Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study investigates pragmatic development in the English-medium instruction (EMI) setting of the Valencian Community in Spain. More specifically, the study examines whether the intensity of EMI influences functional adequacy (FA) in second language (L2) writing. Participants were 102 EMI learners, each of whom wrote three motivation letters over one academic year in English. The rating scales designed by Kuiken and Vedder (2017) were used to examine the FA of the written texts in terms of cohesion, coherence, task requirements, content, and comprehensibility. Quantitative results revealed significant differences among the EMI groups under analysis, suggesting that the intensity of instruction may exert an influence on FA in L2 writing. Results from this study show the importance of intensity of exposure to EMI for L2 writing.

This work is currently available as a sample.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ament, J. R., & Pérez-Vidal, C.
    (2015) Linguistic outcomes of English medium instruction programmes in higher education: A study on economics undergraduates at a Catalan university. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1), 47–68. 10.18870/hlrc.v5i1.239
    https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i1.239 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A.
    (1996) Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2013) Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68–86. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00738.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Burmeister, P., & Daniel, A.
    (2002) How effective is late partial immersion? Some findings from a secondary school program in Germany. InP. Burmeister, T. Piske, & A. Rohde (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp.499–516). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Triet.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H.
    (2012a) The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.121–142). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.06jon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.06jon [Google Scholar]
  7. (2012b) Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(1), 5–34. 10.1017/S0272263111000489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000489 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fragai, E.
    (2001) La programmazione didattica: Il Glotto-Kit come strumento per valutare i liv- elli in entrata. InM. Barni & A. Villarini (Eds.), La questione della lingua per gli immigrati stranieri. Insegnare, valutare e certificare l’Italiano L2 (pp.191–208). Milan, IT: Franco Angeli Editore.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2003) Valutare la competenza linguistico-comunicativa in italiano L2: Il Glotto-Kit per bambini e adolescenti stranieri. Didattica & Classe Plurilingue, 7, 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fulcher, G.
    (1987) Tests of oral performance: The need for data-based criteria. ELT Journal, 41(4), 287–291. 10.1093/elt/41.4.287
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/41.4.287 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gomez-Laich, M. P., & Taguchi, N.
    (2018) Task complexity effects on interaction during a collaborative persuasive writing task: A conversation analytic perspective. InN. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp.84–109). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/tblt.10.04gom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.04gom [Google Scholar]
  13. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantic, Vol.3 (pp.41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gu, Q.
    (2009) Maturity and interculturality: Chinese students’ experience in UK higher education. European Journal of Education, 44(1), 37–51. 10.1111/j.1465‑3435.2008.01369.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.01369.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Herraiz-Martinez, A., & Alcón-Soler, E.
    (2018) English-medium instruction and functional adequacy in L2 writing. InA. Sánchez-Hernández & A. Herraiz-Martinez (Eds.), Learning second language pragmatics beyond traditional contexts (pp.145–170). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Housen, A.
    (2012) Time and amount of L2 contact inside and outside the school: Insights from European schools. InC. Muñoz (Ed.), Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning (pp.111–140). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847698063‑009
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847698063-009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Huizhu, J. H.
    (2012) Mutual influences between learners’ identity construction and English language learning in the first year of university study in China. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Hong Kong, China.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Knoch, U.
    (2009) Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275. 10.1177/0265532208101008
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208101008 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2011) Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: What should they look like and where should the criteria come from?Assessing Writing, 16(2), 81–96. 10.1016/j.asw.2011.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2017) Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. 10.1177/0265532216663991
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216663991 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R.
    (2010) Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. InI. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp.81–100). Eurosla Monographs Series 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N.
    (1991) Étude des effets à long terme de l’apprentissage intensif de l’anglais, langue seconde, au primaire. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 48(1), 90–117. 10.3138/cmlr.48.1.90
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.48.1.90 [Google Scholar]
  23. Loranc-Paszylk, B.
    (2007) Evaluation of foreign language achievement based upon a CLIL programme in tertiary education: A Polish perspective. InR. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education. Maastrich, The Netherlands: Maastricht University Language Centre.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Martín-Laguna, S.
    (2018) Learning pragmatics in the multilingual classroom: Exploring multicompetence across types of discourse-pragmatic markers. InA. Sánchez-Hernández & A. Herraiz-Martínez (Eds.) Learning second language pragmatics beyond traditional contexts (pp.205–223). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McNamara, T., & Roever, C.
    (2007) Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 10.2307/j.ctt1ckpccf.13
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1ckpccf.13 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ohta, A. S.
    (2001) A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese as a foreign language. InG. Kasper & K. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics and language teaching (pp.103–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.010 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pallotti, G.
    (2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. 10.1093/applin/amp045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 [Google Scholar]
  28. Revesz, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E.
    (2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Salaberri, M. S., & Sánchez-Pérez, M. M.
    (2015) Analyzing writing in English-medium instruction at university. Linguarum Arena, 6, 45–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sánchez-Hernández, A.
    (2017) Acculturation and acquisition of pragmatic routines in the study abroad context (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sato, T.
    (2012) The contribution of test-takers’ speech content to scores on an English oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 29(2), 223–241. 10.1177/0265532211421162
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211421162 [Google Scholar]
  32. Schmidt, R.
    (1993) Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. InG. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.21–42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Serrano, R., & Muñoz, C.
    (2007) Same hours, different time distribution: Any difference in EFL?System, 35(3), 305–321. 10.1016/j.system.2007.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sheela, S. K., & Ravikumar, K.
    (2016) The importance of exposure in learning English as a second language: Strategies to be employed to improve the students’ language exposure in the context of rapid changes in the field of technology. Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL), 4(2), 770–774.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Taguchi, N.
    (2012) Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. New York/Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847696106
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847696106 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2015) ‘Contextually’ speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System, 48, 3–20. 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Taguchi, N., Naganuma, N., & Budding, C.
    (2015) Does instruction alter the naturalistic pattern of pragmatic development? A case of request speech act. TESL-EJ, 19(3), 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. UCLES (University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate)
    UCLES (University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate) (2001) Quick placement test. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E.
    (1995) Constructing rating scales for second language tests. ELT Journal, 49(1), 3–12. 10.1093/elt/49.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Usó-Juan, E., & Martínez-Flor, A.
    (2006) Approaches to language learning and teaching: Towards acquiring communicative competence through the four skills. InE. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp.3–26). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197778.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197778.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  41. Wong, R.
    (2010) The effectiveness of using English as the sole medium of instruction in English classes: Student responses and improved English proficiency. Porta Linguarum, 13, 119–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, L. J., & Yan, R.
    (2012) Impact of immersion teaching on English sociopragmatic awareness of Chinese kindergarten children: A polite study. International Education, 41(2), 33–45.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): EMI; English-medium instruction; functional adequacy; intensity of exposure; pragmatics
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error