Reeling, Writhing, Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils: Oral Proficiency Interviews as Conversation

This article provides a detailed examination of the oral proficiency interview and its underlying assumptions of validity and value. An attempt is made, by looking at the interview from the inside, to understand what OPIs are and what the participants in them do. The similarities and differences between interviews and conversations are examined, and some of the major problems of proficiency interviewing are illustrated and discussed. Finally, some specific proposals are made that may lead to more effective oral interviewing procedures. In this article I want to look at oral proficiency interviews (OPIs) as instances of conversation between people. Two questions are central to this discussion: (a) Are OPIs examples of conversational language use? and (b) Is conversational language use the appropriate (or the only, or the best) vehicle to evaluate oral proficiency? The tentative answer to the first question is a qualified no, the qualification being that an OPI can and may be designed to elicit conversational language use but frequently is not. The second question is far more difficult to answer: It addresses the central issue of the construct validity of oral tests in general. However, I propose that conversation is an appropriate vehicle for the all-around display of speaking ability in context. If the latter is a definition of oral proficiency, then I think we can be reasonably sure that conversation is the best vehicle for its evaluation. To address the questions I have posed, one must obtain an "insider's view" of the OPI. To do this, I have relied on three sources of data: (a) the analysis of several OPIs I have taken as an interviewee, (b) the study of transcripts and tapes of a variety of

[1]  David Silverman,et al.  Interview Talk: Bringing off a Research Instrument , 1973 .

[2]  Pragmatics and conversational rhetoric , 1981 .

[3]  E. Goffman,et al.  Forms of talk , 1982 .

[4]  D. Wilkins,et al.  Communicative Syllabus Design , 1980 .

[5]  Leonard S. Cahen,et al.  Educational Testing Service , 1970 .

[6]  Lyle F. Bachman,et al.  THE CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF THE FSI ORAL INTERVIEW1 , 1981 .

[7]  J. M. Atkinson.  Structures of Social Action: Contents , 1985 .

[8]  Theodore V. Higgs,et al.  The Push Toward Communication. , 1982 .

[9]  Josef Hellebrandt,et al.  The Classroom and the Language Learner , 1990 .

[10]  Lyle F. Bachman.  语言测试要略 = Fundamental considerations in language testing , 1990 .

[11]  Lyle F. Bachman,et al.  The Evaluation of Communicative Language Proficiency: A Critique of the ACTFL Oral Interview , 1986 .

[12]  Claire J. Kramsch.  From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence , 1986 .

[13]  Lyle F. Bachman,et al.  The Construct Validation of Some Components of Communicative Proficiency , 1982 .

[14]  Theodore V. Higgs,et al.  Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher , 1983 .

[15]  E. E. Jones,et al.  Foundations of Social Psychology , 1967 .

[16]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[17]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  Teaching Talk: Strategies for Production and Assessment , 1985 .

[18]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[19]  George A. Miller,et al.  Language and Communication , 1951 .

[20]  Michael Halliday,et al.  An Introduction to Functional Grammar , 1985 .

[21]  N. Denzin,et al.  The Research Act , 1978 .

[22]  G. Yule,et al.  Teaching the Spoken Language , 1986 .

[23]  Geoff Brindley,et al.  The assessment of second language proficiency : issues and approaches , 1986 .

[24]  Pardee Lowe.  Proficiency: Panacea, Framework, Process? A Reply to Kramsch, Schulz, and, Particularly, to Bachman and Savignon. , 1986 .

[25]  Lindsey Churchill.  Questioning strategies in sociolinguistics , 1978 .

[26]  M. Swain,et al.  THEORETICAL BASES OF COMMUNICATIVE APPROACHES TO SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING AND TESTING , 1980 .