Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:25:14.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Analysis In Language Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Elana Shohamy
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Language testing is concerned with the measurement of language. Language is the trait, and how we go about measuring it is the method. Trait involves the what, and method the how of testing. This paper will focus on the interaction between the what and the how, where the perspective of the what is the domain of discourse analysis. The paper will also review studies and tests that illustrate the degree to which the domain of discourse analysis has contributed to the theory, research, and development of language testing.

Information

Type
Discourse Analysis in Professional Contexts
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 11 , March 1990, pp. 115 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. 1986. ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
Anderson, P. 1980. Cohesion as an index for written and oral composition of ESL learners. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Modern Language Association. Minneapolis, MN, November, 1989. [ED 198529]Google Scholar
Bachman, L. 1990a. Constructing measures and measuring constructs. In Harley, B. et al. ,. (eds.) The development of second language proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. 1990b. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. 1981. The construct validation of the FSI oral interview. Language learning. 31.1.67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. 1982. The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL quarterly. 16.4.449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berden, R. and Garcia, M.. 1982. Discourse-sensitive measurement of language development in bilingual children. Los Alamitos, CA: National Center for Bilingual Research.Google Scholar
Canale, M. 1983. From communicative competence to communicative performance. In Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. (eds.) Language and communication. New York: Longman. 2–27.Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M.. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics. 1.1.1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. 1983. Psychometric theory and language testing. In Oller, J. (ed.) Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 80–107.Google Scholar
Chun, D. 1988. The neglected role of intonation in communicative competence and proficiency. Modern language journal. 72.3.295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. 1975. Theoretical and technical considerations in oral proficiency testing. In Jones, R. and Spolsky, B. (eds.) Testing language proficiency. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. 10–28.Google Scholar
Connelly, F. and Clandinin, D. 1990. Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational researcher. 19.4.2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. 1989. Language and literacy acquisition in bilingual contexts. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development. 10.1.17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deyes, T. 1984. Towards an authentic “discourse” cloze. Applied linguistics. 5.2.128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D. and Selinker, L.. 1985. Principles for language tests within the discourse domains theory of interlanguage. Language testing. 2.2.205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D., and Selinker, L.. 1990. Performance on a general versus a field-specific test of speaking proficiency by international teaching assistants. Paper presented at the Twelfth Language Testing Research Colloquium. San Francisco, CA, 03, 1990.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farhady, H. 1982. Measures of language proficiency from the learner's perspective. TESOL quarterly. 16.1.43–59.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1981. Ideal Readers and Real Readers. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Analysing discourse: Text and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 248–270. [Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics, 1981.]Google Scholar
Flick, W. 1980. Rhetorical difficulty in scientific English: A study in reading comprehension. TESOL quarterly. 14.3.345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. 1988. Lexis and reality in oral evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language. Edinbrugh, Scotland, April, 1988.Google Scholar
Gordon, C. 1987. The effect of testing method on achievement in reading comprehension tests in English as a Foreign Language. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Harley, B., Cummins, J., Swain, M. and Allen, P.. 1990. The nature of language proficiency. In Harley, B. et al. ,. (eds.) 1990. The development of second language proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride, J. and Holmes, J. (eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. 269–293.Google Scholar
Jax, C. 1986. Understanding school language proficiency through the assessment of story construction. Paper presented at the Ethnic and Multicultural Symposia. Dallas, TX,1986.Google Scholar
Jonz, J. 1987. Textual cohesion and second-language comprehension. Language learning. 37. 3. 409–438.Google Scholar
Litteral, R. 1980. Discourse factors in the evaluation of language ability. Paper presented at the Regional Seminar of the Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organizational Regional Language Center. Singapore, 04, 1980.Google Scholar
Milanovic, M. 1988. The construction and validation of performance-based battery of English language progress tests. London: University of London. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Morrow, K. 1977. Techniques of evaluation for a notional syllabus. London: Royal Society of Arts.Google Scholar
Morrow, K. 1979. Communicative language testing: Revolution or evolution? in Brumfit, C. and Johnson, K. (eds.) The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 143–157.Google Scholar
Oller, J. 1979. Language tests in schools: A pragmatic approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Oller, J.. (ed.) 1983. Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E. and Blum-Kulka, S.. 1985. Crosscultural pragmatics and the testing of communicative competence. Language testing. 2.1.16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olshtain, E. and Blum-Kulka, S. and Fuerstein, T.. 1989. Using a computeried cloze for teaching and assessing reading comprehension. Paper presented at the Eighth ACROLT Colloquium. Kiryat Anavim, Israel, 05, 1989.Google Scholar
Ong, W. 1982. Orality and literacy. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, A. and Hutchinson, C.. 1987. Calibrating graded assessment: Rasch partial credit analysis of performance in writing. Language testing. 4.1.72–92.Google Scholar
Raffaldini, T. 1988. The use of situation tests as measures of communicative ability. Studies in second language acquistition. 10. 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripich, D. and Griffith, P.. 1988. Narrative abilities of children with learning disabilities and nondisabled children: Story structure, cohesion, and propositions. Journal of learning disabilities.21.3. 165–173.Google Scholar
Rodriquez-Brown, F. 1986. A sociolinguistic perspective of language proficiency of limited English proficiency students. ‘ED 288377’Google Scholar
Ross, S. 1986. An experiment with a narrative discourse test. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Monterey, CA, 03, 1986.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. 1982. Adapting syntax in writing to varying audiences as a function of age and social cognitive ability. Journal of child language. 9. 2. 497–510.Google Scholar
Sarig, G. 1989. Testing meaning construction: can we do it fairly? Language testing. 6. 1. 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shachter, J. 1990. Communicative competence revisited. In Harley, B. et al. ,. (eds.) The development of second language proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 39–49.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1983. The stability of the oral proficiency trait on the roal interview speaking test. Language learning. 33.527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1984. Input and output in language testing. In Culhane, T., Klein-Braley, C., and Steveson, D. (eds.) Occasional papers — practice and problems in language testing. Essex, England: University of Essex, Department of Language and Linguistics. 159–166.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1988. A proposed framework for testing the oral language of second/foreign language learners. Studies in second language acquisition. 10.2.165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. et al. 1989. The development and validation of a semi-direct test for assessing oral proficiency in Hebrew. Bulletin of higher Hebrew education. 4. 14. 4–6.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. and Inbar, O.. 1988. The effect of the text and question type on lest takers' scores on a listening comprehension test. Paper presented at the 10th Language Testing Research Colloquium. Urbana, IL, 03, 1988.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. and Inbar, O., Reves, T. and Beherano, Y.. 1986. Introducing a new comprehensive test of oral proficiency. English language teaching journal. 40. 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, H. and Bennett, A.. 1982. A sociolinguistic-discourse alternative for language proficiency assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. New York, 03, 1982.Google Scholar
Stansfield, C. and Kenyon, D.. 1988. Development of the portuguese speaking test. Final report to the U.S. Department of education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. ‘ED 296 586.’Google Scholar
Steven, T. 1988. Accommodation in interlanguage discourse from an EFL perspective. System. 16. 3. 347–354.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 1985. Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study. In Lee, Y. et al. , (eds.) New directions in language testing. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 35–46.Google Scholar
Tarone, E.Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language learning. 32.1.69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. 1983. On the variability of interlanguage system. Applied linguistics. 4. 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. 1988. Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. 1989. Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversations. TESOL quarterly. 23.3.480–508.Google Scholar
Vollmer, H. and Sang, F.. 1983. Competing hypotheses about second language ability: A plea for caution. In Oller, J. (ed.) Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 29–75.Google Scholar
Wilds, C. 1975. The oral interview test. In Jones, R. and Spolsky, B. (eds.) Testing language proficiency. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. 29–45.Google Scholar