Cover not available
Article published In:
The Assessment of Functional Adequacy in Language Performance: Special issue of the Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 (2022)
Edited by Folkert Kuiken and Ineke Vedder
[TASK 2:1] 2022
► pp. 146–158

The present and future of functional adequacy

ORCID logo | University of Hawai‘i

The concept of Functional Adequacy (FA) proposed by Kuiken and Vedder, and the research conducted by the authors in this special issue is pushing the field of Task- Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and Task-Based Language Assessment (TBLA) towards a more inclusive understanding of what it means to perform a task successfully. In addition, the idea of FA is an important contribution not just for assessment but for research on L2 pragmatic learning through tasks. As demonstrated by the authors in this special issue, the FA rating scale is a reliable and easy-to-use tool. And as I argue, the rating scale can be expanded to assess interactional tasks and tasks mediated by technology, and that has repercussion for practice in the language classroom as well as for research in the fields of TBLT, TBLA, and L2 Pragmatics.

Keywords: sociopragmatics, interactional tasks, L2 pragmatic tasks, technology-mediated tasks
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • What we know about FA so far
  • Relationship between CAF and FA
  • The impact of FA
  • Looking forward
  • Interactional tasks
  • Modality
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 20 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.21008.gon
References
Brown, P.
(2015) Politeness and language. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Pragmat; pp. 326–330). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H.
(2012) The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Language learning & language teaching (Vol. 321, pp. 121–142). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekiert, M., Lampropoulos, S., Révész, A., & Torgersen, E.
(2018) The effects of task type and proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task performance. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 247–263). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P.
(1975) Language and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M.
(2019) Technology and L2 pragmatics learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39 1, 113–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Pragmatic development in L2: An overview. In K. P. Schneider & E. Infantidou (Eds.), Developmental and clinical pragmatics. (pp. 237–267). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L.
(2018) Pragmatics, tasks, and technology: A synergy. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 191–214). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J.
(1982) Fact and inference in courtroom testimony. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 163–195). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, N.
(2019) Identity and agency in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 161–175). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E.
(2009) Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 101–128). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kim, H. Y.
(2014) Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System, 45 1, 92–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. J.
(Ed.) (1995) Introduction: Making the invisible visible. In Redefining the boundaries of language study (pp. ix–xxxiii). Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2017) Functional adequacy in L2 writing. Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34 (3), 321–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 266–285). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R.
(2010) Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 81–99). European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Long, M. H.
(2007) Problems in SLA. L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Messick, S.
(1996) Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13 1, 241–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 590–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Assessing tasks: The case of interactional difficulty. Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 176–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N.
(2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37 (6), 828–848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2011) Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (Vol. 81, pp. 87–121). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I (Vol. 11). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(2015) Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (Vol. 81, pp. 123–155). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V.
(2018) Pragmatics in task-based language assessment: Opportunities and challenges. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 288–304). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Compernolle, R. A.
(2014) Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Youn, S. J.
(2015) Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32 (2), 199–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Task design and validity evidence for assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 218–246). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar