Conversational Styles in Language Proficiency Interviews

Abstract

This study compares the conversational styles of intermediate and advanced learners of ESL in language proficiency interviews. Eleven intermediate learners and 12 advanced learners participated in a regular administration of the Cambridge First Certificate in English oral interview. I analyzed interview discourse constructed by both interviewer and nonnative speakers (NNSs), using a quantitative model of topical organization. I found differences in the amount of talk and rate of speaking (advanced learners talked more and faster than intermediate learners), in the extent of context dependence (advanced learners elaborated more in answers to questions), and in the ability to construct and sustain narratives (advanced learners did so, intermediate learners did not). There were no differences between the two groups in the frequency of initiation of new topics, nor in the reactivity to topics introduced by the interviewers. Interviewers did not vary in their interviewing style with the two groups. Some of these findings contradict what designers of language proficiency interviews claim to be proficiency‐related differences between NNSs. The discrepancies may be due to the format of the interview and/or to differing expectations of the interview by interviewers and NNSs from different cultures.

Looking beyond scores: validating a CEFR-based university speaking assessment in Mainland China

“…It is expected that students will differ across proficiency levels in terms of the range of exponents which they can use to perform those functions and by the degree of accuracy and complexity with which they can express their view. Previous studies exploring language functions have pre-defined speaking features that distinguished proficiency levels and examined these features using a quantitative approach (Brown 2006;Young 1995). Few studies have looked closely into the data for differences using a qualitative method.…”

Simulating conversations in oral-proficiency assessment: a conversation analysis of role plays and non-scripted interviews in language exams

“…Consequently, in order to distinguish different topics in conversation, topic shifts need to be identified. The present study combined Brown and Yule's (1983) and Young's (1995) systems for establishing instances of topic shift and used the following criteria: 1) explicit boundary markers such as 'all right', 'so' 2) imperatives or questions in the speech of the interviewer 3) long unfilled pauses (usually exceeding one second) 4) introduction of new information 5) rounding off by repetition or paraphrase in closing of a salient lexical item that was used to initiate the topic 6) high pitch on a new lexical item, clause or sentence as an indication of topic opening 7) low pitch on the same lexical item that opened a topic (or a paraphrase of it) as an indication of closing, loss of amplitude 8) explicit abandonment of the topic.…”

“…This seems to indicate that, from this aspect, they have little in common with conversations. Based on a similar method of analysis, Young (1995) also concluded that not only does the interview format not measure conversational competence but it may also 'obscure discourse differences between learners' (Young, 1995: 37). Therefore, one direction for further research is to study how different formats of language proficiency exams can contribute to more accurate evaluation of L2 learners' communicative competence.…”

Co-constructed turn-taking

“…In LPIs, turns are allocated in a very similar way to the way turn taking is managed in classrooms (Young, 1995a;Young & Milanovic, 1992). However, this turn-taking system is very different from turn-taking patterns in ordinary conversations among peers, where no single individual has the exclusive right to allocate turns and there may be much competition for the floor.…”