Future Directions in Pragmatics Assessment
While the discussion of the importance of pragmatic ability arguably begins with Lado (1961), the idea of sociolinguistic or pragmatic competence has been widely recognized as one of four vital communicative competencies since Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) first introduced their seminal...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Columbia University Libraries
2015-04-01
|
| Series: | Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8KW5STF/download |
| _version_ | 1818446547535265792 |
|---|---|
| author | Fred S. Tsutagawa |
| author_facet | Fred S. Tsutagawa |
| author_sort | Fred S. Tsutagawa |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | While the discussion of the importance of pragmatic ability arguably begins with Lado (1961), the idea of sociolinguistic or pragmatic competence has been widely recognized as one of four vital communicative competencies since Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) first introduced their seminal paper on communicative competence over three decades ago. Since then, language testers such as Bachman (1990), Bachman and Palmer (1996), and Purpura (2004) have proposed subsequent models of communicative language ability (CLA) where pragmatic knowledge is featured prominently, but interestingly, the assessment of pragmatic knowledge and ability is still relatively nascent in terms of its research and development. One reason for this is because the measurement of pragmatic knowledge is inherently complex, especially since “one utterance can simultaneously encode multiple pragmatic meanings, and many times, without asking the speaker[s], it is difficult to determine which meanings were implied…[and] which meanings were actually understood” (Purpura, 2004, p. 77). As a result, most pragmatic research has tended to focus on a narrow but more quantifiable band of functional pragmatic topics such as polite and impolite speech, complimenting, use of discourse markers (Rose & Kasper, 2001), and other pragmatic tasks such as apologizing, complaining, giving advice, and inviting that are common in many ESL/EFL textbooks (Vellenga, 2004). But actual “tests of pragmatic ability are few and far between” (Kasper & Rose, 2001, p. 9), with many of the above studies employing written response formats that fail to capture the richness and unplanned nature of authentic discourse. Advances in technology, however, may possibly bridge some of the limitations that have been observed in the pragmatics testing literature thus far. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T19:49:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a71debcd2cf54879a940fd1cc52edb0e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2576-2907 2576-2907 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T19:49:28Z |
| publishDate | 2015-04-01 |
| publisher | Columbia University Libraries |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL |
| spelling | doaj.art-a71debcd2cf54879a940fd1cc52edb0e2022-12-21T22:49:27ZengColumbia University LibrariesWorking Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL2576-29072576-29072015-04-01122434510.7916/D8SF37TFFuture Directions in Pragmatics AssessmentFred S. Tsutagawa0Teachers College, Columbia UniversityWhile the discussion of the importance of pragmatic ability arguably begins with Lado (1961), the idea of sociolinguistic or pragmatic competence has been widely recognized as one of four vital communicative competencies since Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) first introduced their seminal paper on communicative competence over three decades ago. Since then, language testers such as Bachman (1990), Bachman and Palmer (1996), and Purpura (2004) have proposed subsequent models of communicative language ability (CLA) where pragmatic knowledge is featured prominently, but interestingly, the assessment of pragmatic knowledge and ability is still relatively nascent in terms of its research and development. One reason for this is because the measurement of pragmatic knowledge is inherently complex, especially since “one utterance can simultaneously encode multiple pragmatic meanings, and many times, without asking the speaker[s], it is difficult to determine which meanings were implied…[and] which meanings were actually understood” (Purpura, 2004, p. 77). As a result, most pragmatic research has tended to focus on a narrow but more quantifiable band of functional pragmatic topics such as polite and impolite speech, complimenting, use of discourse markers (Rose & Kasper, 2001), and other pragmatic tasks such as apologizing, complaining, giving advice, and inviting that are common in many ESL/EFL textbooks (Vellenga, 2004). But actual “tests of pragmatic ability are few and far between” (Kasper & Rose, 2001, p. 9), with many of the above studies employing written response formats that fail to capture the richness and unplanned nature of authentic discourse. Advances in technology, however, may possibly bridge some of the limitations that have been observed in the pragmatics testing literature thus far.https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8KW5STF/downloadLanguage and languagesAbility testingTechnological innovationsSociolinguisticsPragmaticsEducationEnglish languageStudy of languageTeaching languageForeign speakersApplied linguisticsPragmatics assessmentCommunicative language abilityCLA |
| spellingShingle | Fred S. Tsutagawa Future Directions in Pragmatics Assessment Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL Language and languages Ability testing Technological innovations Sociolinguistics Pragmatics Education English language Study of language Teaching language Foreign speakers Applied linguistics Pragmatics assessment Communicative language ability CLA |
| title | Future Directions in Pragmatics Assessment |
| title_full | Future Directions in Pragmatics Assessment |
| title_fullStr | Future Directions in Pragmatics Assessment |
| title_full_unstemmed | Future Directions in Pragmatics Assessment |
| title_short | Future Directions in Pragmatics Assessment |
| title_sort | future directions in pragmatics assessment |
| topic | Language and languages Ability testing Technological innovations Sociolinguistics Pragmatics Education English language Study of language Teaching language Foreign speakers Applied linguistics Pragmatics assessment Communicative language ability CLA |
| url | https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8KW5STF/download |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fredstsutagawa futuredirectionsinpragmaticsassessment |