Reeling, Writhing, Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils: Oral Proficiency Interviews as Conversation

This article provides a detailed examination of the oral proficiency interview and its underlying assumptions of validity and value. An attempt is made, by looking at the interview from the inside, to understand what OPIs are and what the participants in them do. The similarities and differences between interviews and conversations are examined, and some of the major problems of proficiency interviewing are illustrated and discussed. Finally, some specific proposals are made that may lead to more effective oral interviewing procedures. In this article I want to look at oral proficiency interviews (OPIs) as instances of conversation between people. Two questions are central to this discussion: (a) Are OPIs examples of conversational language use? and (b) Is conversational language use the appropriate (or the only, or the best) vehicle to evaluate oral proficiency? The tentative answer to the first question is a qualified no, the qualification being that an OPI can and may be designed to elicit conversational language use but frequently is not. The second question is far more difficult to answer: It addresses the central issue of the construct validity of oral tests in general. However, I propose that conversation is an appropriate vehicle for the all-around display of speaking ability in context. If the latter is a definition of oral proficiency, then I think we can be reasonably sure that conversation is the best vehicle for its evaluation. To address the questions I have posed, one must obtain an insider's view of the OPI. To do this, I have relied on three sources of data: (a) the analysis of several OPIs I have taken as an interviewee, (b) the study of transcripts and tapes of a variety of