A survey of the field of Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) shows that the Discourse Completion Test (DCT)2, also referred to as a ‘discourse completion task’ or a ‘production questionnaire’, has been the most frequently used instrument to evaluate second/foreign language learners’ ability to perform speech acts in a target language, despite the harsh criticism leveled against its low construct validity and its failure to represent the features of authentic discourse. Interestingly, focusing on the statement of objectives of a number of ILP studies using DCTs, one can notice that such studies rarely refer to the DCT as a language test. In addition, an overview of the DCT design process as described in several ILP studies shows that ever since its adaptation for the study of pragmatic ability (Blum-Kulka, 1982), there has been a tendency to use or adapt one of the existing DCT versions used in previous studies based on the argument of comparability of results. While a number of ILP researchers tried to improve the design of the DCT by the inclusion of rejoinders or by enhancing the prompt material (e.g. Billmyer and Varghese, 2000), few attempts have been made to reconsider the DCT development process. McNamara and Roever (2006: 253) urge for the need for “more research on testing of sociopragmatic knowledge and design of discourse completion tests for testing purposes.”The present paper starts with an overview of the literature about DCTs with special reference to the cognitive validity of the instrument and to previous studies dealing with DCT structure and content. Then, with reference to research in the fields of language testing and psychometrics, it shows that, whether used for research or instructional purposes, the DCT shares several qualities with language tests. As such, it is argued that the DCT should be treated as a language test and not as a questionnaire and should, thus, undergo a rigorous developmental process. Based on recent models of language test construction, the paper concludes with an overview of the stages of DCT development.
(2002) Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 221: 150-167. BoP
(2008) Raters, functions, item types and the dependability of L2 pragmatics tests. In E.A. Soler, and A.M. Flor (eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (Vol. 301). Multilingual Matters. 224-48.
(2013) Advancing the research agenda of Interlanguage Pragmatics: The role of learner corpora. In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013. New York: Springer, pp. 9-36.
(1996) Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18.2: 253-269.
(1996) Speech acts. In N. Hornberger, and S. McKay (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 382-419. BoP
(2004) Assessing speech acts in a second language. In D. Boxer, and A.D. Cohen (eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (Vol. 8). Multilingual Matters 302-327.
(2008) Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners?Language Teaching 41.2: 213-235.
Cohen, A.D., and E. Olshtain
(1994) Researching the production of second-language speech acts. Research methodology in second-language acquisition 143-156.
(2003) Questionnaires in second Language Research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbraum.
(2000) Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning 541 : 227–275.
(1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second language acquisition 18.3: 299-323. BoP
(2003) Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied linguistics 24.1: 90-121. BoP
(2007) Reconsidering the measurement of pragmatic knowledge using a reciprocal written task format. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 7.1: 1-48.
(2008) Investigating the construct validity of a performance test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Foreign Language Assessment 61: 131-179.
(1997) Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied linguistics 18.1: 1-26. BoP
(2008) Dutch English requests: A study of request performance by Dutch learners of English. In M. Pütz, and J. Neff-van Aertselaer (eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (Vol. 31). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 335-354.
Hudson, T., E. Detmer, and J.D. Brown
(1995) Developing prototypic measures of crosscultural pragmatics (Tech. Rep. No 7). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
(1972) On communicative competence. Sociolinguistics 269-293.
Johnston, B., G. Kasper,and S. Ross
(1998) Effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires. Applied Linguistics 19.2: 157-182.
(1997) The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, and B. Hartford (eds.), Beyond methods. Components of second language teacher education. New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 113-141.
(2010) Interlanguage pragmatics. In M. Fried, J.O. Östman, and J. Verschueren (eds.), Variation and change: Pragmatic perspectives (Vol. 61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 141-154. BoP
Kasper, G., and M. Dahl
(1991) Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 131: 215-247. BoP
Kasper, G., and S. Blum-Kulka
(eds.) (1993) Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Kasper, G., and S. Ross
(2013) Assessing second language pragmatics: An overview and introductions. In S. Ross, and G. Kasper (eds.), Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-40.
(2004) The narrative shape of two-party complaints in Portuguese: A discourse analytic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. BoP
(2014) An interlanguage pragmatic study on Chinese EFL learners’ refusal: Perception and performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 5.3: 642-653.
Martínez-Flor, A., and E. Usó-Juan
(2006) Learners’ use of request modifiers across two University ESP disciplines. Ibérica 121: 23-41.
McNamara, T.F., and C. Roever
(2006) Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford: Blackwell.
Olshtain, E., and L. Weinbach
(1993) Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. InG. Kasper, and S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Rintell, E., and C.L. Mitchell
(1989) Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into methods. In S. Blum-Kulka., J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Albex, pp. 248-72.
(2004) Difficulty and practicality in tests of interlanguage pragmatics. In D. Boxer, and A.D. Cohen. (eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (Vol. 8). Multilingual Matters 283-301.
(2006) Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing 23.2: 229-256.
(2007) DIF in the assessment of second language pragmatics. Language Assessment Quarterly 4.2: 165-189.
(2008) Rater, item and candidate effects in discourse completion tests: A FACETS approach. In E.A. Soler, and A.M. Flor (eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (Vol. 30). Multilingual Matters 249-266.
(2010) Effects of cultural background in a test of ESL pragmalinguistics: A DIF approach. Pragmatics and language learning 121.
(2011) Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing 28.4: 463-481.
(1992) Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of pragmatics 17.1: 49-62.
(1994) On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-Western contexts. Applied Linguistics 15.1: 1-14.
Rose, K.R., and R. Ono
(1995) Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire type. Language learning 45.2: 191-223.
Ross, S., and G. Kasper
(eds.) (2013) Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rylander, J., P. Clark, and R. Derrah
(2013) A video-based method of assessing pragmatic awareness. In S. Ross, and G. Kasper (eds.), Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 65-97.
(2014) A comparative analysis of apology strategy: Iranian EFL learners and native English speakers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 981: 1658-1665.
Samavarchi, L., and H. Allami
(2012) Giving condolences by Persian EFL learners: A contrastive sociopragmatic study. International Journal of English Linguistics 2.1: 71-78.
(1998) Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics 30.4: 457-484. BoP
(1993) Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper, and S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21-42. BoP
(2013) Interfaces between a discourse completion test and a conversation analysis-informed test of L2 pragmatic competence. In S. Ross, and G. Kasper (eds.), Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
(1989) Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newsbury House. BoP
Cited by 16 other publications
Ahmadian, Mohammad Javad
2020. Explicit and implicit instruction of refusal strategies: Does working memory capacity play a role?. Language Teaching Research 24:2 ► pp. 163 ff.
2018. Investigating Assessment Literacy in Tunisia: The Case of EFL University Writing Teachers. In Assessing EFL Writing in the 21st Century Arab World, ► pp. 163 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.