9.1 Introduction

In this chapter we will examine narratives using the model of Labov and Waletzky (Reference Labov and Waletzky1997), in a qualitative study, to begin to explore the ways in which narratives are used by L2 speakers in the TLC. A key feature of this chapter is that we will return to an earlier stage in the book – the decision to move away from L1 background – and chart a slightly different course. In this qualitative study, where the issues of frequency (which were some of the issues that militated against a focus on L1) are set aside, we can take a slightly different approach, hypothesising about the role that L1 background may play in a focused, small-scale exploration of narrative in the TLC. Before proceeding to the analysis, however, we will first outline how the data used in this chapter was selected and annotated.

9.2 Annotating Narratives in the Data

The analysis presented in this chapter is based on annotations of narratives, following Labov and Waletzky’s approach to narrative analysis introduced in the previous chapter. We began by taking a sample of 200 texts from our data for analysis. The sample covered speakers from countries where there were at least ten files in each of grades 6–8 of the TLC. There were six national backgrounds, with sufficient numbers of files available in the TLC data analysed in this book – Argentinian, Chinese, Indian, Italian, Mexican and Spanish. Ten files per level for each national background were selected at random, with equal numbers of male and female speakers being selected where possible. In turn, this gave us access to six varied L1 backgrounds. This produced a sample of 180 files. To permit comparison to L1 English speakers, twenty files were selected from the TLC L1. These files were selected to produce a gender-balanced sample. In total, 200 files were analysed for the study presented in this chapter. In the TLC sample are speakers of Hindi and Italian as well as three varieties of Spanish (Argentinian, Mexican, Peninsular) and three varieties of Chinese.

Focusing on this sample, we began by identifying all instances of narrative by manually searching for the occurrence of at least two narrative clauses (i.e. clauses containing a verb in the simple past tense or historic past tense), as well as the compulsory structural element of Complication (as described in Chapter 8, after Labov and Waletzky Reference Labov and Waletzky1997). Qualifying texts were then read and manually annotated for the presence of the remaining narrative components outlined by Labov and Waletzky (Reference Labov and Waletzky1997): Abstract, Coda, Complication, Evaluation, Orientation and Result. We manually coded the narratives, using XML mark-up, to show where these elements occurred within the texts.Footnote ¹ These searchable annotations (which we will call tags) mark the beginning and end of specific components (e.g. Abstract begins with <abs> and ends with </abs>), as well as the beginnings and ends of narratives more widely (i.e. <nar> to </nar>). In Table 9.1, we provide an example of each narrative element in our data, to demonstrate, in very broad terms, what each one ‘looks like’ in the context of the exam. These examples are produced by L2 speakers in our TLC sample.

Let us return to a question we explored with reference to one narrative in the last chapter and briefly explore it again. Are narrative elements simply micro-structures in the same sense as explored in Chapter 2? If each narrative element was constituted by a single turn, it would raise the prospect of exploring the mapping of these elements to the micro-structural analysis in Chapter 2. In Chapter 8 we saw, in one example, that this is not necessarily the case. Unfortunately, more generally, while narrative elements may be coterminous with a turn, they may also occur below the level of the turn and at what we called the meso-structural level—that is, above the level of the turn but below the level of the macro-structure (in this case discourse unit), just as we saw in Chapter 8. Consider the following example, taken from file 2_8_ME_15, of a Mexican student taking a grade 8 exam for which they were awarded a C:

This is a single discourse unit. Within it, we see a single narrative presented. However, the narrative elements straddle the meso- and micro-levels. For example, the Result occurs in the same student turn as a preceding Complication, while the initial Complication is composed of multiple turns contributed by both speakers. Accordingly, we proceeded with an analysis of the narrative elements in their own right, as these cannot simply be viewed via our micro- or macro-structures. Nonetheless, as the discussion in this chapter proceeds, we will bring in insights from the analyses in Chapters 2–7 where relevant, demonstrating the complementarity of the approaches argued for in Chapter 8.

Of the 200 texts in our sample, in 142 cases (i.e. 71 per cent) the candidate used at least one narrative, a result consonant with the view of the data we have developed so far—that is, that it is rich in narrative. Applying the tags mentioned allows us to explore these narratives in more detail, in particular by quantifying the structural elements of the narratives, identifying patterns they form within the candidates’ discourse, and exploiting these as searchable entry points for close, qualitative analyses of narrative practices in context. This combination of quantitative insights and close, qualitative analysis will guide our exploration of the narratives in the data. The tags were searched and analysed using AntConc (Anthony Reference Anthony2020).

9.3 Findings

9.4 The Role of the Examiner

At this point, we switch our focus to the language produced by the examiner administering the exam. In particular, we consider how the examiners’ linguistic contributions might serve as ‘prompts’ to support the candidates in developing their narratives. So far we have concluded that the narratives produced by the examinees are on the their own initiative. Nothing in our exploration of the various forms of narrative in our short-text MDA suggested otherwise. While we did see narratives being scaffolded by the examiner, our exploration of the various prototypical examples of narratives did not seem to suggest that the narrative was initiated at the behest of the examiner. Does a more qualitative exploration of our narrative sample confirm or alter that view?

Of the 142 candidates who produced at least one narrative, 54 (i.e. 38.03 per cent) received at least one prompt to produce a narrative. On average, those candidates received 2.11 prompts per exam (range: 1 to 9). Compared to candidates who produced at least one narrative without a prompt, those who received at least one prompt produced more narratives (average: 2.98 versus 2.17, per exam) and produced narratives more frequently (average: once per 123.09 turns versus once per 204.87 turns). To compare the influence that the prompts had on the complexion of the narratives themselves, we can compare candidates who produced one narrative with a prompt against those who produced one narrative but without a prompt (focusing on cases where candidates produced just one narrative ensures that the narrative was actually influenced by the prompt(s)). When we do this, we find that the narratives from candidates who received at least one prompt tend to contain more elements (average: 4.5 versus 3.9) and more unique elements (average: 3.9 versus 3.25). In other words, we might infer that narratives influenced by prompts tend to be longer (structurally) and exhibit a wider range of elements than those that are not supported by prompts. This finding modifies our view of narratives in the TLC analysis in Chapters 2–7. While there we saw that, for the prototypical narratives explored at least, narratives could be produced spontaneously, our exploration of the narratives annotated according to Labov and Waletzky’s scheme shows that the complexity and frequency of narrative in L2 output in general in our data could be linked to examiner behaviour.

Prompts, then, are likely to help candidates to produce more narratives, and to produce narratives that are more complex in terms of the number and range of elements they contain. However useful, this overview is somewhat broad-brush – some of the prompts given could occur within narratives, perhaps scaffolding a narrative, as we saw in Chapter 4, rather than initiating a narrative. To differentiate these from prompts which elicit a narrative from an L2 speaker when no narrative is in train, we placed the examiner prompts linked to narrative into one of two broad categories. Firstly, we have those prompts which occur before the onset of a narrative. We refer to these as initiating prompts, as they initiate the onset of a narrative. These can occur either following the conclusion of a separate narrative or following a non-narrative clause, but they are always followed by the onset of a narrative. The majority of the prompts we identified were initiating, accounting for 71 of the 114 prompts in the 54 files in which at least one prompt occurred (i.e. 62.28 per cent of all prompts). An example of an initiating prompt is given as follows, where this prompt leads into an Orientation at the beginning of a narrative.

The remaining forty-three prompts (i.e. 37.72 per cent of all prompts) occurred within narratives. We refer to these as mid-narrative prompts, and these occur following either a narrative element or a non-narrative clause occurring within a broader narrative. Mid-narrative prompts are always followed by a narrative element. An example of a mid-narrative prompt is given as follows. This instance follows (in fact, interrupts) a Complication and prompts the candidate to produce an Orientation.

In terms of what we have said about narratives in the previous chapters, we note that the majority of the narratives in our sample did not contain a prompt, with most L2 speakers who produced a narrative doing so without any prompt at all (eighty-eight candidates). Of the fifty-four candidates who produced at least one narrative associated with a prompt, we can see that a majority of these narratives were produced as a result of an initiating prompt. Less commonly, they were produced in a way that scaffolded the narrative via a mid-narrative prompt. So, the account of narrative provided in Chapters 2–7, while given nuance by these findings, at a high level stands – most of the time, learners do not produce narratives as the result of a prompt from the examiner. The direct elicitation of a narrative by an examiner when one has not been initiated by an L2 speaker is the minority case.

Another point requires some attention. In Chapter 4 we saw the existence of mid-narrative prompts. Their role in scaffolding was identified in our discussion of the Informational Narrative function in Chapter 4 (see, for example, the discussion of Example 43). We saw the examiner using micro-structures with an Information-Seeking function to scaffold narratives. However, in principle, either initiating or mid-narrative prompts could constitute scaffolding. Is there any evidence, in our qualitative study, that they do? To explore this, we will now explore each type of prompt to provide a descriptive account of each type (i.e. initiating and mid-narrative) in order to understand how each seems to influence the narratives in the data. As this section will demonstrate, the location of the prompt has a large bearing on the form the prompts take, as well as on the effects they produce in the candidates’ narratives.

Overall, in the 54 files containing narrative-related prompts, there were 114 prompts in total. As noted, seventy-one of these were initiating prompts while forty-three were mid-narrative prompts. Initiating prompts tended overwhelmingly to take the form of questions (n = 61; 85.92 per cent). As we have noted, these could occur on the back of the conclusion of another narrative or on the back of a non-narrative clause. Initiating prompts framed as questions almost always occurred on the back of non-narrative clauses (n = 54; 88.52 per cent). This was the case for Example 78. Conversation analytic research has demonstrated how questions placed at the end of turns constitute the primary means through which interlocutors hand over the conversational floor and encourage others to speak (see, for example, Neumaier, Reference Neumaier2023: 59). Such questions might thus also represent one of the main ways in which examiners facilitate candidates’ talk. Cases of initiating prompts following the conclusion of a separate narrative, meanwhile, were rare (n = 7; 14.08 per cent). We have exemplified this as follows, where one narrative about childhood games concludes with an Evaluation, before a prompt from the examiner invites the candidate to begin a new narrative specifically about one of the games the candidate mentioned, hide-and-seek, beginning with an Orientation which provides information concerning where that game was played.

In the majority of cases (n = 43; 70.49 per cent) questions functioning as initiating prompts were followed by Orientations, as demonstrated in Examples 78–80. In the remaining cases, these prompts were followed by narratives which started with a Complication (ten cases), an Abstract (seven cases) and an Evaluation (one case). Perhaps unsurprisingly, the elements of Coda and Result never followed these prompts, as these tended to occur towards the end of the narratives, whereas Abstracts and Orientations tend to occur towards the beginning and Complication and Evaluation can be more flexible in terms of where they occur.

As well as questions, in a minority of cases (n = 10; 14.08 per cent), initiating prompts took the form of requests. These included straightforward requests for tellings (Example 81; which leads to the beginning of a narrative with an Abstract), but also requests for elaboration on detail which then resulted in the beginning of a narrative (Example 82; which follows a non-narrative passage discussing the candidate’s band, and leads to a narrative beginning with an Orientation).

Whatever type of request was issued, these prompts consistently followed non-narrative clauses, as opposed to the conclusion of separate narratives—that is, the function of narrative was elicited where it had not been used in the immediate context. By virtue of their less frequent occurrence (relative to initiating prompts taking the form of questions), we have smaller numbers on which to base our observations about the use of requests. This point notwithstanding, we can see some parallels between these types of initiating prompts as, similar to questions, requests tended to bring about the use of Orientations most often (five cases), followed by Abstracts and Complications (each two cases), with a single use of an Evaluation. Also like the use of questions, requests were not followed by the use of Results or Codas, which again is likely to be due to the tendency for these elements to occur towards the ends of narratives (thus being unlikely to be brought about by initiating prompts). Thus, for initiating prompts, the form taken does not seem to influence the element that follows it, which might suggest that the location of the prompt is more influential. To test this hypothesis further, we can consider prompts located mid-narrative.

So what of the forty-three mid-narrative prompts? Like initiating prompts, mid-narrative prompts also tended to take the form of questions (n = 35; 81.40 per cent), as seen in Example 79 earlier. Questions functioning as mid-narrative prompts could follow any narrative element (except for Coda, which occurs at the end of narratives), and most often followed Orientations (thirteen cases), followed by Evaluations (ten cases), Complications (six cases) and Abstracts (two cases). Although Results tend to occur towards the end of narratives, they could also be followed up with this type of prompt (two cases), and in as many cases these prompts followed non-narrative clauses that occurred within the wider context of narratives.

Switching our focus now to the elements that followed mid-narrative prompt questions, we can see that these types of prompts seem to have a similar effect to the initiating prompts analysed earlier. In particular, in the majority of cases mid-narrative prompt questions were followed by Orientations (twenty cases), and then by Complications (seven cases) and Evaluations (three cases), but never by Codas. There are also differences, though, as the mid-narrative prompt questions did not lead to Abstracts but could be followed by Results (as exemplified in the following dialogue). This is clearly down to the location of these prompts, as the Abstracts occur naturally at the start of narratives, while Results tend overwhelmingly to occur towards the end. In Example 83, an examiner’s mid-narrative question follows a Complication and prompts the candidate to produce a Result of the narrative.

The remaining eight mid-narrative prompts all took the grammatical form of declaratives. This marks another difference between these prompts and those occurring in the initiating position. These declaratives constitute statements which relate in some way to the story being told. Their utterance could be viewed as functioning as a clarifying question, since these statements typically recapitulate some aspect of the narrative immediately preceding them. While the questions analysed take the syntactic form of interrogatives, these declarative statements seem to function in a similar way to questions – as noted, to clarifying questions.Footnote ⁵ Interestingly, while the prompts analysed so far all seem to attract Orientations in terms of what follows them – and, in the case of the mid-narrative prompts, what they follow – mid-narrative prompts taking the form of declaratives tend to follow Complications (four cases), following Orientations twice and a non-narrative clause once.

This type of prompt was followed by Complications (three cases) and Evaluations (three cases), and in one instance each by an Orientation and a Result. This is the only case so far that we have seen of the form of prompt seemingly having a bearing on the type of element that follows it. This seems to be the case because these kinds of prompts occur following the telling of Complications that relay events on which the examiner then seeks clarification. This is perhaps the case because those Complications are, unlike the relatability and relative mundanity of the details told through Orientations, unusual (hence, their tellability). This invites a response from the examiner which either seeks to clarify the Complication, which in turn can invite a response which develops the narrative further (as in Example 84), or which joins in with the appraisal of the events and further contributes to the construction of the story’s tellability (through an Evaluation, as in Example 85).

We are now getting a sense, then, of some of the ways in which prompts can support the development of narratives. Broadly, we have seen that the location of the prompt, relative to the narrative, can have a bearing on the form the prompt takes as well as the kinds of elements that it gives rise to. In the case of prompts occurring mid-narrative, we also saw how these could take the form of declarative statements, in which case both the location and the form of the prompt seemed to culminate to create a particular kind of prompt which tended to occur after – and support – the further narrative development or tellability of Complications. One feature of note for both initiating and mid-narrative prompts is their close relationship to Orientations. Initiating prompts most often elicit Orientations and mid-narrative prompts are often preceded and followed by them. This is of note because there is an echo here of the scaffolding behaviours that adults engage in with children as they are acquiring narrative – Peterson and McCabe (Reference Peterson and McCabe1992), in a study of spontaneous conversations between parents and children, explored questions used as prompts to children during a narrative that were, in essence, Orientations.

Reflecting back on our analyses earlier in the book, we can now address the question of what the prompts are achieving in the interaction. Both initiating and mid-narrative prompts are dominated by questions, exactly the type of information-seeking micro-structure that we observed in examiners scaffolding narratives in the Informational Narrative function in Chapter 4. So, at the micro-structural level, we are seeing the Information-Seeking function used by the examiner, a micro-structural function of examiner speech introduced in Chapter 2. As noted, this is exactly what we saw in the scaffolding of narrative in the discussion of Dimension 4 in Chapter 4. The examiner prompts can be viewed largely as scaffolds, irrespective of whether they are placed initially or mid-narrative. The examiner, following the cooperative principle, is building the conversation in such a way as to permit the student to display a wider knowledge of how to use narrative and to sustain their contribution. This interpretation is also in line with what we have seen regarding the overall effect of the prompts – the students who are prompted are those who produce the longer and more complex narratives. The analysis of the contributions the prompts make to the narrative is strongly suggestive of the points in the macro-structure of narrative where scaffolding is necessary – in the case of mid-narrative prompts, we see that these most often follow Orientations. With initiating prompts, it is the narrative function itself which the examiner is facilitating the L2 speaker to select, and the initial substructure within the narrative which most often starts these elicited narratives is, once again, Orientation. So, the examiner may be argued to either be guiding some students towards an element of narrative which is problematic for the L2 speaker, or intervening after this feature where the L2 speaker fails to show the ability to use that feature.

Of course, this discussion assumes that such prompts are not part of narrative in conversations between L1 British English speakers. Fortunately, we can test this by asking how many of these prompts occur in the TLC L1 data in which narratives have been identified. If we find narrative prompts behaving the same in that data, then we would have to conclude that it was not proficiency that accounts for the prompts – rather, prompts would simply be a feature of narratives given the tasks the speaker is required to undertake in the TLC. However, of the twenty files of the TLC L1 annotated for narrative, only one includes narrative prompts. File 20 includes two narrative prompts, occurring in separate narratives. There are two narratives in total in the file and each starts with an initial prompt from the examiner. What we might conclude here is that prompts are typically not needed for L1 speakers – they produce narratives, and the need for the examiner to elicit, or scaffold, a narrative is limited. In the case of the speaker in file 20, the examiner chooses to elicit two narratives from a student who does not use narrative. However, once elicited, the narratives are produced successfully without further need of support. So, apart from noting that eliciting a narrative may be a tactic used by the examiner to test the student’s ability to produce a narrative, the points made so far stand – the use of prompts in narrative by the examiner relates, to a degree at least, to examinee proficiency.

At this point, we can switch our focus somewhat to consider whether prompts play a role in contributing to the kinds of trends relating to L1 background reported earlier in the chapter. In the next part of our analysis, we therefore consider how the use of prompts by the examiner might support the development of narratives, and whether the use of prompts might help to explain the patterns we have reported so far in this chapter. To begin, Table 9.15 shows what proportion of the candidates who produced a narrative in each L1 group also received at least one prompt. For ease of interpretation, we have ordered this from highest to lowest.

If we view this table in concert with Table 9.7 presented earlier, we can see that, generally speaking, there seems to be a relationship between age and the proportion of candidates within each L1 group that received prompts, with the L1 Hindi, Spanish (Argentina) and Chinese samples being the youngest on average and having the highest proportion of candidates in the Young category. The L1 Italian and English samples were the oldest on average and contained the smallest number of candidates belonging to the Young category. There seems to be a relationship between candidates’ age and the issuing of prompts, with younger candidates being much more likely to receive prompts than older candidates. This trend is demonstrated by Table 9.16, which shows the proportion of each age category who did and did not receive at least one prompt. Note that, to guard against zero effect, we once again only considered those candidates who produced at least one narrative during their exam. As this table shows, not only were Young candidates the most likely to receive at least one prompt from the examiner, but this is the only age group in which the majority of the candidates received at least one prompt.

It appears, then, that candidates’ age is likely to drive whether or not examiners use prompts to support the development of narratives. This is an interesting finding as it is in line with previous research on the acquisition of narrative. As noted in the discussion of the Berman model of L2 narrative acquisition, broader questions than the narrowly linguistic come into play at the third and fourth levels of the model. That includes general cognitive development because

So a hypothesis arising from our findings could certainly be that what we are seeing in this data are younger speakers who have yet to achieve proficiency at levels 3 and 4 of narrative production in their own language carrying that across to their L2. This, in turn, guides examiner behaviour.

Having considered the presence of prompts in this broad sense, it is now useful to adopt a more granular perspective on the prompts used with each L1 group, in terms of some of the features of prompts explored to this point (i.e. the location of the prompts, the form the prompts took and what preceded and followed them). Earlier, we found that there were important differences between prompts that initiated a narrative versus those that occurred mid-narrative. Table 9.17 shows this information but for each L1 group. Note that from this point we do not consider the L1 English speakers as this group did not receive a sufficient number of prompts for us to be able to reasonably identify patterns.

As this table shows, for most of the groups the majority of the prompts occurred in the initiating position (as we reported to be the case earlier when taking a whole-sample perspective on the use of prompts). Interestingly, the only group for which this was not the case was L1 Hindi speakers, for whom prompts tended to be mid-narrative rather than initiating, albeit with a fairly even split between the two. This more even balance in the location of the prompts given to L1 Hindi speakers might help to explain why members of this group did particularly well when we considered what proportion could produce each narrative element (i.e. Table 9.6). To test this hypothesis, it is necessary for us to look more closely at the influence of the prompts on the narratives produced by members of each L1 group. To adopt this perspective, we looked again at the elements that followed the prompts provided to each L1 group, beginning with initiating prompts. This is shown in Table 9.18.

This table provides some support for the hypothesis set out, inasmuch as the balance between the frequencies of individual elements following initiating prompts are arguably most evenly balanced for L1 Hindi speakers. While Orientations were the element that followed initiating prompts most commonly for all groups, it was least ‘dominant’, in this sense, for the L1 Hindi group (i.e. it accounted for the smallest proportion of elements following this kind of prompt, relative to the other L1 groups). Initiating prompts were followed by a wider range of elements for L1 Chinese and Italian speakers. However, the range between the most and least frequent elements occupying this slot – respectively, Orientations and Complications – is the narrowest, by far, for L1 Hindi speakers (16.67 percentage points; compared to 61.54 (Chinese), 33.33 (Italian), 47.06 (Spanish from Argentina) and 42.86 (Spanish from Spain)). The prompts are the most evenly distributed, then, among L1 Hindi speakers, which suggests that the initiating prompts they received produced a more balanced set of elements.

It is worth bearing in mind, though, that the majority of the prompts given to L1 Hindi speakers occurred in a mid-narrative position. So, we now ask the same question of this type of prompt (Table 9.19).

Looking over Table 9.19, we can see similar trends to those we observed in Table 9.18, which again points to a more even balance in terms of the kinds of elements that followed mid-narrative prompts with L1 Hindi speakers relative to the other groups. Firstly, this is the only group for whom mid-narrative prompts were followed by four different types of narrative element. The range between the most and least frequent type of element to follow the mid-narrative prompts for this group was again relatively narrow (26.67 per cent), suggesting something of a balance but a clear preference for Orientations. The most evenly distributed group in this regard were L1 Spanish speakers from Mexico (33.33 per cent each for three separate elements). However, there were only three cases of mid-narrative prompts for this group, compared to fifteen cases for L1 Hindi speakers.

9.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, we have explored the candidates’ use of narratives in their examinations. We took an exploratory approach, wherein from the outset we found that the candidates’ L1 seemed to have a bearing on how and how frequently they produced narratives within their discourse. We found that L1 Hindi speakers performed well across a number of measures of narrative frequency and complexity, which we hypothesised could be related to the cultural significance of storytelling in India, as well as the status of English in the country.

We then used the metadata available to us to try to understand the observed differences between the L1 groups. This led us to another factor, age, as something which distinguished L1 speakers of Hindi from the other groups (being the youngest group on average, comprised exclusively of candidates in the ‘Young’ category). This analysis revealed that there was not a neat relationship between candidates’ ages and the frequency or complexity of the narratives they produced. Thus, the patterns we observed in relation to the L1 Hindi speakers (and, to a lesser extent, the L1 Spanish speakers from Argentina and the L1 Chinese speakers) could not be explained simply by the younger ages of these groups relative to the others, though age could of course be one of a number of factors, including ones not visible to us with the data available.

In the final part of the chapter we considered the context of the exam itself and switched our focus to how the narratives in our data might be influenced by the language produced by the examiner. In particular, we analysed the examiners’ uses of prompts and found that these could vary in terms of their location and form, with the location seeming to be most influential in terms of the particular narrative elements that were produced by the candidates as a result of these. Prompts could initiate a narrative, invite more detail regarding the circumstances surrounding the narrative (through elicited Orientations), advance the narrative’s development (through elicited Complications) and contribute to the construction of the narrative’s ‘tellability’ (through elicited Evaluations). In these ways, examiners can co-construct narratives with candidates, leading to the development of stories that are longer, contain more elements, are more holistic in the range of elements they contain, are more detailed and are more evidently ‘tellable’. While there is evidence that examiners’ prompts could also support the use of Abstracts, which are generally infrequent, we cannot be sure whether or not the candidates would have used these elements without a prompt. Moreover, notably, prompts did not support the use of Codas, which were the least frequent narrative element across the entire sample. Narratives that involved prompts were more complex, then, across a number of measures. While they could not necessarily make up for ‘gaps’ in the candidates’ narrative competence, they served to accentuate competencies that are already there.

When we looked at the intersection of different factors (i.e. L1, age and examiners’ prompts), we saw that the youngest candidates were most likely to receive a prompt from their examiner, that L1 Hindi speakers were the only group that received a higher proportion of prompts mid-narrative than in the initiating position, and that the prompts they received produced a wider and more balanced range of elements than for other groups. If we take L1 Hindi speakers as a case study, then, we can see how both factors tied to the exam context and factors originating outside of that context are likely to combine to influence the use of narratives in this context. In this case in particular, factors such as the prominent role of storytelling in Indian culture, the status of English in India and the age of this sample (with school-aged children perhaps being exposed most regularly to stories as a pedagogical tool) all combined in some way, with the result being that this group produced narratives not only frequently but also with relative complexity. This group was among those that were most likely to receive a prompt (as a proportion of the group overall), which might be explained by the group’s relative youth. L1 Hindi speakers were also the only group to receive a larger proportion of prompts mid-narrative than in the initiating position, and the prompts they received not only produced – but also occurred following – a more diverse and evenly balanced set of elements compared to the other groups. This could be evidence of different factors combining; examiners are more inclined to support younger candidates, and since the L1 Hindi-speaking candidates’ narratives tend to be longer and employ a diverse range of elements, this gives the examiners a larger number and wider range of opportunities to contribute to the co-construction of the narratives through their prompts.