摘要
口语测试是直接反应考生语言交际能力的一种测试,形式多样。近来,配对(组)口语测试以省时实用、任务逼真、反拨积极等优势越来越多地被用于课堂测试和大型高风险测试中。我国的大学英语四、六级口语测试采用的就是配组形式。因其使用的日益广泛性,配对(组)口语测试的效度开始受到语言测试界和测试分数使用者的关注。业内研究者逐步开展了针对此类测试效度的实证性研究,考生特质尤其是考生的性格对其口试表现的影响成了研究焦点之一。已有研究证实考生个人以及配组成员的性格影响口试成绩(Bonk&Van Moere,2004; Berry,2004; Ockey,2009)或会话风格(Nakatsuhara,2011)。但上述研究均在实验环境下进行,且四项研究中有三项运用单一的定量研究方法,样本均为英语作为外语的日本大学生,因此研究结论说服力欠强。
本研究旨在运用定量和定性相结合的方法探索我国大学英语四、六级口语测试(CET-SET)环境下考生性格对其口语测试表现的影响。具体来说,本研究聚焦大学英语四、六级口试中考生的外向程度对于其互动交际能力(IC)表现的影响。研究对象为85组共255名大学英语四、六级口试考生。考生首先完成龚耀先版的艾森克性格调查问卷(EPQ-RSC),然后参加CET-SET考试。研究者将EPQ-RSC问卷结果输入电脑,经SPSS统计测得每位考生性格四维度的T值,确定每位考生的内外向程度,将讨论小组归类为全外向组(代码111)、两外一内组(代码110)和一外两内组(代码100)；各考生CET-SET考试表现全程录像,其中小组讨论部分由研究者进行文字转写。考生的口语水平根据其在CET-SET中的总分划分为高中低三等。为了全面研究真实口语测试中考生性格与其互动交际能力表现的关系,研究者运用描述性统计MANOVA和频率统计等定量方法将考生所得的CET-SET分项成绩尤其是与互动交际能力相关的分项成绩(sub-score for "size and discourse management"; sub-score for "flexibility and appropriacy")分别按内外向个体和小组进行比较分析；将考生小组讨论过程中的IC表现特征按口头话语能力、社会文化能力和策略使用能力等进行编码并分别按内外向个体考生、不同性格组成的小组形式进行分析。同时,研究者运用会话分析展现考生讨论中互动交际能力表现的具体特征和形式,定性分析内外向个体考生在CET-SET小组讨论中的互动交际能力表现特征和形式以及他们受小组成员内外向程度的影响。
定量分析的结果如下：
第一,考生的内外向程度对于自身IC能力表现的影响：描述性统计显示：与内向考生相比,外向考生的“话语长短和连贯性”分项(Sub-score1)平均得分略高(差距为0.11),“灵活性和适切性”分项(Sub-score2)平均得分也略高(差距为0.1)；平均话轮略多于内向考生(差距为0.39),回应话轮略高(差距为0.47),外向考生说的话语(按词计算)平均比内向的仅多0.05,而其发起话轮的平均次数与内向考生基本相同。
多元方差(MANOVA)分析显示：性格与IC分项平均分的多变量分析(Multivariate tests)显示内向考生和外向考生IC分项平均分无显著差异；组间效应检验(Tests of between-subjects effects)也显示内外向考生IC分项平均分无显著差异。
频率计数显示：与内向考生相比,外向考生的眼神接触次数略多(差距为0.3次),说话中更多使用自我重复。但是内向考生陈述时自我修复和单词提取(retrieval)策略使用略多、使用更多意义笼统的词(all-purpose words)的频率也略高。内外向考生均不擅长使用诸如成语、典故、历史和地理知识等的社会文化策略。
第二,配组成员的内外向程度对于个体考生IC能力表现的影响：
描述性统计显示：111组、110组和100组的Sub-score1平均得分分别是4.00、3.91、3.87; Sub-score2的平均得分分别是4.04、4.03、3.82。标准差均在0.33和0.37之间,说明考生的分数相对集中,差距甚小,这一点也在箱图显示上得到了证实。
MANOVA分析：将三个不同性格类型组的IC分项平均分进行MANOVA分析,多变量组效应检验(Multivariate tests for the group effect)显示组效应的Wilks' Lambda为0.891(F=2.11, p=0.055),这意味着当p值设在小于0.05时,分组对考生得分无显著影响。组间效应检验(Tests of between-subjects effects of test-takers'IC and their group members'personality)显示对于Sub-score1, p=0.322,对于Sub-score
2,p=0.306,说明三个不同性格类型组的IC分项得分无显著差异。
为进一步检验分组对考生IC分项得分的影响,研究者又将111、110和100三个组中的外向考生IC分项得分、110组与100组中的内向考生IC分项得分进行多元方差分析,同样发现分组对考生得分无显著影响、三个不同性格类型组考生的IC分项得分无显著差异。将三个不同性格类型组考生IC特征表现的平均频率数进行MANOVA分析,发现性格不是影响考生口头话语的显著因素,组间效应检验显示除话语长短一项以外,不同性格类型组在口头话语特征表现上无显著差异。
频率统计显示：三个不同性格类型组在社会文化能力表现上都比较弱,但三类性格组的考生表现迥异,其中111组组员之间的眼神接触次数最多(平均每人6.8次),100组考生使用诸如成语、典故、历史和地理知识等社会文化策略略多。在策略能力表现方面,不同性格类型组考生表现迥异,但总体来说,110组在表达受阻时使用信息更替(message replacement)、句子重组(restructuring)、自我重复和单词修复策略略多于其他性格类型组。
第三,全体受试组考生的IC能力表现：
频率统计显示,85个受试组在IC能力表现方面呈现以下特点：考生在口头陈述时频繁使用诸如um, mm这样的填充语(fillers),全体考生共使用填充语3588次。考生间眼神接触普遍较少,85个组共255个考生在整个讨论中仅有569次眼神接触。因考试时间不同,小组讨论的话题不同。统计发现针对四个不同话题,全体考生在讨论中仅有43次运用成语、引用典故或运用历史和地理知识。在策略能力表现方面,考生使用自我重复(共1212次)和自我修复(共131次)的频率相对较高,而使用其他策略的频率极低。从统计数据看,考生在遇到交际困难时很少使用迂回、语码转换等策略,在255名考生中使用迂回策略的仅6次,使用语码转换的仅2次。此外,考生也不擅长使用互动交际策略,在遇到交际困难时,255名考生中仅有14次请求其他组员帮助,而且考生在进行小组讨论时也极少向其他组员确认表达的意思是否被理解。
定性分析结果如下：
第一,内向考生与外向考生配组时的表现：会话分析显示：当内向考生与外向考生配组时,内向考生在讨论中呈现以下特征：1.被动参与。在51组由内外向考生混合组成的小组中,有32组均为外向考生带头发起讨论,而内向学生总是三人中最后一个发言的,并且通常是在其他考生点名或用眼神提示的情况下才发言；内向考生缺乏主动赢取话轮的能力,比较明显的是在110组,在当前说话者有意实现话轮转换而未指定下一话轮的讲话者时,内向考生无法抓住机会获取话轮,从而导致自己在整个讨论中鲜有发言机会的结果；内向考生缺乏话轮竞争的意识,因此在110和100组较少发现日常生活对话中常见的重叠话语(overlaps),而话轮之间的沉默更为普遍；2.口语水平高的内向考生讨论中表现突出。尽管多数内向考生在讨论中具有被动参与的特征,但通过会话分析,不难发现口语水平高的内向考生互动活跃,他们主动发起讨论并且有较强的合作意识,在话轮转换、主题回应等方面体现出对语境的敏感性,具有良好的话轮设计能力。这些考生性格内向,但小组讨论中借助口语水平的优势表现得像外向者一样。
第二,全外向考生配组时的表现：
会话分析显示：当三位外向型性格考生配组时,他们在讨论中呈现以下特征：1.参与相对积极。相对于其他性格类型组而言,尤其是相对于100组而言,111组的讨论显得积极些。85组讨论中发现的少数重叠话语主要是在111组产生的；此外,111组讨论中的合作意识也较明显,遇到表达问题时组员间互相帮助,能将小组视为一个整体,体现了较强的交互主体性(intersubj ectivity),讨论中较多使用第一人称复数,尽量避免使用第一人称单数,相邻对也比较常见。从录像中可以观察到组员间的眼神交流较多。2.口语水平低的外向考生无法积极参与交际。在由口语水平低但性格外向的考生组成的小组里,研究者发现考生各自的独白(monologue),这些考生口语水平低、互动交际能力弱,无法在讨论中扮演恰当的角色。这些考生性格外向,但小组讨论中由于语言障碍只能表现得像内向者一样。
第三,全体受试CET-SET小组讨论中的共有特点：
会话分析显示：85组受试CET-SET小组讨论中具有以下共性的特点：1.独特的开场序列。在考官读完讨论题目后,多数小组有10秒左右的沉默,考生进行短暂思考后开始陈述,也有考生在沉默后向考官、组员确认题目意思,然后再进行陈述。2.话轮次序预设。多数考生默认每位考生必须轮流发言,并且发言的次数基本相等。因此,会话分析中发现多数讨论组的话轮次序是固定的,根据第一个发言人的座位,或顺时针或逆时针轮流,即便某个考生因为被组员指定回答问题而打破原设的次序,待问题回答后又会自动回到最先设定的次序。3.话轮转换以眼神接触为主要信号。多数考生当自己有意结束发言、准备传递话轮时,用眼神向其他组员示意。即便是那些陈述过程中一直看着考官或直视前方的考生,当他准备结束陈述时,也会用眼神示意其他组员接过话轮。4.小组讨论缺乏合作。虽然在会话分析中发现有小组讨论活跃,组员间合作密切,但大多数组的组员之间为实现交际目的的共同努力较少,考生未进行真正意义的小组讨论,或独白或只是非常形式化地在独白后增加诸女"What do you think?","Do you think so?"等的语句,不向组员确认信息是否被理解,也不考虑回应其他组员的话题的必要性。
对照Bachman&Palmer (2010)的语言评估使用论证(Assessment Use Argument),本研究主要观察的主张(Claim)是CET-SET的IC分项分的阐释具有意义和概括性,且考试对于考生互动交际能力的估计具有有效性,主要的理据(Warrant)是考试确实让考生表现了自己的互动交际能力,考试结果可以用来推断考生的互动交际能力；考试的构念确实是按照考试大纲定义的、并能在考试中实现。主要研究的反驳(Rebuttal)有三个：一是考生性格影响其本人互动交际能力的表现,二是小组成员的性格影响个体考生互动交际能力的表现,三是在小组讨论中的互动与考试设计的有出入。本研究结果显示：考生性格未对考生IC能力表现产生显著影响,说明考生性格不构成反驳。但定量和定性分析均发现考生在小组讨论中互动交际能力特征表现较少,小组活动中考生之间互动不够,说明反驳三成立。已有的相关研究均发现考生性格影响其口试表现(如Berry,2004; Ockey,2009;Nakatsuhara,2011),而本研究虽然在会话分析时发现考生的内外向程度在参与讨论的积极程度上有细微差异,但未发现考生性格对其口试表现尤其是IC能力表现的影响。其原因是本研究的数据来自于大规模全真考试,性格类型组完全按照考生口试分组、结合小组成员的性格T值编排的,因此研究采用的都是自然数据,而其他研究的数据均是研究人员精心设计的实验环境下采集的,考生参加的考试也由研究人员设计,并非是大型的全真高风险考试。考生的图式(framing)不同,对待考试的态度不同,在考试中的表现也会有所不同。参加CET-SET的考生都知道考试结果对于将来就业、深造的重要性,他们的共同目的是要争取拿高分,而考官作为评分者至关重要,小组讨论中会首先想到迎合考官,将考官作为主要听众。而评分标准中语言的精确度和语言范围权重最大,要得高分在这部分下功夫尤为关键。至于考试中与小组成员之间的配合度、合作度并不是考生重点关注的。基于这样的心里架构,考生在考试中会有意掩盖自己的弱点,当然也包括掩盖自己的性格的弱点,比如内向、害羞等。外向考生有可能扮演内向角色,而内向考生有可能扮演外向角色。外向但口语水平低的考生为了尽量不暴露自己的语言弱势,会减少话语量,在不确定如何表达时,保持沉默；而内向但口语水平高的学生会设法展示自己的水平,在考试中表现得外向。
而对于实验性质的考试,考生的共同构架是考试结果不会影响他们的根本利益,因此会表现得放松,研究者观察到的现象可能也就不同了。
综上所述,本研究的发现有以下启示：从理论层面来说,运用评估使用论证研究大规模全真配组口语测试的分数阐释意义丰富了效度理论。从研究方法来说,本研究运用定量和定性相结合的方法对大样本进行分析,并结合社会学和社会心理学理论对研究结果进行分析,在Lazaraton和Nakatsuhara研究(Lazaraton,2002;Nakatsuhara,2011)的基础上进一步证实了口语测试跨学科研究的可能性和必要性,也为全方位深刻理解考生性格与其口语测试表现的关系提供了充分的依据。
同时,本研究的发现还对我国大学英语教学和口语测试的设计具有实际的意义：第一,从研究结果来看,考生的互动交际能力普遍较弱,一方面可能是因为考生口语水平低,无法开展互动交际,另一方面可能是考生互动交际能力的培训不够。交际语言教学模式虽已在我国大学英语教学课堂中广泛采用,但其真实效果有待验证。大学英语课堂不乏诸如小组讨论、角色扮演等语言交际活动,但有效参与此类交际活动的策略培训有待加强。教师和学生都须增强互动交际能力培养的意识。第二,CET-SET评分量表对于IC能力相关的描述略显笼统,考试设计的构念未充分体现,这使得评分员难以把握其准确含义,较难将考生的口试表现对应各项描述,从而增加评分难度、导致评分误差；也使得考生在获取分数后难以判断自己口试表现中的强项和弱项。虽然任何评分量表的描述无法穷尽,但仍然应该尽量具体、操作性强。
This study investigates the effect of test-takers'personality on their display of interactional competence (IC) in CET-SET group oral test. Specifically, the study examines:1) the degree to which extroversion/introversion as measured by Gong Yaoxian's version of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-RSC) affects an individual test-taker's display of IC; and2) the degree to which the levels of extroversion of the group test-takers are assigned to affect their display of IC.
The study included255students who took CET-SET in2010. Test-takers' personalities were determined by the T value obtained from EPQ-RSC. Their group discussion in CET-SET was video-recorded and transcribed. Their IC sub-scores were compared. The IC features displayed by each test-taker during the discussion were coded and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The results of descriptive statistics and MANOVA showed no significant difference between the IC scores of the individual extroverts and introverts. Additional descriptive statistics indicated the degree of extroversion did not affect the display of the spoken discourse features. Frequency count showed slight differences in the display of socio-cultural competence and strategic competence between the extroverts and introverts. Results of conversation analysis confirmed that active participation in the discussion depended on test-takers' oral English proficiency rather than their personality.
Descriptive statistics and MANOVA analysis also found group members' personality didn't significantly affect individual test-taker's IC scores. Conversation analysis further revealed that the individual test-taker's performance largely depended on his/her own oral English proficiency. However, frequency counting found no consistent results in the display of socio-cultural competence and strategic competence among different personality groups.
On the whole, this study found test-takers' personality was not the rebuttal to the warrants of CET-SET. However, the shared salient interaction features of all the discussion groups should arouse the test developers' attention.
引文
Acton, G. (2003). Measurement of Impulsivity in a Hierarchical Model of Personality Traits:Implications for Substance Use. Substance Use & Misuse, Vol.38, No.1: 67-83.
Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J. (1984). (eds) Structures of Social Action:Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. (2005). Building and Supporting a Case for Test Use. Language Assessment Quarterly,2(1):1-34.
Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. (2010). Language Assessment in Practice. Cambridge:CUP.
Barraja-Rohan, A. (2011). Using Conversation Analysis in the Second Language Classroom to Teach Interactional Competence. Language Teaching Research, 2011,15:479-509.
Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Berry, V. (2004). A Study of the Interaction between Individual Personality Difference and Oral Performance Test Facets. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. King's College, University of London.
Berwick, R. & Ross, S. (1996). Cross-cultural Pragmatics on Oral Proficiency Interview Strategies. In Milanovic, M. and Saville, N. (ed.), Performance Testing, Cognition, and Assessment:Selected Papers from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:34-54.
Boden, D. (1994) The Business of Talk. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Bonk, W. & Ockey, G. (2003). A Many-facet Analysis of the Second Language Group Oral Discussion Task. Language Testing,20:89-110.
Bonk, W. & Van Moere, A. (2004). L2 Group Oral Testing:The Influence of Shyness/Outgoingness, Match of Interlocutors'Proficiency Level, and Gender on Individual Scores. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium.
Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in Pairs in a Test of Oral Proficiency:Co-constructing aBetter Performance. Language Testing 2009 26 (3):341-366.
Brown, A. & Lumley, T. (1997). Interviewer Variability in Specific-purpose Language Performance Tests. In Kohonen, V., Huhta, A., Kurki-Suonio, L. & Luoma, S. (eds), Current Developments and Alternatives in Language Assessment:Proceedings of LTRC 96. Jyvaskyla:University of Jyvaskyla and University of Tampere:137-150.
Brown, A. (2003b). Interviewer Variation and the Co-construction of Speaking Proficiency. Language Testing 20:1-25.
Brown, A. & McNamara, T. (2004). "The Devil Is in the Detail":Researching the Gender Issues in Language Assessment. TESOL Quarterly 3:524-538.
Brown,G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble:Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1990).'Performative Acts and Gender Constitution:An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory', in S. Case (ed.), Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre, Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press: 270-82.
Butler, J. (1996).'Perfromativity's Social Magic', In T. Schatzki and W. Snatter(eds.). The Social and Political Body. New York:The Guilford Press:29-48.
Button, G. (1991). (ed.). Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Button, G. & Casey, N. (1984). Generating Topic:The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors. In J.M.Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action:Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Button, G. & Casey, N. (1985). Topic Nomination and Topic Pursuit. Human Studies 8:3-55.
Button, G. & Casey, N. (1988/9) Topic Initiation:Business-at-hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22:61-92.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language and Testing. Applied Linguistics,1:1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). On Some Dimensions of Language Proficiency. In J.W. Oller (ed.) Issues in Language Testing Research. (333-342). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
Celce-Mercia, M., Dornyei, Z. & Thurrel, S. (1995).Communicative Competence:A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics,6(2):5-35.
CET-SET Syllabus, (1999). National College English Testing Committee. College English Curriculum Requirements. (2007). Higher Education Press.
Crooks, G. (1990). The Utterance and Other Basic Units for Second Language Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics,11:183-199.
Davis, L. (2009). The Influence of Interlocutor Proficiency in a Paired Oral Assessment. Language Testing 26 (3):367-396.
Drew, P., Chatwin, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Conversation Analysis:A Method for Research into Interactions between Participants and Health-care Professionals. Health Expectations,4:58-70.
Droney, J. & Brooks, C. (1993). Attributions of Self-esteem as a Function of Duration of Eye Contact. The Journal of Social Psychology,133(5):715-722.
Egbert, M. (2004). Other-initiated Repair and Membership Categorization——Some Conversational Events that Trigger Linguistic and Regional Membership Categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8):1467-1498.
Egyud, G. & Glover, P. (2001). Oral Testing in Pairs---A Secondary School Perspective. ELT Journal,55(1):70-76.
Elder, C, McNamara, T., & Congdon, P. (2003). Rasch Techniques for Detecting Bias in Performance Assessments:An Example Comparing the Performance of Native and Nonnative Speakers on a Test of Academic English. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4(2):181-197.
Eysenck, H. (1958). A short questionnaire for the measurement of two dimensions of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,42:14-17.
Eysenck, H. & Eysenck, S. (1975). Manual of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London:Hodder & Stoughton.
Eysenck, S.., & Dimitriou, E. (1984). Cross-cultural Comparison of Personality:Greek Children and English Children. Social Behavior and Personality,12:45-54.
Eysenck H. & Eysenck M. (1985). Personality and Individual Differences:A Natural Science Approach. New York:Plenum Press.
Eysenck, H., & Wilson, G. (1991). The Eysenck Personality Profiler. London: Corporate Assessment Network.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics:requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ:Ablex:221-247.
Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, Social Theory, and Social Research:The Discourse of Welfare Reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2):163-195.
Femie, D. (1988). Becoming a Student:Messages from First Settings. Theory into Practice,27:3-10.
Femie, D., Davies, B., Kantor, R., & McMurray, P. (1993). Becoming a Person in the Preschool:Creating Integrated Gender, School Culture, and Peer Culture Positionings. Qualitative Studies in Education,6(2):95-110.
Firth, A. (1996). The Discursive Accomplishment of Normality "On'lingua franca' English and Conversation Analysis". Journal of Pragmatics,26:237-259.
Folland, D. & Robertson, D. (1976). Towards Objectivity in Group Oral Testing English Language Teaching Journal,30:156-167.
Foot, M. (1999). Relaxing in Pairs. ELT Journal,53(1):36-41.
Fulcher, G. (1996).Testing Tasks:Issues in Task Design and the Group Oral. Language Testing 13(1):23-51.
Fulcher, G. (1996).Validating Validity Claims for the ACTFL Oral Rating Scale. System, 24(2):163-172.
Galaczi, E. (2008). Peer-peer Interaction in a Paired Speaking Test:The Case of FCE. Language Assessment Quarterly.5(2):89-119.
Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in Group Oral Assessment:A Case Study of Higher-and lower-scoring Students. Language Testing,27(4):585-602.
Gardner, R. & Wagner, J. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations. London:Continuum:1-17.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs NJ:Prentice.
Giroux, H. (1993b). Living Dangerously:Multiculturalism and the Politics of Difference. New York:Peter Lang.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York:Doubleday.
Gong, Y.X. (1984). Use of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire in China. Personality and Individual Differences,5(4):431-438.
Goodwin, C & Goodwin, M. (1992). Assessments and the Construction of Context. In Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (eds.) Rethinking Context:Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press:147-190.
Goodwin. C. & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology,9:183-307.
Gumperz, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982). Introduction:Language and the Communication of Social Identity. In J. J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity. Cambridge University Press:1-21.
Hall, T. (1995). "Aw, Man Where You Goin'?":Classroom Interaction and the Development of L2 Interactional Competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics,6(2): 37-62.
Hall. H. & Alberts. J. (2000). Control and Desire:An Analysis of Teasing and Joking Interactions among Gay Couples. Communication Studies, Winter Issue.
Have, t. (2007). Conversation Analysis. London:Sage Publications.
Heap, J. (1997). Conversation Analysis Methods in Researching Language and Education. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Amsterdam:Kluwer Academic:Vol.8:217-255.
He, L., & Dai, Y. (2006). A Corpus-based Investigation into the Validity of the CET-SET Group Discussion. Language Testing 23:370-401.
Henning, G. (1987). A Guide to Language Testing:Development, Evaluation, Research. Cambridge, MA:Newbury House.
Hilsdon, J. (1995). The Group Oral Exam:Advantages and Limitations. In J. Alderson & B. North (eds.), Language Testing in the 1990s:The communicative Legacy Hertfordshire:Prentice Hall International:189-197.
Heritage, J. & Roth, A. (1995). Grammar Institution:Questions and Questioning in the Broadcast News Interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction,28(1): 1-60.
Hiroko, T. (2000). Turn-Taking in Japanese. Philadelphia, PA, USA:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Howe, M. (1991). Collaboration on Topic Change in Conversation. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 16:1-15.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers (1st edition). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
HutchbyJ. & Wooffitt,R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Huth, T. & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). How Can Insights from Conversation Analysis be Directly Applied to Teaching L2 Pragmatics? Language Teaching Research 10: 53-79.
Hymes, D. (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics:The Ethnography of Communication. New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Ikeda, K. (1998). The Paired Learner Interview:A Preliminary Investigation Applying Vygotskian Insights. Language, Culture and Curriculum,11(1):71—96.
Itakura, H. (2001). Describing Conversational Dominance. Journal of Pragmatics, 33:1859-1880.
Iwashita, N. (1998). The Validity of the Paired Interview Format in Oral Performance Assessment. Melbourne Papers of Language Testing 5(2):51-65.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-positioned Matters. In Atkinson.M. & Heritage,J (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker:Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-shift Implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (1):1-30.
Jin, Y. (2000a). Feedback on the CET Spoken English Test and its backwash effect on the teaching of oral English inChina. Paper presented at the third International Conference on English Language Testing in Asia, Hong Kong.
Jin, Y., & Chen, L. (2002). Looking into the Process of Taking the CET Spoken English Test. Paper presented at the International Language Testing Conference,2002, Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Johnson, M. (2000). Interaction in the Oral Proficiency Interview:Problems of Validity. Pragmatics,10(2):215-231.
Johnson, M. (2001). The Art of Non-conversation:A Re-examination of the Validity of the Oral Proficiency Interview. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Kane, M. (2002). Validating High-stakes Testing Programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice.21(1):31-41.
Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (ed.):Educational Measurement (4th ed.). New York:American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.
Kane, M. Crooks, M. & Cohen, A. (1999). Validating Measures of Merformance. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice.18(2):5-17.
Katona, L. (1998).'Meaning Negotiation in the Hungarian Oral Proficiency Interview' in R. Young and A. W. He (eds.). Talking and Testing:Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency. Philadelphia:John Benjamin.
Kirby, M. (1965). (ed.) Happenings:An Illustrated Anthology. New York:Dutton.
Kormos, T. (1999). Simulating Conversations in Oral-proficiency Assessments:A Conversation Analysis of Role-plays and Non-scripted Interviews in Language Exams. Language Testing16:163-188.
Krippendorff, K. (2003). Content Analysis:An Introduction to its Methodology. (2nd ed.). New York:Sage.
Kramsch, C. (1986) From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence. The Modern Language Journal 70:366-72.
Kurhila, S. (2006). Second Language Interaction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
Kunnan, A. (1990). DIF in Native Language and Gender Groups in an ESL Placement Test. TESOL Quarterly,24:741-746.
Lazaraton, A. (1992).The Structural Organization of a Language Interview:A Conversation Analytic Perspective. System,20:373-386.
Lazaraton, A. (1996a). Interlocutor Support in Oral proficiency Interviews. Language Testing,13(2):173-190.
Lazaraton, A. (1997). Preference Organization in Oral Proficiency Interviews:The Case of Language Ability Assessments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(1):53-72.
Lazaraton, A.(2002). A Qualitative Approach to the Validation of Oral Language Tests. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton, A. (2003a). Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics:Whose Criteria and Whose Research? Modern Language Journal,87: 1-12.
Lazaraton, A. & Davis, L.(2008). A Microanalytic Perspective on Discourse, Proficiency, and Identity in Paired Oral Assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(4):313-335.
Levinson,S. (1983).Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Liski, E., & Puntanen, S. (1983). A Study of the Statistical Foundations of Group Conversation Tests in Spoken English. Language Learning,33:225-246.
Lou, Y. et al. (1996). Within-class Ability Grouping:A Meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,66:423-458.
Luk, J.(2010). Talking to Score:Impression Management in L2 Oral Assessment and the Co-Construction of a Test Discourse Genre. Language Assessment Quarterly,7: 25-53.
Lumley, T., & O'Sullivan, B. (2001). The Effect of Test-taker Sex, Audience, and Topic on Task Performance in Tape-mediated Assessment of Speaking. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing,10(2):59-74.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing Speaking. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversational Analysis. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Maynard, D. (1980). Placement of Topic Changes in Conversations. Semiotica 30: 263-90.
Maynard, D. & Zimmerman, D. (1984). Topical Talk, Ritual and the Social Organisation of Relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly 47 (4):301-16.
McCall, G. & Simmons, J.(1978). Identities and Interactions. New York:Free Press.
McKenzie, J. (2001). Perform or Else:From Discipline to Performance, New York and London:Routledge.
McNamara, T. (1995). Modeling Performance:Opening Pandora's Box. Applied Linguistics,16,(2):180-205.
McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring Second Language Performance. London and New York:Addison Wesley Longman.
McNamara, T. & Lynnet, M.(2001).Discourse and Assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,22:221-242.
McNamara, T.(2001). Language Assessment as Social Practice:Challenges for Research. Language Testing 18 (4):333-349.
McNamara, T.& Roever, M. (2006). Language Testing:The Social Dimension. Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds. How We Use Language to Think Together. New York and London:Routledge.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. IN R.Linn (ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). New York:Macmillan:13-103.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and Washback in Language Testing. Language Testing 13(3):241-256.
Morton, J., Wigglesworth, G. & Williams, D. (1997). Approaches to the Evaluation of Interviewer Performance in Oral Interaction Tests. In Brindley, G.. and Wigglesworth, G.. (eds.), Access Issues in English Language Test Design and Delivery. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research:175-196.
Muraki, E., Hombo, C & Lee Y. (2000). Equating and Linking of Performance Assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement:24:325-343.
Nakatsuhara, F. (2011). Effects of Test-taker Characteristics and the Number of Participants in Group Oral Tests. Language Testing,28(4):483-508.
Neuendorf, K. (2002). The content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Nevo, D. & Shohamy, E. (1984). Appling the Joint Committee's Evaluation Standards for the Assessment of Alternative Testing Methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana:ED.243934.
Nitko, A. (1996). Educational Assessment of Students (2nd edition.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Merrill.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, Identity, and the Ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3):409—429.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and Language Learning:Social Processes and Educational Practice. Harlow, England:Longman.
Norton, J. (2005). The Paired Format in the Cambridge Speaking Tests. ELT Journa159(4):287-297.
Ockey, G. (2009). The Effect of Group Members'Personalities on a Test-taker's L2 Group Oral Discussion Test Scores. Language Testing 26 (2):161-186.
Oksaar, E. (1983). Language Contacts within the Scope of Culture Contacts:Behavioral and Structural Models. Philippine Journal of Linguistics,14-15:246-252.
Oksaar, E. (1990). Language Contact and Culture Contact:Towards an Integrative Approach in Second Language Acquisition. In H. Dechert (ed.), Current Trends in European Second Language Acquisition Research. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters 230-43.
Oksaar, E. (1999). Analysing Interactional Competence:On Pragmatic and Semioticagreement. In G.F. Carr, W. Harbert, & L. Zhang (eds.), Interdigitations: Essays for Irmengard Rauch:529-34. New York:Peter Lang.
O'Loughlin, K. (2002). The Impact of Gender in Oral Proficiency Testing. Language Testing,19:169-192.
O'Sullivan, B. (2000).Exploring Gender and Oral Proficiency Interview Performance. System 28:373-386.
O'Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner Acquaintanceship and Oral Proficiency Test Pair-task Performance. Language Testing 19:277-295.
Packett, A. (2005). Teaching Patterns of Pnteraction in English for Ppecific Purposes. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (eds.), Applying conversation analysis:235-250.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical Applied Linguistics:A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perez, J., Anglada, M., & Guitart, A. (1990). Spanish Versions of the JEPQ and the EPQ among 15-to 16-yr olds. Personality and Individual Differences,11:869-870.
Piece, B. (1995). Social Identity, Investment and Language Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1):9-31.
Pike, M. (1967). Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human
Behavior. The Hague:Mouton.
Porter, D. and Shen. H. (1991). Sex, Status, and Style in the Interview. The Dolphins 21: 117-128.
Psathas, G. (ed.). (1990). Interactional Competence. Washington, DC:International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
Psatha, G. (1995). Conversation Analysis:the study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Reber, A. (ed.) (1985).The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Rieger, C.(2003). Repetitions as Self-repair Strategies in English and German Conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (1):47-69.
Ross, S. (1992). Accommodative Questions in Oral Proficiency Interviews. Language Testing 9:173-186.
Sacks, H. (1964-1972). Unpublished Transcribed Lectures. University of California, Irvine. (Transcribed and indexed by G. Jefferson)
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language,50:696-735.
Sacks, H. (1978).'Some Technical Considerations of a Dirty Joke'. In J.N. Schenkein. (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York:Academic Press:249-70.
Saville, N & Hargreaves, P. (1996). Assessing Speaking in the Revised FCE. ELT Journal 53(1):42-51.
Schegloff, E. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings, Semiotica,8(4):289-327.
Schegloff, E. (1979). The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12:Discourse and Syntax:261-286. New York: Academic Press.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G.& Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language 53 (2):361-382.
Schegloff, E. (1991). Reflections on Talk and Social Structure, in D. Boden and D. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge:Polity Press:44-70.
Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation, Research on Language and Social Interaction,26:99-128.
Schegloff, E et al. (2002). Conversation Analysis and Applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,22:3-31.
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction:A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Volume 1. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, J. (1980). The Negotiation for Meaning:Repair in Conversations between Second Language Learners of English. In Larsen-Freeman, D. (ed.), Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research. Newbury House Publishers, Rowley, MA 138-153.
Seedhouse, P. (1994). Linking Pedagogical Purposes to Linguistic Patterns of Interaction: The Analysis of Communication in the Language Classroom. International Review Of Applied Linguistics,32,4:303-320.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom:A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Selting, M. (1996). On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics,6,357-388.
Shohamy, E., Reves, E. & Bejarano, Y. (1986). Introducing a New Comprehensive Test of Oral Proficiency. ELT Journal,40:212-220.
Spivak, G. (1990). Questions of Multi-culturalism [Interview with Gayatri Spivak]. In S. Harasym (ed.), The Post-colonial Critic:Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues New York:Routledge:59-66.
Spolsky, B. (1978).Introduction:Linguistics and Language Tester. In Spolsky, B.(ed) Advances in Language Testing Series,2, Approaches to Language Testing:v-x. Alington, VA:The Centre of Applied Linguistics.
Stansfield, C. (1991). A comparative Analysis of Simulated and Direct Oral Proficiency Interviews. In Anivan, S. (ed.), Current Developments in Language Testing. Singapore:RELC:199-209.
Stansfield, C. & Kenyon, D. (1992). Research on the Comparability of the Oral Proficiency Interview and the Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview, System 20: 347-364.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erblaum.
Stokoe, E. (2000).Constructing Topicality in University Students' Small-group Discussion:A Conversation Analytic Approach. Language and Education,14(3): 184-203.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning, 52(1):119-158.
Tannan, D. (ed.). (1993). Framing in Discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Taylor, L. & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Are Two Heads Better than One? Pair work in L2 Assessment Contexts. Language Testing 26:325-339.
Todhunter, S. (2007). Instructional Conversations in a High School Spanish Class. Foreign Language Annals.40 (4):604-621
Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Arguments (updated ed.). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process:Structure and Anti-Structure, London: Routledge.
van Lier, L. (1989) Reeling, Writhing, Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils:Oral Proficiency Interviews as Conversation. TESOL Quarterly 23,489-508.
Van Moere, A. (2006). Validity Evidence in a Group Oral Test. Language Testing,23: 411-440.
Van Moere, A. & Kobayashi, M. (2004). Who Speaks Most in This Group? Does That Matter? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Language Testing and Research Colloquium, Reading, UK.
Webb, N. (1991). Task-related Verbal Interaction and Mathematics Learning in Small Groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,22:366-389.
Webb, N. (1995). Group Collaboration in Assessment:Multiple Objectives, Processes, and Outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,17:239-261.
Weeks, J. (1987). Questions of Identity. In P. Caplan (ed.), The Cultural Construction of Sexuality:31-51. London:Routledge.
West, C. & Garcia, A. (1988). Conversational Shift Work:A Study of Topical Transitions between Women and Men. Social Problems 35:551-75.
Wiens, A., Harper, R., & Matarazzo, J. (1980). Personality Correlates of Nonverbal Interview Behavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology,36:205-215.
Wilkinson, A. (1968). The Testing of Oracy. In A.Davis(ed). Language Testing Symposium:117-132. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Young, R. (2008). Language and Interaction:An Advanced Resource Book. London &New York:Routledge.
Young, R. &. He, A. (eds.). (1998). Talking and Testing:Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Young, R., & Milanovic, M. (1992). Discourse Variation in Oral Proficiency Interviews.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,14:403-424.
Ying, Z. (2009). Measuring the Speaking Proficiency of Advanced EFL Learners in
China:The CET-SET Solution. Language Assessment Quarterly,6:298-314.
Zheng, Y. & Cheng, L. (2008). Test Review:College English Test (CET) in China. Language Testing,25 (3):408-417.
龚耀先(1986),《修订艾森克人格问卷手册》.长沙：湖南医学院。
何莲珍、张洁(2008),多层面Rasch模型下大学英语四六级考试口语考试(CET-SET)信度研究。《现代外语》31(4)：388-398。
金艳(2000b),大学英语四、六级口语考试对教学的反拨作用,《外语界》80(4)：56-61。
杨惠中(1999),大学英语口语考试设计原则,《外语界》75： 48-57。