Article

Topic Management in Chinese L2 Natural Conversations

Yiyuan Hou ORCID , Shuangyun Yao ORCID

    Received: 10 April 2026 | Revised: 28 May 2026 | Accepted: 7 June 2026 | Published Online: 15 September 2026

    Abstract

    Topic management plays a crucial role in the smooth and coherent flow of natural conversations, particularly in second language (L2) interactions where learners must navigate not only linguistic forms but also complex interactional structures. This study examines the interactional practices and sequential structures deployed by Chinese L2 learners across three proficiency levels to initiate, develop, change, and close a topic in informal occurring conversation. Drawing on the methodology of Conversation Analysis (CA), the research focuses on how learners utilize specific linguistic and interactional resources—such as preliminary actions, the [formulation + confirmation-seeking marker] format, and content-marked closures—to manage topic progressivity and mark topic boundaries. Findings reveal systematic differences in the frequency, complexity, and sequential placement of these practices across proficiency levels. Higher-level learners demonstrate a greater ability to collaboratively sustain topic development, prepare for disjunctive transitions, and manage topic closures with nuanced, recipient-oriented strategies. In contrast, low-level learners tend to adopt more direct, speaker-centered approaches. These interactional differences reflect varying degrees of L2 interactional competence and point to the developmental nature of topic management skills. The study offers pedagogical implications by identifying teachable practices that contribute to conversational coherence and social alignment. It also contributes to our understanding of how L2 learners mobilize familiar linguistic resources more sophisticatedly to fulfill interactional goals.

    Keywords

    Conversation Analysis, Interactional Practices, L2 Interactional Competence, Natural Conversation, Topic Management

    References
    1. [1] Hellermann, J., 2007. The Development of Practices for Action in Classroom Dyadic Interaction: Focus on Task Openings. The Modern Language Journal. 91(1), 83–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00503.x
    2. [2] Hellermann, J., 2008. Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK. pp.41–82.
    3. [3] Doehler, S.P., Pochon-Berger, E., 2011. Chapter 9. Developing ‘Methods’ for Interaction: A Cross-Sectional Study of Disagreement Sequences in French L2. In: Hall, J., Hellermann, J., Pekarek Doehler, S. (eds.). L2 Interactional Competence and Development. Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK. pp. 206–243.
    4. [4] Walsh, S., 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. pp. 1–256.
    5. [5] Doehler, S.P., Pochon-Berger, E., 2015. The Development of L2 Interactional Competence: Evidence from Turn-taking Organization, Sequence Organization, Repair Organization and Preference Organization. In: Cadierno, T., Eskildsen, S. (eds.). Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning. De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Germany. pp. 233–268.
    6. [6] Galaczi, E.D., 2008. Peer–Peer Interaction in a Speaking Test: The Case of the First Certificate in English Examination. Language Assessment Quarterly. 5(2), 89–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300801934702
    7. [7] Galaczi, E.D., 2014. Interactional Competence across Proficiency Levels: How do Learners Manage Interaction in Paired Speaking Tests? Applied Linguistics. 35(5), 553–574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017
    8. [8] Barron, A., Black, E., 2015. Constructing Small Talk in Learner-native Speaker Voice-based Telecollaboration: A Focus on Topic Management and Backchanneling. System. 48, 112–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.009
    9. [9] Abe, M., Roever, C., 2019. Interactional Competence in L2 Text-chat Interactions: First-idea Proffering in Task Openings. Journal of Pragmatics. 144, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.001
    10. [10] Abe, M., Roever, C., 2020. Task Closings in L2 Text-Chat Interactions: A Study of L2 Interactional Competence. CALICO Journal. 37(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.38562
    11. [11] Abe, M., 2023. Topic Management in L2 Task-based Written Interactions. Language Learning & Technology. 27(1), 1–18.
    12. [12] Pekarek Doehler, S., Berger, E., 2018. L2 Interactional Competence as Increased Ability for Context-sensitive Conduct: A Longitudinal Study of Story-openings. Applied Linguistics. 39(4), 555–578. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021
    13. [13] Morris-Adams, M., 2016. Negotiating Topic Changes: Native and Non-native Speakers of English in Conversation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 26(3), 366–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12134
    14. [14] Couper-Kuhlen, E., Selting, M., 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp.312–328.
    15. [15] Sacks, H., 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Basil Blackwell: Oxford, UK. pp. 752–763.
    16. [16] Button, G., Casey, N., 1985. Structures of Social Action: Generating topic: the use of topic initial elicitors. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Generating-topic%3A-the-use-of-topic-initial-Button-Casey/54cbc6061ad3d73e1eff913280121cffcc28c994 (cited 28 May 2025).
    17. [17] Jefferson, G., 1984. Notes on A Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens “Yeah”; and “Mm Hm”. Paper in Linguistics. 17(2), 197–216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201
    18. [18] Beach, W.A., 1993. Transitional Regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” Usages. Journal of Pragmatics. 19(4), 325–352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4
    19. [19] Stokoe, E.H., 2000. Constructing Topicality in University Students’ Small-group Discussion: A Conversation Analytic Approach. Language and Education. 14(3), 184–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780008666789
    20. [20] Clift, R., 2001. Meaning in Interaction: The Case of Actually. Language. 77(2), 245–291.
    21. [21] Schegloff, E.A., 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. 1, 1–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    22. [22] Bolden, G.B., 2008. “So What’s Up?”: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 41(3), 302–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237909
    23. [23] Holt, E., 2010. The last laugh: Shared Laughter and Topic Termination. Journal of Pragmatics. 42(6), 1513–1525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.011
    24. [24] Hellermann, J., Cole, E., 2009. Practices for Social Interaction in the Language-Learning Classroom: Disengagements from Dyadic Task Interaction. Applied Linguistics. 30(2), 186–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn032
    25. [25] Seedhouse, P., Supakorn, S., 2015. Topic-as-script and Topic-as-action in Language Assessment and Teaching. Applied Linguistics Review. 6(3), 393–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0018
    26. [26] Dolce, F.M., van Compernolle, R.A., 2020. Topic Management and Student Initiation in An Advanced Chinese-as-a-foreign-language Classroom. Classroom Discourse. 11(1), 80–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1563799
    27. [27] Markee, N., 2005. The Organization of Off-task Talk in Second Language Classrooms. In: Richards, K., Seedhouse, P. (eds.). Applying Conversation Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK. pp. 197–213.
    28. [28] Kasper, G., 2004. Participant Orientations in German Conversation-for-Learning. The Modern Language Journal. 88(4), 551–567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-18-.x
    29. [29] Markman, K.M., 2009. “So What Shall We Talk About”: Openings and Closings in Chat-Based Virtual Meetings. The Journal of Business Communication (1973). 46(1), 150–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325751
    30. [30] Gonzales, A., 2013. Chapter 5. Development of Politeness Strategies in Participatory Online Environments: A case study. In: Taguchi, N., Sykes, J.M. (eds.). Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 101–120.
    31. [31] Wong, J., 2005. Sidestepping Grammar. In: Richards, K., Seedhouse, P. (eds.). Applying Conversation Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK. pp. 159–173.
    32. [32] Barraja-Rohan, A.-M., 2003. Past Troubles-talk in Nonnative-native Interviews. Journal of Pragmatics. 35(4), 615–629. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00126-1
    33. [33] Cutrone, P., 2005. A Case Study Examining Backchannels in Conversations Between Japanese–British Dyads. Multilingua. 24(3), 237–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2005.24.3.237
    34. [34] Cook, V., 1999. Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 33(2), 185–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587717
    35. [35] Nakamura, I., 2008. Understanding How Teacher and Student Talk with Each Other: An Exploration of How ‘repair’ Displays the Co-management of Talk-in-interaction. Language Teaching Research. 12(2), 265–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086295
    36. [36] Svennevig, J., 1999. Getting Acquainted in Conversation. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.143.
    37. [37] Tryggvason, M.-T., 2004. Comparison of Topic Organization in Finnish, Swedish-Finnish, and Swedish Family Discourse. Discourse Processes. 37(3), 225–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3703_3
    38. [38] Sacks,H., Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language. 50(4), 696–735.
    39. [39] Sidnell, J., Stivers, T., 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA. p. 79.
    40. [40] Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., 2011. A System for Transcribing Talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion. 12, 1–51.
    41. [41] Yue, Y., 2020. A Chinese Conversational Discourse Approach to the Extended Uses of nage. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies. 1, 48–61.
    42. [42] Shen, W., 2020. Evolution of the Chinese Connective suoyi. Chinese Linguistics. 2, 38–43.
    43. [43] Yu, G.D., 2022. Ai as a Topic Transition Signal in Mandarin Conversations. Journal of foreign language. 45(2), 61–71, 92.
    44. [44] Bolden, G.B., 2006. Little Words That Matter: Discourse Markers “So” and “Oh” and the Doing of Other-Attentiveness in Social Interaction. Journal of Communication. 56(4), 661–688. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x
    45. [45] Planalp, S., Tracy, K., 1980. Not to Change the Topic But …: A Cognitive Approach to the Management of Conversation. Annals of the International Communication Association. 4(1), 237–258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1980.11923805
    46. [46] Shen, Q., Yao, S., 2022. Syntactically Incomplete Turns as Delicate Actions - A Way to Manage Interpersonal Relationships. Journal of Pragmatics. 197, 27–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.05.007
    47. [47] Liu, H., Tian, M., Yao, S., 2024. The Chinese Change-of-state Token o in Responsive Units. Lingua. 310, 103779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103779
    48. [48] Tao, H., 2020. An Interactive Perspective on Topic Constructions in Mandarin: Some New Findings Based on Natural Conversation. In: Huang, C.-R., Lin, Y.-H., Chen, I.-H., Hsu, Y.-Y. (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Chinese Linguistics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 635–668.
    49. [49] Yao, S., Liu, H., 2020. Topic Construction in Natural Spoken Chinese. Contemporary Rhetoric. 6, 62–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16027/j.cnki.cn31-2043/h.2020.06.007
    50. [50] Heritage, J., 1984. A Change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement. In: Atkinson, J.M., (eds.). Structures of Social Action. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 299–345.
    51. [51] Tian, M., Yao, S., 2020. The Interactional Function of Duiba in Chinese Conversation. Chinese Language Learning. 3, 46–55.
    52. [52] Yao, S., Tian, M., 2020. The Interactional Function of Shiba and its Epistemic Status in Chinese Daily Conversation. Language teaching and linguistic studies. 6, 47–59.
    53. [53] Heritage, J., Watson, R., 1979. Formulations as Conversational Objects. In: Psathas, G. (eds.). Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Press: New York, NY, USA. pp. 123–162.
    54. [54] Deppermann, A., 2011. The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies. 34(2), 115–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8
    55. [55] Maynard, D.W., 1980. Placement of Topic Changes in Conversation. Semiotica. 30(3–4), 263–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.263
    56. [56] Geluykens, R., 1993. Topic Introduction in English Conversation. Transactions of the Philological Society. 91(2), 181–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1993.tb01068.x
    57. [57] Stewart, S., 1997. The Many Faces of Conversational Laughter. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED404859.pdf (cited 28 May 2025).
    58. [58] Zhang, Y., Fang, M., 2023. A Study on Topic: From the Perspective of Syntactic Collaborative Construction in Mandarin Conversation. Chinese Linguistics. 2, 19–31.
    59. [59] Schegloff, E.A., Sacks, H., 1973. Opening up Closings. Semiotica. 8(4), 289–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    60. [60] Tannen, D., 2005. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. p. 94.
    61. [61] Liddicoat, A.J., 2007. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. Bloomsbury: London, UK. pp. 259–263.
    62. [62] Drew, P., Holt, E., 1998. Figures of Speech: Figurative Expressions and the Management of Topic Transition in Conversation. Language in Society. 27(4), 495–522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020200
    63. [63] König, C., 2013. Topic Management in French L2: A Longitudinal Conversation Analytic Study. EUROSLA Yearbook. 13(1), 226–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.13.11kon
    64. [64] Taguchi, N., Roever, C., 2017. Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. pp. 208–226.
    65. [65] Seedhouse, P., 2019. The Dual Personality of ‘Topic’ in the IELTS Speaking Test. ELT Journal. 73(3), 247–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz009
    66. [66] Hırçın-Çoban, M., Sert, O., 2020. Resolving Interactional Troubles and Maintaining Progressivity in Paired Speaking Assessment in an EFL Context. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment. 9(1), 64–94.
    Back to top