderstandings with agents represented as human. Comput. Human Behav. 58, 431–442. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Couper-KuhlenE.EtelämäkiM.SorjonenM.-L. (2021). “Directive turn design and intersubjectivity,” in Intersubjectivity in Action. Studies in Language and Social Interaction, eds. J. Lindström, R. Laury, A. Peräkylä, and M.-L. Sorjonen (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 61–80. doi: 10.1075/pbns.326.04cou

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Couper-KuhlenE.SeltingM. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  De WeckG.SublonA.FoxG. (2017). “The use of personal storytelling in speech and language therapist-adolescent interactions,” in Interactional Competences in Institutional Settings. From School to Workplace, eds. S. Pekarek Doehler, A. Bangerter, D. de Weck, L. Filliettaz, E. González-Martínez, and C. Petitjean (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 59–88. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46867-9_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DegenhardtJ. (2025). Pragmatic functions of question tags in Indian and Sri Lankan English. J. Pragmat. 239, 77–93. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2025.02.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  DeppermannA. (2018a). Inferential practices in social interaction: a conversation-analytic account. Open Linguist. 4, 35–55. doi: 10.1515/opli-2018-0003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  DeppermannA. (2018b). “Changes in turn-design over interactional histories: the case of instructions in driving school lessons,” in Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources, eds. A. Deppermann and J. Streeck (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 293–324. doi: 10.1075/pbns.293.09dep

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  DeppermannA. (2019). Intersubjectivity and other grounds for action-coordination in an environment of restricted interaction: coordinating with oncoming traffic when passing an obstacle. Lang. Commun. 65, 22–40. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Doval-SuárezS. M.González ÁlvarezE. M. (2018). “The use of tag questions in the oral production of L2 English learners.” The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction, eds. M. Á. G. González and J. L. Mackenzie (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 145–170. doi: 10.1075/pbns.296.06dov

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  DrakeV. (2015). Indexing uncertainty: the case of turn-final or. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact.48, 301–318. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2015.1058606

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  EtelämäkiM. (2021). Organizing the “we” in interaction,” in Intersubjectivity in Action. Studies in Language and Social Interaction, eds. J. Lindström, R. Laury, A. Peräkylä, and M.-L. Sorjonen (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 25–39. doi: 10.1075/pbns.326.02ete

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  FiehlerR. (2015). “Syntaktische Phänomene in der gesprochenen Sprache,” in Handbuch Satz, Äußerung, Schema, eds Ch. Dürscheid and J. G. Schneider. (Berlin, München, Boston, MA: De Gruyter), 370–395. doi: 10.1515/9783110296037-017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  FretheimT. (2015). “A relevance-theoretic perspective on the Norwegian utterance-final particles da and altså compared to their English counterpart then,” in Final Particles, eds. S. Hancil, A. Haselow, and M. Post (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton), 249–284. doi: 10.1515/9783110375572-011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Gómez GonzálezM. A. G. (2016). “Canonical tag questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese: a discourse-functional study,” in Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast, eds. M.-A. Lefer and S. Vogeleer (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 93–126. doi: 10.1075/bct.87.06gom

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  GoodwinC. (2015). “Narrative as talk-in-interaction,” in The Handbook of Narrative Analysis, eds. A. De Fina and A. Georgakopoulou (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons), 197–218. doi: 10.1002/9781118458204.ch10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  GubinaA.DeppermannA. (2024). Rejecting the validity of inferred attributions of incompetence in German talk-in-interaction. J. Pragmat. 221, 150–167. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.12.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  HagemannJ. (2009). Tag questions als Evidenzmarker. Formulierungsdynamik, sequentielle Struktur und Funktionen redezuginterner tags. Gesprächsforschung Online Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion10, 145–176.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HancilS.HaselowA.PostM. (eds.) (2015). Final Particles. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110375572

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HaselowA. (2012). Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: final particles in English. Lang. Commun. 32, 182–204. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HaselowA. (2015). “Final particles in spoken German,” in Final Particles, eds. S. Hancil, A. Haselow, and M. Post (Berlin: De Gruyter), 77–108.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  HaselowA. (2020). Spontaneous Spoken English. An Integrated Approach to the Emergent Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  HaselowA. (2024). Syntactic fragments in social interaction: a socio-cognitive approach to the syntax of conversation. English Lang. Linguist.28, 521–551. doi: 10.1017/S1360674324000273

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  HeineB.KaltenböckG.KutevaT. (2015). “Some observations on the evolution of final particles,” in Final Particles, eds. S. Hancil, A. Haselow, and M. Post (Berlin: De Gruyter), 111–140.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  HeritageJ. (2007). “Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference,” in Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Language Culture and Cognition, eds. N. J. Enfield and T. Stivers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 255–280. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  HeritageJ.RaymondG. (2012). “Navigating epistemic landscapes: acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions,” in Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives Language Culture and Cognition, ed. Jan P. de Ruiter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 179–192. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  ImoW. (2011). ““Jetz geh'n wir einen trinken, gell?” Vergewisserungssignale (tag questions) und ihre Relevanz für den DaF-Uniterricht,” in Deutsch aktuell 2. Einführung in die Tendenzen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, ed. S. M. Moraldo. (Roma: Carocci editore), 127–150.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  ImoW.LanwerJ. P. (2019). Interaktionale Linguistik. Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Metzler.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  IshidaM. (2009). “Development of interactional competence: changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study-abroad,” in Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual Perspectives, eds. H. thi Nguyen and G. Kasper (Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Resource Centre-University of Hawai'i), 351–357.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  JeffersonG. (1981). “The abominable Ne?: an exploration of post-response pursuit of response,” in Dialogforschung: Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, eds. P. Schröder and H. Steger (Düsseldorf: Schwann), 53–88. Available online at: https://ids-pub.bsz-bw.de/frontdoor/index/index/year/2014/docId/1929 (Accessed January 12, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  KimpsD. (2007). Declarative constant polarity tag questions: a data-driven analysis of their form, meaning and attitudinal uses. J. Pragmat. 39, 270–291. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.08.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  KimpsD.DavidseK.CornillieB. (2014). A speech function analysis of tag questions in British English spontaneous dialogue. J. Pragmat. 66, 64–85. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  KönigK. (2017). “Question tags als Diskursmarker? – Ansätze zu einer systematischen Beschreibung von ne im gesprochenen Deutsch,” in Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen, eds. H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, and T. Spranz-Fogasy (Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung), 233–258.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  KönigK. (2020). “Prosodie und epistemic stance: Konstruktionen mit finalem oder,” in Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik, eds. W. Imo and J. Philipp Lanwer (Berlin: De Gruyter), 167–200. doi: 10.1515/9783110637489-006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  KönigK.StoltenburgB. (2013). “‘oder so', ‘und so', ‘und so was', ‘und so weiter' etc. – Eine interaktionale Perspektive auf Etcetera-Formeln,” in SASI-Arbeitspapiere 48. Available online at: https://arbeitspapiere.sprache-interaktion.de/arbeitspapiere/arbeitspapier48.pdf (accessed July 8, 2025)

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Konzett-FirthC. (2020). Co-adaptation processes in plenary teacher student talk and the development of L2 interactional competence. Classr. Discourse11, 209–228.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  KreuzR. J.KasslerM. A.CoppenrathL.McLainA. B. (1999). Tag questions and common ground effects in the perception of verbal irony. J. Pragmat. 31, 1685–1700. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00010-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  LanwerJ. (2019). Alignmentmarker in nord(west)deutscher Alltagssprache. Niederdeutsches Wort. 59, 33–76.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  LazovicM. (2025a). Empathie in Sprachlernberatungsgesprächen – diskursiv, reflexiv, adaptiv. Fremdsprachen Lehren Lernen54, 39–56.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  LazovicM. (2025b). Dimensions and dynamics of emotional responsiveness and emotional regulatory practices in interaction. Insights from pre-service GFL teacher counseling in a service-learning context. Front. Commun. 10:1633151. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1633151

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  LazovicM. (2026a). Self-disclosures in second language learning counselling: changes over time in novices' practices. Discourse Commun. 20. doi: 10.1177/17504813251413932

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  LazovicM. (2026b). Simulierte innere Rede als Ressource in der Sprachlernberatung. Interaktionsanalytische und longitudinale Perspektiven im Kontext der DaF-Lehrkräfteausbildung. Linguistische Berichte. 285.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  LazovicM. (2026c). Navigating multilingual landscapes in FLL advising. Perspectives, practices and adaptive use of L1-references in pre-service GFL teacher advising in a service-learning context. Int. J. Multilingual.

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Lazovic M. (in prep.). Prosodic Design of Question Tags in Learner Language: A Longitudinal Perspective.

• 56

  LindströmJ.LauryR.PeräkyläA.SorjonenM.-L. (2021). Intersubjectivity in Action. Studies in Language and Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.326

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  LoN. P. K. (2024). From structuralism to interpretation: revisiting the Prague school's theoretical legacy. Forum Linguistic Stud.6, 1029–1042. doi: 10.30564/fls.v6i6.7477

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MasudaK. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners' use of the interactional particle ne. Modern Lang. J.95, 519–540. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01256.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  MichalovichA.NetzH. (2018). Tag-naxon? (Tag-Right?) in instructional talk: opening or blocking learning opportunities. J. Pragmat.137, 57–75. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  MillsA. E. (1981). It's easier in German, isn't it? The acquisition of tag questions in a bilingual child. J. Child Lang. 8, 641–647. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900003482

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  MithunM. (2012). Cross-linguistic diversity and commonality. J. Pragmat. 44, 2165–2182. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  MooreE.PodesvaR. (2009). Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Lang. Soc.38, 447–485. doi: 10.1017/S0047404509990224

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  MuntiglP.ChubakL.AngusL. (2023). Responding to in-themoment distress in emotion-focused therapy. Res. Lang. Soc. Inter.56, 1–21. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2023.2170663

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  MuntiglP.KnightN. K.AngusL. (2014). Targeting emotional impact in storytelling: working with client affect in emotion-focused psychotherapy. Discourse Stud.16, 753–775. doi: 10.1177/1461445614546255

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  NguyenH. T. (2012). Developing Interactional Competence: A Conversation-Analytic Study of Patient Consultations in Pharmacy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  NguyenH. T.MalabarbaT. (2025). Developing Interactional Competence at the Workplace. Learning English as a Foreign Language on the Shop Floor. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003125778

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Pekarek DoehlerS. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: the development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classr. Discourse9, 3–24. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Pekarek DoehlerS. (2021). How grammar grows out of social interaction: from multi-unit to single-unit question. Open Linguist.7, 837–864. doi: 10.1515/opli-2020-0150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Pekarek DoehlerS.BalamanU. (2021). The routinization of grammar as a social action format: a longitudinal study of video-mediated interactions. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact.54, 183–202. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Pekarek DoehlerS.Pochon-BergerE. (2011). “Developing ‘methods' for interaction: a cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2,” in L2 Interactional Competence and Development, eds J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, and S. Pekarek Doehler (Bristol: Multilingual Matters), 206–243.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  PickI. (ed.). (2017). Beraten in Interaktion. Eine gesprächslinguistische Typologie des Beratens. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. doi: 10.3726/b11498

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  PostM. (2015). “The Northern Russian utterance-final particle dak as an information-structuring device,” in Final Particles, eds. S. Hancil, A. Haselow, and M. Post (Berlin: De Gruyter), 285–304.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  QiyunZ. (2010). A study of Chinese learning of English tag questions. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 1, 578–582. doi: 10.4304/jltr.1.5.578-582

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  RaymondC. W. (2019). Intersubjectivity, normativity, and grammar. Soc. Psychol. Q.82, 182–204. doi: 10.1177/0190272519850781

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  RehbeinJ. (1979). “Sprechhandlungsaugmente. Zur Organisation der Hörersteuerung,” in Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache, ed. H. Weydt (Berlin: De Gruyter), 58–74.

  • Google Scholar

• 76

  ReinekeS. (2016). Wissenszuschreibung in der Interaktion. Eine gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung impliziter und expliziter Formen der Zuschreibung von Wissen. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  SchirmS. (2022). L2 discourse markers and the development of interactional competence during study abroad (Dissertation). University of Waterloo. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10012/17978 (Accessed January 12, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  SchirmS. (2024). From doing work on your own talk to doing work on others' talk. The longitudinal development of also ‘so' in L2 German. Interact. Linguist.4, 68–96. doi: 10.1075/il.23008.sch

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  Schwarz-FrieselM. (2010). “Expressive Bedeutung und E-Implikaturen – Zur Relevanz konzeptueller Bewertungen bei indirekten Sprechakten: Das Streichbarkeitskriterium und seine kognitive Realität,” in Kultura kak tekst (Kultur als Text), ed. W. Rudnitzky (Moskau, Smolensk: SGT), 12–27.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Schwarz-FrieselM. (2013). Sprache und Emotion. 2. Auflage. Tübingen: Francke. doi: 10.36198/9783838540399

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Siebert-OttG. (1984). “Tag-questions: Zu ihrer gesprächssteuernden Funktion,” in Sprachtheorie, Pragmatik, Interdisziplinäres: Akten des 19. Linguistischen Kolloquiums eds. W. Kürschner, R. Vogt, and S. Siebert-Nemann (Berlin: Max Niemeyer Verlag), 233–244. doi: 10.1515/9783111612300.233

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  Skogmyr MarianK. (2023). The Development of L2 Interactional Competence. A Multimodal Study of Complaining in French Interactions. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003271215

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  SohnS.-O. (2015). “The emergence of utterance-final particles in Korean,” in Final Particles, eds. S. Hancil, A. Haselow, and M. Post (Berlin: De Gruyter), 181–196.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  StevanovicM.KoskiS. (2018). Intersubjectivity and the domains of social interaction: proposal of a cross-sectional approach. Psychol. Lang. Commun.22, 39–70. doi: 10.2478/plc-2018-0003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  StevanovicM.PeräkyläA. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: on the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Lang. Soc.43, 185–207. doi: 10.1017/S0047404514000037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  StokoeE. (2010). Have you been married, or …?: eliciting and accounting for relationship histories in speed-dating interaction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 43, 260–282. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2010.497988

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  SvinhufvudK.VoutilainenL.WeisteE. (2017). Normalizing in student counseling: counselors' responses to students' problem descriptions. Discourse Stud.19, 196–215. doi: 10.1177/1461445617691704

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  TsaiI.-N. (2019). “A multimodal analysis of tag questions in Mandarin Chinese multi-party conversation,” in Multimodality in Chinese Interaction, eds. X. Li and T. Ono (Berlin: De Gruyter), 300–332. doi: 10.1515/9783110462395-011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  VerdugoD. R.TrilloJ. R. (2005). The pragmatic function of intonation in L2 discourse: English tag questions used by Spanish speakers. Intercult. Pragmat. 2, 151–168. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.151

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  WiltschkoM. (2021). The Grammar of Interactional Language. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 91

  WiltschkoM.DenisD.D'ArcyA. (2018). Deconstructing variation in pragmatic function: a transdisciplinary case study. Lang. Soc. 47, 569–599. doi: 10.1017/S004740451800057X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  WinefieldH.ChandlerM.BassettD. (1989). Tag questions and powerfulness: quantitative and qualitative analyses of a course of psychotherapy. Lang. Soc. 18, 77–86. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500013282

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  YasuiE. (2023). Display of understanding in a second story: second teller's reenactments and reuses of theprior teller's resources. Text Talk43, 381–404. doi: 10.1515/text-2020-0218

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  ZifonunG.HoffmannL.StreckerB.BallwegJ. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache.Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.

  • Google Scholar