Using ethnomethodological conversation analysis (CA), this study explored the negotiation process between non-native speakers (NNSs) and native speakers (NSs) in a language proficiency interview (LPI); specifically, usage of various other initiation (OI) and repair types. The study examined how multicultural and multi-identity speakers revealed their identities (e.g., proficient vs. limited proficient, NNS vs NS evaluators, novice vs. experienced evaluators); whether they successfully/unsuccessfully interpreted others’ implicit or explicit intentions, expectations, and interpretations; and the ways in which they restructured and reshaped their power status and talk and negotiated via other-initiated repair (OI repair) sequences (i.e., other-initiated self repair, other-initiated other repair). Two data sources contributed to the findings. First were detailed descriptions of the interactions (6 sessions, videotapes) in the LPI. The data consisted of conversational structures, interactional characteristics, contour, rhythm, pronunciation, OI features, and repair turns. The second data source consisted of the follow-up interviews, which explored speakers’ description of utterances, actions, and explanations. Detailed analyses of the naturally occurring interaction provided some significant findings. Speakers were often unaware of how the conversation worked; however, because of its orderliness and the sequential movement of talk, speakers became aware of each other’s identities and implicit interpretations. They also successfully communicated their knowledge and behavior, and showed some psychological movements (e.g., frustration, fatigue, nervousness), using various communication signs. More proficient speakers demonstrated their capacity for reorganizing their talk into a successful, economical, and effective communication in which OI repair eventually became a major part of the negotiation process. In conclusion, this study emphasized the concept of “intersubjectivity,” or “how each individual is able to know or act within a common world” (Goodwin & Duranti, 1992, p. 27) when the setting consists of speakers with various proficiency levels, cultures, identities, roles, and powers. Although each speaker holds differing expectations, interpretations, knowledge, and understanding, each is able to “display to each other their understanding of the events they are engaged in” (Goodwin & Duranti, 1992, p. 27) which, for the purposes of this study, was the negotiation process.