Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-1748
  • E-ISSN: 2666-1756
Preview this article:

This work was made publicly available by the publisher.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. De Jong, N. H., 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.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121–142). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.06jon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.06jon [Google Scholar]
  3. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hulstijn, J. H., Schoonen, R., de Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., & Florijn, A.
    (2012) Linguistic competences of learners of Dutch as a second language at the B1 and B2 levels of speaking proficiency of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Language Testing, 29(2), 203–221. 10.1177/0265532211419826
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211419826 [Google Scholar]
  5. Knoch, U.
    (2009) Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275–304. 10.1177/0265532208101008
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208101008 [Google Scholar]
  6. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2014) Rating written performance: What do raters do and why?Language Testing, 31(3), 329–348. 10.1177/0265532214526174
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526174 [Google Scholar]
  7. (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]
  8. (2018) Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. InN. Taguchi & Y-J. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to assessing pragmatics (pp. 265–286). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.10.11kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.11kui [Google Scholar]
  9. McNamara, T., & Roever, C.
    (2007) Testing: The social dimension. Blackwell. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2006.00117.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00117.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Ortega, L.
    (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationships to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Révész, 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. 10.1093/applin/amu069
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu069 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  • Article Type: Review Article
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