This article explores excerpts from Danish naturalization interviews. A naturalization interview is a conversation between a Danish police officer and an applicant for Danish citizenship. During the naturalization interview, the police officer decides whether the applicant fulfils a requirement by law. According to the police officers, the language requirement is fulfilled if applicants are able to understand what is said and make themselves understood. The onus is on the applicant to prove that he or she can do just that. However, this article argues that understanding is something that is co-constructed – the police officer is just as involved in the establishment of understanding as is the applicant. By analysing and comparing how different police officers respond to applicants’ answers – how police officers respond in a sequential third position – it is shown that police officers do in fact play a decisive role in the joint understanding established during the naturalization interviews. The naïve notion that it is possible to test applicants’ abilities to understand by involving applicants in so-called natural conversations with police officers is thus disclosed as – naïve.
BrouwerC. E.RasmussenG.WagnerJ. (2004). Embedded corrections in second language talk. In GardnerR.WagnerJ. (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 75–92). London, UK: Continuum.
2.
BrownA. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20, 1–25.
3.
BrownA.LumleyT. (1997). Interviewer variability in specific-purpose language performance test. In HuhtaA.KohonenV.Kurki-SuonioL.LuomaS. (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment: Proceedings of LTRC 96 (pp. 21–41). Jyvaskyla, Finland: University of Jyvaskyla and University of Tampere.
4.
ButtonG. (1992). Answers as interactional products: Two sequential practices used in job interviews. In DrewP.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 212–231). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ClarkH. H.SchaeferE. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.
6.
DrewP. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of pragmatics, 28, 69–101.
7.
EgbertM. (1998). Miscommunication in language proficiency interviews of first-year German Students: A comparison with natural conversation. In YoungR.HeA. W. (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 147–172). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
FirthA. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259.
10.
FogtmannC. (2007). Samtaler med Politiet (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
11.
GoodwinC. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an Aphasic Man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 233–260.
12.
HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (1976). Cohesion in English. New York, NY: Longman.
13.
HeA. W.YoungR. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In YoungR.HeA. W. (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
14.
HeritageJ. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
JacobyS.OchsE. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 171–183.
17.
JeffersonG. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In ButtonG.LeeJ. R. E. (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86–100). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
18.
JohnsonM. (2001). The art of non-conversation: A re-examination of the validity of the oral proficiency interviews. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
JohnsonM.TylerA. (1998). Re-analyzing the OPI: How much does it look like natural conversation? In YoungR.HeA. W. (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral roficiency (pp. 27–52). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
20.
KurhilaS. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1083–1110.
21.
LazaratonA. (1996). Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: The case of CASE. Language testing, 13, 151–172.
22.
MarkovaI. (1990). Why the dynamics of dialogue? In MarkovaI.FoppaK. (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
23.
McNamaraT.HillK.MayL. (2002). Discourse and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 221–242.
24.
McNamaraT. F. (1997). ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance?Applied Linguistics, 18, 446–466.
25.
McNamaraT. F.RoeverC. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
26.
NielsenM. F. (2001). Replik til journalistikken – mikroanalyse af Medieinterviewet [Response to journalism – Micro analysis of the media interview]. Viborg, Denmark: Akademisk Forlag.
27.
SchegloffE. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defence of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345.
28.
SchegloffE. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.
29.
SchegloffE. A. (1997). Third turn repair. In GuyG. R.FeaginC.SchiffrinD.BaughJ. (Eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov 2 (pp. 31–40). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
30.
SchegloffE. A.JeffersonG.SacksH. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair for conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
31.
SchutzA. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
32.
SvennevigJ. (2004). Other-repetition as a display of hearing, understanding and emotional stance. Discourse Studies, 6, 489–516.
33.
TradsS. F. (2000). Interpersonelle relationer i medarbejdersamtaler (Unpublished PhD afhandling). Ålborg Universitet, Denmark.
34.
WagnerJ. (1996). Foreign language acquisition through interaction - A critical review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 215–235.
35.
YoungR. F. (2001). Discourse approaches to oral language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 243–262.
