Interactional Competence in a Paired Speaking Test: Features Salient to Raters

By Lyn May. 2011

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Language and Linguistics, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/97922e4a4f420f4a9065faf5098c6c91e2994517

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

1. Daniel M. K. Lam
2. G. Kasper
3. Carsten Roever
4. L. Taylor
5. E. Galaczi
6. S. Youn
7. John Hellermann

In Language and Linguistics

1. Daniel M. K. Lam
2. S. Youn
3. Carsten Roever
4. L. Taylor
5. G. Kasper
6. E. Galaczi
7. Naoko Taguchi
8. Numa Markee

In Social Psychology

1. Daniel M. K. Lam
2. G. Kasper
3. Carsten Roever
4. L. Taylor
5. E. Galaczi
6. S. Youn

Citations in the corpus

• What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence (2018, methodology): “…the interactional aspects of candidates’ performance in acknowledgement of the co-constructed nature of IC (Swain, in an interview with Fox, 2005; May, 2009, 2011), while others have emphasized the need to disentangle individual contributions to co-constructed interactional performance (e.g.…”
• Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking (2018, background): “Correspondingly, research on peer oral language tests has examined interlocutor effects on other participants’ performance (Davis, 2009; Galaczi, 2014; Lam, 2016; May, 2011).”
• Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “…pre-sequences ” to avoid dis-preferred responses, as seen in responding to an invitation with a refusal (Pomerantz, 1984) ● politeness control (Brown & Levinson, 1987) ● nonverbal features, such as laughter, posture, gaze, and gestures (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Gan & Davison, 2011; May, 2011).”
• Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods (2015, background): “CA-based research on measuring interactional competence has grown, attesting its contributions to conceptualizing and operationalizing interactional competence (e.g., Brown, 2003; Kasper & Ross, 2007; Lazaraton, 2002; May, 2009, 2011; Galaczi, 2008; Gan, 2010; Young, 2008; Young & He, 1998).”