Comment on the SCPI

Winter 83 COMMENT ON THE SCPI Dennis Cokely In reviewing the proposed adaptation of the Language Proficiency Interview (LPI) from a sociolinguistic perspective, there are three main areas that must be addressed: the object of the assessment ("sign communicative competence"), the SCPI Rating Scale, and the interview format itself. 1. The object of the assessment. The basic premise upon which the LPI and all LPI-like assessments are based is comparison. The authors note that it should compare ". ..the candidate's performance to a predetermined scale based on an 'ideal' language user." Such comparisons are possible only to the extent that the formal linguistic structure used by native language users to accomplish specific linguistic and practical functions can be clearly stated. Alternately, as is often the case with the LPI, one must rely upon the intuitions of native or proficient users of the language to determine the "goodness of fit" of a candidate's performance. As long as the object of assessment remains language proficiency, gradient ratings of a candidate's performance can be made on the basis of discrepancies between the formal properties of the candidate's utterances (e.g. control of grammar, pronunciation, extent of lexicon) and those of the native language user. In recognition of this, the highest interview rating awarded by the Foreign Service Institute has been a level ". .. equivalent to that of an educated, native speaker"