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

Abstract

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.

Notes

¹Cambridge ESOL (http://www.cambridgeesol.org) is an international provider of numerous language tests, including the “Main Suite” FCE and the Preliminary English Test (PET) as well as the Key English Test, the Certificate of Advanced English, and the Certificate of Proficiency in English. FCE “is an exam for people who can use everyday written and spoken English at an upper-intermediate level. It is an ideal exam for people who want to use English for work or study purposes” (Cambridge ESOL, 2008a), taken by more than 220,000 candidates from 130 countries in 2007. PET “is an exam for people who can use everyday written and spoken English at an intermediate level” (Cambridge ESOL, 2008b); more than 140,000 testtakers sat for the examination in 2007.

²The Main Suite Cambridge ESOL Speaking Tests are live examinations consisting of two examiners and two candidates. One examiner conducts the four-task test and awards a Global Achievement score from 1.0 to 5.0; the second examiner does not take part in the test but awards analytic scores, on a 1.0–5.0 rating scale, in four domains: Grammar and Vocabulary, Discourse Management, Pronunciation, and Interactive Communication.

³We do digress here to explicate the CA endeavor; there are many readable books and articles on this topic, and the interested reader should consult Lazaraton (2002), Liddicoat (2007), Markee (2000), and/or Schegloff (2007), among others.

⁴Of course, their scores are based on their performance in the entire speaking test, which consists of four parts. But the first two parts are interviewer directed and monologic, respectively, which appear to play a lesser role in Interactive Communication ratings. Part 4 is a discussion among all three participants and would provide an additional sample of talk on which to base these particular ratings.