Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:22:27.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Variation in Oral Proficiency Interviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Richard Young  and
Michael Milanovic
Richard Young
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University
Michael Milanovic
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper a theoretical model of dyadic native-nonnative speaker (NS-NNS) discourse is proposed in which discourse is described in terms of three features: interactional contingency, the goal orientation of participants, and dominance. The model is then used to study the discourse of 30 dyadic oral interviews of the Cambridge First Certificate in English examination. Results demonstrate the effectiveness of the model in abstracting the structure of oral interview discourse. They show that the discourse of oral proficiency interviews is characterized by greater reactiveness by NNS candidates and greater orientation toward goals by NS examiners. Variation in the structure of the discourse is also investigated in this study. This is shown to be related to the examiner, the theme of the interview, the task in which the participants are engaged, and the gender of examiner and candidate.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 403 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adamson, H. D., & Kovac, C. (1981). Variation theory and second language acquisition: An analysis of Schumann's data. In Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. J. (Eds.), Variation omnibus (pp. 285–292). Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.Google Scholar
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. M. (1977). The influence of the listener on code-switching. Language Learning, 27, 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L. M. (1980). Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 433–448.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. M., & Zuengler, J. (1983). Accommodation theory: An explanation for style shifting in second language dialects. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 195–213). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, D. (1989). The effect of cultural empathy on second-language phonological production. In Eisenstein, M. R. (Ed.), The dynamic inlerlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 101–114). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, C. A. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 47–59.Google Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, L. J., & Dickerson, W. B. (1977). Interlanguage phonology: Current research and future directions. In Corder, S. P. & Roulet, E. (Eds.), Actes du 5ème Colloque de Linguistique Appliquée de Neuchâtel: The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins and their relation to second language learning (pp. 18–29). Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Douglas, D., & Selinker, L. (1985). Principles for language tests within the ‘discourse domains’ theory of interlanguage: Research, test construction and interpretation. Language Testing, 2, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstein, M. R., & Starbuck, R. J. (1989). The effect of emotional investment on L2 production. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Vol. 2. Psycholinguistic issues (pp. 125–137). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–20.Google Scholar
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. In Day, R. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E. (1978). Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech: A gradual diffusion model. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 335–347.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Universals of discourse structure and second language acquisition. In Rutherford, W. E. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 109–136). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Logic and conversation. In Grice, H. P., Studies in the way of words (pp. 3–143). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1979). The retrieval of sociocultural knowledge in conversation. Poetics Today, 1, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 64–86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. (1991). A conversation analysis of structure and interaction in the language interview. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In Giles, H., Robinson, W. P., & Smith, P. M. (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 97–104). New York: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linton, M., & Gallo, P. S. (1975). The practical statistician: A simplified handbook of statistics. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Lowe, P. Jr (1982). ILR handbook on oral interview testing. Washington, DC: Defense Language Institute.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, M. L. (1984). Conversation: How talk is organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In Givon, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 12. Discourse and semantics (pp. 51–80). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Ross, S., & Berwick, R. (1992). The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency examinations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 159–176.Google Scholar
Rulon, K. A., & McCreary, J. (1986). Negotiation of content: Teacher-fronted and small-group interaction. In Day, R. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 182–199). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sato, C. J. (1985). Task variation in interlanguage phonology. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 181–196). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1978). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Dressler, W. U. (Ed.), Current trends in textlinguistics (pp. 81–102). New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1977). Sociolinguistic variation and language transfer in phonology. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 12, 79–95.Google Scholar
Schneider, M., & Connor, U. (1990). Analyzing topical structure: Not all topics are equal. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Applied Linguistics, 6, 190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. (1989). Topic and variation in ITA oral proficiency: SPEAK and field-specific tests. In Young, R. (Ed.), The training of international teaching assistants [Special issue]. English for Specific Purposes, 8, 155–167.Google Scholar
Stølen, M. (1987). The effect of affect on interlanguage phonology. In Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S. H. (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language system (pp. 389–400). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Takahashi, T. (1989). The influence of the listener on L2 speech. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Vol. I. Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 245–279). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. E., & Parrish, B. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language Learning, 38, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (1982). Cambridge examinations in English: Changes of syllabus in 1984. Cambridge: Author.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberger, S. H. (1987). The influence of context on syllable simplification. In Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S. H. (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language system (pp. 401–417). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wenk, B. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language phonology: Speech rhythms. In Kellerman, E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 120–133). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Woken, M. D., & Swales, J. (1989). Expertise and authority in native-non-native conversations: The need for a variable account. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Vol. I. Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 211–227). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Y. (1991). The use of communication strategies by adult Japanese speakers of English as a second language in language proficiency interviews. Unpublished master's thesis, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1984). Negotiation of outcome and negotiation of meaning in ESL classroom interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 525–526.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1986). The acquisition of a verbal repertoire in a second language. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 2(1), 85–119.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1988). Computer-assisted language learning conversations: Negotiating an outcome. CALICO Journal, 5(3), 65–83.Google Scholar
Young, R. (1991). Variation in interlanguage morphology. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1989a). Assessing an interaction-based paradigm: How accommodative should we be? In Eisenstein, M. R. (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 49–68). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1989b). Performance variation in NS-NNS interactions: Ethnolinguistic difference, or discourse domain? In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Vol. 1. Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 228–244). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1991). Accommodation theory and the contrastive analysis hypothesis: Both better as weak versions than strong. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, February 28–March 3, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar