|
Sociolinguistic competence is concerned with the knowledge and skills required to deal with the social dimension of language use. Sociolinguistic competence is the ability to interpret the social meaning of the use of linguistic varieties, the language choices and code-switching in specific situation and to mobilize linguistic resources in order to participate in different contexts and activities.
Comment: The term is part of the communicative competence and traditionally was defined as an ability to recognize linguistic features of different languages varieties (Canale & Swain, 1980). Other authors consider sociolinguistic competence as part of the sociocultural competence that allows community members to participate in different activities in heteroglosic contexts.
(Glossary – ECML programme 2008-2011 “Empowering language professionals”, in: http://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/20140130_Glossary_ECML%20MTP3_EmpoweringLanguageProfessionals_with%20index_FINAL.pdf [24.3.2015])
|
Propositions can be described as “descriptors of states of affairs” or “the basic element of sentence meaning” (Saeed 2003: 14). In more general terms, it is what remains left once one has filtered out additional (e.g. grammatical) information.
Example:
Joan made the sorbet.
Did Joan make the sorbet?
Joan, make the sorbet!
Even though the sentences above differ in illocutionary force (statement, question and command), all of them share a propositional element which is the agent (Joan), the activity (to make) and the patient (the sorbet).
In CEFR, propositional precision is defined as the ability to formulate thoughts and propositions so as to make one’s meaning clear (Council of Europe (2011) Common European Framework of the Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.).
Saeed, John (20032) Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
|
|
Cohesion is a characteristic of a text, whereas coherence is a characteristic of the reader’s mental representation of the text content (Graesser et al. 2004: 193f.).
Cohesion refers to "the use of explicit linguistic devices to signal relations between sentences and parts of texts" (Connor 1996:83).
Coherence is about how ideas and arguments are organised and developed at text level. A text is coherent if its sentences follow one after the other in an orderly fashion so that the recipient can make sense of text.
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., and Cai, Zhigiang (2004) “Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language”, in: Jones, M. (ed.) Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers. 36:2, 193-202.
Connor, U. (1996) Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing (Cambridge Applied Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
A genre is a culturally determined way of getting things done, with patterns that can be predicted, to varying degrees, by members of a particular culture. It is a social activity that has a purpose, is enacted through stages and is realised through language. In terms of the school subjects, the genres are the ‘practices‘ (actions combined with visual and verbal texts) that the teacher and students engage in (Polias 2006: 49).
Polias, J. (2006) “Assessing learning: a language-based approach”, in Mikael Olofsson (ed.) Symposium 2006. Stockholm, Sweden: Nationellt Centrum för SFI, HLS.
|
|
In simple terms, we can define deictic-anaphoric structures as text cohesion devices which allow speakers or signers to introduce referents in discourse (deixis) and, subsequently, to refer back to them at later instants in time (anaphora) (Pizzuto 2007: 475).
The use of deixis assists the economy of communication as it allows to reduce the number of full lexical elements in an utterance and it allows quick reference to all types of entities (Bazzanella, 2005: 139).
Anaphora is defined as referencing to an aforementioned word, phrase or a part of a phrase (Green, 1990: 36).
Examples of deictic-anaphoric structures would be manual indices, a change eye gaze or head position.
Pizzuto E., (2007) “Deixis, anaphora and person reference in signed languages”, in: Pietrandrea P., Pizzuto E., Simone R. (ed.) Verbal and Signed Languages – Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies. Mouton De Gruyter: Berlin/New York, pp. 275-308.
Bazzanella C. (2005), Linguistica e Pragmatica del linguaggio – un’introduzione. Editori Laterza, Roma-Bari.
Green G. M. (1990), Pragmatica. La comprensione del linguaggio natural. Franco Muzzio & C. Editore: Padova.
|
|
|
(1) Gathers, quantifies and uses information to measure the degree of achievement of individuals and/or institutions. Assessment is an aspect of evaluation.
Achievement assessment: measures the degree of achievement of learners in relation to objectives set by a particular course and its curriculum.
Proficiency assessment: measures the achievements of learners against common reference levels and competences.
Comment: Example and reference: For example one typically assesses the skills, competences and abilities of individual learners. More often than not assessment relates its results and methods of investigation to test norms (p. 57).
(2) A process of collecting and interpreting evidence for some purpose. In education, assessment is intended to be a tool that supports learning and helps measure progress being made toward achieving planned learner outcomes. The term assessment is sometimes used interchangeably with the term ‘evaluation’. Assessment more often relates to individual students’ achievements, whereas ‘evaluation’ deals with systems, materials, procedures and their values.
A distinction is made between formative and summative assessment. In formative assessment the student’s learning (attitudes, skills, habits and knowledge) is analysed with the student over longer stretches of time and used to improve learning and teaching. Summative assessment is based on discrete-point testing of a student’s learning, often at the end of a unit or year of study.
Summative assessment procedures are often linked to external tests validated by statistical measures and are often used to make very important decisions about students (e.g., pass/fail) and/or teachers (e.g., adequate/inadequate teaching performance).
Whereas formative assessment helps build learner and teacher autonomy including the capacity to better manage learning, so-called ´high-stakes´ summative assessment is considered by many researchers to lead to significant negative consequences including reduced learning outcomes
(Glossary – ECML programme 2008-2011 “Empowering language professionals”, in: http://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/20140130_Glossary_ECML%20MTP3_EmpoweringLanguageProfessionals_with%20index_FINAL.pdf [24.3.2015])
(3) Assessment
The measuring of a student’s performance in a course according to the aims and objectives of that course.
(ECML (ed.) (2007) “Impel Glossary. A glossary of European Language Portfolio (ELP) implementation terminology”, in: http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/Elp_tt/Results/DM_layout/Glossary/Glossary_E.pdf [24.3.2015])
|
|
Validity can be simply defined: a test is valid if it measures what we intend it to measure. Thus for example, if our test is intended to measure communicative ability in Italian, and people score systematically higher or lower due to their Italian ability, then our test is valid. This rather narrow definition has been extended in recent years to encompass the way tests are used, i.e. validity relates to: ‘the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests’ (AERA, APA, NCME 1999).
(ALTE (ed.) (2011) Manual for Language Test Development and Examining. For use with the CEFR. (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/ManualLanguageTest-Alte2011_EN.pdf)
A test is said to have content validity if the items or tasks of which it is made up constitute a representative sample of items or tasks for the area of knowledge or ability to be tested.
(Glossary – ECML programme 2008-2011 “Empowering language professionals”, in: http://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/20140130_Glossary_ECML%20MTP3_EmpoweringLanguageProfessionals_with%20index_FINAL.pdf [24.3.2015])
|
Reliability in testing means consistency: a test with reliable scores produces the same or similar result on repeated use. This means that a test would always rank-order a group of test takers in nearly the same way. It does not mean that the same people would pass or fail, because the pass mark might be placed differently. The term dependability is generally used where we are interested in the consistency and accuracy of an exam grade or result.
Note that high reliability does not necessarily imply that a test is good or interpretations of the results are valid. A bad test can produce highly reliable scores. The opposite is not true, though: for the valid interpretation of test results, scores must have acceptable reliability, because without it the results can never be dependable or meaningful.
ALTE (ed.) (2011) Manual for Language Test Development and Examining. For use with the CEFR. (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/ManualLanguageTest-Alte2011_EN.pdf)
inter-rater reliability
The degree to which different raters agree in their assessment of candidates’ performance.
intra-rater reliability
The degree to which the same rater judges the same performance similarly on different occasions.
(Glossary – ECML programme 2008-2011 “Empowering language professionals”, in: http://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/20140130_Glossary_ECML%20MTP3_EmpoweringLanguageProfessionals_with%20index_FINAL.pdf [24.3.2015])
|
|
An assessment procedure also needs to be practical, to be feasible. Feasibility is particularly an issue with performance testing. Assessors operate under time pressure. They are only seeing a limited sample of performance and there are definite limits to the type and number of categories they can handle as criteria.
(Council of Europe (2011) Common European Framework of the Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.)
|
Sign Language Specific Terms
|
Unlike spoken languages which operate linearly, sign languages are visual languages. This gets reflected in several aspects such as iconic signs and the use of signing space. Iconicity describes the intimate interrelationship between form and meaning (e.g. DRINK, CAR etc.), which is not, however, to be confused with the use of mime. The signing space is the space surrounding the signer and where the signs are produced (e.g. activities produced in front of the signer are generally assumed to happen in the present). Due to the fact that we can visually perceive several pieces of information simultaneously, different features of signs are not to be looked at in isolation. Rather than looking at just one manual feature in a sentence, one needs to pay attention to several aspects that are produced and received at the same time.
Boyes-Braem, P. (19953) Einführung in die Gebärdensprache und ihre Erforschung. Hamburg: Signum.
|
(also see: Non Manual Features)
Whereas spoken languages are mainly about oral-auditory communication, sign languages take advantage of the use of hands and arms as well as head, upper body, face, mouth and eyes. Each sign consists of both manual and non manual features. Manual features can be further divided into handshape, orientation, location and orientation.
Boyes-Braem, P. (19953) Einführung in die Gebärdensprache und ihre Erforschung. Hamburg: Signum.
|
|
In general, non manual features are those features that do not involve the hands. In this domain are aspects such as facial expressions (e.g. puffed cheeks, pursed lips), movement of the eyes and eyebrows (e.g. eye gaze, raising the eyebrows, pulling the eyebrows together), and movements of other body parts (e.g. protruding the tongue, moving the shoulders and/or head forward or backward (Paul 2009:224).
When it comes to mouth patterns, it is widely agreed that patterns related to spoken languages be termed ‘mouthings’ and patterns from signed languages be termed ‘mouth gestures’ (Boyes-Braem & Sutton-Spence 2001:1).
Paul, P. (20094) Language and Deafness. Jones and Bartlett: Sudbury/Ontario/London.
Sutton-Spence, R. & Woll, Bencie (1998) The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boyes-Braem, P., & Sutton-Spence, R. (ed.) (2001) The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign language. Hamburg: Signum.
|
Constructed action and constructed dialogue refer to the “the way signers use their body, head, and eye gaze to report the actions, thoughts, words and expressions of characters within a discourse” (Metzger 1995: 256).
These terms have previously been subsumed under the notion of “role shift”. Nowadays, “constructed action” and “constructed dialogue” are used to refer to the signer embodying an event from the character’s perspective. Loosely defined, constructed dialogue refers to the reporting of another’s speech (also called direct quotation) and constructed action refers to the reporting (usually via a demonstration) of another’s actions (Quinto-Pozos 2006:1288).
Often, CA and CD are used to narrate stories but they are equally used for other text types, too.
Metzger, M. (1995) “Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in American Sign Language”, in: Lucas, C. (ed.) The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Braga, T. & Talbot, E. (2009) “Constructed Action and Constructed Dialogue, and Lexical Variation in Black ASL”, in: http://www.gerardwilliams.net/docs/Braga-Talbot%202009.pdf [27.3.2015].
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2006) “Can constructed action be considered obligatory?”, in: Lingua, 117, pp. 1285–1314.
| | | | |