(pp. 55–74). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.13 Feyten, C. (1991). The power of listening ability: An overlooked dimension in language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 75(2), 173–80.
14 Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1999). Does the text matter in a multiple‐choice test of comprehension? The case for the construct validity of TOEFL's minitalks. Language Testing, 16, 2–32.
15 Galaczi, E. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–74.
16 Gruba, P. (1989). A comparison study of audio and video presentation modes in tests of ESL listening comprehension (Unpublished MA thesis). University of California, Los Angeles.
17 Gruba, P. (1999). The role of digital video media in second language listening comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Australia.
18 Harding, L. (2012). Accent, listening assessment and the potential for a shared‐L1 advantage: A DIF perspective. Language Testing, 29(2), 163–80.
19 Henricksen, L. (1984). Sandhi variation: A filter of input for learners of ESL. Language Learning, 34, 103–26.
20 In'nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2009). A meta‐analysis of test format effects on reading and listening test performance: Focus on multiple‐choice and open‐ended formats. Language Testing, 26(2), 219–44.
21 Jensen, C., & Hansen, C. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge on EAP listening performance. Language Testing, 12(1), 99–119.
22 Jung, E.‐H. (2006). Misunderstanding of academic monologues by nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1928–42.
23 Koyama, D., Sun, A., & Ockey, G. J. (2016). The effects of item preview on video‐based multiple‐choice listening assessments. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 148–65.
24 Lynch, T. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 3–19.
25 Major, R., Fitzmaurice, S. F., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The effects of non‐native accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 173–90.
26 Min‐Young, S. (2008). Do divisible subskills exist in second language (L2) comprehension? A structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing, 25(4), 435–64.
27 Ockey, G. J. (2007). Construct implications of including still image or video in web‐based listening tests. Language Testing, 24(4), 517–37.
28 Ockey, G. J. (2009). Developments and challenges in the use of computer‐based testing (CBT) for assessing second language ability. Modern Language Journal, 93, 836–47.
29 Ockey, G. J., & French, R. (2016). From one to multiple accents on a test of L2 listening comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 693–715.
30 Ockey, G. J., Papageorgiou, S., & French, R. (2016). Effects of strength of accent on an L2 interactive lecture listening comprehension test. International Journal of Listening, 30(1–2), 84–98.
31 Ockey, G. J., & Wagner, E. (2018). Assessing L2 listening: Moving towards authenticity. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
32 Shin, D. (1998). Using video‐taped lectures for testing academic language. International Journal of Listening, 12, 56–79.
33 Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55, 661–99.
34 Suvorov, R. (2015). The use of eye tracking in research on video‐based second language L2 listening assessment: A comparison of context videos and content videos. Language Testing, 32(4), 463–83.
35 Tauroza, S., & Luk, J. (1997). Accent and second language listening comprehension. RELC Journal, 28, 54–71.
36 Wagner, E. (2010). The effect of the use of video texts on ESL listening test‐taker performance. Language Testing, 27(4), 493–515.
37 Wu, Y. (1998). What do tests of listening comprehension test? A retrospection study of EFL test‐takers performing a multiple‐choice task. Language Testing, 15, 21–44.
Suggested Readings
1 Flowerdew, J. (Ed.). (1994). Academic listening: Research perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2 Geranpayeh, A., & Taylor, L. (2013). Examining listening: Research and practice in assessing second language listening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Assessment of Pragmatics
CARSTEN ROEVER
The assessment of second language pragmatics is a relatively recent enterprise. This entry will briefly review the construct of pragmatics, discuss some major approaches to testing pragmatics, and highlight some of the challenges for pragmatics assessment.
The Construct
The concept of pragmatics is far reaching and is commonly understood to focus on language use in social contexts (Crystal, 1997). Subareas include deixis, implicature, speech acts, and extended discourse (Mey, 2001). In the second language area, pragmatics is represented in major models of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983; Bachman & Palmer, 1996), which inform second language assessment, but it has not been systematically assessed in large language tests. However, assessments have been developed for research purposes, and they follow either a speech act approach, or an interactional approach, leading to the coexistence of two distinct assessment constructs.
Assessments situated within a speech act approach are informed by speech act pragmatics (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1976; Leech, 1983) and, to a lesser extent, work on implicature (Grice, 1975). Following Leech (1983), these assessments consider pragmatic ability as consisting of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge and ability for use. Sociopragmatics relates to social rules, whereas pragmalinguistics covers the linguistic tools necessary to express speech intentions. In language testing, the conceptualization of pragmatic competence outlined by Timpe Laughlin, Wain, and Schmidgall (2015) is situated within this approach.
Assessments following an interactional approach are usually informed by the construct of interactional competence (Kramsch, 1986; Young, 2008; Galaczi & Taylor, 2018), which in turn heavily relies on conversation analysis (CA) (for overviews, see Schegloff, 2007; Clift, 2016). Interactional competence is the ability to engage in extended interaction as a listener and speaker, including display of recipiency of interlocutor talk, turn taking, repair, sequence organization, turn formation, as well as the configuration of these generic features of talk for the enactment of social roles in specific contexts (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011). Galaczi and Taylor (2018) describe this approach from a language testing perspective.
Assessment instruments in second language (L2) pragmatics do not usually cover all possible subareas of pragmatics but rather focus on sociopragmatics, pragmalinguistics, or interactional competence. While testing of L2 pragmatics is not (yet) a component of large‐scale proficiency tests, some interactional abilities are assessed as part of such tests as part of the speaking construct (Galaczi, 2014), and implicature as part of the listening construct, e.g., in Test of English as a Foreign
