Turn-taking practices in multi-party EFL oral proficiency tests

Authors

  • Tim Greer Kobe University
  • Hitomi Potter Kobe University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v5i3.297

Keywords:

conversation analysis, turn-taking, peer-to-peer oral proficiency tests, multi-party talk, embodied action, novice L2 talk

Abstract

This study focuses on multi-party talk among EFL learners during peer-to-peer interaction in oral proficiency tests. We conduct a micro-analysis of the way test-takers in small groups use questions like ‘How about you?’ to manage turn-taking when speaking in rounds or through a pivot. We find that these deceptively simple questions have both an indexical referential element and an addressee-determining element that is used in conjunction with bodily conduct to select next-speaker, making them in fact a sophisticated interactional achievement. The study concludes by discussing how turn-taking practices in multi-party speaking tests can help make visible novice language users’ orientations to learning.

Author Biographies

  • Tim Greer, Kobe University

    Tim Greer received his doctoral degree in education from the University of Southern Queensland and is currently an associate professor at Kobe University. His research focuses on Conversation Analysis, especially in relation to second language talk and the discursive display of identity in bilingual interaction.

  • Hitomi Potter, Kobe University

    Hitomi Potter received her Master’s degree in applied linguistics at Kobe University in 2007. Her research explored turn-taking practices in EFL oral proficiency test contexts. She currently teaches English at Kansai University Junior and Senior High School.

References

Brooks, L. (2009) Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing 26 (3): 341–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104666

Brouwer, C. E. (2003) Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language learning? The Modern Language Journal 87 (4): 534–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00206

Brown, A. (2003) Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing 20 (1): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt242oa

Carroll, D. (2005a) Vowel-marking as an interactional resource in Japanese novice ESL conversation. In K. Richards and P. Seedhouse (eds) Applying Conversation Analysis, 214–234. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Carroll, D. (2005b) Co-constructing Competence: Turn Construction and Repair in Noviceto- Novice Second Language Interaction. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of York, York.

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and Social Structure, 3–65. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Egbert, M. (1997) Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in multiperson conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 27 (5): 611–634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00039-2

Egbert, M. (1998) Miscommunication in language proficiency interviews of first-year German students: Comparison with natural conversation. In R. Young and A. He (eds) Talking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency, 147–169. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ford, C. and Thompson, S. (1996) Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff and S. Thompson (eds), Interaction and Grammar, 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C. (1980) Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 272–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x

Hauser, E. (2009) Turn-taking and primary speakership during a student discussion. In G. Kasper and H. T. Nguyen (eds) Talk-in-Interaction: Multilingual Perspectives, 214–244. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

He, A. W. (2004) CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 8 (4): 568–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-19-.x

He, A. W. and Young, R. (1998) Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R. Young and A. He (eds) Talking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency, 1–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hughes, A. (1989) Testing for Language Teachers (2nd edn) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jenkins, S., and Parra, I. (2003) Multiple layers of meaning in an oral proficiency test: Complementary roles of nonverbal, paralinguistic and verbal behaviors in assessment decisions. The Modern Language Journal 87 (1): 90–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00180

Johnson, M. (2000) Interaction in the oral proficiency interview: Problems of validity. Pragmatics 10 (2): 215–231.

Kasper, G. (2004) Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal 88 (4): 551–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-18-.x

Kasper, G. (2006) When once is not enough: Politeness of multiple requests in oral proficiency interviews. Multilingua 25 (3): 323–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2006.018

Kasper, G. and Ross, S. J. (2007) Multiple-questions in the oral proficiency interview. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (11): 2045–2070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.011

Lazaraton, A. (1997) Preference organization in oral proficiency interviews: The case of language ability assessments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (1): 53–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3001_2

Lazaraton, A. (2002) A Qualitative Approach to the Validation of Oral Proficiency Tests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lazaraton, A. and Davis, L. (2008) A microanalytic perspective on discourse, proficiency, and identity in paired oral assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly 5 (4): 313–335.

Lerner, G. (1996) On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-ininteraction: ‘Second-person’ reference in multi-party interaction. Pragmatics, 6 (3): 281–294.

Lerner, G. (2003) Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a contextfree organization. Language in Society 32 (2): 177–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S004740450332202X

Pomerantz, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50 (4), 696–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412243

Schegloff, E. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53 (2): 361–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/413107

Schegloff, E., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S. and Olsher, D. (2002) Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 3–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000016

Tanaka, H. (1999) Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Young, R. F. and He, A. (eds) (1998) Talking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Published

2015-09-14

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Greer, T., & Potter, H. (2015). Turn-taking practices in multi-party EFL oral proficiency tests. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 5(3), 297-320. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v5i3.297