Linguistic laypersons' perspective on second language oral communication

2014 Dr. Takanori SatoSince the advent of the communicative movement, applied linguists or language specialists have theorized the ability to communicate in a second language (L2). Correspondingly, in general-purpose oral proficiency tests, language specialists (language testers or teachers) define L2 oral communication ability, determining the abilities or knowledge to be included in the criteria based on their professional perspective and/or theoretical models of communicative competence. Accordingly, ideal L2 oral communication, as conceived by communication theory and oral proficiency tests, reflects the perspectives of language specialists. In contrast, the perspectives of linguistic laypersons (non-specialists in language) on L2 communication ability have not been incorporated into theories of communication ability and the construct definition of oral proficiency tests. This arguably seriously undermines the validity of the theories because, in the real world context, the ultimate arbiters of L2 speakers’ oral performance are largely not trained professionals in language. Furthermore, the construct definition relying on language specialists’ perspectives is flawed because a good performance as defined by language specialists is not necessarily identical to one perceived by linguistic laypersons. It is important for language tests to adopt, if possible, the perspectives of such laypersons on L2 communication ability in order to more accurately predict their impressions in real-life contexts. This study therefore investigates linguistic laypersons’ perspectives on L2 communication ability and aims to explore what features or behaviors of the speaker affect their intuitive judgments of this ability. Twenty-three non-native and native English speaking graduate students from disciplines other than applied linguistics or TESOL participated in this study. First, they watched video recordings of seven individual presentations on the College English Test-Spoken English Test and three paired interactions from the Cambridge English Examinations. Second, participants indicated their intuitive impressions of each speaker’s communication ability on a scale of 1 (Poor) to 7 (Excellent). Third, they provided justifications for their ratings. Fourth, they reviewed the performances and performed stimulated recall, verbalizing features of the performances that influenced their impressions. Finally, they responded to semi-structured interviews to provide supplementary information about their judgments. Features that had affected their impressions were explored in the verbal report data. The interview data were analyzed qualitatively to examine what features were perceived to most strongly influence their impressions. The results showed that the outcome of communicative performance, including successful message conveyance and the quality of content, was one of the main criteria used to judge communication ability. Although linguistic features such as grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and fluency were recognized as factors impacting the outcome of communication, the participants neither considered them crucial nor penalized errors harshly unless comprehensibility was seriously impeded. Their impressions were also influenced by the test-taker’s non-verbal behavior and perceived level of confidence, which were found to be closely related. In addition, the participants frequently noted interactional features such as engagement and the size of contribution in the paired interactions. The perspectives of linguistic laypersons can help define the features of oral communication ability valued in real-world contexts, which in turn can inform the assessment criteria used to measure this ability