The structural organization of a language interview: A conversation analytic perspective

Sysrem, Vol. 20. No. 3, pp. 373-386, Printed in Great Britain

0346251X/92 $5.00 + 0.00 Pergamon Press Ltd

1992

THE STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF A LANGUAGE INTERVIEW: A CONVERSATION ANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE* ANNE LAZARATON The Pennsylvania

State University, USA

This paper examines the widely-held-but largely untested-assumption that a conversational exchange”. Specifically, the language interview is a “structured structural organization of twenty audio- and videotaped oral-skills course-placement interviews were analyzed for features of conversation and interviews by using conversation analysis techniques, in which talk-in-interaction is studied on a turn-byturn, sequential basis from the perspective of the participants in the interaction. The results indicate that the interview encounters proceed through distinct phases and are composed of sequences that roughly parallel the organization of conversation. However, the responsibility for initiating the sequences and the form the initiations take differ, and thus lend to the characterization of the encounters as interviews, and interviews of a distinctive kind, for the participants. It is suggested that the analytic procedures illustrated in this paper be applied to more widely-used oral testing instruments in order to evaluate their utility in eliciting conversational interaction.

INTRODUCTION In line with the push towards defining communicative competence in applied linguistics, language testing research in the past decade has paid considerable attention to issues surrounding the measurement of non-native speaking proficiency, particularly as measured by the Foreign Service Institute/Interagency Language Roundtable (FSI/ILR) interview (Lowe, 1982), the ACTFL/ETS Oral Proficiency Interview (ACTFL, 1986), and their variants. These studies have focused on various types of validity--construct, content, concurrent-as well as reliability, rating procedures and rating criteria (Bachman and Palmer, 1981, 1982; Bachman and Savignon, 1986; Clark and Lett, 1988; Kramsch, 1986; Lantolf and Frawley, 1985, 1988). While objections have been (and continue to be) raised about numerous aspects of the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), there seems to be widespread agreement that the oral interview is the most appropriate vehicle for measuring oral proficiency. Curiously though, until recently few attempts have been made to look “inside” the language assessment interview in order to examine just what kind of speech event it is, an endeavor that would allow us to “identify and describe performance features that determine the quality of conversational interaction” in an oral interview (van Lier, 1989: p. 497). In fact, many claims *This paper is based on one chapter of my doctoral dissertation. Thanks to my committee members-Emanuel Schegloff, Evelyn Hatch, Lyle Bachman, Brian Lynch and Marianne Celce-Murcia-for their assistance with that project. Any errors or omissions are, of course, my own. 373

314

ANNE

L4ZARATON

have been made about the type of interaction that language interviews engender, with no apparent empirical basis. For example, an oral proficiency interview is “more or less natural conversation” (Adams, 1980: p. 1); others refer to the “conversational phase of the interview” (Clark and Lett, 1988; Raffaldini, 1988). Interviews are “special cases of conversation that are examiner-directed” writes Oller (1979: p. 305), who goes on to say that “it is fairly obvious why conversational techniques such as the interview constitute a pragmatic speaking task . .” (1979: p. 306). In particular, the FSI Oral Interview, as described by Bachman and Palmer (1981: p. 70) “consists of a 1% to 30-minute structured conversation during which one or two examiners try to elicit from the examinee a rich sample of speech by using a variety of question types and covering a wide range of topics and situations”. For Clark (1980: p. 17), the ideal method for testing oral proficiency is a “face-to-face conversation . . . the interviewing process is a reasonably close, if not an absolutely realistic rejlection [emphasis added] of real life conversation”. Jones (1978: p. 91) goes even further: “the oral proficiency test is not an interview, but a conversation”. Other researchers, while still casting the interview in a “conversational light” have recognized some of the differences between oral interviews and conversation. While the oral interview has this notion is mistaken because the been characterized as a “relaxed, natural conversation”, interaction is actually a test conducted under time constraints (Lowe, 1981: p. 7 1). Lowe believes that the term “conversational interview” better captures the essence of control over the encounter by the interviewer, control which is realized in a pre-arranged, deliberate structure. Yet, “conversation is still basic to the oral interview” (Lowe, 1981: p. 73). In a similar vein, Clark (1979: p. 38) says that even though direct speaking tests rely on a highly realistic format-“a face-to-face conversation with a native speaker”-they are not truly realistic, because the interviewee is talking with an examiner (as opposed to a friend). Recently, however, at least four applied linguistics studies have analyzed aspects of interaction that take place in oral interview situations. Perret (1990) discusses discourse structure in oral interview tests and shows the limitations on interaction processes due to the power relationship between interviewer and interviewee. Young and Milanovic (1991) attempted to relate features of oral interaction to interlanguage variation in the University of Cambridge First Certificate Examination (FCE) oral interviews. Their results indicated that the interview discourse was highly asymmetrical and that these results are important for understanding interlanguage variation. Ross (1992) studied the talk produced in Oral Proficiency Interviews in Japan as a product of native-non-native discourse, and concluded that the OPI shares features of both interviews and conversations. Shohamy et al. (1991), in their comparison of Hebrew OPls (Oral Proficiency Interviews) and SOPIs (Semi-direct Oral Proficiency Interviews; candidates speak to a tape and not to an interlocutor), described the functions and topics produced in the test situations and compared these results with what the testing manuals indicate are present in the situations. They also tallied the linguistic and discourse features present in the two testing situations and found that, in general, the OPIs elicit more features of “oral language” while features ordinarily associated with “written language” are more prevalent in the SOPIs. These studies, and perhaps others which are underway, have begun to look at interview discourse as an area of interest in its own right. Clearly, it is in the context of conversation that an oral proficiency interview can and must be examined, because almost every piece of

STRUCTURAL

ORGANIZATION

OF A LANGUAGE

INTERVIEW

375

literature written about it, mistaken or not, refers to its conversational nature. It is not the case that the problem of linking of conversations and interviews in the literature is solely a matter of semantic usage; what is important is that there may be a difference between what goes on in oral testing situations and in other settings of everyday life, and these differences bear on the assessments which those engaged in oral testing want to make.

Although quantitative approaches to validation are usually employed in language testing research, there has been a call in recent years to include qualitative analyses in language testing research and development (Bachman, 1988); some work in this area has already been done (Cohen, 1984; Grotjahn, 1986). As a step in this direction, this paper reports on a study which examined actual language assessment interview data for features of interviews and of conversations using conversation analysis techniques, a methodology that I felt would provide the most insight into the interview process. Briefly [but see Levinson (1983) for a complete discussion of this topic], the conversation analyst looks at the talk on a turn-by-turn, sequential basis from the perspective of the participants and characterizes it by a small set of generic forms of organization. The turn taking system in human oral interaction is perhaps the most obvious aspect of conversational organization (Sacks et al., 1974). Turn taking can be described by a set of rules with ordered options that operate on a turn-by-turn basis; this is why turn taking is characterized as a “locally managed’ system. It can explain why only one speaker speaks at a time, how next speakers are selected, where and how overlaps (points where two or more speakers talk simultaneously) are placed, and how periods of silence occur within the talk of one speaker (a pause), between the talk of two or more speakers (a gap), and for the purpose of attributing meaning to the silence. A second domain of organization is the sequencing rules which apply to conversation. The basic structural unit is the “adjacency pair” (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973), consisting of a first pair part (FPP) and an adjacent, conditionally relevant second pair part (SPP), produced by different speakers. Examples of adjacency pairs include question-answer, request-acceptance/denial, summons-response and so on. The overall structural organization of an occasion of talk can also be identified by the openings, pre-closings and closings sections of conversation (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973). For example, openings in telephone conversations are characterized by summons-answer and identification-recognition sequences as well as greetings and “how are you”. The openings in face-to-face talk are characterized by greeting sequences, and in some cases, introduction sequences. Pre-closings provide a structural position in which to bring up some as-yet unspoken talk on a speaker’ agenda. Closings are recognizable by closing implicative talk (such as making arrangements), passing turns (“okay’‘-“okay”) and a terminal exchange (“bye’‘-“bye”). Finally, repair is an organizational system which operates to remedy trouble situations in conversations (Schegloff et al., 1977) specifically problems in speaking, hearing and understanding. We can differentiate repair initiution from actual correction, which is where the trouble is remedied. Repair can be initiated in four different positional “slots”: same turn, transition space to possible next turn, next turn and third turn. In all cases but next turn, there is a preference for self-initiation of repair and for self-correction.

What follows is a description of the methodology used to collect and to analyze the interview data in this project. Then, an overview of the findings on the structural organization of the interviews is presented. The results are illustrated with actual data fragments, which are intended to give the reader a flavor for the conversation analytic approach utilized in this study.

376

ANNE

LAZARATON

METHOD Twenty audio- and video-taped oral-skills course-placement interviews which were conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) on four occasions over a two year period (1989-1991) were used to assist in the placement of students into one of two elective oral communication courses for foreign students at UCLA (ESL 32 and ESL 34). Potential students were interviewed on the first day of each quarter by one of two trained interviewers (JA = female, JC = male), both of whom have extensive experience in oral skills pedagogy and assessment. The interview, which is guided by an agenda (see Appendix 1) is based on the procedure reported by Scarcella (1983) in which six “conversational moves” are elicited: a greeting, a self-introduction, a response to the interviewer’s introduction, responses to two preclosing moves, and a closing. Suggested “cues” to elicit these “moves” are given on the schedule, but they are only suggested; the fact is, it is difficult, if not impossible, to script an interaction. The interviewers fill out an interview agenda sheet for each student, both to record information and to guide the interaction. The 20 students whose interviews were analyzed are primarily East-Asian language graduate students in scientific fields and represent a subset of those who attempted to enroll in the courses during the particular quarters in which these data were collected and whose tapes were available and of acceptable quality. In

selecting the interviews for analysis, videotaped data were preferable to audiotaped data, so 13 of the interviews are from the videotaped session. It is very important to look at videotaped data in addition to the existing audiotaped interactions, because in the production and monitoring of interaction, talk and nonvocal activities are carefully coordinated by the participants, who orient themselves not just to the talk but also in terms of nonvocal stimuli. That is, some of the components of interaction are nonvocal and must be available to the analyst. In interactions where participants are co-present a much more comprehensive record of what has transpired is thus provided by videotape (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984; Goodwin, 1981). A second requirement was that the interviewee and the interviewer did not know each other before this encounter, since acquaintance in a prior context might alter the interaction in unknown, and possibly undesirable, ways. Third, the recorded data had to be of good quality with a high enough recording level, and with minimal background noise or feedback (an annoying, high-pitched whine). This requirement eliminated a number of audiotapes. Finally, data that represented “complete” interactions were chosen. These four requirements ensured that the data which were analyzed are of the highest technical quality and represent complete, authentic situations. Of the 20 encounters selected on this basis, the shortest was 4 min and the longest was 8 min.

A second, related issue is why I have chosen to work with these language interview data instead of better-known proficiency test data. The reason is that the latter apparently are not available in videotaped form; at least my attempts to locate such data were unsuccessful. Recently, however, the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) has developed a new oral proficiency test, CASE (Cambridge Assessment of Spoken English) (UCLES, 1990), for which there are videotaped data, but the instrument is still in experimental form and therefore is not suitable for analysis at this time, because “experimental” situations introduce unknown elements to the interaction, and ultimately to the analysis. However, the CASE data do present exciting possibilities for future research.

STRUCTURAL

ORGANIZATION

OF A LANGUAGE

INTERVIEW

317

Since a visual record of interaction was crucial for answering some of my research questions the use of audiotaped proficiency test interviews alone, without any visual record of similar interactions, was not feasible. Although there are advantages to working with well-known tests, there have been a number of reputable, published studies (e.g. Bachman and Palmer, 1982; Mullen, 1978; Clifford, 1978; Shohamy, 1988) that have used “homegrown” oral testing instruments. In addition, while longer samples of speech may provide a richer sample from which to gauge oral ability, some research (e.g. Lado, 1978; Clark, 1978, 1979; Livingston, 1978) indicates that 5-10 min is sufficient to insure reliability and validity of an oral proficiency assessment instrument. More to the point, there is no empirical reason to believe that 4-8 min is insufficient to elicit a sufficiently rich sample of interaction. That is, it is an empirical question whether a 15 min sample of speech is appreciably richer interactively than one of 5 min. The audiotapes were transcribed using conversation analysis conventions [Atkinson and Heritage (1984); a description of these symbols can be found in Appendix 21. The videotaped data were intended to be supplemental to the audiotaped data and were represented as a “second-line transcript” (Goodwin, 1981). In other words, the videotaped data were given a thorough (but not systematic) examination. With respect to the actual data analysis, conversation analysis does suggest some broad analytic categories which I have employed. I did look at “components” of interaction, but only as they emerged from the total reality of the data as my work progressed. In other words, these categories and hunches about outcomes guided, rather than constrained me. As the transcription and analysis progressed, more well-defined questions emerged, one of which is discussed in this paper. How can the overall structural organization of the encounters be characterized? What are the definable parts of the interview, and how do the participants orient to them? What sequences occur in each phase of the encounter, who initiates them, and how are they responded to?

RESULTS The language interviews analyzed in this study proceed through distinct phases which correspond to the structural boundaries of the interview agenda. A great deal of visual and verbal attention is paid to the written form, not to the degree that it becomes an actual “participant” in the interaction, but so that it is truly a fundamental component of the encounters. A variety of sequence types characterize these phases, sequences which accomplish certain interactional tasks. A greeting sequence occurs in almost all the encounters, initiated by either the interviewer or the student. The interviewer initiates the introduction sequence by a self-introduction, to which the interviewee might respond with a reciprocal selfintroduction, with a confirmation check of his or her hearing of the interviewer’s name and then a reciprocal introduction, or with some other talk, which causes the interviewer to ask for a name. Since one of the purposes of the introduction sequence is to obtain the student’s name and write it on the agenda form, various problems in spelling and pronunciation with the student’s name may arise and these are dealt with in and by the talk. These features can be seen

37x

ANh’E LAZARATOK

in segments (1) and (2) (for an explanation (I)

Andy:

I

JC = interviewer; JC:

hi(hh).

+

AN:

psk! hi.

JC:

(3 my name is: Juan Carlos.

AN:

(8 Juan Carlo

JC:

2).

s? II mmhm

AN: JC:

see Appendix

AN = student

--)

5

of the notation conventions

m? II my name’s Andy Che:n

oh: nice meeting you.

The talk greetings greeting produces and then

proceeds smoothly in this segment, and can be regarded as the unmarked form for and introductions in the interviews. Note that JC, the interviewer, initiates the sequence in line 1, and after hearing a reciprocal greeting from AN in line 2, he a self-introduction in line 4. AN confirms this hearing with his repetition in line 6, introduces himself in line 8.

(2) Chan;

JC = interviewer: JC:

CN = student

let me write your name down

(1.2) JC:

Cha:n:? (3)

fa:n’? ’

CN:

yeah, Chan fan.

JC:

(2.8) Li.

--t

JC:

-4

CN:

yeah.=hlass

JC:

(.8) %o:kayc/r

CN: 20 --t

CN: hhh!

+ 2s

JC: why-

na:me. .hhh

II (is) differentuh from the hhh! Amercan .hh!mhhh! eh .hhh!

Li(hhh!)

/I uh huh’! that’s right. II that’s right. .hhh u- wwhy don’t you tell me something about yourself,

The actual introductions occur before this segment begins. Here, JC and CN are dealing with CN’s name in lines 9-2 1 in order for JC to record it on the interview agenda. In many instances in these data, “giving one’s name” can be a problem, and this talk shows the students’ orientation to the problematicalness of their names, for them and perhaps for their interlocutors. CN actually does some further topical talk on his name in lines 22 and 23, after JC proposes closure of the introduction and spelling sequence with “o:kay” at line 2 1, but all that he gets in response to his announcement at 22 and 23 are three weak agreement markers at 24; JC then goes on to the next question. What can be seen in this segment is JC’s attention to the task at hand: getting CN’s name instead of “chatting” about it. Both verbal (“okay”) and nonverbal (looking at the agenda) markers accompany the transition to the body of the encounter, which opens with “tell me about yourself’, a neutral, nondirected question that allows for the telling of demographic information as well as information related

STRUCTURAL

ORGANIZATION

OF A LANGUAGE

379

INTERVIEW

to course preference, need and ability. Students may respond directly to or initiate repair on the inquiry, and then proceed to provide (or be asked to provide) personal information, a course preference, and a rationale for the preference. A discussion of course preference, need and ability, as the material on which the outcome of the encounter is based, are the most important issues that come up in this section. Commonly, self-assessments of ability appear in this section of the interview, assessments (i.e. self-deprecations) which are used as a “ticket” into the course, and, as such, raise a problem for the interviewer, who is supposed to be impartial on such matters and delay a decision about placement until the interview concludes. In segment (3), CN is responding to “tell me about yourself’ assessment of his ability in his response: (3) Chan;

JC = interviewer;

+

CN:

--t -_) 10 + --) --t

JC: CN: JC:

15 +

JC:

and produces

a negative

self-

CN = student

n also next quarter maybe I like to: mm (.8) I haff to take the: (.2) I haff to: give a seminar in: my department n: .hhh (.5) so: this- (.2) I feel my oral English is not good hhh! heh! .hhh! so that’s why I like to: I/ o:ka:y improve my oral English n .hhh! (.8) (akay) (.8) tch! alright .hhh wu-

u-

IS: what is: your native LA:Nguage?

CN’s turn beginning at line 7 announces some demands that will be placed on him “next quarter”, the significance of which is made relevant by the following negative self-assessment in lines 9 and 10. “. . . so I feel my oral English is not good”, which is immediately followed by some laughter tokens, In 10 and 12 he adds “so that’s why I li(ke) to: improve my oral English”. His assessment uses an “assessment term”-“good’‘-which refers to the quality of his English, and the self-deprecation is constructed to show the standard against which the “problem” can be judged, namely that his English ability is not good enough to meet the academic demands placed on him. The summative account in lines 10 and 12 also validates the production of the self-assessment by showing its relevance to his talk-so-far (and the purpose of the encounter: to judge his ability in order to make a placement decision). Note how the selfassessment is immediately followed by laughter which serves to mitigate the seriousness of the assessment sequence by showing his resistance to it, laughter which JC does not join. JC’s response to this self-deprecation is to nod during the production of CN’s laughter tokens, acknowledge it with “okay” in line 11, and then nod during the production of CN’s last TCU at 10 and 12. The response is delayed until after CN’s laughter, which seems to register receipt of an adequate response to the question without taking a position of the self-assessment itself. CN’s recompleted turn is acknowledged in line 14 and in the initial part of 16, where JC is occupied with recording this information on the agenda; he looks back at CN at “what is:” in line 16. This next turn contains an agenda question that does not relate topically to what CN has just announced. By refraining from commenting on CN’s ability at this point, JC also declines to comment on the upshot of the assessment at this point in the encounter. The interviewer may also compliment the student in order to deny his/her self-deprecation of ability. Segment (4) occurs fairly late in the encounter between JC and RN and opens when JC

ANNE LAZARATON

ix0

asks RN if he would take ESL 34 if ESL 32 (his stated preference) (4) Randy:

JC = interviewer; RN:

were not offered:

RN = student

and (5)

I (d a big want) I had experience very (1 .O) hhh! when I went to one of those retrea:ts

eSC(hh)ARy JC

II y(hh)ea:h, hhh

II

(.) RN: JC: RN: JC:

they ask me to give a speech regarding II uh huh I was (3) fee(l)- (3) VERY: (2) .hhh

(5) our group and (mezzed up) II NE:Rvoua

II

I spas e. RN:

II I was really very nervous because I don’t know how to: .hhh (.) express myself (1.2)

JC: JC: RN:

when II you sound pretty goo:d though, (3 huh! huh hah! hhh! huh! huh! huh! II I try(ed) my best (I mean II I did (.) I did (.) J gave them (in) the speech but (3) J didn’tgood as u- (.5_) as I wanted.

its wasn’t

At line 11, RN is in the midst of an account for why he needs the oral skills class by relating a “very (1.0) eSC(HH)ARy experience”. In 17 RN evaluates how he felt at the time of the experience, to which JC proposes a “collaborative completion” (Lemer, 1991) of RN’s turn. RN incorporates JC’s completion into his next turn at 20 and 2 1, in which he gives an account for his nervousness. In the 1.2 s silence at 22 JC smiles and nods, and RN looks down. So, hearing no response, RN reopens his prior turn in line 23, again so as to reach another point at which JC might respond favorably. The response overlaps JC’s reopening in 24: “you sound pretty goo:d though”. This second assessment retrieves RN’s prior deprecation and then judges RN’s ability in terms of sounding “pretty good” (which may or may not be tantamount to actually being ‘*pretty good”) and contrasts it with RN’s self-assessment by the use of “though”. RN finds this second assessment by JC to be surprising, based on his raised eyebrows in the silence at 25 and during JC’s laughter at 26. RN’s response in line 27 shows his orientation to JC’s turn as a compliment by first apologizing/excusing himself and then qualifying it: despite his best efforts, the speech “WASn’t good as u- (S) as I wanted”.Thus, the compliment is accepted, but self-praise is avoided by qualifying the extent to which “good” applies to the speech [see Pomerantz (1978, 1984) on compliment and their responses]. At the point where enough information has been provided to satisfy the requirements of the agenda, the interviewer produces an agenda-based pre-closing form (“I don’t have any more questions” . . “Do you have any questions for me?“) which creates a structural position for a new sequence to be opened for the placement of student questions, an opportunity most of them take. This new sequential position is also a place for discussing business matters (such as finding out the results of the interview) and for the telling of “bad news” (often problematic

STRUCTURAL

enrollment circumstances). “okay” at line 35: (5) Randy; 35 +

JC = interviewer: JC:

+

OF A LANGUAGE

In segment (5), the pre-closing

INTERVIEW

381

is preceded by a sequence closing

RN = student

okay (.2) that’s pretty good. .hhh I don’t have any questions for you,=do you have any questions for me?

--t + 40 -+

ORGANIZATION

RN:

(.8) uh:: (.8) do you t-well

how WAS it.=do y-do

you think I can

get(t) (.) (t)in or not. I mean 11 theclass se_ I have,,no idea JC: II because (,2) I’m not gonna be teaching the course.

After a 0.2 s pause at line 36, JC produces a general assessment, “that’s pretty good’. It should be noted that this “that” has no specific referent; it is just an expression that he uses to propose sequence closure. Its use also provides him with some “space” to accomplish other activities while talking, such as consulting the agenda, as he does here. He produces the first unit of the pre-closing turn at line 37, then “latches” the second to it at 38. During the 0.8 s gap RN looks down and smiles, then starts up at 40 with a hesitation, then a pause, then the start of a question “do you t-(hink)“, the point at which he looks at JC, and asks, “well how WAS it. =do y- do you think I can get in or not”. This multi-unit turn is interesting for several reasons. For one, it is an example of a student question, a rare occurrence in these data, although more common in this structural position (i.e. after the pre-closing which solicits such questions) in the interview. The point of this question (was the interview good enough? can I get in?) is a theme that is echoed repeatedly in many of the pre-closings segments, either as a result of a student question or of interviewer “telling”. So, in that sense it illustrates one way that the outcome of the encounter is brought up. What I find most interesting about “how WAS it” is the implication of RN’s question that the “interview proper” has concluded: RN orients to the pre-closing as the structural boundary at which the “official talk” is suspended. JC does not respond to this question, nor does he have to, because RN asks another more recent question which is answered first. Anyway, an answer to the first would only be of use in reference to what is being asked in the second. In other words, an answer to the first forms the basis of an answer to the second. However, JC claims that he has no access to any knowledge that would help him answer the second question“see-1 have no idea” at 42, which is followed by an account for this lack of knowledge, “because I’m not gonna be teaching the course”. The talk then continues about enrollment issues. When the pre-closing matters have been exhausted, the closings occur, accompanied by major postural shifts by both participants. The closing forms are like those used in conversation and, like greetings, may be initiated by either participant. However, unlike conversation, these interviews may conclude with a terminal “thanks-thanks” or “thanks-you’re welcome” exchange, without a “bye-bye” sequence, a feature which “types” the encounter as one whose incumbent behavior requires that thanks be given. Undoubtedly, this has something to do with the type of interaction these encounters represent. The interviewer may thank a student for providing information, while a student may thank the interviewer for being the interviewer and giving advice (if any is given). While thanks may occur in conversational closings, they do not ordinarily occur as a terminal element or as a substitute for a terminal element.

382

ANNE

(6) Yolanda;

JA = Interviewer; JA:

10 YO:

IS

JA: YO: JA: YO: J.4:

LAZARATON

YO = student

so it‘s been nice talking to yu en u:m (.2) just CHeck the (S) class livt en %ok(h)ay,% (2) show up on: Thursday, %y(h)eahQ ok ay, oka:y?, thenk you. yer welcome

In this segment we see that the closings are proceeded by a pair of “passing” “okays”, then YO initiates the closings with “thenk you”. JA responds with “yer welcome”; no “byes” occur.

CONCLUSION The analytic procedures I have illustrated are useful as a first step in understanding the broad parameters of the interaction. Most of the sequences are initiated by the interviewer, including the introductions, the “tell me about yourself’ opening to the body, and the pre-closings, and they are controlled through the use of recommended agenda forms. However, other sequences, such as the greetings and closings, are sometimes initiated by the student. Even without an agenda to guide the interaction (and our analysis of it), these results show that the “phases” of an interaction are identifiable by the verbal and nonverbal behavior of the participants at certain points. Furthermore, it seems that the sequence types (although perhaps not the prompts themselves) that mark these “phases” are imported from conversation, while the responsibility for initiating the sequences and the form these initiations take are determined outside of the interaction itself; this is why the interaction is an instance of “interview” for the participants. One of the most interesting findings is the significance of what takes place in the introduction sequences, because of their similarity to what goes on in other institutional encounters: they reflect real-life problems in real-life situations for the participants. Problems with introductions and names are trouble for conversationalists too. Most oral proficiency tests tend to ignore the opening sections for rating purposes, calling them a “warm-up” section, as if the candidate is not fully “ready” to interact until some “official” point is reached or as if their conduct does not matter until that point. However, it is just these features which are present in other types of face-to-face interaction. While perhaps not useful for assessing linguistic ability, the facility with which students can initiate and respond to these sequences is certainly a crucial part of oral competence. A practical suggestion that stems from this finding would be to use a written agenda or some other written form in the opening segment where introductions occur. AS I have pointed out, introducing oneself, spelling one’s name, and recording it on a form are authentic tasks in which participants routinely engage and which can make the contact less bureaucratic and more personal. To return to the issues raised at the outset of this paper, in what ways are the encounters described in this study like conversation and in what ways are they not? The overall structural organization of conversation seems to be operative in these encounters. The openings of the encounters contain greeting sequences, introductions and problems with names; activities which occur in conversation. As in conversation, the pre-closing section is a position for the

STRUCTURAL

ORGANIZATION

OF A LANGUAGC

383

INTERVIEW

including deferred “bad news” but only that mention of as-yet “unmentioned mentionables”, which is relevant to the business at hand. In contrast, the system of turn taking which is at work in these encounters is not the “locally managed” one of conversation, but a pre-specified system which defines an interaction as an instance of “interview”. Since it is this feature which is crucial for realizing an instance of interaction as an interview, where the interviewer asks questions and the student responds, its importance cannot be underestimated in this context. Strictly speaking, the encounters are opened with a self-introduction by the interviewer, although interviewees sometimes initiate the greeting sequence. The “body” of the encounter is always opened by the interviewer with an agenda recommended form. The interviewer is always the one to initiate the pre-closings, but interviewees may initiate the actual closing sequence. “Thanks” as a closer is not typical of conversation. Thus, the most that can be said is that the encounters share features with about the question “interview or conversation?” conversations, but they are still characteristically instances of interviews, and interviews of a distinctive kind, for the participants. Van Lier (1989: p. 505), one of the first applied linguists to question our assumptions about interviews and conversation, concludes by urging us to “. . . understand the OPI, find out how to allow a truly conversational expression of oral proficiency to take place, and reassess our entire ideology and practice regarding the design of rating scales and procedures”. If a primary goal of oral language assessment is to tap conversational interaction, then we must design oral testing instruments that are capable of eliciting this form of interaction and rating scales that reflect facts (rather than intuitions) about conversation. We can look to conversation analysis to inform us what the basic features of conversation and interviews are; this study demonstrates how this methodology can be used to evaluate other, more widely-used oral testing instruments. It is incumbent on test developers to design interviewing procedures that include the distinctive features of conversation and, if possible, to minimise the characteristics of interviews. It is hoped that this study will provide an impetus for such an undertaking.

REFERENCES In Frith, J. R. (ed.), Measuring Spoken

ADAMS, M. L. (1980) Five co-occurring factors in speaking proficiency. Language Proficiency. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE TEACHING Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author. ATKINSON, Press.

J. M. and HERITAGE,

BACHMAN, 193-209.

L. F. (1988)

BACHMAN, 31, 167-186.

Language

L. F. and PALMER,

OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

(1986) ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines.

J. (eds) (1984) Structures of Social Acfion. Cambridge: testing-SLA

research

A. S. (1981) The construct

BACHMAN, L. F. and PALMER, A. S. (1982) The construct proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 16,449+65.

University

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

interfaces. validation

Cambridge

9,

of the FSI oral interview. Language Learning

validation

of some components

BACHMAN, L. F. and SAVIGNON, S. (1986) The evaluation of communicative the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Language Journal 70,380-390.

language

of communicative

proficiency:

a critique of

CLARK, J. L. D. (1978) Interview testing research at Educational Testing Service. In Clark, J. L. D. (ed.), Direcr Testing of Speaking Proficiency: Theory and Applicarion. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. CLARK, J. L. D. (1979) Direct vs. semi-direct tests of speaking ability. In Briere, E. J. and Hinofotis, Concepts in Language Tesfing: Some Recent Studies. Washington, DC: TESOL. CLARK, J. L. D. (1980) Towards a common measure of speaking proficiency. Language Proficiency. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.

F. B. (eds),

In Frith, J. L. (ed.), Meusun’ng Spoken

384

ANNE LAZARATON

CLARK, J. L. D. and LETT, J. (1988) A research agenda. In Lowe, P. .I. and Stansfield, Pm$iicienc:~ A.ssessmmt: Curr-enf Issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

C. W. (eds), Second Langucr~ye

CLIFFORD, R. T. (1978) Reliability and validity of language aspects contributing to oral proficiency of prospective teachers of German. In Clark, J. L. D. (ed.), Direct Tests of Speaking Proficiency: Theory und Applicorion. Princeton. NJ: Educational Testing Service. COHEN, A. (1984) On taking tests: what the students report. Language GOODWIN, C. (I 98 1) Conversarional Academic Press. GROTJAHN.

R. (I 986) Test validation

0rgani;otion.

and cognitive

Interac~tion

psychology:

1,

Tesring 1, 70-8 Bemeen

Speakers

und

some methodological

New York:

Hearers.

considerations.

Lm,quoge

Testing 3, 159-185.

JONES, R. L. (1978) Interview techniques Direct

Tests of Speaking Pxfimznc~:

KRAMSCH,

C. (1986)

and scoring criteria at the higher proficiency levels. In Clark, J. L. D. (ed.), Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Theory and Application.

From language

proficiency

to interactional

competence.

Modern

Lrrnguuge

./mum/

70,

366372.

LADO, R. (1978) Scope and limitations of interview-based language testing: are we asking too much of the interview’? In Clark, J. L. D. (ed.), Dir-err Tests ofSpecrkin,q Proficienr.y: Theory and Applicafion. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. LANTOLF.

J. P. and FRAWLEY,

W. (1985) Oral-proficiency

J. P. and FRAWLEY,

W. (1988) Proficiency:

testing: a critlcal analysis.

Modern

Lun,yuu
69,337-345.

LANTOLF, Ac,quisitron

understanding

the construct.

Srudies rn Sec,ond Longuu,ye

10, 181-195.

LERNER, G. H. (199 I) On the syntax of sentences in progress. Language

in Society 20. 441458.

LEVINSON.

Press.

S. C. (1983) Pragmutics.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

LIVINGSTON,

S. A. (1978) Setting standards of speaking proficiency. In Clark. J. L. D. (ed.), Direcr Speakrn,~ Proficiency: Theor? and Practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Testirrg of

LOWE, P. J. (1981) Structure of the oral interview and content validity. In Palmer, A. S., Groot, P. J. M. and Trosper, G. A. (eds), The Con.,ndrucf Volrdoation of T&s of Communlcutive Comperence. Washington, DC‘: TESOL. LOWE. P. J. (1982) ILR Hundhook on 0~1 Inter,,rew, Testin,? Washington, DC: DLI/LS Oral Interview Testing Project. MULLEN, K. A. (1978) Determinmg the effect of uncontrolled sources of error in a direct test of oral proficiency and the capability of the procedure to detect improvement following classroom instruction. In Clark, J. L. D. (ed.), Direc.1 Tesrs ofSperrkin,? Profcienc;v: Theor! and Application. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. OLLER, J. W. (I 979) Language

Tests ut School. London: Longman.

PERRET, G. (1990) The language Indiridualizing

POMERANTZ, Con~vrsarional

/he Assesvnenf

A. (1978) Inter-uction.

testing interview: a reappraisal. In de Jong, J. H. A. L. and Stevenson. Ahiliries. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

D. K. (eds).

oj’lunguuge

Compliment

responses. In Schenkein. Press.

J. N. (ed.). Studies

in the

O~.gun/rcrtco~~ of

New York: Academic

POMERANTZ, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shape. In Atkmson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds). Struclrtres ofSoc~iu/ Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RAFFALDINI, T. (1988) The use of situation tests as measures of communicative 10, 197-2 16.

ability. Studies in Second Langua,~e

Ac,quisition

ROSS,

S. (1992) The discourse 14, 159- 176.

of accommodation

in oral proficiency

interviews.

Stud/es

in Second

Lan~uu,~

Acquisiiion

SACKS, H., SCHEGLOFF, E. A. and JEFFERSON, taking in conversation. Longuoge 50, 696735.

G. (1974) A simplest systematics

for the organization

of tum-

SCARCELLA, R. (1983) Developmental trends in the acquisition of conversational competence by adult second language learners. In Wolfson, N. and Judd, E. (eds), Soc,io/inRuistir,s and Languuge Ac,quisition. New York: Newbury House. SCHEGLOFF, E. A., JEFFERSON, G. and SACKS, H. (1977) The preference for self-correction repair in conversation. Language 53, 361-382. SCHEGLOFF, SHOHAMY,

Acquisition

framework for testing the oral language 10, 165-179.

of second/foreign

SHOHAMY. E., SHMUELI. D. and GORDON, C. (1991) The validity of concurrent direct test of oral proficiency. Paper presented at the 13th LTRC, Princeton, NJ. UNIVERSITY

of

E. A. and SACKS, H. (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica 7.289-327. E. (1988) A proposed

Studies in Second Language

English

in the organiration

OF CAMBRIDGE

(CASE): TriullinR

LOCAL EXAMINATIONS Author.

Version 2. Cambridge:

SYNDICATE

language

learners.

validity of a direct vs. semi-

(1990) CamhridgP As.sessrnrnr

ofSpoken

STRUCTURAL

ORGANlZATlON

VAN LIER, L. (1989) Reeling, writhing, drawling, conversation. TESOL Quarter?~ 23.489-508.

OF A LANGUAGE

stretching,

YOUNG, R. and MILANOVIC, M. (1991) Interlanguage presented at the 25th TESOL Conference, New York.

and fainting

variation

385

INTERVIEW

in coils: oral proficiency

and the assessment

interviews

of oral proficiency.

APPENDIX 1 Placement

Interview

STUDENT

Schedule for Oral Skills Courses

(32/34)

NAME:

INTERVIEWER: OPENINGS m

(wait for greeting) (wait for introduction,

Mv name is

write name above.)

BODY Whv don’t you tell me about vourself (note the following information; if it is not given, ask). Native language and country: Major: Year (circle one):

FR

SO

JR

SR

TA (circle one):

YES

NO

POTENTIAL

32

34

Why?

MA

If yes, what type? Preferred class: FIRST

PRE-CLOSING

Well. I don’t think I have any more auestions. (pause: if no response, then) Do vou have anv auestions SECOND

PRE-CLOSING

It’s been nice talking to you. (wait for response). CLOSING or or

ti Be sure to check the class list. See YOUThursdav.

COMMENTS

PLACEMENT

ABOUT

STUDENT:

RECOMMENDATION:

for me?

PhD

Other

as

Paper

386

ANNE LAZARATON

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPTION (.I, (2, etc.

-

: (colon)

-

- (dash) .hhh .hhh! hhh hhh! (hhh) hah, huh, heh, hnh hah!, huh!, etc. = (equal sign) / 1(double line) ( ) (parentheses) % % (percent signs) --t (arrow) Punctuation (period) ? (question mark) 73

! (exclamation mark) CAPS

unfilled pauses or gaps: periods of silence, timed in tenths of a second by counting “beats” of elapsed time. Micropauses, those of less than .2 s, are symbolized (.); longer pauses appear as a time within parentheses, e.g. (.5) is five tenths of a second; a lengthened sound or syllable; more colons prolong the stretch: a cut-off, usually a glottal stop: an inbreath; strong inhalation; exhalation: strong exhalation; breathiness within a word; laughter, depending on sounds produced: stronger laughter; a latched utterance, no interval between utterances; onset or end of overlapping talk; transcription doubtful: surround quiet talk; feature of interest to the analyst;

represents intonation rather than clausal structure:

, (comma)

-

-

NOTATION

falling intonation: continuing intonation; rising intonation; weakly rising intonation; animated intonation; emphasized intonation.