TALKING AND TESTING: DISCOURSE APPROACHES TO THE ASSESSMENT OF ORAL PROFICIENCY.Richard Young and Agnes Weiyun He (Eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1998. Pp. x + 395. NLG 138 cloth.

By J. Connor-Linton. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2000

98 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9f93317560021593cb4af404f5180b7a0d1591f2

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

AN EXAMINATION OF RATER ORIENTATIONS AND TEST-TAKER PERFORMANCE ON ENGLISH-FOR-ACADEMIC-PURPOSES SPEAKING TASKS (2005, background): “…research on test-taker discourse analysis in oral assessment has been conducted in the context of the oral interview and has investigated ways in which features observed in oral proficiency interviews are different or similar to conversation (e.g., Johnson, 2000; Lazaraton, 1996; Young & He, 1998).”
The Coming of Age of Research on Test-Taking Strategies (2006, background): “A third proficiency-related study was conducted to determine the kinds of communication strategies L2 learners use in oral interactional situations and the relationship between their use of communication strategies and their proficiency levels (Yoshida-Morise, 1998).”
What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence (2018, background): “…a more radical, “strong” view that IC is “not the knowledge or the possession of an individual person, but it is co-constructed by all participants in a discursive practice” (Young, 2008, p. 101), and that “we cannot say that an individual is interactionally competent” (He & Young, 1998, p. 7).”
Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence (2011, background): “This notion of interactive practices was further redefined at length by He and Young (1998), who named it ‘interactional competence’.”
Validity in Language Testing: The Challenge of Sam Messick's Legacy (2006, background): “…research for well over a decade now has shown in detail its exact institutional character and the way in which the skill of the interlocutor and the familiarity of the candidate with the conventions of the interview game can have a profound influence on the outcomes (Brown, 2003; Young & He, 1998).”
Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance (2009, background): “Regardless of whether the interaction occurs between pairs of test-takers or between an examiner and a test-taker, the interlocutor is not neutral (He & Young, 1998; Lazaraton, 2002; Morton, Wigglesworth, & Williams, 1997).”
Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development (2001, background): “The literature on oral language interviews documents that interviewer styles impact candidates’ performance in these test formats (Young & He, 1998).”
Assessing paired orals: Raters' orientation to interaction (2009, background): “…and, from the mid 1990s, testers were challenged to acknowledge that spoken language displayed in a test required a social view of performance, taking account of the bearing interlocutors had on each other during co-constructed interaction (Jacoby & Ochs, 1995; He & Young, 1998; McNamara, 2001).”
Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues (2011, background): “…which is the defining characteristic of the communicative competence models, is open to debate, as seen in the recent reconceptualization of communicative competence into interactional competence (Lee, 2006; Young, 2002; Young & He, 1998) and symbolic competence (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008).”
Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “Conceptualisations of interactional competence, as proposed by Kramsch (1986) and more recently He and Young (1998) and Young (2008), argue for a construct that explicitly includes the co-construction of interaction and goes beyond individual ability.”