A Microanalytic Perspective on Discourse, Proficiency, and Identity in Paired Oral Assessment

The increasing popularity of paired format in oral testing has engendered legitimate scrutiny of its reliability and validity as compared with the more traditional interviewer–interviewee arrangement. Although characteristics such as the gender, cultural/L1 background, and language proficiency of one's interlocutor likely affects the discourse produced with a partner, the question remains whether this interlocutor effect influences scores on the test. In this article, the construct interlocutor effect is further examined. Initially, transcript data from two large-scale speaking tests were analyzed by working backward from testtaker scores to locate discourse features to support those scores; identity formulations, such as “proficient” and “competent,” as constructed in and through the discourse test takers produce, emerged as a salient feature of the talk. Specifically, we posit that a test taker brings a language proficiency identity to a test task, and this identity is constructed, mediated, and displayed in the talk. We argue that “proficiency” is fluid, in that it will shift—on a turn-by-turn basis—based on who we are talking to in a second language and what sort of identity(ies) we bring to and are mediated in that interaction. It is this aspect of the interlocutor effect that merits more attention.

[1]  Tim McNamara,et al.  Language assessment as social practice: challenges for research , 2001 .

[2]  J. Butler Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity , 1990 .

[3]  Annie Brown,et al.  Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency , 2003 .

[4]  E. Schegloff Sequence Organization in Interaction: Contents , 2007 .

[5]  Tim McNamara,et al.  "The devil is in the detail": Researching gender issues in language assessment , 2004 .

[6]  Carsten Roever,et al.  Language testing: The social dimension , 2006 .

[7]  J. Norton,et al.  The paired format in the Cambridge Speaking Tests , 2005 .

[8]  Anne Lazaraton Process and Outcome in Paired Oral Assessment. , 2006 .

[9]  Maria-Carme Torras Social Identity and Language Choice in Bilingual Service Talk , 2005 .

[10]  Glenn Fulcher,et al.  Testing Second Language Speaking , 2003 .

[11]  K. O’Loughlin,et al.  The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing , 2002 .

[12]  Evelina D. Galaczi,et al.  Peer–Peer Interaction in a Speaking Test: The Case of the First Certificate in English Examination , 2008 .

[13]  Meaning Negociation in the Hungarian Oral Proficiency Examination of English , 1998 .

[14]  Barry O’Sullivan,et al.  Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance , 2002 .

[15]  Anthony J. Liddicoat,et al.  An Introduction to Conversation Analysis , 2007 .

[16]  Jean Wong,et al.  Reflections on Conversation Analysis and Nonnative Speaker Talk: An Interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff , 2000 .

[17]  Anne Lazaraton,et al.  A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests , 2002 .

[18]  Tim McNamara,et al.  ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance?1 , 1997 .

[19]  Elaine Tarone,et al.  Interfaces between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research: Research on interlanguage variation: Implications for language testing , 1999 .

[20]  S. Ross Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews , 1992 .

[21]  K. Richards,et al.  ‘Being the Teacher’: Identity and Classroom Conversation , 2006 .

[22]  Test‐taking Strategies of 12‐ and 13‐year‐old Hungarian Learners of EFL: Why Whales Have Migraines , 2006 .