Cover not available
Article published In:
Learner Corpus Research for Pedagogical Purposes
Edited by Sandra Götz and Sylviane Granger
[International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 10:1] 2024
► pp. 183–215

Expressions of epistemic stance in computer-mediated L2 speaking assessment

A corpus-based approach

| Lancaster University
| Lancaster University
| Lancaster University
| British Council
Learner and L2 user corpora are increasingly valued in language testing and assessment as they can inform test design, revision, and validation. This paper illustrates the benefits of using an L2 corpus to explore patterns of epistemic stance marking in computer-mediated speaking tests with no live human interlocutor. Drawing on the British Council-Lancaster Aptis Corpus – comprising over 630,000 words of L2 speech – we explored the frequency of epistemic stance markers (adverbial, adjectival and verbal) across proficiency levels and speaking task types. The analysis revealed that epistemic stance was prevalent in test-taker discourse and that frequency was influenced by L2 proficiency and task type. The findings demonstrate that computer-mediated speaking tests can elicit expressions of epistemic stance in a comparable way to tests which involve human-human interaction. Implications are drawn for examiner training, test preparation, and an enriched understanding of the elements of pragmatic competence that can be elicited in computer-mediated speaking assessment.
Keywords: speaking assessment, epistemic stance, spoken L2 production, learner corpus research, epistemic stance markers, pragmatic competence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Applying a corpus-based approach to explore computer-mediated L2 speaking assessment
  • 3.Stance-taking and epistemic stance
  • 4.Exploring epistemic stance in the Aptis Speaking Test
  • 5.Methodology
    • 5.1Research questions
    • 5.2Data
    • 5.3Analytic procedure
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Frequency and distribution of ESMs in the Aptis Corpus (RQ1)
    • 6.2The interaction between the task type and proficiency in the frequency of the epistemic stance markers
  • 7.Discussion
    • 7.1Discussion of findings
    • 7.2Implications and applications for language testing and assessment
    • 7.3Challenges and further research
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 28 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.00044.gab
References (65)
References
Aijmer, K. (2004). Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Worlds of Words. A Tribute to Arne Zettersten. Special Issue of Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3 (1), 173–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Well I’m not sure I think… The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16 (2), 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C. (Eds.). (2015). Corpus pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bae, J., & Lee, Y. S. (2011). The validation of parallel test forms: ‘Mountain’ and ‘beach’ picture series for assessment of language skills. Language Testing, 28 (2), 155–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, F., Salamoura, A., & Saville, N. (2015). Learner corpora and language testing. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 511–533). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2012). Epistemic markers in university advisory sessions: Towards a local grammar of epistemicity. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Auckland.
Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P., & McEnery, A. (2020). #LancsBox (Version 5) [software]. [URL]
British Council (2023). Aptis. Guide for teachers. [electronic resource]. [URL]Google Scholar
Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2014). Contextualizing performances: Comparing performances during TOEFL iBTTM and real-life academic speaking activities. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11 (4), 353–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callies, M., & Götz, S. (2015). Learner corpora in language testing and assessment: Prospects and challenges. In M. Callies, & S. Götz (Eds.), Learner corpora in language testing and assessment (pp. 1–10). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A., & Lee, H. (2021). Conceptions of validity. In G. Fulcher, & L. Harding (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of language testing (2nd ed., pp. 17–31). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crosthwaite, P. R., & Raquel, M. (2019). Validating an L2 academic group oral assessment: Insights from a spoken learner corpus. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16 (1), 39–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cushing, S. T. (2017). Corpus linguistics in language testing research. Language Testing, 34 (4), 441–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (2010). Discourse markers across speakers and settings. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4 (5), 269–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. Hodder Education/Routledge.Google Scholar
Fulcher, G., & Harding, L. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge Handbook of language testing. Routledge.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (1), 23–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D. (2021). Corpora for second language assessments. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing (pp. 45–53). Routledge.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., Harding, L., & Dunlea, J. (2020). The British Council – Lancaster Aptis Speaking corpus [electronic dataset]. Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Boyd, E. (2017). Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics, 38 (5), 613–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., & Brezina, V. (2015). Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus . In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2015 (pp. 117–136). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., Harding, L., Brezina, V., & Dunlea, J. (2023, July). Talking to an imagined interlocutor: Interactional and interpersonal discourse features in computer-mediated semi-direct speaking assessment. Paper presented at the CL2023 conference, Lancaster University.
Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests?. Applied linguistics, 35 (5), 553–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dupont, M., Meunier, F., Naets, H., & Paquot, M. (2020). The International Corpus of Learner English (Version 3). Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland, & C. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15–33). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyllstad, H., & Snoder, P. (2021). Exploring learner corpus data for language testing and assessment purposes: The case of verb + noun collocations. In S. Granger (Ed.), Perspectives on the L2 phrasicon. The view from learner corpora (pp. 49–71). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 237–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
He, L., & Dai, Y. (2006). A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion. Language Testing, 23 (3), 370–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.) (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T. (2018). Fully automated speaking assessment: Changes to proficiency testing and the role of pronunciation. In O. Kang, R. I. Thomson, & J. Murphy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 570–584). Routledge.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., May, L., & Moore, P. (2017). Features of discourse and lexical richness at different performance levels in the APTIS speaking test (AR-G/2017/2). [URL]
Iwashita, N., May, L., & Moore, P. J. (2021). Operationalising interactional competence in computer-mediated speaking tests. In M. R. Salaberry, & A. R. Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications (pp. 283–302). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansen, S. H. (2020). Hedging in spoken conversations by Norwegian learners of English. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 8 (2), 27–48.Google Scholar
(2006). Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk, 26 (6), 699–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Position and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 203–236). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlỳ, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1 (1), 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kizu, M., Gyogi, E., & Dougherty, P. (2022). Epistemic stance in L2 English discourse: The development of pragmatic strategies in study abroad. Applied Pragmatics, 4 (1), 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaFlair, G. T., & Staples, S. (2017). Using corpus linguistics to examine the extrapolation inference in the validity argument for a high-stakes speaking assessment. Language Testing, 34 (4), 451–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lam, P. W. (2009). The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Studies, 11 (3): 353–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T., Callies, M., Hasselgård, H., Laso, N. J., Van Vuuren, S., Verdaguer, I., & Paquot, M. (2020). Adverb placement in EFL academic writing: Going beyond syntactic transfer. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 25 (2), 156–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leedham, M., & Cai, G. (2013). Besides… on the other hand: Using a corpus approach to explore the influence of teaching materials on Chinese students’ use of linking adverbials. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22 (4), 374–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 (7), 1313–1328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakatsuhara, F., May, L., Inoue, C., Willcox-Ficzere, E., Westbrook, C., & Spiby, R. (2021). Exploring the potential for assessing interactional and pragmatic competence in semi-direct speaking tests. British Council.Google Scholar
Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013). Task type effects on pragmatic marker use by learners at varying proficiency levels. L2 Journal, 5(2), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ockey, G. J. (2009). Developments and challenges in the use of computer-based testing for assessing second language ability. The Modern Language Journal, 93 1, 836–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ockey, G. J., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2021). Human versus computer partner in the paired oral discussion test. Applied Linguistics, 42 (5), 924–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Loughlin, K. J. (2001). The equivalence of direct and semi-direct speaking tests. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, B. (2015). Linking the Aptis reporting scales to the CEFR. Aptis Technical Report (TR/2015/003). British Council. [URL]
O’Sullivan, B., Dunlea, J., Spiby, R., Westbrook, C., & Dunn, K. (2020). Aptis General technical manual [Version 2.2]. British Council.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, B., Weir, C., & Saville, N. (2002). Using observation checklists to validate speaking-test tasks. Language Testing, 19 (1), 33–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quaid, E., & Barrett, A. (2020). Towards the future of computer-assisted language testing: Assessing spoken performance through semi-direct tests. In B. Zou, & M. Thomas (Eds.), Recent developments in technology-enhanced and computer-assisted language learning (pp. 208–235). IGI Global.Google Scholar
Roever, C., & Ikeda, N. (2022). What scores from monologic speaking tests can (not) tell us about interactional competence. Language Testing, 39 (1), 7–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, C., & Kasper, G. (2018). Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 35 (3), 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, C., & McNamara, T. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (2), 242–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, U. (2017). Language assessment and the inseparability of lexis and grammar: Focus on the construct of speaking. Language Testing, 34 (4), 477–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salsbury, T., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 57–76). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1994). The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing, 11 (2), 99–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2018). Using corpus-based register analysis to explore the authenticity of high-stakes language exams: A register comparison of TOEFL iBT and disciplinary writing tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102 (2), 310–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V., Wain, J., & Schmidgall, J. (2015). Defining and operationalizing the construct of pragmatic competence: Review and recommendations. ETS Research Report Series, 2015(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V., Sydorenko, T., & Dombi, J. (2022). Human versus machine: investigating L2 learner output in face-to-face versus fully automated role-plays. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wei, M. (2011). A comparative study of the oral proficiency of Chinese learners of English across task functions: A discourse marker perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 44 (4), 674–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar