In:Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics
Edited by Naoko Taguchi and YouJin Kim
[Task-Based Language Teaching 10] 2018
► pp. 265–285
Chapter 11Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach
Published online: 15 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.11kui
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.11kui
Abstract
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 Appendix
References (52)
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 453–476.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755–795.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in the second language. Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157–167.
(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.
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.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.) (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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).
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.
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.
(2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275.
(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.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2014). Rating written performance: What do raters do and why? Language Testing, 31(3), 329–348.
(2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing. Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336.
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).
Long, M. H. (2015), Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Martinez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E. (Eds.) (2010). Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1997). ‘Instruction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446–466.
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.
(2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language teaching (pp. 578–594). Cambridge: Blackwell.
(2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–244.
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.
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.
(2012). What learners get for free: Learning of pragmatic formulae in ESL and EFL environments. The ELT Journal, 66(1), 10–21.
Ross, S. J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics. Houndmills: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Schoonen, R., Vergeer, M., & Eiting, M. (1997). The assessment of writing ability: Expert readers versus lay readers. Language Testing, 14(2), 157–184.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
(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.
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.
Taguchi, N. (2009). Corpus-informed assessment of L2 comprehension of conversational implicatures. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 738–749.
(2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience in pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 904–939.
(2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
(2013). Production of routines in L2 English: Effect of proficiency and study-abroad experience. System, 41, 109–121.
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.
Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E. (1995). Constructing rating scales for second language tests. ELT Journal, 49(1), 3–12.
Cited by (23)
Cited by 23 other publications
Chung, Yoojin & Andrea Révész
Lu, Xiaojun & Yui Suzukida
Qin, Jie & Dilin Liu
Handley, Zoe L. & Haiping Wang
Kuiken, Folkert
Peña-Acuña, Beatriz
Bui, Gavin & Kevin W. H. Tai
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.
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.
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2022. Speaking. In Research methods in instructed second language acquisition [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 329 ff.
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.
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.
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2025. From CAF to CAFFA. In Broadening the Horizon of TBLT [Task-Based Language Teaching, 17], ► pp. 147 ff.
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.
Pallotti, Gabriele
2022. Holistic and analytic assessment of functional adequacy. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 85 ff.
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.
Del Bono, Federica & Elisabetta Bonvino
Narke, Pankaj
Schmidgall, Jonathan & Donald E. Powers
Nuzzo, Elena & Giuseppe Bove
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.
Galbraith, David & Ineke Vedder
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.
