Chapter published in:
Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues
Edited by Anke Lenzing, Howard Nicholas and Jana Roos
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 7] 2019
► pp. 371390
References
Alderson, J. C.
(1990) Language testing in the 1990s: How far have we gone? How much further have we to go? In S. Anvian (Ed.), Current developments in language testing (pp. 1–26). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar
Alderson J. C.
(2007) The challenge of (diagnostic) testing: Do we know what we are measuring? In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner & C. Doe (Eds.), What are we measuring? Language testing reconsidered (pp. 21–39). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F.
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S.
(1996) Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Cohen, A. D.
(1998) Language testing – SLA interfaces: An update. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 1–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolander, M
(1988) Is there any order? On word order in Swedish learner language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9(1-2), 97–113. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C.
(1985) Statistics in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M.
(1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1), 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A., Chung, Y.-R., Hegelheimer, V., Pendar, N. & Xu, J.
(2010) Towards a computer-delivered test of productive grammatical ability. Language Testing 27(4), 443–469. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies L., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & McNamara T.
(1999) Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and UCLES.Google Scholar
Eklund Heinonen, M.
(2005) Godkänd eller underkänd? Hur processbarhetsteorin kan tillämpas vid muntliga språktester av andraspråksinlärare [Pass or fail? Processability theory applied in oral tests of second language learners] (FUMS Report 215). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
(2009) Processbarhet på prov. Bedömning av muntlig språkfärdighet hos vuxna andraspråksinlärare [Processability in tests. Assessment of oral proficiency in adult second language learners]. Uppsala: Department of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Ellis, R
(2008) Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1), 4–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., & Lund, K.
(2001) Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(3), 389–416. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J., & Ågren, M.
(2014) SLA developmental stages and teachers’ assessment of written French: Exploring Direkt Profil as a diagnostic assessment tool. Language Testing 31(3), 285–305. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A.
(1991) The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York, NY: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2015) Discussion: How different can perspectives on L2 development be? Language Learning 65(1), 210–232. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. H.
(1972) On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C.
(2005) Grammar and pragmatics. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. García-Mayo & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 5 (pp. 137–161). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U.
(2007) Assessing EFL-development online: A feasibility study of Rapid profile. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research. Theory-construction and testing (pp. 119–143). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Liebner, M.
(2011) Diagnostic L2 development. Rapid Profile. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keβler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory (pp. 132–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McNamara, T
(1990) Item response theory and the validation of an ESP test for health professionals. Language Testing 7(1), 52–75. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M
(1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(2), 186–214. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G.
(1999) A unified approach towards the development of Swedish as L2: A processability account. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(3), 383–420. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Purpura, J. E.
(2004) Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rahkonen, M., & Håkansson, G.
(2008) Production of written L2-Swedish – Processability or input frequencies? In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development (pp. 135–161). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Rimmer, W.
(2006) Measuring grammatical complexity: The Gordian knot. Language Testing 23(4), 497–519. CrossrefGoogle Scholar