Advertisement

Oral Interaction: Concept, Competence, and Assessment

  • Jinghua Fan
Chapter

Abstract

The article delineates the concept of interaction as it derives from language communication and describes the features of interactional competence from the perspective of discourse analysis. With references to categorization of interactional skills, this article proposes that interactional competence can be assessed in terms of the quality observed in a basic interactive unit consisting of responsive turn, turn-switching, and initiative turn.

References

  1. Archakis, A. (2001). On discourse markers: Evidence from modern Greek. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1235–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, D. H. (2001) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  3. Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carol Lynn, M., & Martinovic-Zic, A. (2004). Discourse across languages and cultures. John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Council of Europe. (2004). The common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2011). Nurturing active learners and proficient users: 2010 Mother Tongue review committee report. Singapore: MOE.Google Scholar
  10. Ogi, N. (2017) Involvement and attitude in Japanese discourse: Interactive markers. John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  11. O’Sullivan, B., Weir, C. J., & Saville, N. (2002). Using observation checklists to validate speaking-test tasks. Language Testing, 19, 33–56.Google Scholar
  12. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wan, Q. (2013) On the structure of Qi-Cheng-Zhuan-He: From poetics to the study of passages. In X. Hu (Ed.), Views on beauty and Chinese literary theory (pp. 79–94). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Yang, L. C. (2006). Integrating prosodic and contextual cues in the interpretation of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 265–297). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NUSSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations