1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates the use of lexical backchannels in the discourse of L2 English users sitting Trinity College London’s Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE). It is based on the and explores the language produced during the Discussion, Conversation and Interactive tasks of the language examinations by L2 English users from Chinese, Indian and Italian linguistic backgrounds, whose proficiency ranges from the B2 to C2 levels (i.e. high intermediate, advanced, expert) of the CEFR. The findings suggest that the L2 users with an Italian background and to a lesser extent those with a Chinese background often supported their examiners’ turns with items conveying uncertainty, while those with an Indian background with items of certainty. Furthermore, the L1 Chinese speakers used lexical backchannels the most, especially those expressing surprise or request for confirmation, while the speakers from India used them the least. Implications for the assessment of oral proficiency are discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.17020.cas
2019-09-24
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amador Moreno, C. P., McCarthy, M. J. & O’Keeffe, A.
    2013 “Can English provide a framework for Spanish response tokens?”. InJ. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013: New Domains and Methodologies, 1(1), 175–201. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑6250‑3_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3_9 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beach, W. A. & Lindstrom, A. K.
    1992 “Conversational universals and comparative theory: turning to Swedish and American acknowledgement tokens in interaction”. Communication Theory2, 24–49. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.1992.tb00027.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00027.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Brezina, V. & Meyerhoff, M.
    2014 “Significant or random? A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics19(1), 1–28. 10.1075/ijcl.19.1.01bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.1.01bre [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, A.
    2006 “Candidate discourse in the revised IELTS Speaking Test”. IELTS Research ReportsVol6, IELTS Australia and British Council, Canberra, 71–89. 10.23977/langta.2018.11003
    https://doi.org/10.23977/langta.2018.11003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Castello, E.
    2013 “Integrating learner corpus data into the assessment of spoken interaction in English in an Italian university context”. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Corpora and Language in Use. Proceedings 1, Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 61–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clancy, B. & McCarthy, M.
    2015 “Co-constructed turn-taking”. InK. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 430–453. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.023 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R. & Tao, H.
    1996 “The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin”. Journal of Pragmatics26, 355–387. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00036‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00036-4 [Google Scholar]
  8. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe 2001Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cutrone, P.
    2005 “A case study examining backchannels in conversations between Japanese-British dyads”. Multilingua2, 237–274. 10.1515/mult.2005.24.3.237
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2005.24.3.237 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ducasse, A. M.
    2010Interaction in Paired Oral Proficiency Assessment in Spanish. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑05393‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05393-7 [Google Scholar]
  11. Duncan, S. & Fiske, D.
    1985Interaction Structure and Strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A.
    1996 “Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns”. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134–184. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T. & Boyd, E.
    2015 “Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: the effect of task and speaker style”. Applied Linguistics38(5), 613–837. 10.1093/applin/amv055
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv055 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V. & McEnery, T.
    2019 “Introduction”. Corpus-based Approaches to Spoken L2 Production. Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. IJLCR5(2) Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gardner, R.
    2007 “The Right connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk”. Language in Society36, 319–341. 10.1017/S0047404507070169
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070169 [Google Scholar]
  16. Götz, S.
    2013Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.53 [Google Scholar]
  17. Graddol, D.
    2010English Next India: The Future of English in India. Manchester: British Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hasselgren, A.
    2002 “Learner corpora and language testing: Smallwords as markers of learner fluency”. InS. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 143–173. 10.1075/lllt.6.11has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.6.11has [Google Scholar]
  19. Jones, C., Byrne, S. & Halenko, N.
    2018Successful Spoken English. Findings from learner corpora. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Leavitt, H. J. & Mueller, R. A. H.
    1951 “Some effects of feedback on communication”. Human Relations4, 401–410. 10.1177/001872675100400406
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400406 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lehtonen, J. & Sajavaara, K.
    1985 “The silent Finn”. InD. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspective on Silence: Norwood NJ: Ablex, 193–201.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, H. Z.
    2006 “Backchannel responses as misleading feedback in intercultural discourse”. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research35(2), 99–116. 10.1080/17475750600909253
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17475750600909253 [Google Scholar]
  23. Makri-Tsilipakou, M.
    1994 “Interruption revisited: Affiliative vs disaffiliative intervention”. Journal of Pragmatics21, 401–426. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90012‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90012-4 [Google Scholar]
  24. May, L.
    2009 “Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective”. Language Testing26(3), 397–422. 10.1177/0265532209104668
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104668 [Google Scholar]
  25. Maynard, S. K.
    1997 “Analyzing interactional management in native/non-native English conversation: A case of listener response”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching35(1), 37–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Molenda, M. & Pęzik, P.
    2015 “Extending the definition of confluence. A corpus-based study of advanced learners’ spoken language”. InA. Turula & B. Mikołajewska (Eds.), Insights into Technology Enhanced Language Pedagogy. Bern: Peter Lang, 105–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. & Carter, R.
    2007From Corpus to Classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511497650
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497650 [Google Scholar]
  28. O’Sullivan, B. & Lu, Y.
    2006 “The impact on candidate language of examiner deviation from a set interlocutor frame in the IELTS Speaking Test”. IELTS Research Reports 2006, Vol.6. Canberra: IELTS Australia and British Council, 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Romero-Trillo, J. & Newell, J.
    2012 “Prosody and feedback in native and non-native speakers of English”. InJ. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching. Dordrecht: Springer, 117–131. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑3883‑6_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_8 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rühlemann, C.
    2010 “Conversational grammar – Feminine grammar? A sociopragmatic corpus study”. Journal of English Linguistics38(1), 56–87. 10.1177/0075424209347175
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424209347175 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sandlund, E., Sundqvist, P. & Nyroos, L.
    2016 “Testing L2 talk: A review of empirical studies on second-language oral proficiency testing”. Language and Linguistics Compass10(1), 14–29. 10.1111/lnc3.12174
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12174 [Google Scholar]
  32. Schiffrin, D.
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  33. Seedhouse, P.
    2012 “What kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in Oral Proficiency Interviews?”. English Profile Journal3(1), 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Stubbe, M.
    1998 “Are you listening? Cultural influences on the use of supportive verbal feedback in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics29(3), 257–289. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00042‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00042-8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tottie, G.
    1991 “Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels”. InK. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman, 254–335.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Trinity College London
    Trinity College London. Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE) www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=368 (21 August 2018).
  37. Utashiro, T. & Kawai, G.
    2009 “Blended learning for Japanese reactive tokens: Effects of computer-led, instructor-led, and peer-based interaction”. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic Competence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 275–299.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Winke, P. & Gass, S.
    2013 “The influence of second language experience and accent familiarity on oral proficiency rating: a qualitative investigation”. TESOL Quarterly47, 762–89. 10.1002/tesq.73
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.73 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wong, D. & Peters, P.
    2007 “A study of backchannels in regional varieties of English, using corpus mark-up as means of identification”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(4), 479–509. 10.1075/ijcl.12.4.03won
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.12.4.03won [Google Scholar]
  40. Xudong, D.
    2009 “Listener response”. InS. D’hondt, J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 104–124. 10.1075/hoph.4.07xud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.4.07xud [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.17020.cas
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.17020.cas
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): active listenership , backchannels , L2 English , language testing and learner corpus research
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