Assessing pragmatic competence in oral proficiency interviews at the C1 level with the new CEFR descriptors

Q2 Arts and Humanities Lodz Papers in Pragmatics Pub Date : 2020-07-01 DOI:10.1515/lpp-2020-0005
Bárbara Eizaga-Rebollar, Cristina Heras-Ramírez
{"title":"Assessing pragmatic competence in oral proficiency interviews at the C1 level with the new CEFR descriptors","authors":"Bárbara Eizaga-Rebollar, Cristina Heras-Ramírez","doi":"10.1515/lpp-2020-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The study of pragmatic competence has gained increasing importance within second language assessment over the last three decades. However, its study in L2 language testing is still scarce. The aim of this paper is to research the extent to which pragmatic competence as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has been accommodated in the task descriptions and rating scales of two of the most popular Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs) at a C1 level: Cambridge’s Certificate in Advanced English (CAE) and Trinity’s Integrated Skills in English (ISE) III. To carry out this research, OPI tests are first defined, highlighting their differences from L2 pragmatic tests. After pragmatic competence in the CEFR is examined, focusing on the updates in the new descriptors, CAE and ISE III formats, structure and task characteristics are compared, showing that, while the formats and some characteristics are found to differ, the structures and task types are comparable. Finally, we systematically analyse CEFR pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scale descriptors of both OPIs. The findings show that the task descriptions incorporate mostly aspects of discourse and design competence. Additionally, we find that each OPI is seen to prioritise different aspects of pragmatic competence within their rating scale, with CAE focusing mostly on discourse competence and fluency, and ISE III on functional competence. Our study shows that the tests fail to fully accommodate all aspects of pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scales, although the aspects they do incorporate follow the CEFR descriptors on pragmatic competence. It also reveals a mismatch between the task competences being tested and the rating scale. To conclude, some research lines are proposed.","PeriodicalId":39423,"journal":{"name":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"87 - 121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/lpp-2020-0005","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lodz Papers in Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The study of pragmatic competence has gained increasing importance within second language assessment over the last three decades. However, its study in L2 language testing is still scarce. The aim of this paper is to research the extent to which pragmatic competence as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has been accommodated in the task descriptions and rating scales of two of the most popular Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs) at a C1 level: Cambridge’s Certificate in Advanced English (CAE) and Trinity’s Integrated Skills in English (ISE) III. To carry out this research, OPI tests are first defined, highlighting their differences from L2 pragmatic tests. After pragmatic competence in the CEFR is examined, focusing on the updates in the new descriptors, CAE and ISE III formats, structure and task characteristics are compared, showing that, while the formats and some characteristics are found to differ, the structures and task types are comparable. Finally, we systematically analyse CEFR pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scale descriptors of both OPIs. The findings show that the task descriptions incorporate mostly aspects of discourse and design competence. Additionally, we find that each OPI is seen to prioritise different aspects of pragmatic competence within their rating scale, with CAE focusing mostly on discourse competence and fluency, and ISE III on functional competence. Our study shows that the tests fail to fully accommodate all aspects of pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scales, although the aspects they do incorporate follow the CEFR descriptors on pragmatic competence. It also reveals a mismatch between the task competences being tested and the rating scale. To conclude, some research lines are proposed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用新的CEFR描述词评估C1级口语水平面试中的语用能力
在过去的三十年里,语用能力的研究在第二语言评估中变得越来越重要。然而,其在第二语言测试中的研究仍然很少。本文的目的是研究由欧洲共同语言参考框架(CEFR)定义的语用能力在多大程度上被适应于两种最流行的C1级口语水平面试(OPIs)的任务描述和评分量表:剑桥高级英语证书(CAE)和三一学院英语综合技能(ISE) III。为了开展这项研究,首先定义了OPI测试,强调了它们与二语语用测试的区别。在考察了CEFR中的语用能力后,重点考察了新描述符、CAE和ISE III格式的更新,比较了结构和任务特征,结果表明,虽然格式和某些特征有所不同,但结构和任务类型具有可比性。最后,我们系统地分析了CEFR语用能力在任务技能和评价量表描述符上的表现。研究结果表明,任务描述主要包含语篇能力和设计能力两个方面。此外,我们发现每个OPI在其评定量表中优先考虑语用能力的不同方面,CAE主要侧重于话语能力和流利性,而ISE III侧重于功能能力。我们的研究表明,尽管这些测试确实包含了CEFR关于语用能力的描述符,但在任务技能和评分量表中并不能完全适应语用能力的所有方面。它还揭示了被测试的任务能力与评分量表之间的不匹配。最后,提出了一些研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Lodz Papers in Pragmatics
Lodz Papers in Pragmatics Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Writer and participant visibility in quantitative and qualitative research: a corpus-assisted study of human agent verbs in health science publications The most common graphicons in Mexican Spanish speaking WhatsApp communities composed of school parents Ecological discourse analysis and meaning interpretation of BBC news reports on 2019 Australian bushfires from the perspective of transitivity system A multimodal contrastive analysis of regulations and instructions during the COVID-19 lockdown in the context of the Island of Madeira and the United Kingdom Apology strategies in Tashelhit: linguistic realization and religious influence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1