Article published in:
Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages
Edited by Jörg-U. Keßler, Anke Lenzing and Mathias Liebner
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 5] 2016
► pp. 135162
References
Bachman, L
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Statistical analyses for language assessment (pp. 153-205, 255-279). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman L., & Cohen, A.D
(1998) Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J
(2001) Lexical functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brindley, L.F
(1998) Describing language development. In L.F. Bachman & A.D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 112-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H
(1985) Profiling second language acquisition. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(1992) Transparency and coherence in language learning in Europe: Objectives, assessment and certification. Symposium held in Rüschlikon, 10–16 November 1991. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation.Google Scholar
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) The Common European Framework of Reference in its political and educational dimensions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2012) Illustrations of the European levels of language proficiency. Accessed on 15 December 2012 from: http://​www​.coe​.int​/t​/dg4​/linguistic​/Manuel1​_EN​.asp#P81​_6526Google Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M
(1976) The grammatical analysis of language disability. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Crystal, D
(1982) Profiling linguistic disability. San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
DiBiase, B., & Kawaguchi, S
(2002)  Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language . Second Language Research, 18(3), 274 - 302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DiBiase, B
(2008) Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In J.-U. Keßler, (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 197-220). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Ellis, N
(2005) At the interface. Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305-352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) The weak interface, consciousness, and form-focused instruction: Mind the doors. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education. Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 197-215). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., Salameh, E.K., & Nettelbladt, U
(2003) Measuring language development in bilingual children: Swedish- Arabic children with and without language impairment. Linguistics, 41, 255-288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C
(2006) Processability Theory applied to spoken and written L2 Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.). Second language acquisition research: Theory construction and testing (pp. 81-94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Harsch, C
(2005) Der gemeinsame Europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: Leistungen und Grenzen. Bedeutung des Referenzrahmen im Kontext der Beurteilung von Sprachvermögen am Beispiel des semikreativen Schreibens im DESI Projekt. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Augsburg.Google Scholar
Hymes, D
(1974) Foundations in sociolinguistics. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo, D.P
(2010) Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S
(2005) Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. In M. Pienemann, Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawaguchi, S., DiBiase, B., & Pienemann, M
(2005) Extending Processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J.-U
(2006) Englischerwerb im Anfangsunterricht diagnostizieren: Linguistische Profilanalysen am Übergang von der Primarstufe in die Sekundarstufe I. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2008) Communicative tasks and second language profiling: Linguistic and pedagogical implications. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 291-310). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Plesser, A
(2011) Teaching English grammar (Standard Wissen Lehramt Englisch). Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
Lado, R
(1961) Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A
(2013) The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition. The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenzing A., & Plesser, A
(2010) Challenging the scope-precision dilemma in language testing: The common European framework and linguistic profiling. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium of Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition (PALA). University of Western Sydney, Australia, 19-21 September.
Lenzing, A
(2010) Rapid profile. A screening procedure for second language acquisition assessment. Unpublished User Manual.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lin, B.J
(2012) Is automatic linguistic profiling feasible in an ESL context? Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Little, D
(2008) The Common European Framework of Reference for languages and the development of policies for the integration of adult migrants. Council of Europe: Strasbourg. Accessed on 20 February 2013 from: http://​www​.coe​.int​/t​/dg4​/linguistic​/Source​/Little​_CEFRmigrants​_EN​.docGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Pienemann, M., & Thornton, I
(1991) Rapid profile: A second language screening procedure. Language and Language Education, 1(1), 61-82.Google Scholar
Meisel, J.M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M
(1981) On determining developmental stages in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109-135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michell, J
(1999) Measurement in psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
North, B
(2007)  The Common European Framework of Reference: Development, theoretical and practical issues . Accessed on 14 August 2014 from: http://​www​.nationaalcongresengels​.nl​/cgi​-bin​/North​-Ede​-Wagingen%202007​-paper​.pdf
Neuendorf, K.A
(2002) The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G
(2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361-382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G
(1988)  Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment . Studies in second language acquisition, 10, 217-243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Mackey, A
(1993) An empirical study of children’s ESL development and Rapid Profile. In P. McKay (Ed.), ESL development: Language and literacy in schools, Vol. 2: Documents on bandscale development and language acquisition (pp. 115–259). Canberra: National Languages & Literacy Institute of Australia and Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M
(1998) Language processing and second language development. Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., DiBiase, B., & Kawaguchi, S
(2005) Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199-251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M
(Ed.) (2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Processability Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.-U
(2007) Measuring bilingualism. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics. Vol. 5: Multilingualism (pp. 247-275). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Lin, B-J., & Chung, L.-Y
(2009) The feasibility of auto-profiling online. In E. Damiani, et al. (Eds.), New dimensions in intelligent interactive multimedia systems (pp. 189-198). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.-U
(Eds.) (2011) Studying Processabilty Theory: Introductory textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plesser, A
(2008) A study on writing and speaking. Unpublished dissertation. University of Paderborn.Google Scholar
(2011) The interlanguage approach: Example tasks. Unpublished User Manual.Google Scholar
Rasinger, S.M
(2008) Quantitative research in linguistics. An introduction. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Rohrmann, B
(2007) Verbal qualifiers for rating scales: Sociolinguistic considerations and psychometric data. University of Melbourne, Australia. Accessed on 14 August 2014 from: http://​www​.rohrmannresearch​.net​/pdfs​/rohrmann​-vqs​-report​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, E
(2008) Rater bias patterns in an EFL writing assessment. Language Testing, 25, 465-493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E
(2000) The relationship between language testing and second language acquisition, revisited. System, 28, 541-553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S.S
(1946) On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G
(1993) Exploring bias analysis as a tool for improving rater consistency in assessing oral interaction. Language Testing 10, 305-319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, D.A
(1978) Proposal for levels definition. In J.L.M. Trim (Ed.), Some possible lines of development of an overall structure for a European unit/credit scheme for foreign language learning by adults (pp. 71-78). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Myford, C
(2013) Raters' L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30, 231-252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar