Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Applied Linguistics Review

Editor-in-Chief: Wei, Li

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.286

Online
ISSN
1868-6311
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment

Gabriele Kasper
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 1890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Soo Jung Youn
Published Online: 2017-05-10 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0020

Abstract

Roleplay is used as a method for education and training, assessment, and research across a wide range of academic and occupational domains, including applied linguistics. In the assessment of speaking and pragmatic competence, roleplay is used to examine how test takers produce and understand social action-in-interaction and in this way overcomes the problem of “construct under-representation”. Roleplay is also chosen for assessment purposes because it accommodates the opposing needs for authenticity and standardization in the design of assessment instruments. While the research literature is mainly concerned with the issue of how roleplay corresponds to real-life interaction, this study asks the more fundamental question of how participants manage to produce roleplays as intelligible unfolding social scenes in the first place. Specifically it explores how the roleplay setup becomes interactionally consequential in roleplays designed to assess the interactional competence of students in an English for academic purposes program. From the joint perspectives of conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis, the study demonstrates how the roleplay participants mobilize their generic and setting-specific interactional competences to accomplish the scenario as a shared practical activity. It shows how the participants jointly “talk the institution into being”, and what details from the setup they treat as necessary, optional, or dispensable. In this way the study reveals the local endogenous order of roleplay as a device for knowledge generation, training, and assessment and spawns further topics for research on roleplay design and interactional competence in a language assessment context.

Keywords: conversation analysis; interactional competence; membership categorization analysis; oral language assessment; roleplay

References

  • Al-Gahtani, Saad & Carsten Roever. 2012. Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics 33. 42–65.Google Scholar

  • Al-Gahtani, Saad & Carsten Roever. 2013. ‘Hi doctor, give me handouts’: Low-proficiency learners and requests. ELT Journal 67. 413–424.Google Scholar

  • Al-Gahtani, Saad & Carsten Roever. 2014. Preference structure in L2 Arabic requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 11. 619–643.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Beverly Hartford (eds.). 2005. Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Bilmes, Jack. 1993. Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature - Toward an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics 3. 387–409.Google Scholar

  • Bushnell, Cade. 2014. On developing a systematic methodology for analyzing categories in talk-in-interaction: Sequential categorization analysis. Pragmatics 24. 735–756.Google Scholar

  • Felix-Brasdefer, César J. 2007. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4. 253–286.Google Scholar

  • Clift, Rebecca. 2001. Meaning in interaction: The case of ‘actually’. Language 77. 245–291.Google Scholar

  • Crookall, David & Danny Saunders (eds.). 1989. Communication and simulation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Curl, Tracy & Paul Drew. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41. 129–153.Google Scholar

  • D’hondt, Sigurd, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.) 2009. The pragmatics of interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Davidson, Judy. 1984. Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 102–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Edmondson, Willis, Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper & Brigitte Stemmer 1984. Learning the pragmatics of discourse: A project report. Applied Linguistics 5. 113–127.Google Scholar

  • Fitzgerald, Richard & William Housley (eds.) 2015. Advances in membership categorization analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Francis, D. 1989. Game identities and activities: Some ethnomethodological observations. In David Crookall & Danny Saunders (eds.), Communication and simulation, 53–68. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Fulcher, Glenn & Rosina Marquez Reiter. 2003. Task difficulty in speaking tests. Language Testing 20. 321–344.Google Scholar

  • Garfinkel, Harold & Harvey Sacks. 1970. On formal structures of practical action. In John C. McKinney & Edward A. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments, 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

  • Gass, Susan M. & Noel Houck. 1999. Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

  • Goodwin, Charles. 2007. Interactive footing. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grabowski, Kirby. 2013. Investigating the construct validity of a role-play test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge at multiple proficiency levels. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 149–171. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John & Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Hester, Stephen & Peter Eglin (eds.) 1997. Culture in action. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Google Scholar

  • Higgs, Theodore V. & Ray T. Clifford. 1982. The push toward communication. In Theodore V. Higgs (ed.), Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher, 57–136. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.Google Scholar

  • Hudson, Thom, Emily Detmer & James D. Brown. 1995. Developing prototypic measures of crosscultural pragmatics (Technical Report #7). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar

  • Huth, Torsten. 2010. Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects of elicited second-language interaction. The Modern Language Journal 94. 537–553.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, Marisa. 2001. The art of non-conversation. New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar

  • Kasper, Gabriele. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, César Félix-Brasdefer & Alwiya S. Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, 281–314. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar

  • Kasper, Gabriele & Steven Ross. 2007. Multiple questions in oral proficiency interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 2045–2070.Google Scholar

  • Kern, Jefrey M. 1991. An evaluation of a novel role-play methodology: The standardized idiographic approach. Behavior Therapy 22. 13–29.Google Scholar

  • Levenston, Eddie A. 1975. Aspects of testing the oral proficiency of adult immigrants to Canada. In Leslie Palmer & Bernhard Spolsky (eds.), Papers on language testing 1967-1974, 67–74. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar

  • Limberg, Holger. 2010. The interactional organization of academic talk: Office hour consultations. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Linell, Per, Johan Hofvendahl & Camilla Lindholm. 2003. Multi-unit questions in institutional interactions: Sequential organization and communicative functions. Text 23. 539–571.Google Scholar

  • Liu, Jianda. 2006. Measuring interlanguage pragmatic knowledge of EFL learners. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • McNamara, Tim F. & Carsten Roever. 2006. Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Messick, Samuel. 1989. Validity. In Robert L. Linn (ed.), Educational measurement, 3rd edn, 13–103. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Okada, Yusuke. 2010. Role-play in oral proficiency interviews: Interactive footing and interactional competencies. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 1647–1668.Google Scholar

  • Okada, Yusuke & Tim Greer. 2013. Pursuing a relevant response in oral proficiency interview role plays. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 288–310. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anita & John Heritage. 2012. Preference. In Jack Sidnell & Tanja Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 210–228. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Roever, Carsten. 2005. Testing ESL pragmatics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Roever, Carsten. 2011. Tests of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing 28. 463–481.Google Scholar

  • Roever, Carsten. 2013. Testing implicature under operational conditions. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 43–64. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Ross, Steven J. & Steven O’Connell. 2013. The situation with complication as a site for strategic competence. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 311–326. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey. 1972. An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 31–74. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Sasaki, Miyuki. 1998. Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics 30. 457–484.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. Reflections on talk and social structure. In Deirdre Boden & Don H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure, 44–70. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21. 205–243.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sharrock, W. W. & D. D. Watson. 1985. ‘Reality construction’ in L2 simulations. System 13. 195–206.Google Scholar

  • Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2013. The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual conversation and the implications for communication training. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46. 1–21.Google Scholar

  • Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2014. The conversation analytic role-play method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role- play. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47. 255–265.Google Scholar

  • Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen. 2006. Request sequences: The intersection of grammar, interaction and social context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen & Thorsten Huth. 2010. L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua 29. 185–202.Google Scholar

  • Thornton, George C. & Jeanette N. Cleveland. 1990. Developing managerial talent through simulation. American Psychologist 45. 190–199.Google Scholar

  • Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Van Compernolle, Remi A. & Janice McGregor (eds.) 2016. Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Walters, Scott F. 2007. A conversation-analytic hermeneutic rating protocol to assess L2 oral pragmatic competence. Language Testing 27(2). 155–183.Google Scholar

  • Walters, Scott F. 2013. Interfaces between a discourse completion test and a conversation analysis-informed test of L2 pragmatic competence. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 172–195. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Watson, D. R. & W. W. Sharrock (1990). Realities in simulation/gaming. In David Crookall & Rebecca Oxford (eds.), Simulation, gaming and language learning, 231–238. Basingstoke: Newbury House.Google Scholar

  • Watson, Rod. 1997. Some general reflections of ‘categorization’ and ‘sequence’ in the analysis of conversation. In Stephen Hester & Peter Eglin (eds.), Culture in action, 49–75. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Google Scholar

  • Wildner-Bassett, Mary. 1984. Improving pragmatic aspects of learners’ interlanguage. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Wright-Maley, Corey. 2015. Beyond the “Babel problem”: Defining simulations for the social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research 39. 63–77.Google Scholar

  • Yamashita, Sayoko O. 1996. Six measures of JSL pragmatics (Technical Report #14). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar

  • Youn, Soo Jung 2013. Validating task-based assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar

  • Youn, Soo Jung 2015. Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing 32. 199–225.Google Scholar

  • Youn, Soo Jung & James Dean Brown. 2013. Item difficulty and heritage language learner status in pragmatic tests for Korean as a foreign language. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 98–123. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Zimmerman, Don H. & Deirdre Boden. 1991. Structure-in-action: An introduction. In Deirdre Boden & Don H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure, 3–21. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-05-10


Citation Information: Applied Linguistics Review, ISSN (Online) 1868-6311, ISSN (Print) 1868-6303, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0020.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in