Chapter published in:
Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics
Edited by Naoko Taguchi and YouJin Kim
[Task-Based Language Teaching 10] 2018
► pp. 266–285

Chapter 11
Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach

| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam

When assessing L2 performance in task-based research, dimensions of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) have typically been evaluated. Less attention has, however, been devoted to the functional dimension. This paper argues that it is critical to consider the functional dimension of L2 performance in addition to complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Functional adequacy as a task-related construct is viewed in the present study as a component of L2 pragmatics, referring to the appropriateness and felicity of the utterances of the speaker/writer within a particular context, and evaluated by the listener/reader. The study investigates the applicability of a rating scale developed for the assessment of functional adequacy in the L2, considered from the perspective of task-based language teaching (TBLT) and task-based language assessment (TBLA), as successful task completion. In the rating scale, four components of functional adequacy are distinguished: content, task requirements, comprehensibility, and coherence and cohesion. A group of non-expert raters judged the oral and written samples of two groups of university students of Dutch L2 and Italian L2. The results show that the scale appears to be a reliable and efficient tool for assessing the functional adequacy of written and spoken L2 production.

Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Assessment of L2 pragmatics
  • The construction of a rating scale for functional adequacy
  • Methodology
    • Participants
    • L2 learners
    • Tasks
    • Rating procedure
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Interrater reliability
    • Correlations between dimensions of functional adequacy
    • Correlations between task 1 and task 2
    • Raters’ perceptions of functional adequacy
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.11kui
References
Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F.
(2002) Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(2009) Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barron, A.
(2003) Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L. F.
(1994) Conversational implicature in the second language. Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Developing non-native speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicature in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 47–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bridgeman, B., Powers, D., Stone, E., & Mollaun, P.
(2012) TOEFL iBT speaking test scores as indicators of oral communicative language proficiency. Language Testing, 29(1), 91–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cortés Velásquez, D., & Nuzzo, E.
2017). Assessing L1 functional adequacy: Can we use the same scale as for L2. Paper presented at TBLT 2017, Barcelona.
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., & Powers, D. E.
(2002) Decision making while rating ESL/EFL writing tasks: A descriptive framework. Modern Language Journal, 86, 67–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H.
(2012a) 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.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(1), 5–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faone, S., Pagliara, F., & Vitale, G.
(2017) How to access L2 information-gap tasks through functional adequacy rating scales. Paper presented at TBLT 2017, Barcelona.
González-Lloret, M.
(2016) A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(Eds.) (2012) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Alderson, J. C., & Schoonen, R.
(2010) Developmental stages in second-language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them? In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 11–20). (Eurosla Monographs Series 1).Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S.
(2008) Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoch, U.
(2007) ‘Little coherence, considerable strain for reader’: A comparison between two rating scales for the assessment of coherence. Assessing Writing, 12(2), 108–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: What should they look like and where should the criteria come from? Assessing Writing, 16(2), 81–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2014) Rating written performance: What do raters do and why? Language Testing, 31(3), 329–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Functional adequacy in L2 writing. Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336.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. 81–100). (Eurosla Monographs Series 1).Google Scholar
Long, M. H.
(2015), Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martinez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E.
(Eds.) (2010) Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T.
(1996) Measuring second language performance. New York, NY: Addison Wesley, Longman.Google Scholar
(1997) ‘Instruction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T., & Roever, C.
(2007) Testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M.
(2001) Identifying rating criteria for task-based EAP assessment. In T. Hudson & J. D. Brown (Eds.), A focus on language test development: Expanding the language proficiency construct across a variety of tests (Technical Report #21, pp. 163–204). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2002) Special issue: Task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Task-based teaching and testing. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language teaching (pp. 578–594). Cambridge: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–244.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J.
(1998) Designing second language performance assessments (Technical Report #18). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G.
2017). Percorsi di educazione linguistica efficace per ridurre le diseguaglianze. In M. Vedovelli Ed. L’italiano dei nuovi italiani Atti del XIX Convegno Nazionale GISCEL pp. 505 520 Roma Aracne
Roever, C.
(2005) Testing ESL Pragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based assessment battery. Berlin: Peter Lang.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28(4), 463–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) What learners get for free: Learning of pragmatic formulae in ESL and EFL environments. The ELT Journal, 66(1), 10–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. J., & Kasper, G.
(Eds.) (2013) Assessing second language pragmatics. Houndmills: Palgrave, Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonen, R., Vergeer, M., & Eiting, M.
(1997) The assessment of writing ability: Expert readers versus lay readers. Language Testing, 14(2), 157–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975) Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A.
(2012) Task-based language assessment: Components, developments, and implementation. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp. 156–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N.
(2009) Corpus-informed assessment of L2 comprehension of conversational implicatures. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 738–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience in pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 904–939. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2013) Production of routines in L2 English: Effect of proficiency and study-abroad experience. System, 41, 109–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, I.
(1991) Foreign accents revisited: Factors relating to transfer of accent from the first language to a second language. Language and Speech, 24(3), 265–272.Google Scholar
Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E.
(1995) Constructing rating scales for second language tests. ELT Journal, 49(1), 3–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vitale, M., De Meo, A., & Pettorino, M.
(2012) Foreign accent and persuasiveness. Native and non native voices in a radio spot. In A. De Meo & M. Pettorino (Eds.), Prosodic and rhythmic aspects of L2 acquisition. The case of Italian (pp. 213–222). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Walters, F.
(2013) Interfaces between a discourse completion test and a conversation analysis informed test of L2 pragmatic competence. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 172–195). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 17 other publications

Bui, Gavin & Kevin W. H. Tai
2022. Revisiting functional adequacy and task-based language teaching in the GBA: insights from translanguaging. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 7:1 DOI logo
Del Bono, Federica & Elisabetta Bonvino
2021. Dalla valutazione in DaD alle scale di valutazione dell’adeguatezza. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 8:2 DOI logo
Ekiert, Monika, Andrea Révész, Eivind Torgersen & Emily Moss
2022. The role of pausing in L2 oral task performance. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Galbraith, David & Ineke Vedder
2019. METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN INVESTIGATING L2 WRITING PROCESSES. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41:3 ► pp. 633 ff. DOI logo
González-Lloret, Marta
2022. The present and future of functional adequacy. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 146 ff. DOI logo
Kuiken, Folkert
2022. Linguistic complexity in second language acquisition. Linguistics Vanguard 0:0 DOI logo
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2022. Chapter 14. Speaking. In Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Methods [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2022. Measurement of functional adequacy in different learning contexts. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2022. The assessment of functional adequacy in language performance. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kuiken, Folkert, Ineke Vedder, Alex Housen & Bastien De Clercq
2019. Variation in syntactic complexity: Introduction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Loewen, Shawn
2022. Functional adequacy, task-based language teaching and instructed second language acquisition. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Narke, Pankaj
2021. Communicative Strategies as a Tool for Assessing Spoken Interactional Competence. In Task-Based Language Teaching and Assessment, ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
Nuzzo, Elena & Giuseppe Bove
2020. Assessing functional adequacy across tasks: A comparison of learners’ and native speakers’ written texts. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 7:2 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Nuzzo, Elena & Giuseppe Bove
2022. Exploring the pedagogical use of the rating scale for functional adequacy in L1 writing instruction. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Pallotti, Gabriele
2022. Holistic and analytic assessment of functional adequacy. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Schmidgall, Jonathan & Donald E. Powers
2021. Predicting communicative effectiveness in the international workplace: Support for TOEIC® Speaking test scores from linguistic laypersons. Language Testing 38:2 ► pp. 302 ff. DOI logo
Strobl, Carola & Kristof Baten
2022. Assessing writing development during study abroad. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 february 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.