The present and future of functional adequacy

González-Lloret, Marta

doi:10.1075/task.21008.gon

Article published In:

The Assessment of Functional Adequacy in Language Performance: Special issue of the Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 (2022)
Edited by Folkert Kuiken and Ineke Vedder
[TASK 2:1] 2022
► pp. 146–158

The present and future of functional adequacy

Marta González-Lloret | University of Hawai‘iManoa

The concept of Functional Adequacy (FA) proposed by Kuiken and Vedder, and the research conducted by the authors in this special issue is pushing the field of Task- Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and Task-Based Language Assessment (TBLA) towards a more inclusive understanding of what it means to perform a task successfully. In addition, the idea of FA is an important contribution not just for assessment but for research on L2 pragmatic learning through tasks. As demonstrated by the authors in this special issue, the FA rating scale is a reliable and easy-to-use tool. And as I argue, the rating scale can be expanded to assess interactional tasks and tasks mediated by technology, and that has repercussion for practice in the language classroom as well as for research in the fields of TBLT, TBLA, and L2 Pragmatics.

Keywords: sociopragmatics, interactional tasks, L2 pragmatic tasks, technology-mediated tasks

Article outline

Introduction
What we know about FA so far
Relationship between CAF and FA
The impact of FA
Looking forward
Interactional tasks
Modality
Conclusion
References

Published online: 20 June 2022

https://doi.org/10.1075/task.21008.gon

References (30)

References

Brown, P. (2015). Politeness and language. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Pragmat; pp. 326–330). Elsevier.

De Jong, N., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). 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.), Language learning & language teaching (Vol. 321, pp. 121–142). John Benjamins.

Ekiert, M., Lampropoulos, S., Révész, A., & Torgersen, E. (2018). The effects of task type and proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task performance. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 247–263). John Benjamins.

Grice, P. (1975). Language and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.

González-Lloret, M. (2019). Technology and L2 pragmatics learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39 1, 113–127.

(2020). Pragmatic development in L2: An overview. In K. P. Schneider & E. Infantidou (Eds.), Developmental and clinical pragmatics. (pp. 237–267). Mouton De Gruyter.

González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2018). Pragmatics, tasks, and technology: A synergy. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 191–214). John Benjamins.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Fact and inference in courtroom testimony. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 163–195). Cambridge University Press.

Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins.

Ishihara, N. (2019). Identity and agency in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 161–175). Routledge.

Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 101–128). Mouton de Gruyter.

Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System, 45 1, 92–102.

Kramsch, C. J. (Ed.). (1995). Introduction: Making the invisible visible. In Redefining the boundaries of language study (pp. ix–xxxiii). Heinle & Heinle.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing. Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34 (3), 321–336.

(2018). Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 266–285). John Benjamins.

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. 81–99). European Second Language Association.

Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. L. Erlbaum Associates.

Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13 1, 241–256.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 555–578.

Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 590–601.

(2019). Assessing tasks: The case of interactional difficulty. Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 176–197.

Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37 (6), 828–848.

Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). John Benjamins.

(2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (Vol. 81, pp. 87–121). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I (Vol. 11). Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (Vol. 81, pp. 123–155). John Benjamins.

Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2018). Pragmatics in task-based language assessment: Opportunities and challenges. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 288–304). John Benjamins.

Van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Multilingual Matters.

Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32 (2), 199–225.

(2018). Task design and validity evidence for assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-Based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 218–246). John Benjamins.

Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Gonzalez‐Lloret, Marta

2023. Task‐Based Pragmatics Teaching. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff.

Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder

2022. Speaking. In Research methods in instructed second language acquisition [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 329 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2024. 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.