1887
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-1748
  • E-ISSN: 2666-1756
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The concept of Functional Adequacy (FA) proposed by Kuiken and Vedder, and the research conducted by the authors in this special issue is pushing the field of Task- Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and Task-Based Language Assessment (TBLA) towards a more inclusive understanding of what it means to perform a task successfully. In addition, the idea of FA is an important contribution not just for assessment but for research on L2 pragmatic learning through tasks. As demonstrated by the authors in this special issue, the FA rating scale is a reliable and easy-to-use tool. And as I argue, the rating scale can be expanded to assess interactional tasks and tasks mediated by technology, and that has repercussion for practice in the language classroom as well as for research in the fields of TBLT, TBLA, and L2 Pragmatics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/task.21008.gon
2022-06-20
2022-08-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Brown, P.
    (2015) Politeness and language. InInternational Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Pragmat; pp.326–330). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.53072‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.53072-4 [Google Scholar]
  2. De Jong, N., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H.
    (2012) 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.), Language learning & language teaching (Vol.32, pp. 121–142). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.06jon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.06jon [Google Scholar]
  3. Ekiert, M., Lampropoulos, S., Révész, A., & Torgersen, E.
    (2018) The effects of task type and proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task performance. InN. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 247–263). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.10.10eki
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.10eki [Google Scholar]
  4. Grice, P.
    (1975) Language and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. González-Lloret, M.
    (2019) Technology and L2 pragmatics learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 113–127. 10.1017/S0267190519000047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190519000047 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2020) Pragmatic development in L2: An overview. InK. P. Schneider & E. Infantidou (Eds.), Developmental and clinical pragmatics. (pp. 237–267). Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110431056‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431056-009 [Google Scholar]
  7. González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L.
    (2018) Pragmatics, tasks, and technology: A synergy. InN. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 191–214). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.10.08gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.08gon [Google Scholar]
  8. Gumperz, J. J.
    (1982) Fact and inference in courtroom testimony. InJ. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 163–195). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.01hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.01hou [Google Scholar]
  10. Ishihara, N.
    (2019) Identity and agency in L2 pragmatics. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 161–175). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-11 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E.
    (2009) Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 101–128). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kim, H. Y.
    (2014) Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System, 45, 92–102. 10.1016/j.system.2014.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kramsch, C. J.
    (Ed.) (1995) Introduction: Making the invisible visible. InRedefining the boundaries of language study (pp. ix–xxxiii). Heinle & Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. (2018) Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. InN. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 266–285). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.10.11kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.11kui [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. 81–99). European Second Language Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Long, M. H.
    (2007) Problems in SLA. L. Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Messick, S.
    (1996) Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13, 241–256. 10.1177/026553229601300302
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300302 [Google Scholar]
  19. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. 10.1093/applin/amp044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. (2019) Assessing tasks: The case of interactional difficulty. Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 176–197. 10.1093/applin/amx020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx020 [Google Scholar]
  22. Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N.
    (2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848. 10.1093/applin/amu069
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu069 [Google Scholar]
  23. Robinson, P.
    (2011) Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2015) The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. InM. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (Vol.8, pp. 87–121). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tblt.8.04rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.04rob [Google Scholar]
  25. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I (Vol.1). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  26. Skehan, P.
    (2015) Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. InM. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (Vol.8, pp. 123–155). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.8.05ske
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.05ske [Google Scholar]
  27. Timpe-Laughlin, V.
    (2018) Pragmatics in task-based language assessment: Opportunities and challenges. InN. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 288–304). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.10.12tim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.12tim [Google Scholar]
  28. Van Compernolle, R. A.
    (2014) Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783091409
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783091409 [Google Scholar]
  29. Youn, S. J.
    (2015) Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199–225. 10.1177/0265532214557113
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214557113 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2018) Task design and validity evidence for assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction. InN. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 218–246). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.10.09you
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.09you [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/task.21008.gon
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/task.21008.gon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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