Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chalhoub-Deville, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Second language interaction: current perspectives and future trends

Micheline Chalhoub-Deville

University of Iowa, m-chalhoub-deville{at}uiowa.edu

This article considers how the nature of interaction may best be represented in the second language (L2) construct. The starting point is Bachman’s model of communicative language ability which, it is argued, incorporates interaction from an individual-focused cognitive perspective. The alternative view advocated here is that individual ability and contextual facets interact in ways that change them both. Thus, ‘an ability - in language user - in context’ view is to be preferred over Bachman’s ‘ability - in language user’ representation. Acceptance of this new approach entails a local, context-bound view of language ability, which is difficult to reconcile with the tester’s need for score generalizability. The way forward is to recognize that, while some contexts activate stable ability features, others produce more variable performance from learners. Thus, the focus of both theory formulation and empirical research should be on how to account for inconsistent performance in particular contexts from a social interactional perspective.

Language Testing, Vol. 20, No. 4, 369-383 (2003)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532203lt264oa
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. Taylor and G. Wigglesworth
Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 325 - 339.
[PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. Brooks
Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 341 - 366.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. May
Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater's perspective
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 397 - 421.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
G. Fulcher and F. Davidson
Test architecture, test retrofit
Language Testing, January 1, 2009; 26(1): 123 - 144.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERHome page
R. J. Mislevy
Validity by Design
Educational Researcher, November 1, 2007; 36(8): 463 - 469.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
Xiaoming Xi
Evaluating analytic scoring for the TOEFL(R) Academic Speaking Test (TAST) for operational use
Language Testing, April 1, 2007; 24(2): 251 - 286.
[Abstract] [PDF]