Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 10:2 (2000) ► pp.215–231
Interaction in the oral proficiency interview
Problems of validity
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 June 2000
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.2.03joh
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.2.03joh
This article reports on the findings of a discourse analysis study whose purpose was to provide answers to the following research question: What kind of speech event is the OPI? Is it more like an everyday, friendly conversation, an interview, or something else?
Keywords: Speech event, Conversation, Oral proficiency interview
References (44)
Bachman, L. (1988) Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 101: 149–174.
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Bachman, L., & S. Savignon (1986) The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Language Journal 70.4: 380–390.
Brown, G., & G. Yule (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Clark, J.L.D. (1972) Foreign language testing: Theory and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.
Clark, J.L.D., & R. Clifford (1988) The FSI/ILR/ACTFL proficiency scales and testing techniques: Development, current status, and needed research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 101: 129–147.
Educational Testing Service (1989) Oral proficiency testing manual. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Johnson, M. (1997) What kind of speech event is the Oral Proficiency Interview: Problems of construct validity. Unpublished Georgetown University Dissertation.
(1997) Interaction in the Oral Proficiency Interview. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Annual Conference, Orlando 1997.
Johnson, M., & A. Tyler (1998) Re-analyzing the OPI: How much does it look like natural conversation? In R. Young & A.W. He (eds), Taking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tyler, A., & M. Johnson (1998) Natural context?: Collaboration, conversational involvement and the OPI
. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Seattle 1998.
Lantolf, J., & W. Frawley (1985) Oral-proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal 69.40: 337–345.
(1988) Proficiency: Understanding the construct. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 101: 181–195.
Lazaraton, A. (1992) The structural organization of a language interview: A conversation analytic perspective. System 201: 373–386.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1984) The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Gateway to testing and curriculum. Foreign Language Annals 171: 475–89.
Lowe, P. (1983) The ILR interview: Origins, applications, pitfalls, and implications. Die Unterrichts Praxis 21: 230–240.
(1986) Proficiency: Panacea, framework, process? A reply to Kramsh, Schultz, and in particular, to Bachman and Savignon. Modern Language Journal 70.4: 391–396.
McNamara, T. (1996) Measuring second language performance. London: Addisson Wesley Longman. BoP
(1996) Interaction in second language performance assessment. Plenary address. American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference. Chicago IL, 26 March 1996.
Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In R.L. Linn (ed.), Educational measurement. New York: Macmillan, pp. 13–104.
Mishler, E. (1986) Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ross, S. (1992) Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interview. Language Testing 91: 173–186.
Ross, S., & R. Berwick (1992) The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency examinations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 141: 159–176.
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, & G. Jefferson (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language 50.4: 696–735. BoP
Savignon, S. (1985) Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. Modern Language Journal 691: 129–133.
Schegloff, E., & H. Sacks (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotics 81: 287–327. BoP
Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson, & H. Sacks (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 531: 361–82. BoP
Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
(1994) Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. BoP
Shohamy, E. (1982) Affective considerations in language testing. Modern Language Journal 661: 13–17.
(1983) The stability of oral proficiency assessment on the oral interview testing procedures. Language Learning 331: 527–40.
(1988) A proposed framework for testing the oral language of second/foreign language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 101: 165–179.
Valdman, A. (1988) Introduction to the assessment of foreign language oral proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10.2: 121–128.
Van Lier, L. (1989) Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly 231: 489–508.
(1996) Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman. BoP
Young, R., & Milanovic (1992) Discourse variation in Oral Proficiency Interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cited by (15)
Cited by 15 other publications
Pennington, Martha C. & Pamela Rogerson-Revell
Ross, Steven
Sandlund, Erica, Pia Sundqvist & Lina Nyroos
Fahim, Mansoor & Ali Seidi
Gan, Z., C. Davison & L. Hamp-Lyons
Kitajima, Ryu
Leons, Eve, Christie Herbert & Ken Gobbo
ShinDongil & 김종국
Mikhailova, Julia
Gerson, Marysia Johnson
Brown, Annie, Noriko Iwashita & Tim McNamara
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine & Véronique Traverso
Chaudron, Craig
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
