Acceso usuarios
[1]
;
Hazel, Spencer
[1]
Reino Unido
This study explores the use by examinees of claims of epistemic primacy, in the form of noun-copula clause constructions, as devices through which to perform the social action of disagreeing during group-based, task-oriented second language oral assessment tasks. Using a conversation analytic approach to examine sequences in which these disagreeing turns occur, we report on this turn format’s ability to secure an affiliative response from fellow examinees and thereby maintain a collaborative flow. In doing so, we uncover one way of disagreeing which is particularly germane to the collaborative demands of these assessment tasks. The relevance of these findings for the development of learner and assessor training and assessment materials are considered.
