Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T20:28:54.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSING ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2006

Catherine Elder  and
Alan Davies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This chapter proposes two alternative models for assessing English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). Tests based on the first model resemble existing approaches to assessing English as a foreign language offered by such tests as TOEFL, and IELTS. This model assumes that interlocutors use varieties of English based on Standard English. What distinguishes tests of this model from existing international tests of English is that it explicitly allows test accommodations. Such accommodations modify the test delivery system in order to make it accessible and fair for ELF users without changing the construct. Tests based on the second model assume that ELF may be regarded not as a use of Standard English but as a code in its own right. Similarities to varieties of World Englishes such as Singapore English, Indian English are noted. In tests based on the second model, strategic competence takes precedence over linguistic accuracy. Although both models are somewhat problematic in practice, neither, it is argued, entails any radical reconceptualization of language testing beyond what has already been envisaged and/or enacted in the field. Nevertheless, future tests of ELF may have both symbolic and practical importance, giving greater authority and legitimacy to expanding and outer circle English voices on the one hand and giving flesh to definitions of effective intercultural communication on the other. The chapter concludes by cautioning against moving too quickly to assess ELF before it has been properly described.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 26 , January 2006 , pp. 282 - 304
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Liz Hamp-Lyons to our thinking about this chapter.

References

Abedi J. Lord C. Hofstetter C., & Baker E. (2000). Impact of accommodation strategies on English language learners' test performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19 (3), 16– 26.Google Scholar
Bailey A., & Butler F. (2004). Ethical considerations in the assessment of the language and content knowledge of U.S. school-age English learners. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2 & 3, pp. 177– 193.
Bolton K. (2004). World Englishes. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 367– 396). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Bonk W. (2003). A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion. Language Testing, 20 (1), 89– 100.Google Scholar
Brown A. (2004). LSP testing: The role of linguistic and real world criteria. In R. Khoo (Ed.), LSP: Problems and prospects (pp. 202– 218). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center
Brown J. D. & Hudson T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Brown A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20 (1), 1– 25.Google Scholar
Brown A., & Lumley T. (1998). Linguistic and cultural norms in language testing: a case study. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 7 (1), 80– 96.Google Scholar
Bruthiaux P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modelling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (2), 159– 178.Google Scholar
Brutt-Griffler J. 2002. World English: A study of its development. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters
Brutt-Griffler J. (2005, September). Striving to be the native speaker. Paper presented at British Association of Applied Linguistics (BAAL) Conference, Bristol, UK.
Canagarajah A. S. (2005, July). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives. Paper presented at Symposium on The Assessment of World Englishes AILA Conference, Madison, WI.
Chalhoub-Deville M., & Wigglesworth G. (2005). Rater judgement and English language speaking proficiency. World Englishes, 24 (3), 383– 391.Google Scholar
Cheng W., & Warren M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22 (1), 93– 112.Google Scholar
Clyne M. (1994). Inter-cultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Crewe W. (1977). Singapore English as a non-native dialect. In W. Crewe (Ed.), The English language in Singapore (pp. 96– 119). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press
Crystal D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Davies A. (1989). Is international English an interlanguage? TESOL Quarterly, 23 (3), 447– 467.Google Scholar
Davies A. Hamp-Lyons L., & Kemp C. (2003). Whose norms: International proficiency tests in English. World Englishes, 22 (4), 571– 584.Google Scholar
Douglas D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Douglas D. (2001). Languages for specific purposes assessment criteria: Where do they come from? Language Testing, 18 (2), 171– 185.Google Scholar
Egyud G., & Glover P. (2001). Oral testing in pairs—a secondary school perspective. ELT Journal, 55 (1), 70– 76.Google Scholar
Elder C. (1997). What does test bias have to do with fairness? Language Testing, 14 (3), 261– 277.Google Scholar
Elder C. (2000). Is it fair to assess native and nonnative speakers in common on school “foreign” language examinations? In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness in language testing: Proceedings of the 19th Language Testing Research Colloquium (pp. 82– 104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Elder C. (2001) Assessing the language proficiency of teachers: Are there any border controls? Language Testing, 18 (1), 149– 170.Google Scholar
Elder C. McNamara T., & Congdon P. (2004). Rasch techniques for detecting bias in performance assessments: An example comparing the performance of native and non-native speakers on a test of academic English. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4 (2), 181– 197.Google Scholar
Fayer J. M., & Krasinksi E. (1987). Native and nonnative judgements of intelligibility and irritation. Language Learning, 37, 313– 326.Google Scholar
Firth A. (1991). Lingua franca negotiations: Towards an interactional approach. World Englishes, 9 (3), 269– 280.Google Scholar
Foot M. (1999). Relaxing in pairs. ELT Journal 53 (1), 36– 41.Google Scholar
Fulcher G. (1996). Testing tasks: Issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing 13, 23– 51.Google Scholar
Graddol D. (1999). The decline of the native speaker. AILA Review, 13, 57– 68.Google Scholar
Guthke J. Heinrich A., & Caruso M. (1986). The diagnostic program of “syntactical rule and vocabulary acquisition”—A contribution to the psychodiagnosis of foreign language learning ability. In F. Klix & H. Hagendorf (Eds.), Human memory and cognitive capabilities: Mechanisms and Performances, (pp. 903– 911). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Hamilton J. Lopes M. McNamara T., & Sheridan E. (1993). Rating scales and native speaker performance on a communicatively oriented EAP test. Language Testing, 10 (3), 337– 353.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons L., & Davies A. (2005, July). Bias revisited. Paper presented at Symposium on The Assessment of World Englishes, AILA Conference, Madison, WI.
Heritage J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press
Higgins C. (2003). Ownership of English in the Outer Circle: An alternative to the NS/NNS dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (3), 615– 644.Google Scholar
Hill K. (1996). Who should be the judge? The use of non-native speakers as raters on a test of English as an international language. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 3 (2), 29– 31.Google Scholar
Iwashita N. (1996). Validity of the paired interview format in oral performance assessment. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 5 (2), 51– 67.Google Scholar
Jacoby S., & McNamara T. (1999). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70 (4), 366– 372.Google Scholar
James A. R. (2000). English as a European lingua franca: current realities and existing dichotomies. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language, pp. 22– 38. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Jenkins J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an International Language. Applied Linguistics, 23 (1), 83– 103.Google Scholar
Jenkins J. (2005, September). The spread of English as an international language: A testing time for testers. Paper delivered at British Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Bristol, UK.
Jenkins J. (In press). English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Joseph J. E. (2004). Language and identity: National, ethnic, religious. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
Joseph J. (2006, in press). Language and politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Kachru B. (1992). The other tongue (2nd ed). Urbana: University of Illinois Press
Kaplan R.B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1– 20.Google Scholar
Lazaraton A. (1992). The structural organization of a language interview: a conversational analytic perspective. System, 20, 373– 86.Google Scholar
Lazaraton A. (1996). Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: The case of CASE. Language Testing, 13, 151– 72.Google Scholar
Lazaraton A. (2005, September). Non-native speakers as language assessors: Recent research and implications for assessment practice. Paper presented at British Association of Applied Linguistics Conference (BAAL), Bristol, UK.
Lowenberg (2002). Assessing English proficiency in the expanding circle. World Englishes, 21 (3) 431– 435.
Lumley T., & Brown A. (1996). Specific purpose language performance tests: Task and interaction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 105– 136.Google Scholar
Major R. C. Fitzmaurice S. F. Bunta F., & Balasubramanian C. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (2), 173– 190.Google Scholar
Malvern D., & Richards B. (2002). Acccommodation in language proficiency interviews. Language Testing, 19 (1), 85– 204.Google Scholar
Mauranen A. (2003). The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (3), 513– 527.Google Scholar
McKay S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press
McNamara T. (1997). Interaction in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 8, 446– 466.Google Scholar
McNamara T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: challenges for research. Language Testing, 18 (4), 333– 349.Google Scholar
Odlin T. (2002). Language transfer and cross-linguistic studies: relativism, universalism and the native language. In R. B. Kaplan, (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 253– 261). Oxford: Oxford University Press
O'Hagan S. (1999). Assessment criteria for non-native and native speaker essays: Do uniform standards work? Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 8 (2), 20– 52.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language Testing, 19 (3), 277– 295.Google Scholar
Patri M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19 (2), 109– 132.Google Scholar
Poehner M., & Lantolf J. (2003). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. CALPER Working Papers, No. 1 (pp. 1– 26). State College, PA: Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research (CALPER)
Prabhu N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ross S. (1992). Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews. Language Testing, 9, 173– 86.Google Scholar
Santos T. A. (1988). Professors' reactions to the academic writing of non-native speaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (1), 69– 70.Google Scholar
Saville N., & Hargreaves P. (1999). Assessing speaking in the revised FCE. ELT Journal, 53 (1), 42– 51.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 133– 158.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209– 239.Google Scholar
Swain M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275– 302.Google Scholar
Taylor L. (2005, May). Linguistic diversity: Language varieties and their implications for testing and assessment. Paper presented at the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) Conference, Berlin.
Timmis I. (2002). Native-speaker norms and international English: A classroom view. ELT Journal, 56 (3), 241– 249.Google Scholar
Weigle S. Boldt H., & Valsecchi M. (2003). Effects of task and rater background on the evaluation of ESL student writing: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 2 (1), 345– 354.Google Scholar