This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Spolsky, B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

What does it mean to know howto use a language? An essay on the theoretical basis of language testing

Bar-Ilan University

Language testing and linguistic theory must both try to define language knowledge and use. There are three main approaches. The Structural claim, which assumes that knowledge can take the form of a grammar or structural description of the language, forms the basis of discrete point tests. The Functional approach assumes that the nature of language knowledge is best captured by listing the various uses to which it can be put; it is embodied in the communicative competence model, the notional-functional curriculum, and the interest in teaching and testing pragmatics. The General Proficiency claim is based on the notion that individuals vary in possessing measurable amounts of an indivisible body of knowledge. It underlies arguments for a general factor underlying batteries of tests or for the trait measured by certain test methods like the cloze. The theoretical strengths and weaknesses of these approaches and the impossibility of showing that any one is completely correct forces us to consider all three as basic to testing. Anybody who knows a second language must be assumed to have all three kinds of knowledge, so that we can only achieve the full picture of language proficiency if we use many different measuring method and know what trait is being tapped by each test.

Language Testing, Vol. 2, No. 2, 180-191 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/026553228500200206


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Schmitt The relationship between TOEFL vocabulary items and meaning, association, collocation and word-class knowledge Language Testing, April 1, 1999; 16(2): 189 - 216. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. H.A.L. de Jong and C.A.W. Glas Validation of listening comprehension tests using item response theory Language Testing, December 1, 1987; 4(2): 170 - 194. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Spolsky A multiple choice for language testers Language Testing, December 1, 1986; 3(2): 147 - 158. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Grotjahn Test validation and cognitive psychology: some methodological considerations Language Testing, December 1, 1986; 3(2): 159 - 185. [Abstract] [PDF]