1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In oral proficiency tests there are occurrences of trouble in interaction such as misunderstanding, non hearing or lack of understanding which may cause breakdown in communication. Within the context of the question-answer framework of an oral proficiency test this study investigates the interactive nature of spoken discourse between students and assessors when there is trouble in talk as perceived by the assessors, with a focus on how they accommodate to the students. A sample of twenty oral transcripts and tapes of the 1992 Victorian Certificate of Education (V.C.E.) Italian Common Assessment Task (C.A.T. 2) were randomly selected and examined. By using Conversation Analysis methodology the purpose of the study was to investigate in repair sequences types of assessor accommodation – how the assessors modified their utterances – the kinds of trouble perceived by assessors, what triggered assessor accommodation and whether the accommodations facilitated student response and participation. This study has implications for assessor training since it highlights which strategies are most successful for ensuring student understanding, participation and appropriate responses as well as demonstrating why and in which environments assessors accommodate.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.20.1.02caf
1997-01-01
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Board of Studies Victoria
    Board of Studies Victoria (1993) VCE study design – LOTE. Deartment of Education and Training, Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Elder, C.
    (1993) The native speaker presence in University LOTE courses. The University of Melbourne. Mimeo.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Filipi, A.
    (1994) Interaction or interrogation? A study of talk occurring in a sample of the 1992 V.C.E. Italian Oral Common Assessment Task. (C.A.T.2). Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Melbourne
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hatch, E.
    (1978) Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA, Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Heritage, J.
    (1984) A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement, in Atkinson and Heritage (eds) Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jefferson, G.
    (1974) Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society2:181-99. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500004334
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004334 [Google Scholar]
  7. (1987) On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In Button and Lee (eds) Talk and social organization. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Long, M.
    (1981) Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning31:135-57. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1981.tb01376.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01376.x [Google Scholar]
  9. (1983a) Native speake\non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics4,2:126-41. doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.126
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1983b) Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition5,2:177-93. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100004848
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ross, S
    (1992) Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews. Language Testing9:173-186. doi: 10.1177/026553229200900205
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229200900205 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ross, S and R Berwick
    (1990) The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency interviews. Paper presented atRELC Seminar in Program Evaluation and Language Testing, Singapore, April 9-12 1990.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Schegloff, E.
    (1979) The relevance of repair to syntax- for- conversation, in Givon, Talmy (ed) Discourse and syntax. (Syntax and Semantics 12)New York, Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1987) Some sources of misunderstandings in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics25:210-218. doi: 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201 [Google Scholar]
  15. (1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology97,5:1295-1345. doi: 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  16. Schegloff, E.A. , G Jefferson and H. Sacks
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53:361-382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.20.1.02caf
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error