UChicago – Sep 15, 2022
Language Assessment Research Conference 2022, joint with East Coast Organization of Language Testers and Midwest Association of Language Testers
Keywords: initial state, initial stages, second language acquisition, third language acquisition, falsifiability
Council of Europe (2020) is an addition to perhaps best-known across the world of language assessment and language teaching framework (CEFR). Notably, there were many problems with CEFR in its old rendition: both in terms of policy-making (Alderson 2014) and in terms of content/lack of empirical basis (Alderson 2007). CEFR has been vocally criticized by Deygers et al. (2017), and Deygers (2021) came after the Companion Volume (CV) pointing out old and new issues with the CV.
However, a number of very problematic descriptors remain outside of attention, whereas CV is being widely adopted as an extension, an update to the old version of the CEFR. We aim to focus on select descriptors which we argue are incompatible with insights from the field of second language acquisition. We hope that this paper will warrant caution while adopting the descriptors we scrutinize. (1) Plurilingual competence: B1: “Can use their knowledge of contrasting grammatical structures and functional expressions of languages in their plurilingual repertoire in order to support comprehension.” It is incredibly surprising that the notion of “contrasting grammatical structures” – which is a direct reference to a long-since-discarded Contrastive Analysis framework (Lado 1957) – would find its way into an “update” to CEFR. There are reasons CA was discarded, and this was because it proved empirically inadequate to account for the complex nature of SLA (Flynn 1987).
Another issue is with the concept plurilingual competence gets at here, and it is metalinguistic competence, viz. conscious insight about language (sensu Bardel and Sanchez 2017). Yet, it’s a highly divisive notion and most researchers argue against its role or even presence in Ln acquisition (cf. Westergaard 2021 and commentaries). There appears to be no empirical ground for this presence in CV. (2) Mediating a text: Relaying specific information in speech or sign (from language A to language B) Mediating a text takes up 162 descriptors in CV. While indeed, it seems that (very loosely defined) “mediation” is utile in evaluating language proficiency, it is highly questionable whether meditation from Language A to Language B (viz. translation) has to be present in the CEFR/CV. Translating is surely a useful skill – but it does not have a direct correlation or relation to first or second language proficiency. In fact, code-switching is a better reflection of students’ proficiency (Khaan and Khered 2021). Further, CV does not take into account translation asymmetry attested widely for L2/bilinguals (Hanulova et al. 2010). In terms of translation per se, however, it appears that measuring such skill requires something entirely independent of language proficiency measurements: clarifying the notion of “good” or “successful” translation, etc. (Stansfield et al. 1992 et seq.).
We thus call for revision and critical re-assessment of these and adjacent descriptors before putting them to use in language testing.
REFERENCES
- Alderson, J. Charles. The CEFR and the Need for More Research. The Modern Language Journal 91, 659–663 (2007).
- Bardel, C. & Sanchez, L. The L2 status factor hypothesis revisited The role of metalinguistic knowledge, working memory, attention and noticing in third language learning. in L3 Syntactic Transfer: Models, new developments and implications (eds. Angelovska, T. & Hahn, A.) 85–101 (2017).
- CoE. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. (Council of Europe Publishing, 2020).
- Deygers, B. The CEFR Companion Volume: Between Research-Based Policy and Policy-Based Research. Applied Linguistics 42, 186–191 (2021).
- Deygers, B., Zeidler, B., Vilcu, D. & Carlsen, C. H. One Framework to Unite Them All? Use of the CEFR in European University Entrance Policies. Language Assessment Quarterly 15, 3–15 (2018).
- Flynn, S. Contrast and Construction in a Parameter-Setting Model of L2 Acquisition. Language Learning 37, 19–62 (1987).
- Hanulová, J., Davidson, D. J. & Indefrey, P. Where does the delay in L2 picture naming come from? Psycholinguistic and neurocognitive evidence on second language word production. Language and Cognitive Processes 26, 902–934 (2011).
- Hulstijn, J. H. The Shaky Ground Beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions of Language Proficiency1. The Modern Language Journal 91, 663–667 (2007).
- Kheder, S. & Kaan, E. Cognitive control in bilinguals: Proficiency and code-switching both matter. Cognition 209, 104575 (2021).
- Lado, R. Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. (University of Michigan Press, 1957).
- Little, D. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the Making of Supranational Language Education Policy. The Modern Language Journal 91, 645–655 (2007).
- North, B. The CEFR in Practice. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
- Stansfield, C. W., Scott, M. L. & Kenyon, D. M. The Measurement of Translation Ability. The Modern Language Journal 76, 455–467 (1992).
- Westergaard, M. Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research 37, 379–407 (2021)