[chapelle c. grabe w. berns m.] toefl(bookfi.org)

7/29/2019 [Chapelle C. Grabe W. Berns M.] TOEFL(BookFi.org)

1/71

I

MonographSeries M A Y 1 9 9 7C o m m u n i c a t i v e L a n g u a g eP ro f ic i ency : De f in i ti on an dIm p l ic a ti o n s f o r T O E F L 2 00 0

Carol ChapelleWilliam GrabeMargie Berns

E d u c a t i o n a lTesting S e r v i c e


2/71

Com municat ive Language Prof ic iency :De f in it ion and Im pl icat ions for TOE FL 2000

Carol Chapel le, W i ll iam Grabe , and Margie Be rns

Educat ional Test ing Serv icePr inceton, New JerseyRM-97-3


3/71

Educa tional Tes t ing Service is an Equal Opp ortunity /Aff irmative Act ion Employer .Copyright 1997 by Educ at ional Test ing Service. Al l r ights reserved.No par t of th is repor t may be reproduced or t ransmi t ted in any form or by any means,elect ronic or mecha nical , including photocopy, recording, or any informa t ion s torageand retrieval system, without permission in writ ing from the publisher. Violators willbe prosecuted in a ccordance wi th both U.S. and in ternat ional copyr ight laws.EDUC ATIONA L TESTING SERVICE, ETS, the ETS logo, TOE FL, the TOE FL logo,and TSE are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service.

To obtain m ore informat ion about TO EFL products and services, use one of the following:E - m a i l: t o e f l @ e t s .o r g

Web S i te : h t tp: / / www. to e f l . o rg


4/71

F o r e w o r d

The T OE F L Monog raph S e ri es f ea t u res com m i s si oned paper s and r epo rt s fo r T OE F L 2000 and o t he rTes t of Engl i sh as a Foreign Language prog ram development effor ts . As pa r t of the foundat ion for theTO EF L 2000 pro ject , a numb er of papers and repor t s w ere commiss ioned f rom exper t s wi th in the f i elds ofmeasurem ent and language teaching and test ing . The resu lt ing cri ti ca l rev iews and ex per t opin ions wereinvited to inform TO EF L progra m development ef for t s wi th respect to t es t cons t ruct, t es t user needs , andtes t del ivery . Opin ions expressed in these papers are those of the au thors and do not necessar i ly ref lect theviews or in ten t ions of the TO EF L program.

These monographs are a l so of general scholar ly in teres t , and the TO EF L program i s p leased to makethem avai lable to col leagues in the fields of language teaching and test ing and internat ional s tudentadmissions in higher educat ion.

The TO EFL 2000 pro ject i s a broad effor t under wh ich language tes t ing a t E TS wi l l evolve in to the21s t century . As a f i rs t s t ep in the evolu tion of TO EF L language tes ting , the TO EF L p rogram recent lyrevi sed the Tes t o f Spoken Engl i sh (TS E ) and anno unced p lans to in t roduce a TO EF L compu ter-basedtes t (TOE FL CBT ) in 1998. The rev i sed TSE tes t, in t roduced in Ju ly 1995, i s based on an under ly ingcons t ruct of communicat ive l anguage abi l i ty and represents a process approac h to t es t validation . TheTO EF L CB T w i ll t ake advantage of the new forms o f assessments and improved serv ices made poss ib le bycomp uter-based tes ting whi le a l so moving the progra m tow ard i t s longer- range goals , wh ich include

the development of a conceptual f ramew ork that t akes in to account models ofcomm unicat ive competence a research agenda that informs and suppor t s th i s emerging f ramew ork a bet ter unders tanding of the k inds of informat ion tes t users need and want f rom theT O E F L t e st a bet ter unders tanding of the t echnological capabil i ti es for del ivery of TOE FL tes t s in tothe next centuryI t i s expected that the T OE FL 2000 effor ts wi l l continue to produce a se t of improved language tes ts

that recognize the dynamic, evolu t ionary nature o f assessment pract ices and that prom ote respons iveness totes t user needs . As f i a ture papers and pro ject s are completed , monograph s wi l l continue to be re leased tothe publ ic in th is new TO EF L research p i ib li cat ion ser ies.

TOEF L P rog ram Of f i ceEducat ional Tes t ing Serv ice


5/71

Abs t rac t1 1 I

D i s c u ss i on o f T O E FL 2 0 0 0 i n t h e T O E F L C o mmi t t e e o f E x a mi n e r s ' ( CO E ) m e e t in g s r e su l te d i n af ramew ork represen ting com ponen t s be l i eved to be re l evan t to def in ing l anguage use in an academ iccon text . 'nae f ramew ork , ca l l ed the C OE Model , i s compr i sed o f aspec t s o f the con tex t o f l anguage use aswel l as hypo thes ized capac i t ies o f the l anguage user . The C OE Mo del sugges t s tha t t es t developmentshou ld beg in by exam in ing the types o f academic con tex t s in which l anguage i s used in o rder to hypo thes izewhat those ab il i ti es may be fo r any spec if i c con tex t o f in te res t . CO E d i scuss ions o f TOEF L 2000 weremotivated by a broad range of val idi ty concerns (e.g . , content val idi ty , comtruct val idi ty , and the socialconsequences o f t est use), and the M odel may hav e impl icat ions fo r how val ida tion o f TO EFL 2000 i sconceived . ' Ihe C OE mod el i s descr ibed to serve as a record o f pas t d iscuss ion which can in fo rm fu tu rework .


6/71

AcknowledgmentI I I I I I I I I I I I

' h i e a u th o r s a re g r a te f u l t o t h e m e m b e r s o f th e T O E F L C o m m i t t e e o f E x a m in e r s a n d E T S s t a ff w h op a r t i c ip a t e d i n d i sc u s s io n s o f T O E F L 2 0 0 0 .


7/71

T ab le o f Co n ten tsI I I I I I

Page1 . In t r odu c t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 12 . B a c k g r ou nd a nd A ss um pt i on s . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2

2 .1 W hy a m od e l o f l a n gu a g e u se in c on te x t? . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 22 . 2 C O E a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t a d e f i n i t i o n o f l a n g u a g e a b i l i t y . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . 22 .3 A ss um pt i on s a b ou t t e s t in g l a ng ua g e a b i l i t y . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3

3 . C O E M od e l . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43 .1 C o n te x t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 .1 .1 S i tu a t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 73 .1 .1 .1 Se t t i ng . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 83 .1 .1 .2 Pa r t i c ipa n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 83 .1 .1 .3 T a s k . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 83 .1 .1 .4 Te x t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 83 .1 .1 .5 To p ic . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

3 .1 .2 Pe r fo rm a n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 .1 .3 C o nc lus ion . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

3 . 2 I n t e r n a l3 .2 .13 . 2 . 23 .2 .33 . 2 . 43 .2 .53 .2 .6

O p e ra t ion s . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 10In te rna l G o a l Se t t i n g . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . 11V e rba l W or k i ng M e m or y . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 11Verbal-Processing Com ponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13L a n gu a g e C o m pe te n c e . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 14W or ld K n ow le d ge . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 16In te rna l -P roc e ss ing O u tpu t . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 16

3 . 3 M o d e l o f C o m m u n i c a t i v e L a n g u a g e A p p l i e d . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . 173 .3 .1 Th e Sk i l l s D e sc r ibe d " l l a rough the M od e l . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 173 . 3 . 2 U s i n g t h e M o d e l f o r D e s c r i b i n g L a n g u a g e U s e . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . 1 9

3 .4 C on c lus ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 204 . Imp l i c a t io ns fo r Te s t D e ve lop m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 21

4 . 1 U s i n g t h e C O E M o d e l f o r T e s t D e v e l o p m e n t . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . 2 14 . 1 . 1 I d e n t i f y a n d A n a l y z e t h e A c a d e m i c C o n t e x t o f I n t e r e s t . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . 2 14 . 1 . 2 H y p o t h e s i z e t h e A b i l it i e s R e q u i r e d i n t h e C o n t e x t . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . 2 34 .1 .3 C o ns t ru c t R e le v a n t I t e m /T a s k Fo rm a t s . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . , . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 244 .1 . 4 Es t a b l i sh a Sc o r ing R u b ic . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 24


8/71

P a g e4 .2 I s sues Ra i sed by t he CO E M ode l fo r Tes t Dev elop me n t . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 25

4 .2 .1 W hy Not Jus t Giv e ' I laem "A uthe n t i c" Ac ade mic Task s? . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 254 .2 .2 W ha t Ab ou t t he "Fou r Sk i l l s "? . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . 264 .2 .3 W ha t I s a" S i t ua t i o n" ? . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . 264.2 .4 W ha t Is Co rre ct? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27

4.3 C on clu sio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285. Im pl ic at io ns for Va l ida t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.1 Co ns t ruc t Va l id i ty Ev ide nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 .1 .15 . 1 . 25 .1 .35 . 1 . 45 .1 .5

Co nte nt Ev ide nc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 2Em pi r i ca l I t em and Ta sk An alys i s . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 32Inte rna l St r uc ture of Te sts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Ex te rna l S t ruc tu re o f T es t s ( co r r e l a t i ona l ev idenc e) . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 33Ex per im en ta l M an ip u l a t i o ns . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . 34

5.2 ' I lae Co ns eq ue nc es of Test in g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . 355 .2 .1 Ev id enc e Co nce rn ing Rel e vanc e and Ut i l i t y . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 355.2 .2 Va lue Im pl ic at io ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 355.2 .3 Soc ial Co ns eq ue nc es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.3 Co nc lus ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 . Ev alua t i on and Ev o lu t i on o f t he CO E M ode l . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . 38

Re fere nce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39


9/71

List of FiguresI I I I I I

Figure 1 (The W orkin g M ode l of CO E U se in an Academ ic Context) . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . 5Fig ure 2 (Va lidation) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 3 ( 'nae Work ing M ode l of CO E Use in an Acad emic C ontext , Apri l 1992) . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . 61

List o f Appen dicesAppendix A (A Chrono logica l Deve lopment of the TOE FL 2000 M ode l a t COE Mee t ings) . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 48App endix B (A W orkin g Lis t of Defini t ions of Terms for Lang uag e Test ing) . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . 51

Ap pend ix C ( 'nae May 1992 W orkin g M odel and Lists) . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. 5 3


10/71

1 . I n t r o d u c t i o nI I I I I

Ove r the pas t seve ra l yea rs , the TOE FL C omm it tee of Examiners (CO E) has d i scussed TOE FL 2000,a test who se tentat ive purp ose is the fol lowing:

TO EFL 2000 i s a measure of comm unica t ive language prof ic iency in Engl i sh and focuseson academic langu age and the language of unive rsi ty li fe. I t is des igned to be u sed as onecr i te r ion in dec is ion making for undergradua te and gradua te admiss ions .

Because the in tended purpose o f TO EFL 2000 i s to te s t communica t ive language prof iciency for academicl ife , the COE discussions of TOE FL 2000 have focused primari ly on how to de f ine "commun ica t ivelanguage prof ic iency for academic l ife . " These d i scuss ions have produced a f ramew ork for such adefini t ion that has been codified as a schematic diagram representing co mp onents be l ieved to be re levant ,a s we l l as hypothes ized re la tions am ong the components . This d iagram, ca l led the "C OE Mo de l ," has beenuse ful wi th in the CO E m ee t ings to focus d i scuss ion on how to de f ine wha t TOE FL 2000 i s in tended tomeasure , and i t may be use ful for d i scuss ion beyond the COE .

The purpose o f th i s paper i s to in t roduce the COE Mode l . W e f i rs t present the background of the COEMod el and the assumpt ions commit tee mem bers brought to these d i scuss ions . ' lhe m a jor por t ion of thepaper expla ins the CO E M ode l , de f in ing i ts components and how they a re hypothes ized to work toge the r ; i ta l so addresses many unreso lved i ssues . W e then sugges t impl ica t ions of the mod e l for t e s t deve lopmentand for va l ida t ion of TO EFL 2000. W e conc lude by res ta t ing the Mod e l ' s purposes , which shouldcontinue to m otivate and direct i ts evolut ion.


11/71

2. Bac kgroun d and AssumptionsI I I I I I I I I I I I I

2.1 W hy a M odel of Langua ge U se in Context?From the f i rst d iscuss ions of TO EFL 2000 a t COE mee t ings, a l l those involved have eager ly

ant ic ipa ted poss ib le so lu t ions to ques t ions about the new tes t. W ha t wo uld i t look l ike? Wo uld i t t e st the"four ski l ls"? W ould i t prov ide different versions for students in different subject areas? W hat w ould thei tem formats look like? Ho w could technology be used? How could score meanings a t d i f ferent l eve ls bedefined? Thes e quest ions have consistently directed discussion to two fundam ental quest ions:

W ha t i s t he i n t e nded use o f TOE F L 2000? W ha t i s TO EF L 2000 i n t ende d t o me a su re?

' Ihe CO E addressed the f i rs t ques t ion by dra f t ing the tenta tive s ta tement of in tended use for TOE FL 2000(see Section 1). This sta temen t, in turn, becam e a guiding assum ption for considering the secon d question.Discuss ions of the second ques t ion have resul ted in a f ram ework for de f in ing comm unica t ive languageprof ic iency in academic contexts , ca l led the "CO E M ode l ." The C OE Mo de l expla ined in th i s paper i s adescript ive sketch that reflects discussions a t several meetings, as well as addit ional minor e laborat ions byindividua l COE mem bers . (A ppendix A conta ins more de ta il s about th i s process. ) The M ode l a t tempts tosummarize exis t ing resea rch an d current a ssumpt ions by resea rchers in cogni t ive psychology, appl iedl inguis tic s , and language te s ting . The CO E does not v iew the M ode l desc r ibed in th is paper a s a de f in i t iveor f ina l ve rs ion of the f ramew ork tha t wi l l prove m ost use ful for t e s t deve lopment and va l idat ion . Ins tead ,i t represents an in te rpre ta t ion o f comm unica t ive language use in a form tha t should fac i l it a te fu turediscussion.2.2 COE A ssum pt ions Abo ut a Def in it ion of Language Abi l ity

Lang uage can be d i scussed f rom a va r ie ty of pe rspec tives . For T OE FL 2000, we be l ieve it i s e ssentia lto de f ine language in a w ay tha t i s cons is tent wi th the v iews of profess iona ls in appl ied l inguis t ics and in away tha t wi l l be use ful for t e s t deve lopmen t and va l ida t ion . ' h ie theory of l anguage informing the C OE 'sgoa ls for TOE FL 2000 draw s on the w ork of many appl ied l inguis t s and language spec ia l is t s who havebeen concerned a t l eas t s ince the 1970s wi th the in te rac t ive na ture of l anguage ~ in te rac t ion be tween andamong speakers of a l anguage , a s we l l a s be tween the speakers and the context in which they use language(e .g. , Hym es, 1971; Hall iday, 1978). 'nae appro ach to langu age that these scholars take has been termed"func t iona l" to capture the i r focus o n language use (as opposed to focus on form, exempl i f ied by l inguist ssuch as Chomsk y [1965] and h is fo l lowers) .

Al though several in terpre tat ions of "com munica t ive compe tence" h ave been offe red (see e .g . , Cam pbe l l& Wales , 1970; Haberm as , 1970), i t i s Hy mes ' (1971) in terpre ta tion tha t has been m ost comm only used inthe Uni ted S ta tes . Coine d to desc r ibe language use f rom an e thnographer ' s pe rspec tive , the te rmsubsequent ly w as in te rpre ted for pedagogica l purposes by many language teaching spec ia l is t s (e .g . , Cana le& Swain, 1980; Canale , 1983; M unby , 1978; Savignon, 1983). The mor e famil iar descript ion, outl ined inthe semina l work of Can a le and S wain (1980) and in a paper by Cana le (1983) de f ines four compon ents ofcomm unicat ive competence: (1) sociol inguistic competence, referring to know ledge required forunderstand ing the social contex t in which language is used ~ the roles of the part ic ipants, the inform ationthey share , and the function o f the interaction; (2) gram matical (l inguist ic) competence, including


12/71

I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I

know ledge of graramatical well-formed ness; (3) strategic competence, referr ing to the strategies one uses tocom pensate for imperfec t langu age kno wledg e or other l imiting factors (such as fatigue, distraction, andin , ~n t io n) ; and (4 ) d iscourse competence, compr is ing knowledge of the connect ions among u t terances in atext to form a meaningful who le. A usefu l extension of this work for language testing is Bachrnan ' s (1990)descr ip tion of a more spec if ic model o f language ab i l ity , which hypothesizes how Canale and S wain ' s fourcompetencies w ork together in language use and w hich expresses an exp l ic i t re la t ionsh ip be tween "contex t"and the competencies . The C OE Model , p resen ted in Sec t ion 3 , fo llows d i rec tly f rom the Hymes, C analeand Swain , and Bachm an concep t ions o f language .2.3 Assum,pti..onsAb out Test ing Language A b i ! i t y

Throughout d iscussions o f TO EFL 2000 , the COE has focused on the tes t ' s va l id ity as the p r imaryconcern. In concert with other applied l inguists (e.g. , Bactunan, 1990; Shoha my, 1993), the CO E hasview ed "validity" in the broad sense as referring not only to construct validity but also to evidence aboutrelevance and uti l i ty , the value implications TO EF L 2000 w ill ref lect, and the social consequen ces ofTO EF L 200 0 use. The fact that the init ial steps in test design have been occu pied with construct definit ion(i.e ., elaborating the CO E M odel) ref lects the CO E's conviction that decisions at this stage will provide theessential foundation for test developm ent, constn~ct validation, and other validity justif ications. In Sections4 and 5, we sp eculate on implications o f the C OE Mod el for test developm ent and for validity inquiry.


13/71

3 . C O E M o d e l~ I I I I I

The schemat ic d iagram in F igure I ident i f ie s s igni f icant va r iables tha t a f fec t l anguage use (bothcom prehen sion and production) in academic contexts. ' Ibis model dist inguishes the context (above the l ine)f rom the indiv idua l l anguage use r (be low the l ine ) . The context (3 .1 , in the nonshaded a rea above the line )inc ludes those e lements of l anguage use exte rnal to the lznguage use r , many of w hich a re obse rvable toothe rs in the ac t of com mun ica t ion (e .g . , the se t t ing in w hich com munica t ion takes p lace and the languagethat the individual contributes to that se tt ing). Below the l ine are the i t~ vi d ua l ' s capacit ies (3.2, internalopera tions) which w ork in concer t to in te rpre t and produce language in context. W e w i l l desc r ibe themode l and how i t works by beginning w i th the fea tures of the context tha t we be l ieve ca l l on spec i f iccapacit ies defined w ithin the internal operat ions.


14/71

F I G U R E 1W o r k i n g M o d e l o f C o m m u n i c a ti v e L a n g u a g e U s e

in an A cad em ic C o n t ex tC O N T E X T ( 3 . 1 )

SITUATION (3.1.1)SET TING (3.1.1.1)PART ICIPANTS (3.1.1.2)TASK (3.1.1.3)TEX T (3.1.1.4)- key

- act sequence- no rms of interaction & interpretation- i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s- genreTOP IC (3.1.1.5)

PERFORMANCE (3.1.2)

-~

' I N T E R N A L 'G O A L - S E T T I N G3 . 2 . 1 ,

I N T E R N A LP R O C E S S I N GO U T P U T3.2.6 ,~

I N T E R N A L O P E R A T I O N S ( 3 . 2 ). . . . .

V E R B A LP R O C E S S I N GC O M P O N E N T

- m e t a c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g- o n - l i n e p r o c e s s i n g

3 . 2 . 3

L A N G U A G EC O M P E T E N C E

- l i n g u i s t i c- d i s c o u r s e- s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c

3 . 2 . 4

V E R B A LW O R K I N GM E M O R Y

3 . 2 . 2 W O R L DK N O W L E D G E

3 . 2 . 5


15/71

3.1 ContextThroughout app l i ed l ingu i s t s ' d i scuss ion o f communica t ive competence , the no t ion o f con tex t has been

emp hasized as an essent ial elemen t for understan ding langua ge and langua ge abi l ity . Reflect ing thisperspect ive, the COE Model specif ies that al l language processing is ini t iated in some way by the context .The ind iv idual i s in a g iven s i tua t ion and mu s t use l anguage to comm unica te , whether the comm unica t ion i sdue to a conversa t iona l par tner , a task ass igned by m other person , a need to respond to a remote even t o rtopic, or a need to inform or entertain oneself . The prim ary a ssum ption is that al l lang uag e use is , at leastremotely, base d on a need to com mun icate (e ven i f wi th oneself ; cf . Crystal , 1987).

The con tex t in which comm unica t ion t akes p lace i s cruc ia l th roughout l anguage development . Nat ivespeakers o f a l anguage de velop the i r comm unica t ive com petence th rough par t i c ipa t ion in the soc ia l andcul tural l i fe of their family, fr iends, teachers , and neighbors . Speake rs develop the abi l ity , referre d to hereas comm unica t ive com petence , to communica te appropr ia t e ly and g rammat ica l ly cor rec t in a var ie ty o fs i tuations. 'n t is abi l i ty is complex, consis t ing of ma ny interact ing com ponents or abi l it ies. ' lhe seinterrelated abi li t ies are act ivated by various features of the environm ent surround ing a languag e user. "naeusers , whether interpret ing discourse through reading and l is tening, or expressing themselves throughwri t ing o r speak ing , a re e ngaged in an ongo ing and dynamic p rocess o f as sess ing re levan t in fo rmat ionavai lable in the environm ent or in negot iat ing the mean ings expressed. Give n the crucial role of context incomm unica t ion , in def in ing communica t ive l anguage p rof ic i ency we mus t address these ques tions: Wh atdo we mea n by the word "con tex t "? Wh at fea tu res o f con tex t a re re l evan t to languag e use?

' I h 6 t e r mcon tex t " re fers the env i ronment o f t ex t. Bo th concre te and abs t rac t o f con tex to a aspec t sare relevant to com mu nicat ive compe tence. Con crete aspects of context include the physical set t ing, thespec if i c p lace where comm unica t ion occurs , and those o bservab le fea tu res tha t represen t a "concre te" senseof context . Abs tract aspects o f context refer to such features as the s tatus and roles of the part icipants(e.g ., the inst ructor and s tudent) , know ledge that the part icipants share, the verbal and nonv erbal act ions ofthe part icipants (e.g . , l i s tening to a lecture, w ri t ing answe rs to a quiz, carrying ou t an experime nt) , and theef fec t s o f the verba l ac t ions , o r the change s they b r ing abou t as a resu l t o f a par ti c ipan t hav ing sa id apart icular thing ~e.g. , a certain s tep being taken in a n experinaent , clearer understand ing as a resul t of anins t ruc to r ' s answer to a s tuden t ' s ques t ion). Fea tu res o f the concre te con tex t ( such as tes t tubes andbeakers in a chem is t ry l ab , an ou t l ine on a b lackboard , o r the cha i rs tha t have been mo ved in to a c i rc le fo ra class discussion) also ma y be p art of the abstract context , but only i f they direct ly influenc e the act ivi tythe part icipants are involve d in . 'naese. features of a speech event ~ both the abstract and the relevantconcrete features ~ are referre d to as the "contex t of si tuat ion". 'n t is abstract sense of context isassociated with a Fir thian approach to l inguis t ics (Fir th , 1957; Hal l iday, 1978; Hal l iday & Hasan, 1989;see also Malinowski , 1923).

The abs t rac t sense o f con tex t is impor tan t because the per fo rmance o f a l anguage user m ay no tnecessari ly be t ied to a physic al set ting. A context consis ts of mo re than the observable. M oreover, thephysical set t ing of a s i tuat ion is not always relevan t to comm unicat ion. For exam ple, a s tudent 'sper fo rmance may be represen ted in a l e tt e r o f compla in t to a car - renta l agency , a l though the phys ica lset t ing may be a lecture in an audi torium whe re al l other s tudents are taking notes . Here, the product and


16/71

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

i ts effect iveness as a le t ter of com plaint are indep~mdent of the physical se t t ing. A further exam ple of theposs ib le i r re levance of phys ica l se t ting i s an exchan ge be tween a professor and s tudent about an aspec t ofthe day ' s l ec ture . ' nae exchang e can take p lace anywhere ~ in a care , on the s t ree t, ove r the phone , or v iaelectronic mail . Here the prec ise physical se t t ing may be irre levant to the part ic ipants ' communication~More re levant may be the i r s ta tus v i s a v i s one anothe r and the goa ls each es tabl ishes for communica t ion .The abs t rac t sense of context covers the poss ib le independence of the phys ica l se t t ing f rom performance .

Because of the importance of context in comm unica t ive language prof ic iency, the CO E M ode lidentifies specific features of contex t that a l low us to define context and, su bsequently, to analyze specificacademic contexts of in te res t to TO EFL 2000 use rs . The fea tures in the mode l a re based pr imari ly onthose identified by Hym es (1972 ): (1) set ting; (2) part ic ipants; (3) ends; (4) act sequence; (5) key;(6) instrumental i t ies; (7) norm s of interact ion and interpreta t ion; and (8) genre , 'naese e ight categories(which can be remem bered w i th the mnem onic "S PEA KIN G", rem ain the mo st useful ana lys i s of contextand hav e been elaborated only sl ightly (Savil le-Troike, 1989; Kram sch, 1993). ' Ihe use of the features isi l lustra ted and discussed in Subsection 3.1.1.

In the CO E M ode l , the context of in te res t i s the academic context . Academ ic contexts can be seen asof tw o types: (1) those re la t ing to univers i ty l i fe ; and (2) those of scholarship/ the c lassroom. 'naose ofunive rs i ty li fe a re comp arable in man y respec ts to s i tua t ions of da i ly li fe off a s we l l a s on campus . Forexam ple, s tudents meet and conv erse with others, establish and main tain re la t ionships, and get and giveinformat ion . One sa l ient fea ture about the use of l anguage on campus m ay be the use of vocabula rygeneral ly associated with cam pus and studen t l i fe (for examp le, dorm l iving, registering for classes,dropping a c la ss , f lunking an exam, or ge t t ing an "A") . This vocabula ry marks the in te ract ion as be longingto the campus context . Othe r features (such as a famil iar and friendly tone be twee n students) a lso maymark th e d i scourse in th i s w ay, bu t i t i s the use o f th is vocabula ry tha t i s m ost sa lient .

' Ihe o the r k ind o f academic context , the c la ss room/schola rship context , i s m arked in a va r iety of forms,as the cont ras ting examples o f a l ec ture and a facul ty office appointment show. These two exam ples donot , of course , represent a l l s i tuat ions in which students find themselves, especial ly since the twoi l lus t rat ions pr imarily involve ora l l anguage . A grea t deal of s tudent use o f l anguage and language abi l i tyi s involved in the i~ rp re ta t io n and express ion of meaning through wri tten texts . Fur the rmore , cla ss roomsand faculty offices are not the only set t ings for linguist ic interact ion, nor are l is tening and n otetaking.Ne i the r i s a reques t for he lp and assurance on an ass ignment the only norm of in te rac tion and in te rpreta t ionin which s tudents and inst ruc tors engage . Because academic contexts d i f fe r f rom one anothe r in importantways , the C OE Mode ls spec i fie s a se t of fea tures w hich a re important for de f in ing "context ."3 . 1 . ! . S i t u a t i o n

In the "Contex t" sect ion of the model , the left-hand side is labeled "si tuat ion." Si tuat ion is defined hereas including those aspects of the acad emic si tuat ion that are l ikely to influence academic lang uage use:"set t ing," "part ic ipants," "task," "text ," and "topic ." The si tuations "lecture" and "office appo intme nt" areused to i l lustra te these features.


17/71

I I

3 .1 .1 .1 . Se t t i naSet t ing describes the physical locat ion where communicat ion takes place, where part icipants are

located. 'nae set t ing for the lecture is typical ly a classroo m o r lecture hal l ; the lecturer de l ivers the lecturein f ron t o f the aud ience , who may be sea ted in rows o f cha i rs o r at desks . The l ec tu rer may use any o f avariety of visual aids (blackboard, ov erhead projector, or s lides). ' Ihe t ime de voted to the lecture m ay bemore o r l es s than the c l ass per iod .

The o f f i ce appo in tment t akes p lace in a room in an o f fi ce bu ild ing o r complex . The room usual ly hasa des k and at least two chairs , bookshelves , boo ks, and other s tandard facul ty office items. ' Ihe inst ructori s sea ted a t o r beh ind the desk , the s tuden t may be sea ted bes ide o r fac ing the ins truc tor . They m ay belook ing toge ther a t a t ex tbook o r p iece o f paper w i th an ass ignment o r qu iz on i t .3.1.1.2. Participant..s.,

Part icipants are the individuals involved in the langu age event . In academ ic contexts , part icipants aregeneral ly som e com binat io n of inst ructors (professors or teaching assis tants) and s tudents (ei ther graduateor underg raduate) . Ea ch part icipan t is associated with inst itut ional s tatus and role characteris t ics .Moreover, these inst i tut ional ly defined characteris t ics may be colored by personal features such as age,gender, level o f experience, nat ional ity , a nd famil iari ty w ith the other part icipant(s) .3 .1 .1 .3 . Task

A task i s a p iece o f work o r anac t iv i ty w i th a spec i f ied goal ( see Long and Crookes , 1992) . Thedefini t ion of " task" in mo st appl ied l inguis t ics wo rk refers to get ting something d one, al thoug h someappl ied l inguis ts are wo rking to refine defini tions of " task" (e.g . , Duff , 1993; Skehan, 1992; Bac hm an &Palme r, 1996). 'nae goal , or "ends" in Hym es ' terminolo gy, of the lecture is to lransmiffreceivein format ion on a range o f po in t s to be used by the s tuden t s fo r a fu tu re ass ignment . ' Ihe goal o f the o f f i ceappointm ent is to provid e/obtain individual at tent ion that wi l l help the s tuden t to understan d ma terialneed ed to wri te a paper, prese nt an oral report , or take a test .3 .1 .1 .4 . Tex t

The t e rm " tex t " re fers to the type o f l anguage used to comple te a t ask . A t ask migh t be comple ted , fo rexample, through a formal or an informal conversat ion, a wri t ten or oral ly presented s tory, or an interviewor debate. Tex t types (e.g . , engineering reports , let ters of complaint , quest ion-answ er exchan ge sequences,academic adv i s ing sequences ) can be ana lyzed us ing the fo l lowing o f H ym es ' fea tu res:

Key. ' lh e key, or tone, o f the lecture is l ikely to be scholarly , serious, and formal , and perhaps eve nhum orous at t imes. ' Ih e consul tat ion m ay be less formal and scholarly , but is l ikely to be most ly serious. I ta l so may have a sympathe t i c tone i f the s tuden t is concerned and /o r upse t ( fo r example , abou t per fo rmancein the class) . ' Ibis feature is often referred to in the l i terature as "regis ter" or "s tyle" (Ha l l iday, 1978; Joos,1962).


18/71

I I I I I I I I I I

Act Sequence. 'Pnis refers to the form and content of the speech event . He re the lecture and officehou r differ; the lecture is l ikely to contain a large num ber o f facts , i llus t rat ions , and exam ples , as wel l asthe general points being m ade. 'nae office excha nge ma y also contain facts , but they are l ikely to be onesrepeated fro m the lecture; new i l lust rat ions , howeve r, may be given. In addi t ion, mo re quest ions are l ikelyto be ra i sed in the o f f i ce exchange .

Norm s o f lnterac tion and Interpre tat ion. ' naese re fer to the ru les fo r l angu age use tha t app ly in th i spar t i cu lar even t and the in fo rm at ion abou t the speech comm uni ty and i t s cu l tu re tha t is necessary fo r thepar t ic ipan ts to unders t and the even t . Norm s fo r the l ec tu re in Nor th Am er ican cu l ture a re l ike ly to bepol i te lis tening on the part of the audience , wi th note taking and perhaps som e hands raised for quest ions.The l ec tu re is genera l ly on e-w ay -- - f rom ins t ruc to r to s tuden t. In the o f f ice , the par ti c ipan t s genera l ly t aketurns speaking, and ei ther the s tudent or the inst ructor may ini t iate the exchan ge. Standards set by thesur round ing speech com mun i ty de term ine wh at is and i s no t appropr ia te and accep tab le behav ior fo r thepart icular event .

Instrumentalities. Code and channel a re the considerat ions here . The l anguage o f the lec tu re and theof f ice v i s i t wil l be o ra l in channel bu t m ay d i f fe r in code . ' Ihe l ec tu re may be de l ivered in a more fo rmallanguage o r d ia l ect o f the comm uni ty , w hi l e the o f f ice appo in tment may be accompl i shed in the les s fo rmalcode.

Genre. ~ genres represen ted by ea ch o f the example speech even t s a re " l ec tu re" and "consu l ta t ion ."Other gen res include edi torials , scient i f ic abstracts , book reports , business let ters , and talk show interviews.3.1 . ! .5 To p ic

Topic refers to the specif ic con tent informat ion that is being addresse d by various part icipants , and tovar ious tasks and t ex ts in the s i tua t ion . Di f feren t top ics impac t a s tuden t ' s per fo rm ance on many types o ftasks , reflect ing different levels of linguis t ic competenc e and language -proce ssing abi l it ies . For exam ple, as tudent wh o is asked to cri t ique a text , and w ho has relat ively li t t le kno wled ge of the topic, ma y rely m oreheavi ly on l inguis t ic and textual s t rategies to compensate for weaker topical knowledge.3 . 1 . 2 . P e r f o r m a n c e

The o ther e l ement in Figu re 1 tha t i s par t o f "Contex t " i s labe led "P er fo rmance ," o r l ingu i s ti c andbehav ioral output . 'n t is is the contribut ion that the language user makes to the context . 'nais contribut ionmay b e verba l and in the fo rm of a t ex t (wr i ting an essay o r ask ing a ques t ion) o r nonverba l ( tu rn ing to ades ignated page o r fo llowing a long on a map) . 'nae b roken l ine be tween s i tua t ion and per fo rmanceindicates that , whi le these two elem ents of context can be ana lyzed separately, they are interrelated not ions.Performance occurs within a s i tuat ion; a s i tuat ion can be described in part by l inguis t ic and nonl inguis t icper fo rmance , o r behav ior .


19/71

3.1.3. C onclusion' I b i s u n d e r s t a n d in g o f c o n t e x t is i m p o r t a n t i n c o n s tru c t in g a t h eo re t ic a l f o u n d a t i o n fo r T O E F L 2 0 0 0

b e c a u s e o f a p p l i e d l i n g u i s ts ' v i e w o f th e ro l e o f c o n t e x t i n d e f i ni n g l a n g u a g e u s e . Ea c h f e a t u r e o f c o n t e xtd e s c r i be d p r e v i o u s l y i s i m p o r t a n t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h y l a n g u a g e p e r fo rm a n c e i s a s i t is a n d w h y apar t i cu la r t ex t o r d i scourse t akes the fo rm i t does , has the in ten t i t has , and per fo rms one func t ion and no ta n o th e r . Ea c h a s p e c t o f c o n t e x t a l s o il l us t r a te s w a y s i n w h i c h s e n t e n c e s o u t o f c o n t e x t a r e n o t t y p i c a l o fl a n g u a g e u s e . M e a n i n g i n la n g u a g e u s e i s d e r i v e d f ro m t h e c o m p l e x o f f e a t u r e s t h a t d e s c r i b e a s i tu a ti o n .Th e w h o l e o f a d i s c o u r s e i s m o re t h a n t h e s u m o f t h e p ar t s. I t i s in s u f f i c ie n t t o l o o k a t t h e p a r t s o f th ed i s c ou r s e a n d t o d e c o d e t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e w o rd s a n d t h e s y n t a x in o rd e r t o d e t e rm i n e t h e m e a n i n g . Th em e a n i n g i s d e p e n d e n t o n e a c h s e n se o f c o n t e x t; m e a n i n g c a n b e d e t e rm i n e d f ro m t h e p h y s i c a l s e t t in g a n dfrom the re la t ionsh ip o f the par t i c ipan t s to the s i tua t ion , to one ano ther , and to the t ask and tex t re levan t tothe s i tuat ion.3.2. Internal Operations

" In t e rn a l o p e ra t i o n s " r e f e r t o th e p ro c e s s i n g t h a t g o e s o n i n t h e m i n d d u r i n g c o m m u n i c a t i v e l a n g u a g euse . Al l o f the space be low the l ine in F igure 1 , rep resen t ing the in te rna l p rocess ing o f the ind iv idua l , i s se twi th in some men ta l space ( re fe r red to as "verba l work ing memory") tha t inc ludes in te rna l goa l se t t ing ,verba l p rocess ing , and in te rna l p rocess ing ou tpu t . The subcom ponen ts o f verba l p rocess ing , s how n inboxes par t ly in the c irc le , rep resen t those aspec t s o f the compone n ts used fo r the spec i f i c p roces s ing t ask .

' I h e i n t e rn a l o p e ra ti o n s c o m p o n e n t d o e s n o t p r e s u m e e i t he r a s t r o n g m o d u l a r i t y p o s i t i o n o r a s t r o n gd i s tr i b u te d p ro c e s s i n g p o s it i o n. W h i l e th e s c h e m a t i c d i a g ra m s u g g e s ts s o m e m o d u l a r i t y w i t h t h e b o x e s a n dc i rc les , the no t ion o f modu lar i ty i s bo th too comple x and too unc lear to be a con t ro l l ing metaphor . A mo rerea l i s t ic pos i t ion i s the no t ion tha t cer ta in aspec t s o f l angu age p roces s ing t end to be modu lar , o rencapsu la ted (c f . Bere i t e r , 1990 ; Oakh i l l & Garnham, 1988 ; Per fe t t i , 1989 ; 1991 ; Rayner , Garrod , &Peffe t t i , 1992 ; S inger , 1990 ; S tanov ich , 1990 , 1991 , 1992 ; W alc zyk & Roy er , 1993) . Cu rren t ev idenc ea rg u e s t h a t w o rd r e c o g n i t i o n a n d i n i t ia l p a r s in g a r e e n c a p s u l a te d p ro c e s s e s fo r l a n g u a g e c o m p re h e n s i o n .Le x i c a l a c c e s s a n d s y n t a c t i c p ro c e s si n g a r e a l s o l i k e l y to b e e n c a p s u l a te d t o s o m e e x t e n t i n L1 s p e e c hproduct ion . ' nae ro le o f mod u lar i ty in wr i t ing o r in second- langua ge learn ing i s l es s c lear . Pef fe t t i andM c C u t c h e n (1 9 8 7 ) a rg u e t h a t t h e m a i n p o i n t o f a t t a i n in g s o p h i s t ic a t e d w r i t i n g s k il l s ( a n d a m a j o rd i f f er e n c e f ro m r e a d i n g ) i s t h a t m o re o f th e p ro c e s s i n g b e c o m e s o p e n t o r e f l e c t io n a n d m a n i p u l a t i o n a s o n ebecom es mo re sk i l led . Fo r second- lang uage learn ing , the need to a t tend to the l anguage fo r l earn ing andthe need fo r p rocedura l i za t ion (Anderson , 1993 ; Schmid t , 1992 , 1993) wou ld a rgue fo r a g radual acqu i redm o d u l a r i t y b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o m p l e t e m o d u l a r it y .

Beg inn ing w i th in te rna l goa l se t t ing (Subse c t ion 3 .2 .1 ) , the ind iv idua l in te rp re t s the fea tu res o f thecon tex t and then se t s a goa l spec i f i ca l ly fo r tha t si tua t ion . The goa l se t ting then ac t iva tes the approp r ia teresources in verba l work ing memory (Subsec t ion 3 .2 .2 ) , wh ich inc ludes the re levan t aspec l~ o f the verba l -p ro c e s s in g c o m p o n e n t (S u b s e c t i o n 3 .2 .3 ) , la n g u a g e c o m p e t e n c e (S u b s e c t i o n 3 .2 .4 ) , a n d w o r l d k n o w l e d g e(S u b s e c t io n 3 .2 .5 ) . W i t h i n t h e v e rb a l-p ro c e s si n g c o m p o n e n t , t h e o n - l in e p ro c e s s in g m e c h a n i s m a n dm e t a c o g n i t i v e s t r at e g ie s c a l l o n r e l e v a n t w o r l d k n o w l e d g e a n d l a n g u a g e c o m p e t e n c e t o p ro d u c e i n te rn a l-p rocess ing ou tpu t (Subsec t ion 3 .2 .6 ) and (some t imes ) per fo rma nce (Su bsec t ion 3 .1 .2 ) . In the fo l lowing

10


20/71

I I I I

section, we define each o f these parts in greater detail and discuss unresolv ed issues associated withspecif ic components.3.2.1. Internal G oal Setting

Lang uage use is mo tivated by an individua l 's perceptions of and respons es to context. 'naerefore, theCO E M odel includes an internal goal-sett ing com ponent responsible for interpreting the context (Douglas,forthcoming), sett ing the langu age us er 's goals, and activating associated plans for achieving those goals(F~erch & K asper , 1983). Fo r exam ple, in an academ ic lecture, most students se t goals such as, "get theimpo rtant information dow n in my notes." Several factors inf luence goal sett ing. One factor is thelanguag e user 's abil i ty to interpret the salient features of the context. Ano ther refers to the att i tudes,emotions, m otivations, at tributions, and social relations associated w ith the language use r 's percep tion ofthe context (e.g. , Ma thew son, 1994; M cKe nna, 1994). A third factor concerns the familiar i ty of thecontext and i ts goals. 'nae goal-sett ing com ponent activates init ial processing routines (perhaps used in thepast for sim ilar tasks) , whic h in turn activate the scr ipts and begin a proces sing cycle in verbal w orkingmemory .

An u nresolved issue is the relationship betw een the languag e use r 's goa l sett ing and languag eprocessing. Relatively l it t le research exists on this issue in language learning, even thou gh it is importantfor models of language use and for language testing (cf . van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983; Dw eck, 1989;Rerm inger et al. , 1992). At issue is how the individual sets goals and plans to reach a goal once i t is set.Som e evidence exists that variation in goal sett ing and awareness of purpose inf luences reading, althoughthis l ine of research is not extensiv e (Dweck, 1989; Mathew son, 1994; M cKe nna, 1994; M yers & Paris,1978; Paris, Lips on & W ixson, 1983; Ren ninger et al . , 1992; Rothkopf, 1982). Rese arch on writ ing andthe com posing process also sheds a l i t t le l ight on this relationship. A pe rson can indirectly observeplanning behavior , and a perso n can induce planning behavior . Induced planning behavior does seem tohave som e in f luence on the ou tcom e of the language task (Berei te r & Scardamal ia , 1987; Flowe r & Hayes,1980, 1981; Hay es et al ., 1987). An in dividu al 's at t i tudes will affect the m otivation for carrying out atask, as w ell as the care an d eff iciency o f task performance (C rookes & Sclamidt, 1991).

Give n this view, i t is l ikely that the internal goal-sett ing me chanism in comm unicative language usewou ld need to account not only for the inf luences from the academ ic context and the eff iciency oftranslation from intention to language proces sing (e.g., specif ic task training, language k nowledge), bu talso intentions to perform a task as a ffected by att i tudes, anxieties, motivations, em otions, expectedoutcomes/purposes, invo lveme nt, pr ior experiences on similar tasks, interpersonal relations, and similartask-specif ic planning routines (awa reness of how to proceed) (Gardner & Ma clntyre, 1992; l- I idi , 1990;Maclntyre & Gardner 1991; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988; Reed & Schaller t , 1993; Sadoski, Goetz, &Fritz, 1993). I t ma y be useful to explore further this set of issues related to the goal-sett ing component.3.2.2. Verbal Working Me mory

Verbal working me mo ry is defined as those aspects of world know ledge, language competence, andverbal processing used to accom plish a particular goal. The purpos e of this mod el is not to specify howwork ing mem ory as a w hole m ight opera te , bu t on ly to suggest how a spec i f ic language-based task would

11


21/71

be carr ied out within working mem ory. Wo rking m emory, in this model, is represented by t lae entireinternal-processing unit. This follows the assumption that working mem ory is si tuated within long-termmem ory, involving processing mechanisms, m etacognitive processes (available throughout verbal workingmem ory space) , and resources activated from long-term mem ory networks.

'nae term "verbal working mem ory" w as chosen on the basis of arguments given by Barsalou (1992),who argues that the traditional autonomous multistore model of short- term me mory encounters a numbe r ofproblems in explaining language-processing results (Barsalou, 1992: pp. 92-115). Lan guag e processing(as a l imited-capacity activity) is mo re l ikely to be constrained in activating information and procedures bythe l imitations of the central processor operating within long-term mem ory than by ~ e l imits of a separateprocessing c ompo nent called short- term m em ory (cf . Cowan , 1993; Kintsch, 1993; Shifffrin , 1993).Alternatively, the preference of w orking mem ory l ies w ig i ts pr imary em phasis o n activation raf laer than onretr ieval and storage, its preference for coordinating both storage and computation, and i ts preference forallowing parallel processes ratlaer than a purely ser ial processing (A nderson, 1990; H arrington & Saw yer1992; Kintsch, 1993; Just & Carpenter , 1992). Just and Carpenter (1992) explained ~ e requirements ofworking mem ory as follows:

A somewhat m ore m odem v iew of work ing mem ory takes in to account no t jus t the s to rageof i tems for later retr ieval, but also ~e storage of partial results in com plex sequentialcomputations, suc h as language comprehension. The storage r~ ttr" emen ts at the lexicallevel during com prehension are intuit ively obvious . . .. But storage dema nds also occur atseveral other levels of processing. The com prehender mus t also store the theme o f the text,the representation of the si tuation to w hich i t refers, ~e major proposit ions from precedingsentences, and a running, multi level representation of the sentence that is currently beingread (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). 'naus, langua gecompreh ension is an excellent examp le of a task that demands extensive storage of partialand final products in ~ e service of complex information processing. M ost recentconceptions of working me mory extend i ts function beyond storage to encompass theactual computations themselves . . . . 'naese processes, in com bination with the storageresources, consti tute working mem ory for languag e . . . W e present a computational theoryin which both storage and processing are fueled by the same comm odity: activation. Inthis framework, capacity can be expressed as the max imum amoun t of activation availablein work ing mem ory to suppor t e ither o f ~e two funct ions .In our theory, each representational elemen t has an associated activation level. An elementcan represent a word, phrase, proposit ion, g ramm atical structure, flaematic structure,object in the external world, and so on~ The use of ~e activation level construct here issimilar to i ts widespread use in other cognitive models, both symbolic (e.g. , Anderson,1983) and connectionist (e.g. , Mc Clelland & R umelhart , 1 986). During comprehension,information become s activated by being encoded from w rit ten or spoken text, generated bya computation, or retrieved from long-term mem ory. As long as an elemen t 's activationlevel is above som e m inimum threshold value, that element is considered part of workingmem ory; i t is available to be operated on by various processes (Just & Carpenter ,1992:121-122).

12


22/71

I I I I I

3.2.3. Verbal-Processing ComponentThe verba l -p rocess ing componen t inc ludes metacogn i t ive p rocess ing , on - l ine p rocess ing , l anguage

k n o w l e d g e , a n d w o r l d k n o w l e d g e . O t h e r a s p e c ts , s u c h a s t h e te x t m o d e l o r t h e m e n t a l m o d e l i n w o rk i n gm e m o ry , a r e le f t u n s p e c if i e d h e r e , a l t h o u g h t h e y m i g h t b e t h o u g h t o f i n t e rm s o f t h e v e rb a l -p ro c e ss i n gou tpu t . ' Ib i s sec t ion wi l l address i s sues re la t ing to metac ogn i t ive p rocess ing in the Model .

Metacognitive proce ssing inc ludes s t ra teg ic p rocesses tha t a re d i rec ted by goa l se t t ing , p rob lemso lv ing , and mul t ip le (and somet im es conf l i c t ing ) in fo rmat iona l sou rces . Fo r exam ple , the need to ad jus ts p e e c h p ro d u c t io n t o c o n fo rm t o a s u p e r i o r ' s n e w e x p e c ta t io n s r e q u i r e s a b a l a n c i n g o f e l e m e n t s f ro msocio l ingu is ti c and d i scourse co mpe tence , a long wi th var ious ou tcom e scenar ios tha t a re po ten t ia l lyava i lab le f rom w or ld know ledge . ' na i s s itua t ion wi l l requ i re the ind iv idua l to d i rec t st ra teg ic a t ten t ion tot h e s p e e c h o u t p u t to c a r e fu l l y m o n i t o r t h e c o n t e x t a n d m a k e a d j u s t m e n t s . M e t a c o g n i t i v e p ro c e s s in g w i l la l s o i n c l u d e t h e s t r at e g i es a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s tr a t eg i c c o m p e t e n c e i n C a n a l e a n d S w a i n ' s ( 1 9 8 0 ) f r a m e w o rk( i. e. , p ro c e s s e s t h a t e n h a n c e t h e m e s s a g e a n d r e p a i r p e r c e i v e d m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . M e t a c o g n i t i v ep ro c e s s in g i s ty p i c a ll y s e e n a s r e q u ir i n g e x t e n s iv e d e m a n d s o n w o rk i n g m e m o ry c a p a c i ty . Th e m o rec o m p l e x t h e t a s k (o r t h e m o re u n fa m i l i a r t h e to p i c , th e m o re d i f f i c u lt th e v o c a b u l a ry , t h e m o re u n u s u a l t h ese t t ing , the more a nx ie ty -p rovo k ing the con tex t ) , the more dem ands a re p laced on metacogn i t ive p rocess ingi n w o rk i n g m e m o ry .

Fur ther i s sues as soc ia ted wi th metacogn i t ive s t ra teg ies inc lude the deba tab le va lue o f d i s t inc t ions suchas cogn i t ive s t ra teg ies versus me tacogn i t ive s t ra teg ies and s t ra teg ies versus sk i ll s . ' naese d i s t inc t ions ma yn o t b e u s e fu l t o m a i n t a i n i n a n y s t r i c t s e n s e a n d a r e n o t a ss u m e d b y t h e M o d e l . M o re o v e r , f o l l o w i n g B a k e r(1991) and (Par i s , Was ik & Turner , 1991) , the d i s t inc t ion be tween cogn i t ive s t ra teg ies and metacogn i t ives t ra teg ies i s a rgued to be var iab le by top ic , task , and ind iv idua l . Fo r exam ple , the need to read f ive pageso f C h o m s k y ' s l a t e s t a r ti c le w i l l i m p o s e s e v e re d e m a n d s o n a n in d i v i d u a l ' s p ro c e s s in g ; m a n y p ro c e s s e s t h a tmigh t o therwise be on - l ine (such as p ropos i t ion in teg ra t ion wi th new vocabu lary ) wi l l requ i re d i rec teda t t en t i o n a n d p ro b l e m -s o l v i n g ro u t i n e s a s p a r t o f c o m p re h e n s i o n . A n i n v e r s e e x a m p l e i s t h a t o fsumm ariza t ion . Th is ab i l i ty i s typ ica l ly nom ina ted as a meta cogn i t ive p rocess , ye t an ind iv id ua l ' s regu laru p d a t i n g o f t h e p l o t t o a m y s t e ry n o v e l d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e d i r e c te d a t t e n t io n a l p ro c e s s i ng t h a t C h o m s k y ' sa r t i c le wou ld . Thus , wh at migh t be a me tacogn i t ive s t ra tegy in one s i tua t ion wi l l on ly invok e min im alon- l ine p rocess ing dem ands (a p rocedu ra l rou t ine) in ano ther s i tua tion . I t i s therefo re d i f f i cu l t to spec i fy aun iversa l se t o f sk il l s versus s t ra teg ies o r a se t o f cogn i t ive versus metac ogn i t ive s t ra teg ies .

On-line proc essing re fe rs to the bas ic sk i l l ed p rocess ing tha t ( fo r na t ive speake rs ) does no t requ i reex tens ive a t t en t iona l resources , such as word recogn i t ion , in i ti a l pars ing , and non dem and ing p rocess ingre la ted to p ropos i tiona l fo rm at ion a nd in teg ra t ion in to a t ex t model . I t a l so re f lec t s those aspec t s o f me n ta lmo del p rocess ing tha t a re no t "d i rec te d" fo r any par t i cu la r pu rpos e o r goa l. Thus , on - l ine p rocess ingrep resen t s n o t on ly po ten t ia l ly enc apsu la ted ac t iv it i es , bu t a l so those ac t iv i t ies no t p lac ing ser ious deman dson metacogn i t ive p rocess ing o r a t ten t iona l resources . Genera l ly , th i s v iew o f on - l ine p rocess ing confo rm sw i t h t h e s k e t c h o f w o rk i n g m e m o ry n o t e d b y J u s t a n d C a rp e n t e r i n S u b s e c t i o n 3 .2 .2 .

In m u c h t h e s a m e w a y t h a t a t a s k m a y n o t o v e rw h e l m r e s o u rc e s fo r a n a t iv e s p e a k e r ' s o n - l in ep rocess ing , the advanced learner o f a second language may be su f f ic ien t ly sk i l l ed and have e f f i c ien t

13


23/71

process ing rou t ines so on - l ine p rocess ing w orks wel l . Fo r l es s sk i l l ed secon d- langu age learners , such asthose t ak ing the TOEFL 2000 tes t , the on - l ine p rocess ing may no t be su f f ic ien t ly sk i l l ed to p rocess thein fo rmat ion wi thou t g rea t resource demands (wh ich a re a l so dependen t on top ic , t asks , in te rna l goa l -se t t ing ,e tc .) . Fo r these ind iv idua l s , aspec t s o f on - l ine p rocess ing wi l l no t be mu ch d i f fe ren t f rom the resource-in tens ive s t ra teg ic p rocess ing typ ica l in metaco gn i t ive p rocess ing . ' Ihus~ one majo r source o f L2t e s t- t a k in g v a r i a t i o n m a y w e l l b e t h e l i m i t s o f o n - l in e p ro c e s s in g i n w o rk i n g m e m o ry ( a g a i n a p re d i c t io n o fJ u s t a n d C a rp e n t e r ' s C a p a c i t y Th e o ry ) .3 . 2 . 4 . L a n a u a a e C o m p e t e n c e

La n g u a g e c o m p e t e n c e i n th e C O E m o d e l r e f e rs t o th e l a n g u a g e u s e r ' s g r a m m a t i c a l, d i s c o u rs e , a n ds o c i ol i n gu i s ti c k n o w l e d g e . I t i s im p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t t h i s c o m p o n e n t s i m p l y d e f i n e s ~ e t y p e s o f la n g u a g ek n o w l e d g e t h a t m i g h t b e r e q u i r e d i n a g i v e n c o n t ex t . W h a t i s d o n e w i t h t h a t k n o w l e d g e ( e .g . , w h e t he r i t i sused fo r in te rp re t ing l ingu is t i c inpu t o r fo r p roduc ing ou tpu t ) is def ined in the verba l -p roc ess ing co mpo nen t(exp la ined in Subsec t ions 3 .2 .3 and 3 .2 .4 ). Ea ch o f the l anguage sub com ponen ts i s def ined here , bu t theseare on ly genera l def in i t ions . The spec i f i c e lemen ts o f l anguage know ledge requ i red (ac t iva ted ) in a g ivencon tex t depe nd on ~ e fea tu res o f the con tex t descr ibed in Subsec t ion 3 .1 and the in te rna l goa l se t ting(Subsec t ion 3 .2 .1 ) .

Grammatical competence inc ludes phono log ica l /o r thograph ic , morpho log ica l , l ex ica l , s t ruc tu ra l , andseman t ic know ledge . I t inc ludes know ledge o f poss ib le s t ruc tu res , wor d o rders , and words . ' Ihe spec i f i cg ra m m a t i c a l k n o w l e d g e r e q u i r e d i n a g i v e n c o n t e x t d e p e n d s o n t h e g r a m m a t i c a l f e a tu r e s t h a t th e l a n g u a g euser mu s t comp rehen d a nd p roch lce to accom pl i sh the goa l s he o r she se t s .

M a n y i s s u e s r e m a i n c o n c e rn i n g h o w b e s t t o r e p re s e n t g r a m m a t i c a l k n o w l e d g e , b u t t h e m o s t d i f fi c u lta s p e c t o f w h a t is d e f i n e d h e re a s g r a m m a t i c a l k n o w l e d g e i s th e n a t u r e o f th e l e x ic o n . Th e m o d e l i n c lu d e sl e x ic a l k n o w l e d g e a s a p a r t o f g r a m m a t i c a l k n o w l e d g e , e v e n t h o u g h t h e l e x i c o n m o s t l i k e ly c o n t a in s m o ret h a n fo rm a l l i n g u i s ti c f e a t u r e s . Th e p ro b l e m i s th a t t h e l e x i c o n ' s r e l a t i o n t o a n y o t h e r l a n g u a g e -p ro c e s s i n gcom pone n t i s no t s imple o r s t ra igh t fo rward . W hi le every one can ag ree tha t a l ex ico n is necessary , it i s no ten t i re ly c lear where i t shou ld be loca ted , w hat i t shou ld encom pass , an d how i t shou ld in te rac t wi th o therp ro c e s s in g c o m p o n e n t s . F o r e x a m p l e , i t i s n o t c l e a r t o w h a t e x t e n t th e l e x i c o n i s l in k e d w i t h k n o w l e d g e o ft h e w o r l d -- - - -t o w h a t e x t e n t i s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e w o r l d s i m p l y k n o w l e d g e o f t h e t e rm s a n d c o n c e p t sp r im ar i ly s to red in the l ex icon i t se l f (c f . Pa iv io , 1986)? Fro m th is , ma ny o ther ques t ions a r i se. To what

,ex ten t is p rocedura l kno wle dge l inked to the l ex icon (perhaps as gener ic sc r ip t en t ri es )? To w hat ex ten t a reschemas and knowledge f rames rep resen ted in the l ex icon as some se t o f gener ic defau l t s fo r dec la ra t iveknow ledge conce p ts? To W hat ex ten t does the l ex icon obv ia te the need fo r an indepen den t syn tac t i cp rocess ing com ponen t? To wh at ex ten t a re soc io l ingu is t ic knowledge and d i scourse s truc tu ra l know ledgek e y e d t o t e rm s a n d c o n c e p t s o f th e l e x i c o n ? To w h a t e x t e n t a r e in t e n ti o n s , p u rp o s e s , a n d p l a n s k e y e d t ol e x ic a l c o n c e p ts a n d t e rm s ? To w h a t e x t e n t is ~ e L2 l e x i c o n d i st in c t fr o m t h e L1 l e x ic o n ? A l l o f ~ e s eq u e s ti o n s p o i n t t o t h e u n d e f i n e d n a t u r e o f ~ e l e x i c o n i n r e l a ti o n to o t h e r p ro c e s s i n g c o m p o n e n t s a n d t h eneed fo r add i t iona l w ork in th i s a rea .

Discourse competence r e f e rs t o th e l a n g u a g e u s e r ' s k n o w l e d g e o f h o w l a n g u a g e i s s e q u e n c e d a n d h o wi t i s o rgan ized above l l ae syn tac t i c l eve l . Th is com ponen t inc ludes know ledge o f excha nge sequen ces in

14


24/71

I I I I

interaction, genre and register markers, co herence markers and coherenc e re la t ions, topic developm ent,l inks betw een informational units , and the structuring of informational flow. Discou rse competen ce a lsoinc ludes knowledge o f genre s t ruc ture to account for the fac t tha t people recognize whole genre forms inman y instances. As with respect to gramm atical competence, the specific discourse know ledge needs wil ldepe nd on the features of the co ntext (part icularly the features of texts defined in S ubsection 3.1.1.4.).

Sociolinguistic competence inc ludes knowledge of l anguage func t ions and language va r iat ion .Function s include, for examp le, know ledge of language for greet ing, convincing, ap ologizing, crit ic izing,and compla in ing. In any g iven se t ting , the language use r wi ll need to know some com bina t ion of func tionsto part ic ipate . This com pon ent of langu age know ledge is act ivated by goal se t t ing (Subsection 3.2.1) sincethe functions fol low direct ly from goals, a t t i tudes, and purposes. Func tional know ledge, in turn, act ivatesthe specific l inguist ic kno wle dge ne~ led to produce or interpret the re levant functions. For examp le, astudent who d isturbs a sm all c lass by entering la te mu st perceive the si tuat ion as one that requires anapology so h i s or he r "goa l -se t t ing" com ponent can se t the goa l of apologiz ing . To ac tual ly apologize ,however , the s tudents func t iona l knowledge must know how to make an apology in Engl i sh , (w hich spec if icwords and syntac tic pa tte rns to use , a s we l l a s how m uch o f an excuse to provide and how much de tai l toinclude).

Kno wledg e of language v aria t ion consists of know ledge of dia lect diversi ty (e .g., regional differencessuch as midw estem versus southe rn), of na tura lness (e .g ., a rcha ic forms and vocabula ry ve rsuscontem porary colloquial speech), of cul tural references (e .g., "to mee t one 's W aterloo"), and of figures ofspeech (e .g ., " to have b een a round the b lock") , a s w e l l a s knowledge of num erous conf igura t ions o f registe rva r ia t ion . Regis te r va r ia tion i s de f ined as know ledge of the language appropr iate for the fo l lowingcontextual si tuations: (1) one or m any in the intended aud ience; (2) famil iar or distant re la t ionship am ongpart ic ipants; (3) informal or formal occasions; (4) subordinate or superordinate re la t ion to part ic ipant(s);(5) general or topical content; and (6) re la t ive backgro und kn ow ledge o f partic ipants.

Each d imens ion of regis te r va r iat ion de f ines an d em en t of context tha t inf luences language use ;the re fore, knowledge of the language assoc ia ted wi th the combina t ions of d imens ions i s an importantcompo nent of l anguage competence . For example , the s tudent ente r ing the c lass la te would choose d i f fe rentlanguage to express apology in a sm al l c la ss than in a la rge class . ' nae s tudent ' s l anguage wou ld bedifferent in a c lass comp rised en tire ly of friends than in a c lass of strangers. It would be different i f theins t ruc tor were the re than i f the ins t ruc tor were absent . Our unders tanding tha t l anguage va r ie s ac rossthese dimen sions of register is the result of empirical research in sociol inguistics, but the nature of nat ivespeak ers ' l inguist ic varia t ions across the contexts of interest rem ains an imp ortant research area .

The Mod e l s ta te s tha t the types of know ledge de f ined in these three major subcomponents of l anguagecom petence --- gramm at ica l , d i scourse , and soc io linguist ic- - - - a re in combina tion , the ma jor components oflanguage necessa ry for commun ica t ive language use in context . The answers to ques tions about how eachof these genera l a reas of l anguage competence can be spec if ied for the academic contexts of in te res t toTO EFL 2000 te s t use rs aw a i t fur the r resea rch . Also of in te res t would be deve lopmenta l de f in i tions of eachof these a reas of l anguage knowledge . For example , i s i t genera lly the case tha t lea rne rs know how to u segreel ings before they learn to complain? A third issue involves the quest ion o f the level of socioUnguist ickno wled ge a learner mu st obtain to be able to w ork effect ively in academ ic contexts.

15


25/71

3.2.5. World KnowledgeThe language us er ' s world know ledge refers to the s tore of informat ion that the indiv idual has f rom

past learning and experience in li fe. The M odel indicates that world know ledge works together withlanguage competence to comprehend and produce language in context . The M odel sugges t s a re la t ionshipbetween the two com ponents that i s s imi lar to that proposed by Berei ter and Scardam al ia (1987) for theknow ledge-transfo rming model of composing. In their model , problem-solving si tuat ions wil l act ivate newinformation. The new info rmation wil l then create rhetorical / linguist ic choices and problem s as the wri termust decide how bes t to use the new informat ion . The so lu tion to the rhetor ical problems m ay then requi readdi tional world knowledge informat ion . Thus , the informat ional needs cycle back and for th as morereformation is needed to sa t isfy the task requiremen ts (cf. the role of the lexicon). Tas ks that are simpleand fol low an establ ished routine wil l , of course, require less of this interact ive com mu nicat ion betwee n thetwo inform ational compo nents. Both wil l s imp ly act ivate the relevant informa tion typica l ly needed for theroutine task, and on-l ine processing w il l execute the routine.

There are m any unresolved i ssues concern ing world knowledge. Li t tl e i s es tab l i shed as ide f rom thegeneral agreement that such a component is needed, that i t is l ikely to have many default concepts, and thati t is organized in network l ike path wa ys act ivated under various condit ions. The often-ci ted concept ofschema theory i s not wi thout cont roversy , and some researchers have sugges ted that schemas are onlytemporary co ns t ructs a ssembled f rom m emory exem plars ra ther than s tab le genet ic f rames s tored inme mor y (Kintsch, 1988; Rayn er & Pollatsek, 1989; Singer, 1990; cf. Barsa lou, 1992). Others haveargued that schem as s tored as propos i t ional networks do not account for the range o f an indiv idual 's wo rldknow ledge (Paivio, 1986; Sadoski , Paivio, & Goetz, 1991). The extent to which world knowledge is verbaland the extent to whic h i t is nonv erbal is also an open quest ion. For the par t that is verba l ly encoded, it isnot clear how indepen dent the wo rld knowledge comp onent is from the lexicon. In spi te of these issues, theworld knowledge component i s presented as a separate in teract ing componen t of the Model , a com ponentthat cont r ibutes informat ion to working m emory and that i s important for a l anguage user ' s in terpreta tionand cons t ruct ion o f verbal messages .3.2.6. Internal-Processing Ou tput

During verbal process ing , the language user cons t ructs a representation of"co mp rehen s ion so far , "which the M odel cal ls in ternal -process ing output ( i .e ., the output f rom the verbal w orking memory) . Thisoutput is l ikely to include copies of the "tex t mo del" and "me ntal model" (see Subsect ion 3.3.1). In theCO E M odel , th i s in ternal process ing output can then refer to both the " tex t model" and "mental model" ofthe reader and l i s tener and the representat ion o f "what I ' ve produced so far" of the speaker /wri ter .

For any goal -d i rected language act iv ity , there m ust be a mechanism for moni tor ing the o utput andassessing i ts s imilari ty to the internal goal set t ing. Du ring verbal processing, the language use r wil lmon itor the internal-processing o utput and co mpa re i t with the intem al goal set t ing. At this t ime,metacogni tive process ing m ay invoke changes in the process ing , requi re the act ivat ion of addi t ional ordifferent information, or invok e specific processing strategies that wil l enhanc e the potential output oraddress mismatches between the ou tput and the goal se tt ing . As the process ing cycle produces /recognizesaddit ional information, the outpu t continues to be matched to the goal set ting. As proce ssing nears

16


26/71

I I

complet ion, the mon itoring ei ther re jects the output and tries again throu gh another processing cycle or issat isfied with the match to internal goal se t t ing and ends the i terat ive cycle for that part icular task orsubtask . The m oni tor ing could a l so respond to a nonm atch wi th f rus t ra tion and end the process ing cyc le ,even though the output does not ma tch the goa l se t ting .

' Ihe com pari son of goa ls wi th output , or "moni tor ing ," i s not d i scussed extens ive ly in cogni t ivepsych ology an d psycholingu ist ics but is impo rtant in applied l inguist ics (cf. Buck, 1991; Krashe n, 1985;Mo rr i son & Low, 1983; Paw ley & Syder , 1983; Schmidt , 1992) , and composi t ion (Bere ite r &Scardam alia , 1987; Haye s e t a l. , 1987). Mo nitoring is an essentia l proce ss in langua ge use and in specificta sk pe rformance . In the sense d i scussed here , the "mo ni tor" i s bas ic to language process ing . Thisdesc r ip tion should not be confused wi th K rashen ' s (See , for example , Krashen, 1985) use of the te rm in h i sdiscuss ion o f h i s input theory .3.3. Mod el of Comm unicative Languag e Applied

Having de f ined the comp onents o f the CO E M ode l and how they wo rk togethe r, we can cons ide r howthis pe rspect ive on languag e use re la te s to the more fami l iar "ski l l s" pe rspec tive and how i t can be u sed todesc r ibe spec i f ic instances of l anguage use in an academic context . As the CO E M ode l evolved, one of themost revea l ing heur i st ic s pa r tic ipants used to unders tand the Mod e l was to see the extent to wh ich thefami l iar " four sk i l l s" could be t rans la ted in to and desc r ibed by the M ode l ' s cons truc ts . The resul t of these"Mod e l t e s t ing" sess ions w as a se t of working l i s t s (see Appendix C ) tha t d i s tor ted the M ode l ' s de f ini t ionswith a ski l l -based orientat ion. For examp le, construct ing the ski l ls l is t required us to ask the fol lowingtypes of quest ions: In wh at set t ings, and for what tasks, are l is tening ski l ls required in academ ic contexts?W hat gram matical , discourse , and sociol inguist ic kno wledg e is required in a l l those (l is tening) set t ingsidentified by the first quest ion?

The M ode l , in cont ras t , d i rect s us to a sk ques t ions such as the fo llowing: Wh at a re the academicse t tings about which we wan t to infe r our te s t t ake rs language abi l ity? Wh at language abi l i ti e s (e .g . ,gramm atical , discourse , sociolmg uist ic knowledge) are required to succeed in each of those set t ings? Theansw er to the first quest ion w il l not be divided into skil l areas (as the examples in Su bsection 3.3.2 show );i t wil l be divided by set t ings or tasks. ' Ihe ans wer to the secon d quest ion (for each sett ing) usually w il linclude the abil it ies associated with m ore than one ski l l . ' Ihus, use o f the ski l ls as an organizing principle isincons is tent wi th the M ode l and appears too l imi ting to be the guiding metaphor for TO EFL 2000 in i t searly stage. Nevertheless, the v ast majori ty of research, as well as mu ch of the know ledge in our field, isorganized aro und the four ski l ls . Therefore , i t is useful to consider how th e ski l ls fit within the frame wo rkof the COE Mod e l and how ski ll s come in to p lay when w e use the mo de l to de f ine the language abi li tyrequired in a specific context .3.3.1. The Ski l ls Des cribed Through the M odel

W ith respect to reading and l is tening ski lls , the Mo del includes com ponen ts responsible for textprocessing . Text process ing in the M ode l can be desc r ibed in a manner cons is tent wi th a num ber of recentpsychoUnguis tic and cogni t ive psychology approaches (Anderson, 1990; Barsa lou, 1992; Just & Carpente r,1987, 1992; Oakhil l & Garnha m, 1988; Singer, 1990). For wri t ten langu age com prehens ion, the

17


27/71

individual visual ly perceives the text and engag es in word recognit ion. For au ral language, lexicalact ivat ion is keyed by auditory perception and, perhaps, other cues in the context . W rit ten langu ageprodu ction typical ly is ini tia ted through goal se t t ing and init ia l act ivat ion of plans. Spok en languageprodu ction w il l, a t times, be ini t ia ted by goal se t t ing and planning, a l thoug h spok en languag e wil l often a lsooften be ini t ia ted by re la t ively automatic respo nse pat terns.

Beginning w i th a d i scuss ion of reading comprehens ion, the sk i l ls and processes the Mo de l a ssumes wi l lbe out l ined . As a reader begins to read , and the f i rst word of a sentence is ac t iva ted for working m emory,the semant ic and syntac t ic informat ion f rom the w ord i s used to begin pa rs ing the incoming sentence . Theaddit ional incom ing w ords are accessed and com bined in terms of general parsing principles, re lying onsemantic and syntact ic information at tached to each word and, a t some point , pragmatic and contextualinformation. The w ord and the grow ing syntact ic structure are a lso interpreted as a proposi t ional structure ,representing the me aning o f the sentence. ' Ihe prop osi t ion is integrated as the reader reaches the end of thesentence . ' n l i s propos i t ion i s then "sent" to be incorpora ted in a text mode l (wi th in working m emory) ,wh ich synthesizes the incom ing propo si t ion with an exist ing (or created) proposi t ional network.

At the same t ime tha t the new propos i tiona l s t ruc ture i s be ing in tegra ted in to the text mode l , the w ordsfrom the next sentence are being act ivated and assemb led in a new parsing representat ion. Mean while , thepropos i t ion be ing in tegra ted in to the text m ode l probably wi l l requi re one or m ore br idging infe rences toassist the coheren t and thematic restructuring o f the text model (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983; Kintsch, 1993;Perfet t i , 1993; Singer, 1993; cf. Gra esser & Kreuz, 1993). Thus, by the end of the prop osi t ionconstruct ion and integrat ion, inferentia l processes are being us ed to fi t the pro posi t ion into the text model .'nae text mode l (as a summ ary o f the information in the text) and necessary bridgin g inferences wil l beconstra ined to represent consistently nominated inform ation more strongly, as well as inform ation whichhas been m arked in one of severa l ways as themat ic .

Wh ile the text model is being co nstructed and reconstructed, an interpret ive mode l of the text is a lsobeing constructed. This mental mod el , or si tuat ion mo del (Barsalou, 1992; van Dijk

[chapelle c. grabe w. berns m.] toefl(bookfi.org)

Documents