1. Interactive Communication
Dr Lynda Taylor

2. Interactive communication – the construct in co-construction

3. Overview Current understandings of ‘interactive communication’
in spoken language behaviour
in L2 speaking proficiency assessment
Some issues and challenges for testers
construct representation
construct relevance
rating procedures
score interpretation
technological developments
Some directions for the future?

4. Current understandings

5. Spoken language as… reciprocal for the most part
simultaneously proactive and responsive – contingent speaker+listener roles
dynamic and co-constructed – evolving, emerging between/among interlocutors
iterative – not necessarily linear, or predictable, or ‘tidy’
shaped by diverse personal, cognitive and contextual factors
spoken interaction as the ‘primordial site of sociality’ (Schegloff 1986:112)

6. Contribution of applied linguistics (i)
1970s onwards - steady expansion of the construct definition underpinning operational approaches to assessing L2 ability
Halliday (1976) and van Dijk (1977) in discourse analysis
Hymes (1972) in sociocultural factors
... the performance of a person … takes into account the interaction between competence (knowledge, ability for use), the competence of others, and the cybernetic and emergent properties of events themselves… (1972:283)
growing awareness of the interactional dimension of language ability (‘interactional linguistics’)

7. Contribution of applied linguistics (ii)
Canale & Swain (1980) – ‘communicative competence’
Kramsch (1986) – ‘interactional competence’
‘Interaction always entails negotiating intended meanings, i.e. adjusting one’s speech to the effect one intends to have on the listener. It entails anticipating the listener’s response and possible misunderstandings, clarifying one’s own and the other’s intentions … (1986:367)
Bachman (1990) – ‘communicative language ability (CLA)’
growing awareness of the interactional nature of spoken language ability in particular, with implications for assessment

8. Operationalisation in assessment (i)
direct approach in speaking task design – attempting to stimulate ‘talk-in-interaction’
interview, i.e. one-on-one or singleton face-to-face interaction, e.g. Cambridge Proficiency, OPI
paired format, i.e. 2 test takers interacting, with/without facilitator/examiner(s)
group format, i.e. 3 or more test takers interacting, with/without facilitator/examiner(s)
a combination of two or more of the above (e.g. Cambridge speaking tests)

9. Operationalisation in assessment (ii)
conceptualisation and articulation of assessment criterion/a that capture elements of interactional competence:
Cambridge Tests – the ‘Interactive Communication’ criterion
IELTS – some elements captured within ‘Fluency and Coherence’?
Occupational English Test (OET) – ‘Overall communicative effectiveness’ and ‘Appropriateness’
How far do semi-direct speaking tests, e.g. ibTOEFL and PTE Academic, lend themselves to assessing interactional competence (or some elements thereof)?

10. Defining Interactive Communication (i)
“Interactive communication refers to the candidate’s ability to take part in the interaction appropriately using language to achieve meaningful communication.”
(Taylor & Galaczi, 2011:185)

11. Defining Interactive Communication (ii)
“At lower levels, this includes initiating and responding, the ability to use interactive strategies to maintain or repair communication, and sensitivity to the norms of turn-taking. Candidates are given credit for being able to ask for repetition and clarification if necessary.”
(Taylor & Galaczi, 2011:185-6)

12. Defining Interactive Communication (iii)
“At higher levels this criterion refers to the candidate’s ability to take a proactive part in the development of the discourse, participating in a range of interactive situations in the test and developing discussions on a range of topics by initiating and responding appropriately. It also refers to the deployment of strategies to maintain interaction at an appropriate level throughout the test so that the tasks can be fulfilled.”
(Taylor & Galaczi, 2011:185-6)

13. Occupational English Test - OET (2 out of 5 criteria)
Overall communicative effectiveness – including how well you are able to maintain meaningful interaction
Appropriateness – including the use of suitable professional language and the ability to explain in simple terms as necessary; also, how appropriately you use language to communicate with the patient given the scenario of each roleplay

14. Some issues and challenges for testers

15. 1. Construct representation
How comprehensive is our current definition of the ‘interactive communication’ (sub)construct for the purposes of language teaching, learning and assessment?
To what extent does it take account of the full range of elements which research suggests are core to interactional competence? Is the (sub)construct too narrowly defined?
What other elements of interactional competence might need to be represented - and thus sampled and evaluated - for the purpose of assessment (as well as teaching and learning)?

16. Existing elements of IC
initiating and responding
turntaking norms
communication maintenance and repair strategies
proactive role in constructing the discourse
topic shift and development
achieving meaningful communication
using language appropriately
task fulfilment (?)

17. Additional elements? (i)
Closings (as well as openings)
Back-channelling, listener responses, response/reactive tokens
Latching and interruptions
Use of pausing, hesitation and silence
Floor-holding: use of fillers – ‘smallwords’ but also fixed phrases such as ‘now let me see…’, ‘that’s a good question…’
Use of deixis and ellipsis
Use of vague language

18. Additional elements? (ii)
Establishing ‘common ground’
Genre awareness (e.g. sharing personal stories or telling jokes)
Sequencing practices in common speech acts, especially where ‘face’ is involved, e.g. the use of ‘face-saving pre-sequences’ when framing invitations, offers or requests to avoid dis-preferred responses (such as a rejection)
Politeness control
Prosodic features: speed, prominence, para/tone and key (inc. pitch and volume)
Laughter, sharp intake of breath, etc
Paralinguistic features: posture, gaze and gestures

19. IC interface with other criteria
Are some of these measures already covered under other assessment criteria (an issue of separability)?
prosodic features … Pronunciation
fixed phrases, fillers … Vocabulary
pausing, hesitation … Fluency
Are some measures ignored completely (e.g. genre awareness, sequencing practices, politeness mechanisms, paralinguistic features)? If so, why?

20. 2. Construct relevance (context)
Savignon (1983:8-9) – communication as ‘context specific’
‘Communication takes place in an infinite variety of situations, and success in a particular role depends on one’s understanding of the context and on prior experience of a similar kind.’
growing recognition of context-specific nature of spoken interaction (findings from discourse and conversation analysis)
To what extent is ‘context relevance’ or ‘context dependence’ satisfactorily accounted for in construct definition and operationalisation as far as interactional competence is concerned?
How far is a speaking test task actually designed to frame or ‘drive’ the nature of the spoken interaction? Are our speaking assessment tasks sufficiently ‘context-rich’?

21. Overall communicative effectiveness (OET) – guidance to test takers
In each roleplay, take the initiative, as a professional does
Talk to the interviewer as you do to a patient
Don’t expect the patient to lead or to move to the next issue for you – do this yourself
Deal clearly with the points given on the rolecard, asking questions and explaining as necessary
Link what you say clearly to the purpose of the communication (coherence)
Make sure the patient understands what you are saying and be prepared to explain complicated issues in a simple way
Remember that you are interacting with your patient, not just explaining to him/her

22. Appropriateness (OET) – guidance to test takers
Practise explaining medical and technical terms and procedures in simple language – remember that the English you know as a professional may be quite different from the English used by patients
Notice what people say in different situations and copy these phrases (checking what they mean first) – people choose what to say depending on the situation (e.g., formal/informal, speaking to a colleague, child, child’s parent)
Consider asking questions to check that the patient has understood what you are saying if this seems appropriate to the situation

23. Language performance...
‘… involves interactive responsiveness and the use of a rich repertoire of linguistic choices to express meaning…’
(Fulcher 2013)
If we wish to sample and evaluate interactional competence effectively, should we design our speaking test tasks to be more context-specific/ relevant/rich (especially at higher proficiency levels, e.g. C-levels)?

24. 3. Rating procedures Separability/Divisibility Scalability
How far do the IC rating scale and its descriptors capture essential aspects of interactional competence? e.g. features of lexico-grammar (fillers for floor-holding) and pronunciation (prosody)
Or are these actually located in other scales? And if so, are they adequately represented there (or are they marginalised)?
A place for a separate ‘interactive listening skills’ subscale?
Scalability
How scalable are certain criteria, such as ‘genre awareness’ or ‘sequencing practices’? e.g. politeness (a 3-point scale appropriate/somewhat appropriate/not appropriate)?

25. 3. Rating procedures Discriminability and differentiation
What elements of interactional competence is it sensible/realistic to ask human raters to attend to, whether in real-time assessment or in post-hoc rating?
Are differential scales needed according to whether the rater is implicated or not in the co-constructed speech?
Which aspects of interactional competence are best judged by a human rater (using eye and ear)? And which by automated scoring systems?

26. 4. Score interpretation
the co-constructed nature of spoken interaction
McNamara (1997), Swain (2001), Chalhoub-Deville (2005)
interactional competence does not reside in an individual, nor is it independent of the interactive practice in which it is constituted (He and Young, 1998)
How far does it make sense to assign a score to an individual test taker on the criterion of interactive communication?
May (2009), Ducasse and Brown (2009)
And what does such a score mean? Should it be ‘shared’?
Fulcher and Davidson (2007), Taylor and Wigglesworth (2009)

27. 5. Technological advances (i)
steady shift away from traditional notion of ‘interactional competence’ premised largely upon face-to-face, spoken interaction involving physical proximity
computer-mediated and internet-based communication, e.g. Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) – Skype, Facetime, Twitter
Multi-modality and interactional competence – spoken? written? ‘blended’?
What are the implications for construct definition and operationalisation?

28. 5. Technological advances (ii)
developments in ASR systems and their capacity to readily discern and measure interactional features of talk
Which features can be meaningfully rated by machine, or at least measured automatically in some way to inform a human judgement on quality of interactional competence?
e.g. prosodic patterns, ‘flow’ and ‘confluence’
Could automated assessment tools be used (in partnership with human raters) to track and evaluate the more complex and sophisticated features of interactional competence?
e.g. genre awareness, or context-relevant sequencing practices

29. Issues and challenges for testers
construct representation
construct relevance
rating procedures
score interpretation
technological developments

30. Possible directions for the future

31. Assessing interactional competence
Expanding the construct (resisting reductionism)
Improving specification of high-level/expert behaviour
Analysing the nature of ‘blended’ interactions (social media)
Developing and optimising automated assessment systems
Reappraising CB-based speaking assessment
Increasing inter-disciplinarity (inter/cross-cultural studies, computational linguistics, linguistic ethnography, behavioural and linguistic studies in professional/organisational domains)

32. Fitness for purpose in testing
Acknowledging the complex interaction of the linguistic AND the non-linguistic in spoken discourse
interactional competence linked to ‘forms of meaningful semiotic human activity seen in connection with social, cultural, and historical patterns and developments of use’ (Blommaert 2005:2-3)
Acknowledging the complex communicative needs of a postmodern globalised world
‘We need to develop instruments with imagination and creativity to assess proficiency in the complex communicative needs of English as a lingua franca … they should feature social negotiation … and demonstrate pragmatic competence … We need tests that are interactive, collaborative and performative.’ (Canagarajah 2006:240)

33. Thank you for your interest and your attention!
Questions and comments?