Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions

References

• American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/
   Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1–42. doi:10.1177/026553220001700101
   Google Scholar
• Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beebe, L. M. (1980). Sociolinguistic variation in style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 433–447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00327.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, J., van Moere, A., & Cheng, J. (2010). Validating automated speaking tests. Language Testing, 27(3), 355–377. doi:10.1177/0265532210364404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, V. (1993). Personality characteristics as a potential source of language test bias. In A. Huhta, K. Sajavaara, & S. Takala (eds.), Language testing: New openings (pp. 115–124). Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational research, University of Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, V. (2004). A study of the interaction between individual personality differences and oral performance test facets ( PhD dissertation). Kings College, The University of London, London, United Kingdom.
   Google Scholar
• Berwick, R., & Ross, S. (1996). Cross-cultural pragmatics in oral proficiency strategies. In M. Milanovic & N. Saville (eds.), Performance Testing, Cognition and Assessment. Selected Papers from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Cambridge and Arnhem (pp. 34–54). Studies in Language Testing Volume 3. Cambridge, United Kingdom: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bonk, W. J., & Ockey, G. J. (2003). A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion task. Language Testing, 20(1), 89–110. doi:10.1191/0265532203lt245oa
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing, 26(3), 341–366. doi:10.1177/0265532209104666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20(1), 1–25. doi:10.1191/0265532203lt242oa
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A., & McNamara, T. (2004). “The devil Is in the detail”: Researching gender issues in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 524–538. doi:10.2307/3588353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridge Boxhill Language Assessment. (2010). Speaking medicine sample test. Retrieved from https://www.occupationalenglishtest.org/resources/uploads/2015/07/Speaking-Medicine-Sample-Test-1-2010.pdf?x59645
   Google Scholar
• Cambridge English. (2016). Handbook for teachers, Cambridge English: First. Cambridge, United Kingdom.
   Google Scholar
• Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London, United Kingdom: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. doi:10.1093/applin/1.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369–383. doi:10.1191/0265532203lt264oa
   Google Scholar
• Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Deville, C. (2005). A look back at and forward to what language testers measure. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 815–832). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, L., Galaczi, E. D., & Gilbert, S. (2012). Test-taker familiarity in speaking tests: Does it make a difference? Research Notes, 49, 33–40.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, L., Leong, C. W., Feng, G., & Lee, C. M. (2014). Using multimodal cues to analyze MLS’14 oral presentation quality corpus: Presentation delivery and slides quality. Retrieved from pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0108/a2d05c199bdbd75a2c7e197fd5d1f8109dde.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. (2017). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors (Provisional ed.). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/168074a4e2
   Google Scholar
• Davis, L. (2009). The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment. Language Testing, 26(3), 367–396. doi:10.1177/0265532209104667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, L., Timpe-Laughlin, V., Gu, L., & Ockey, G. (2016). Face to face speaking assessment in the digital age: Interactive speaking tasks online. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, (March 11-13, 2016), Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423–443. doi:10.1177/0265532209104669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• East, M. (2016). Assessing foreign language students’ spoken proficiency. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Együd, G., & Glover, P. (2001). Oral testing in pairs—A secondary school perspective. ELT Journal, 55(1), 70–76. doi:10.1093/elt/55.1.70
   Google Scholar
• Evison, J., McCarthy, M., & O’Keefe, A. (2007). ‘Looking out for love and all the rest of it’: Vague category markers as shared social space. In J. Cutting (ed.), Vague language explored (pp. 138–157). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• ffrench, A. (2003). The change process at the paper level. Paper 5, speaking. In C. Weir & M. Milanovic (eds.), Continuity and innovation: Revising the Cambridge proficiency in English examination 1913–2002 (Vol. Studies in Language Testing ume 15, pp. 367–471). Cambridge, United Kingdom: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Field, J. (2011). Cognitive validity. In L. Taylor (ed.), Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking (pp. 65–111). Studies in Language Testing Volume 30. Cambridge, United Kingdom: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, J. (2004). Biasing for the best in language testing and learning: An interview with Merrill Swain. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(4), 235–251. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0104_3
   Google Scholar
• Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Boyd, E. (2015). Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/amv055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galaczi, E. D. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119. doi:10.1080/15434300801934702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–574. doi:10.1093/applin/amt017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galaczi, E. D., & ffrench, A. (2011). Context validity of Cambridge ESOL speaking tests. In L. Taylor (ed.), Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking (pp. 112–170). Studies in Language Testing Volume 30. Cambridge, United Kingdom: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring students. Language Testing, 27(4), 585–602. doi:10.1177/0265532210364049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gan, Z., & Davison, C. (2011). Gestural behavior in group oral assessment: A case study of higher-and lower-scoring students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 94–120. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00264.x
   Google Scholar
• Gan, Z., Davison, C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2009). Topic negotiation in peer group oral assessment situations: A conversation analytic approach. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 315–334. doi:10.1093/applin/amn035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrod, S., & Pickering, J. M. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 8–11. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• He, A., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R. E. Young & A. He (eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iwashita, N. (1998). The validity of the paired interview format in oral performance assessment. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 5(2), 51–65.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. (2001). The art of nonconversation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M., & Tyler, A. (1998). Re-analyzing the OPI: How much does it look like natural conversation? In R. Young & A. He (eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 27–51). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Katona, L. (1998). Meaning negotiation in the Hungarian oral proficiency examination of English. In R. Young & A. He (eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 239–267). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kormos, J. (1999). Simulating conversations in oral proficiency assessment: A conversation analysis of role plays and non-scripted interviews in language exams. Language Testing, 16(2), 163–188. doi:10.1177/026553229901600203
   Google Scholar
• Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372. doi:10.1111/modl.1986.70.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J., & Frawley, W. (1988). Proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 181–195. doi:10.1017/S0272263100007300
   Google Scholar
• Lazaraton, A. (1992). The structural organization of a language interview: A conversation analytic perspective. System, 20(3), 373–386. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(92)90047-7
   Google Scholar
• Lazaraton, A. (1996). Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: The case of CASE. Language Testing, 13(2), 151–172. doi:10.1177/026553229601300202
   Google Scholar
• Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Studies in Language Testing Volume 14. Cambridge, United Kingdom: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leaper, D. A. (2014). Consistency in performance in the Group Oral Discussion Test: An interactional competence perspective ( PhD dissertation). Australia: Macquarie University.
   Google Scholar
• Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• May, L. (2009). Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Language Testing, 26(3), 397–421. doi:10.1177/0265532209104668
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, L. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 127–145. doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.565845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, M. (2010). Spoken fluency revisited. English Profile Journal, 1(1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language proficiency. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. (1997). Interaction in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 159–179. doi:10.1093/applin/16.2.159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Nakatsuhara, F. (2013). The co-construction of conversation in group oral tests. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Nakatsuhara, F., Inoue, C., Berry, V., & Galaczi, E. (2017). Exploring the use of video-conferencing technology in the assessment of spoken language: A Mixed-Methods Study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/15434303.2016.1263637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Loughlin, K. (2002). The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language Testing, 19(2), 169–192. doi:10.1191/0265532202lt226oa
   Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency pair-task performance. Language Testing, 19(3), 277–295. doi:10.1191/0265532202lt205oa
   Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, B., Weir, C., & Saville, N. (2002). Using observation checklists to validate speaking-test tasks. Language Testing, 19(1), 33–56. doi:10.1191/0265532202lt219oa
   Google Scholar
• Ockey, G. (2009). The effects of group members’ personalities on a test taker’s L2 group oral discussion test scores. Language Testing, 26(2), 161–186. doi:10.1177/0265532208101005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reves, T. (1981). The group oral examination: A field experiment. World Language English, 1–2(4), 259–262. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1981.tb00463.x
   Google Scholar
• Riggenbach, H. (1998). Evaluating learner interactional skills: Conversation at the micro level. In R. Young & A. He (eds.), Talking and testing. Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 53–67). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadephia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Roever, C. (2013). Assessment of pragmatics. In C. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, S., & Berwick, R. (1992). The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 159–176. doi:10.1017/S0272263100010809
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegeloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi:10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Savignon, S. (1985). Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. The Modern Language Journal, 69(2), 129–134. doi:10.1111/modl.1985.69.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9(2), 111–151. doi:10.1007/BF00148124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, D. K. (1985). Authenticity, validity and a tea party. Language Testing, 2(1), 41–47. doi:10.1177/026553228500200105
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. doi:10.1111/lang.2002.52.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275–302. doi:10.1177/026553220101800302
   Google Scholar
• Sydorenko, T., Maynard, C., & Guntly, E. (2014). Rater behavior when judging language learners’ pragmatic appropriateness in extended discourse. TESL Canada Journal, 32(1), 19–41. doi:10.18806/tesl.v32i1.1197
   Google Scholar
• Tao, H. (2003). Turn initiators in spoken English: A corpus-based approach to interaction and grammar. In P. Leistyna & C. F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 187–207). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Tao, H., & McCarthy, M. J. (2001). Understanding non-restrictive which-clauses in spoken English, which is not an easy thing. Language Sciences, 23, 651–677. doi:10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00026-7
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L., & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts. Language Testing, 26(3), 325–339. doi:10.1177/0265532209104665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 480–508. doi:10.2307/3586922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Moere, A. (2006). Validity evidence in a university group oral test. Language Testing, 23(4), 411–440. doi:10.1191/0265532206lt336oa
   Google Scholar
• van Moere, A. (2010). Automated spoken language testing: Test construction and scoring model development. In L. Araujo (ed.), Computer-based Assessment (CBA) of foreign language speaking skills (pp. 84–99). Luxemburg: European Union.
   Google Scholar
• van Moere, A. (2012). A psycholinguistic approach to oral language assessment. Language Testing, 29(3), 325–344. doi:10.1177/0265532211424478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Moere, A., & Kobayashi, M. (2004). Group oral testing: Does amount of output affect scores? Paper presented at the Language Testing Forum, Lancaster University, United Kingdom, November 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C. J., Vidakovic, I., & Galaczi, E. D. (2013). Measured constructs: A history of Cambridge English language examinations 1913–2012. Studies in Language Testing Volume 37. Cambridge, United Kingdom: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
   Google Scholar
• Xi, X. (2010). Automated scoring and feedback systems: Where are we and where are we heading? Language Testing, 27(3), 291–300. doi:10.1177/0265532210364643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xi, X., Higgins, D., Zechner, K., & Williamson, D. (2012). A comparison of two scoring models for an automated speech scoring system. Language Testing, 29(3), 371–394. doi:10.1177/0265532211425673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, R. (2008). Language and interaction. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Young, R. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning volume II (pp. 426–443). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Young, R., & Milanovic, M. (1992). Discourse variation in oral proficiency interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 403–424. doi:10.1017/S0272263100011207
   Google Scholar