Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T21:48:40.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Discourse of Accommodation in Oral Proficiency Interviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Steven Ross and
Richard Berwick
Steven Ross
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii
Richard Berwick
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent critical discussion of the Oral Proficiency Interview has questioned the adequacy and validity of the interview guidelines. The present study considers the role of accommodation in interview discourse and suggests that the extent of interviewer accommodation reveals an overlooked criterion for gauging the authenticity of the interview as simulated conversational interaction. The issue of misplaced accommodation as a threat to both the validity of the interview and the subsequent rating process is also raised, and supplementary criteria for training interviewers and evaluating the interview process are considered.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 1992, pp. 159 - 176
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

REFERENCES

Abunahleh, L., Allen, S., Arthur, B., Beals, S., Butler, M., Drezner, B., Frydenberg, G., Galal, M., Gass, S., Hildebrandt, K, Marlos, L., & Ostrander, T. (1982). The scope and functions of language repair in foreigner discourse. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 6, 112–120.Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign languages. (1987). ACTFL proficiency guidelines.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. & Canale, M. (Eds.), Defining and developing proficiency: Guidelines, implementations and concepts (pp. 15–24). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. (1988). Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L., & Savignon, S. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Language Journal, 70, 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. F. (1988). The effect of task variation in teacher-led groups on repair of English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D., & Clifford, R. T. (1988). The FSI/ILR/ACFL proficiency scales and testing techniques: Development, current status and needed research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D. (1988). Testing listening comprehension in the context of the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle 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
Educational Testing Service. (1982). ETS oral proficiency testing manual. Princeton, NJ: Author.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity. In Hymes, D. (Ed.), Pidginization and the creolization of language (pp. 141–150). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1975). Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17, 1–14.Google Scholar
Freed, B. (1978). Foreigner talk: A study of speech adjustments made by native speakers of English in conversation with non-native speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Mulak, A., Bradac, J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. In McLaughlin, M. L. (Ed.), Communication year book 10 (pp. 13–48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. M. (Ed.) Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral-proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal, 69, 337–345.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1988). Proficiency: Understanding the construct. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers' questions. In Seliger, W. H. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in language acquisition (pp. 268–285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lowe, P. Jr (1987). Interagency language roundtable oral proficiency interview [Review of the LPI]. In Alderson, J. C., Kranke, K. J., & Stansfield, C. W. (Eds.), Reviews of English language proficiency tests (pp. 43–47). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Omaggio, A. C. (1984). The proficiency-oriented classroom. In Higgs, T. V. (Ed.), Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle (pp. 43–84). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Porter, P. A. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In Day, R. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversations in second language acquisition (pp. 200–222). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair and conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1988). A proposed framework for testing the oral proficiency of second/foreign language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, D. (1976). Interview talk: Bringing off a research instrument. In Silverman, D. & Jones, J. (Eds.), Organizational work: The language of grading, the grading of language (pp. 133–150). London: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language Learning, 38, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdman, A. (1988). Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle 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