Cover not available
Article published In:
Corpus-based Approaches to Spoken L2 Production: Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus
Edited by Vaclav Brezina, Dana Gablasova and Tony McEnery
[International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5:2] 2019
► pp. 231–252

Holding up one’s end of the conversation in spoken English

Lexical backchannels in L2 examination discourse

| University of Padua
| University of Padua

This study investigates the use of lexical backchannels in the discourse of L2 English users sitting Trinity College London’s Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE). It is based on the Trinity Lancaster Corpus Sample and explores the language produced during the Discussion, Conversation and Interactive tasks of the language examinations by L2 English users from Chinese, Indian and Italian linguistic backgrounds, whose proficiency ranges from the B2 to C2 levels (i.e. high intermediate, advanced, expert) of the CEFR. The findings suggest that the L2 users with an Italian background and to a lesser extent those with a Chinese background often supported their examiners’ turns with items conveying uncertainty, while those with an Indian background with items of certainty. Furthermore, the L1 Chinese speakers used lexical backchannels the most, especially those expressing surprise or request for confirmation, while the speakers from India used them the least. Implications for the assessment of oral proficiency are discussed.

Keywords: backchannels, active listenership, L2 English, language testing, learner corpus research
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Data collection
    • 2.2Classification scheme
    • 2.3Data extraction
    • 2.4Data analysis
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1The subcorpus components
    • 3.2Category (1): Convergence
    • 3.3Category (2): Request for confirmation
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17020.cas
References
Amador Moreno, C. P., McCarthy, M. J. & O’Keeffe, A.
2013 “Can English provide a framework for Spanish response tokens?”. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013: New Domains and Methodologies, 1(1), 175–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, W. A. & Lindstrom, A. K.
1992 “Conversational universals and comparative theory: turning to Swedish and American acknowledgement tokens in interaction”. Communication Theory 21, 24–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brezina, V. & Meyerhoff, M.
2014 “Significant or random? A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, A.
2006 “Candidate discourse in the revised IELTS Speaking Test”. IELTS Research Reports Vol 61, IELTS Australia and British Council, Canberra, 71–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castello, E.
2013 “Integrating learner corpus data into the assessment of spoken interaction in English in an Italian university context”. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Corpora and Language in Use. Proceedings 1, Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 61–74.Google Scholar
Clancy, B. & McCarthy, M.
2015 “Co-constructed turn-taking”. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 430–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R. & Tao, H.
1996 “The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin”. Journal of Pragmatics 261, 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
2001 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutrone, P.
2005 “A case study examining backchannels in conversations between Japanese-British dyads”. Multilingua 21, 237–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducasse, A. M.
2010 Interaction in Paired Oral Proficiency Assessment in Spanish. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. & Fiske, D.
1985 Interaction Structure and Strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A.
1996 “Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns”. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T. & Boyd, E.
2015 “Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: the effect of task and speaker style”. Applied Linguistics 38(5), 613–837. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V. & McEnery, T.
2019 “Introduction”. Corpus-based Approaches to Spoken L2 Production. Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. IJLCR 5(2) Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gardner, R.
2007 “The Right connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk”. Language in Society 361, 319–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, S.
2013 Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graddol, D.
2010 English Next India: The Future of English in India. Manchester: British Council.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, A.
2002 “Learner corpora and language testing: Smallwords as markers of learner fluency”. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 143–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, C., Byrne, S. & Halenko, N.
2018 Successful Spoken English. Findings from learner corpora. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leavitt, H. J. & Mueller, R. A. H.
1951 “Some effects of feedback on communication”. Human Relations 41, 401–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehtonen, J. & Sajavaara, K.
1985 “The silent Finn”. In D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspective on Silence: Norwood NJ: Ablex, 193–201.Google Scholar
Li, H. Z.
2006 “Backchannel responses as misleading feedback in intercultural discourse”. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 35(2), 99–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makri-Tsilipakou, M.
1994 “Interruption revisited: Affiliative vs disaffiliative intervention”. Journal of Pragmatics 211, 401–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
May, L.
2009 “Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective”. Language Testing 26(3), 397–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, S. K.
1997 “Analyzing interactional management in native/non-native English conversation: A case of listener response”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 35(1), 37–60.Google Scholar
Molenda, M. & Pęzik, P.
2015 “Extending the definition of confluence. A corpus-based study of advanced learners’ spoken language”. In A. Turula & B. Mikołajewska (Eds.), Insights into Technology Enhanced Language Pedagogy. Bern: Peter Lang, 105–118.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. & Carter, R.
2007 From Corpus to Classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, B. & Lu, Y.
2006 “The impact on candidate language of examiner deviation from a set interlocutor frame in the IELTS Speaking Test”. IELTS Research Reports 2006, Vol. 61. Canberra: IELTS Australia and British Council, 1–27.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. & Newell, J.
2012 “Prosody and feedback in native and non-native speakers of English”. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching. Dordrecht: Springer, 117–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rühlemann, C.
2010 “Conversational grammar – Feminine grammar? A sociopragmatic corpus study”. Journal of English Linguistics 38(1), 56–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandlund, E., Sundqvist, P. & Nyroos, L.
2016 “Testing L2 talk: A review of empirical studies on second-language oral proficiency testing”. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(1), 14–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P.
2012 “What kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in Oral Proficiency Interviews?”. English Profile Journal 3(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Stubbe, M.
1998 “Are you listening? Cultural influences on the use of supportive verbal feedback in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 29(3), 257–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G.
1991 “Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels”. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman, 254–335.Google Scholar
Trinity College London
Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE) [URL] (21 August 2018).
Utashiro, T. & Kawai, G.
2009 “Blended learning for Japanese reactive tokens: Effects of computer-led, instructor-led, and peer-based interaction”. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic Competence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 275–299.Google Scholar
Winke, P. & Gass, S.
2013 “The influence of second language experience and accent familiarity on oral proficiency rating: a qualitative investigation”. TESOL Quarterly 471, 762–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, D. & Peters, P.
2007 “A study of backchannels in regional varieties of English, using corpus mark-up as means of identification”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(4), 479–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xudong, D.
2009 “Listener response”. In S. D’hondt, J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 104–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Fang, Yao
2022. Design of Oral English Intelligent Evaluation System Based on DTW Algorithm. Mobile Networks and Applications 27:4 ► pp. 1378 ff. DOI logo
Kraaz, Michelle & Tobias Bernaisch
2022. Backchannels and the pragmatics of South Asian Englishes. World Englishes 41:2 ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Lina
2024. A study on pronunciation assessment of English learners based on temporal classification algorithm. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1 DOI logo
Zou, Meiying
2022. 2022 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Mobile Networks and Wireless Communications (ICMNWC), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.