The present and future of functional adequacy

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. González-Lloret, M.
   (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. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (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. Pallotti, G.
    (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. Robinson, P.
    (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. Youn, S. J.
    (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]