Construction Grammar Meets Language Testing and Evaluation: Redefining & Ensuring Construct Validity

Tan Arda Gedik

Abstract


Theoretical linguistics and teaching are concurrent, that is, neither can exist without the other. In other words, decisions made in (foreign) language teaching will inevitably affect how language testing and evaluation as a concept is designed and administered. For example, if a curriculum states that the English as a foreign language teachers need to make a distinction between a gerund and an infinitive in the classroom and teach it as such, then, this distinction will be tested or evaluated in one way or another. In this article, language testing and evaluation (LTE), an important component in language teaching, is combined with construction grammar (henceforth CxG), a salient theory of language with ample evidence to support its claims. Specifically, this article discusses how construct validity, test items, and rubrics can be reimagined from the perspective of usage-based construction grammar. 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Alderson, J. C., & Kremmel, B. (2013). Re-examining the content validation of a grammar test: The (im)possibility of distinguishing vocabulary and structural knowledge. Language Testing, 30(4), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213489568

ALTE Members. (1998). Multilingual glossary of language testing terms. Studies in Language Testing, 6.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford university press.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Barker, F. (2012). Corpus-Based Testing. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (p. wbeal0263). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0263

Bates, E., & Elman, J. (1996). Learning rediscovered. Science (New York, N.Y.), 274(5294), 1849–1850. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1849

Beckner, C., & Bybee, J. (2009). A Usage-Based Account of Constituency and Reanalysis. Language Learning, 59, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00534.x

Behrens, H., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.). (2016). Frequency and lexical specificity in grammar: A critical review. In Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language (pp. 209–238). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346916-009

Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The Contribution of Argument Structure Constructions to Sentence Meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757

Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib

Boas, H. (2003). Towards a lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation. Proceedings of the 2001 Western Conference on Linguistics. Presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics, University of Texas. Retrieved from https://sites.la.utexas.edu/hcb/files/2011/02/Boas2003a_Locative_Alternation.pdf

Brown, J. (2000). What is construct validity? JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 4(2). Retrieved from https://hosted.jalt.org/test/PDF/Brown8.pdf

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526

Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9

Bybee, J. L. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT press.

Council of Europe (Ed.). (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment ; companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Csomay, E. (2005). Interactivity in university classrooms: A corpus-based perspective. Presented at the ICAME 26 &AAACL 6 Conference. Retrieved from http://robfelty.com/design/archives/corpusconference/abstracts/abstract18.pdf

Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab

Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. (1999). Dictionary of language testing (Vol. 7). Cambridge University Press.

Diessel, H. (2013). Construction Grammar and first language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 347–364). Oxford University Press.

Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084410

Educational Testing Services. (2011). TOEFL program history (No. 6). Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Services. Retrieved from Educational Testing Services website: https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/toefl_ibt_insight_s1v6.pdf

Educational Testing Services. (2021). Using TOEFL iBT® Test Scores for Selecting International Teaching Assistants (No. 10). Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Services. Retrieved from Educational Testing Services website: https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/toefl_ibt_insight_s1v10.pdf

Fulcher, G. (2000). The ‘communicative’legacy in language testing. System, 28(4), 483–497.

Gedik, T. A. (2021). An analysis of lexicogrammatical development in English textbooks in Turkey: A usage-based construction grammar approach. ExELL. 9. DOI: 10.2478/exell-2022-0002.

Gedik, T. A. & Kolsal, Y. S. (2022). A corpus-based analysis of high school English textbooks and English university entrance exams in Turkey. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition. 8. 157-176. DOI: 10.31261/TAPSLA.9152.

Goldberg, A. E. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: University of California.

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.005

Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Sprachwissenschaft (pp. 717–729). Berlin, New York: DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226300.6.717

Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions / Adele E. Goldberg. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on `alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri

Groom, N., Charles, M., & Suganthi, J. (Eds.). (n.d.). Using COBUILD grammar patterns for a large-scale analysis of verb-argument constructions. In Corpora, grammar and discourse: In honour of Susan Hunston (pp. 43–73).

Harding, L. (2014). Communicative Language Testing: Current Issues and Future Research. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(2), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.895829

Harris, C. L. (1998). Psycholinguistic studies of entrenchment. In J.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition (pp. 55–70). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.

Herbst, T. (2020). Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language: Moving towards colloconstruction. Constructions and Frames, 12(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00035.her

Hilpert, M. (2014). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press.

Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Krug, M. (2003). Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (pp. 7–68). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.7

Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication (Georgia State University). Georgia State University. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/35/

Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2017). Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing, 34(4).

Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 119–144.

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing Speaking (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733017

Madlener, K. (2016). Input optimization: Effects of type and token frequency manipulations in instructed second language learning. In H. Behrens & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language (pp. 133–174). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346916-007

Mahlberg, M. (2006). Lexical cohesion: Corpus linguistic theory and its application in English language teaching. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 363–383.

McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. Longman Publishing Group.

Norris, J. M. (2002). Interpretations, intended uses and designs in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt234ed

Oyinloye, C. A., Adeoye, A., Fatimayin, F., Osikomaiya, M. O., & Fatola, O. L. (2020). The impact of English language proficiency testing on the pronunciation performance of undergraduates in South-West, Nigeria. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(9), 530–535.

https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2020.4016

Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar (Vol. 17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17

Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. C. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 18(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.19.1-2.9

Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28(4), 463–481.

Römer, U. (2017). Language assessment and the inseparability of lexis and grammar: Focus on the construct of speaking. Language Testing, 34(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217711431

Römer, U., Roberson, A., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Linking learner corpus and experimental data in studying second language learners’ knowledge of verb-argument constructions. ICAME Journal, 38(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.2478/icame-2014-0006

Ruegg, R. (2015). An Experiment in the Ability of Raters to Evaluate Lexis in Writing. Language in Focus, 1(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/lifijsal-2015-0003

Ruegg, R., Fritz, E., & Holland, J. (2011). Rater Sensitivity to Qualities of Lexis in Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 63–80.

Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207071513

Shohamy, E. (1995). Performance Assessment in Language Testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 188–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002683

Shohamy, E. (1996). Competence and performance in language testing. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer, & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and competence in second language acquisition (pp. 136–151). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, J. (1997). Corpus, concordance, collocation (4. impr). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Pr.

Sinclair, J. (2014). Trust the Text Language, Corpus and Discourse.

Skehan, P. (2013). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks (0 ed., pp. 177–195). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838267-19

Taylor, J. R. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, L. B. (Ed.). (2011). Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Timpe, V. (2012). Strategic decoding of sociopragmatic assessment tasks–An exploratory think-aloud validation study. University of Hawai’I Second Langauge Studies Paper 30 (2).

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.

Turner, M. (2018). The Role of Creativity in Multimodal Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0030

Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weir, C. J., & Milanovic, M. (Eds.). (2003). The process of test development and revision within UCLES EFL. In Continuity and innovation: Revising the Cambridge Proficiency in English examination 1913–2002 (pp. 57–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weir, C. J., Vidaković, I., & Galaczi, E. D. (2013). Measured constructs: A history of Cambridge English examinations, 1913-2012 (Vol. 37). Cambridge University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21043/jetli.v5i1.14228

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Tan Arda Gedik

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License