Journal of Education in Black Sea Region

ISSN 2346-8246, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2015

Assessment of EFL learners’ Sociolinguistic and Pragmatic

Competence and Performance

Elvira KORAN *

Abstract
Communicative competence has been a fundamental issue for foreign/second language teaching methodology and a cornerstone of language
classrooms for about four decades. Its two essential components - sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences, though ubiquitously acknowl-
edged as crucial for language teaching/learning, are not adequately, according to modern methodological requirements, taught and learned.
The present article aimed to succinctly review the main aspects of the two competences as presented by linguists and educators, to draw a
line between language performance and competence, to revisit the major forms of testing and assessing language learners’ sociolinguistic
and pragmatic competences, corresponding performance and oral proficienc . It was intended to test sociolinguistic and pragmatic knowledge
and performance of L2 learners; to assess the learners’ overall oral proficiency in the target language and to compare the results of the two
above procedures. The aim of the undertaking was to define what relationship exists between the three tested and assessed phenomena, i.e.,
whether or not acquiring the competence in the target language entails performance and enhances learners’ fluenc . Implementing all the
tasks scheduled enabled the researcher to elicit the necessary data and to draw conclusions concerning the interdependence between lan-
guage competence and performance/pro�ciency; to suggest recommendations for refinement of L2 learner evaluation practice, for improving
language programs in terms of teaching/ learning communicative competence and its components and for better understanding of cognitive
processes which take place in L2 learners when dealing with performance and competence in the target language.

Keywords: Competence, performance, sociolinguistics and pragmatic competences, testing and assessing language L2 competence/ perfor-
mance and oral proficiency.

Introduction
Several decades ago introduction of the notion of commu- Communicative competence viewed by linguists for (so-
nicative competence shattered foreign/ second language cio) linguistic purposes was laid out in strict definitive terms.
classrooms which were grammar-laden and did not provide According to Hymes, “it is competence for language use
real interaction. The effect of the advent was instantaneous. and not only “the tacit knowledge of language structure” in
The triumphant march of the concept as spontaneous as it the Chomskean sense. It is competence of language use
might have seemed had the ground paved both linguistically appropriate to the other participants of the communicative
and methodologically, and the fundamental trend-setter of interaction and appropriate to the given social context and
the field of teaching foreign/second language methodology situation” (Hymes, 1972).
was destined to be indispensably connected with it (Canale,
1983: 2). Communicative competence involves not only know-
ing the language as a code of verbal /non-verbal interaction
The term emerged as Hymes’ (Hymes, 1972) counter- and its syntactic, phonetic, phonological rules and its lexis,
action to the Chomskean linguistic competence, i.e. knowl- but also the knowledge of what is proper and not so in any
edge of language as a system by an individual (Chomsky, given context. In other words, it embraces the knowledge of
1965), as the logical link of the continuum, as a comple- what to tell a particular person, or when to opt for silence,
ment of it. The notion proved to be unwieldy. On the surface how to talk appropriately in any given situation, how to ad-
though as straightforward and fathomable it appeared at first dress people of different statuses, ages and/or gender, how
(meaning for a person to be competent to communicate), so to command, how to express criticism, how to accept or re-
much complicated it evolved to be later. ject offers, how to make requests, etc. Shortly, the term en-
compasses all aspects of verbal language use, and in some

* MA, Ishik University, Erbil, Iraq.

E-mail: [email protected]

45
 Elvira KORAN, Assessment of EFL learners’ Sociolinguistic and Pragmatic Competence and Performance

cases non-verbal means as well (posture, gestures, silence, Canale and Swain’s model (1983), which in its turn is in line
etc.) in specific social contexts (Hymes, 1971). with the Chomskian (1965) view. It includes knowledge of
the form of a language and its components such as syntax,
The notion had a great attraction for educational, name- morphology, vocabulary and so on. Textual competence is a
ly, foreign/second language teaching and these very fields combination of Canale and Swain’s discourse competence
attached all the possible attributes to it, making the concept and strategic competences, because it includes techniques
multi-dimensional and multi-purpose. Thus, the concept for maintaining cohesion in utterances/sentences and con-
was charged with the maximum of facets as it had to en- ventions for starting, maintaining and closing conversations.
compass social, cultural, and pragmatic aspects of commu-
nication. Pragmatic competence, on the other hand, is comprised
of illocutionary and sociological competences. Illocution-
At first sight the rhetoric seemed to be a game of words. ary competence enables the speaker to convey messages
Deep down, though, the process of making the concept of (both spoken and written) serving a variety of functions and
communicative competence can be discerned. The most a hearer to interpret the utterances/sentences correctly as
salient trend was certain uncertainty and lack of unanimity required of him or her. However, one needs the knowledge
where to seed definite language abilities, functions, and var- of appropriateness based on the speech community he or
iations - into sociolinguistic, pragmatic, strategic, discourse, she finds him/herself in as well, in order to perform an act
linguistic or some other competences as essential constitu- to intend a certain communicative function. The knowledge
ents of communicative competence as a whole, or even to of this appropriateness is called sociolinguistic competence
eliminate one at the expense of the other(s). and it is the other component of pragmatic competence.

Canale and Swain in 1980 and 1983 respectively break The model was revised later by Bachman and Palmer
down communicative competence into four parts: (1996) in the mid-1990s, though there were no major chang-
es. Illocutionary competence was renamed as functional
(1) linguistic competence, knowledge of and ability to knowledge, and lexical knowledge which was part of gram-
use the linguistic code, grammar, pronunciation, and vocab- matical competence before, now went under the pragmatic
ulary correctly; competence as a separate component.

(2) discourse competence, the ability to maintain coher- The last model that we shall look into is the Common
ence and cohesion between segments of discourse; European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
2001 model. Common European Framework of Reference
(3) strategic competence, which is the ability to repair for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, abbrevi-
and work around communication gaps in his or her knowl- ated as CEFR is an important document developed by the
edge of the target language; and finall Council of Europe between 1989 and 1996 in order to stand-
ardize language teaching, learning and assessing across
(4) sociolinguistic competence, the ability to use lan- Europe. However, it is increasingly being used as a refer-
guage appropriately in various social situations. ence in other parts of the world as well. It is a main part of
the “Language Learning for European Citizenship” project
Canale and Swain’s model for communicative compe- and was designed to serve as a main guideline in develop-
tence serves to emphasize that partly non-linguistic aspects ing language teaching syllabi, curricula, textbooks and test-
of language, such as sociolinguistic competence, would be ing. It introduces Common Reference Levels, used for rating
paid enough attention to in the understanding of the broader one’s proficiency level in a foreign language, along with the
concept of communicative competence. Despite the simplic- key concepts in language teaching and learning, necessary
ity of the model by Canale and Swain, it is used most fre- skills, strategies and competences a learner acquires when
quently to defin the term. It has also been dominating the learning a foreign language.
language teaching circles for the last decades, even after
another researcher, Lyle F. Bachman, who mostly looked at In the CEFR document the confusion concerning the
the concept from language testing perspective, proposed allocation of communicative competence components is
his own model in 1990. solved by seeding abilities and functions separately in order
to facilitate using the document as a guideline and reference
Bachman (1990), proposed a new model of communi- for educational purposes.
cative competence which evolved from that of Canale and
Swain’s (1983). He preferred to name it communicative lan- In it communicative competence is divided into three
guage ability, a broader term which included communica- segments: linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic compe-
tive competence and language proficienc . He divided the tences.
concept into several components, such as language com-
petence, strategic competence and psychophysiological Linguistic competence allows clear-cut division into the
mechanisms. The article will focus on the language com- following sub-competences: lexical, grammatical, seman-
petence. Language competence is composed of two parts: tic, phonological, orthographic competence and orthoepic
(CEFR, 2001:109).
Organizational competence: a) grammatical compe-
tence; b) textual competence. Cases of sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences
are more complicated, according to the CEFR. Sociolin-
Pragmatic competence: a) illocutionary competence; b) guistic competence is concerned with the knowledge and
sociological competence. skills required to deal with the social dimension of language
use. As it was remarked with regard to sociocultural com-
According to Bachman, organizational competence petence, since language is a sociocultural phenomenon,
is subdivided into grammatical and textual competences. much of what is contained in the Framework, particularly in
His view of grammatical competence is consonant with the respect of the sociocultural, is of relevance to sociolinguistic

46
 Journal of Education in Black Sea Region

ISSN 2346-8246, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2015

competence. The matters treated here are those specifically Thematic development
related to language use and not dealt with elsewhere:
• Can reasonably fluently relate a straightforward narra-
• linguistic markers of social relations; tive or description as a linear sequence of points.
• politeness conventions;
• expressions of folk-wisdom; Coherence
• register differences
• and dialect and accent (CEFR, 2001:118). • Can link a series of shorter, discrete simple elements
into a connected, linear sequence of points (CEFR, 2001:
Pragmatic competences are concerned with the user/ 125).
learner’s knowledge of the principles, according to which
messages are: Spoken fluency

a) organized, structured and arranged (‘discourse com- • Can express him/herself with relative ease. Despite
petence’); some problems with formulation resulting in pauses and
‘cul-de-sacs’, he/she is able to keep going effectively with-
b) used to perform communicative functions (‘functional out help.
competence’);
• Can keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing
c) sequenced according to interactional and transac- for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evi-
tional schemata (‘design competence’) (CEFR, 2001:123). dent, especially in longer stretches of free production.

Or in other terms: Propositional precision

• Flexibility • Can explain the main points in an idea or problem with

• Taking the floor (turn-taking) – repeated reasonable precision.
• Thematic development
• Coherence • Can convey simple, straightforward information of im-
• Propositional precision mediate relevance, getting across which point he/she feels
• Spoken fluency (CEFR, 2001:223). is most important.

CEFR clearly specifies what sort of performance is ex- • Can express the main point he/she wants to make
pected from L2 learners at all the stages of learning sepa- comprehensibly (CEFR, 2001: 129).
rately based on the sociolinguistic and pragmatic compe-
tence aspects listed in the document, e.g., level B1 Long lists of sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence
components of the CEFR document (p.118-129) are nar-
Sociolinguistic appropriateness rowed down to function, social English, politeness in L2 text-
books, language syllabi and curricula.
• Can perform and respond to a wide range of language
functions, using their most common exponents in a neutral Interwoven with all modern trends in TEFL/TESL is the
register. influence of sociolinguistics and pragmatics (as sub-fields
of linguistics proper established some decades ago) on for-
• Is aware of the salient politeness conventions and acts eign / second language teaching which has been sized as
appropriately. paramount by researchers. The newly formed sub-fields of
linguistics infused fresh blood into language teaching. Nei-
• Is aware of, and looks out for signs of, the most ther linguistics nor language teaching methodology stand
significant differences between the customs, usages, atti- still; moreover, there is mutual interdependence between
tudes, values and beliefs prevalent in the community con- the two, the former mostly being a pace-setter (McKay & ‎
cerned and those of his or her own (CEFR, 2001:122). Hornberger, 1996; Kasper & Rose, 2001).

Flexibility The two sub-fields of linguistics with innumerable pos-

tulates have updated the language science, which made
• Can adapt his/her expression to deal with less routine, language educators and researchers revisit what the end
even difficult, situations. product of learning and teaching foreign/second languages
must be:
• Can exploit a wide range of simple language flexibly to
express much of what he/she wants. Individual knowledge of language is not enough for a
speaker to perform speech fluentl . Nor is individual knowl-
Turn-taking edge of sociolinguistic conventions concerning politeness
or discourse coherence enough. The fluent speaker must
• Can intervene in a discussion on a familiar topic, using also know how to read listener successfully, during online
a suitable phrase to get the floor. production of talk, and equally important- the listener must
know how to read the speaker. Without such mutual reading
• Can initiate, maintain and close simple face-to-face ability neither speaker not auditor can act in ways that form
conversation on topics that are familiar or of personal inter- an articulated interactional environment for each other. (Mc-
est (CEFR, 2001:124). kay & Hornberger, 1996, p. 291)

The above-mentioned controversy concerning commu-

nicative competence ingredients is further complicated by

47
 Elvira KORAN, Assessment of EFL learners’ Sociolinguistic and Pragmatic Competence and Performance

the competence-performance dichotomy. 3. Comparing the results of the two above procedures.
The oral assessment stage was partly observational
Noam Chomsky (1965) drew a distinct line between the and partly test-based. Literature concerning teaching socio-
terms ‘performance’ and ‘competence’ in his influential work linguistic and pragmatic competence clearly states what op-
“Aspects of the Theory of Syntax”. In his work he states: timal ways of testing the above competences are. These are
“We thus make a fundamental distinction between compe- found as most effective assessment mechanisms:
tence (the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his/her language)
and performance (the actual use of language in specific set- • the Written Discourse Completion Tasks (WDCT),
tings)” (ibid, p. 4). Thus, competence refers to the knowl- • Multiple-Choice Discourse Completion Tasks (MDCT),
edge of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and other as- • Oral Discourse Completion Tasks (ODCT),
pects of language, while performance refers to the ability of • Discourse Role Play Talks (DRPT),
the actual use of that knowledge. This competence is some- • Discourse Self-Assessment Talks (DSAT),
times referred to as “linguistic competence” (Stern, 1992). • and Role-Play self-assessments (RPSA) (Kasper &
Soon after Chomsky postulated and defined terms “compe- Rose, 2001 :301, 302).
tence” and “performance”, followers of the communicative
approach in applied linguistics, such as Stern (1992) and These tests are organized so that in them different vari-
Savignon (1972), disapproved strongly of the concept of us- ables, e.g., power, social distance, and imposition are in-
ing idealized and purely linguistic competence as a theoreti- volved and thus create a genuine from sociolinguistic and
cal basis for methodology for language learning, teaching pragmatic points of view language situations and language
and testing. They soon found an alternative to Chomsky’s itself for accurate assessment of L2 learners. If scrutinized
view of competence in Hymes’s notion of communicative in more details, certain types of L2 learner evaluation are
competence, which was accepted as a more complete and applicable for definite speech acts, functions, etc.
realistic view of the term (Savignon, 1972).
Requests may be effectively assessed through a dis-
Competence itself (conscious knowledge of the lan- course completion test, whereas apologies may not. Fur-
guage), if opposed to performance (ability to produce ut- ther, apologies that involve such power relationships as a
terances), poses a dilemma for language teaching, what worker apologizing to an employer may be more effectively
threads - mental, cognitive, habitual and other tie the two evaluated through role-play than when the power relation-
together? And whether acquiring one automatically pre- ships are different. (Kasper & Rose, 2001: 284, 285
supposes the existence of the other? The answer may be
straightforwardly simple - interdependence between perfor- To accurately differentiate between wrong and correct
mance and competence is individual, on the one hand, and answers, when administering sociolinguistic and pragmatic
instruction-specific, on the other. If explicit, theorized teach- tests, the following marking method is considered to be most
ing of sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences is exag- relevant (Underhill, 1987, p. 59). We used this method to
gerated and outweighs its practice, production, personali- rate the answers in the discourse completion activities in our
zation, learners’ competence will exceed their performance. tests.
Marking speech acts like apologizing, requesting, etc.:

• appropriate and correct

Method • relevant, but not entirely acceptable
• inappropriate or seriously incorrect
The aim of the study is to review the types of tasks for test-
ing sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences to embrace An additional requirement for better understanding of
more components of both and to define what relationship L2 learner’s sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence and
exists between L2 learners’ sociolinguistic/pragmatic com- performance and overall oral proficiency is their self-assess-
petences and corresponding performance and, besides, ment. If properly planned and arranged, this procedure may
their overall oral performance, i.e., whether or not acquiring serve as a reliable method of diagnostic, formative purposes
the competence in the target language entails automatically in L2 learning and teaching for learners themselves and for
performance and enhances learners’ fluency and .v. teachers as well. The former in this way critically revisit their
L2 learning history, deficiencies of their current language
Findings of the research will contribute to: ability. It is also recommended to organize peer-assessment
as well, though subjectivity and lack of mutual trust may act
• refinement of E learner evaluation practice; as obstacles on the way of obtaining reliable results.

• improving EFL/ESL programs in terms of teaching/ The following methods and principles (Underhill, 1987:
learning communicative competence and its components; 24, 25) are enacted when compiling self-assessment state-
ments and questions:
• better understanding of cognitive processes which
take place in L2 learners when dealing with performance Type 1 – non-defined general scales - the learner rates
and competence in the target language. him/herself from 0 - I speak no English at all to 20 - I am
completely fluent
The research was conducted intensively using quantita-
tive methods at all stages: Type 2 – non-defined specific scales - invite the learner
to consider his/her likely language performance in a particu-
1. Testing sociolinguistic and pragmatic knowledge and lar hypothetical situation. For example, “imagine you need to
corresponding performance of EFL/ESL learners. ask for a pair of shoes to be changed in the shop you bought
them from. How well will you cope?” answer from 0 – I could
2. Assessing the learners’ overall oral performance/ pro- not cope at all to 10 – I would have no difficul .
ficiency in the target language

48
 Journal of Education in Black Sea Region

ISSN 2346-8246, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2015

Type 3 - defined general scales - these scales have • appropriacy (is the style and register appropriate?)
explicit descriptions at every level, but they are expressed
in terms of general language abilities rather than specific • independence (does the speaker rely on a question or
examples: stimulus, or can he initiate speech on his own?)

I can only talk about a very small number of topics. 1-10 • repetition (how often does the question or stimulus
have to be repeated?)
I can hold an ordinary social conversation with some dif-
ficult , but I am occasionally lost for words. 1-10 • hesitation ( how much does the speaker hesitate be-
fore and while speaking?) (Underhill, 1987:96)
Self –assessment scales can take the form of multiple-
choice questions, such as: SOPI and OPI have gained a great importance due to
their usage for renowned English examinations. They make
Fluency and naturalness: When you speak English, do examinees face multiple speech acts with a variety of social
you — situations. The performance learners are expected to dem-
onstrate reveal at the same time their sociolinguistic and
a) always construct the whole sentence in your head pragmatic competence (Kasper, Rose, 2001: 245).
first
All the principles of oral assessment were taken into ac-
b) frequently have to think about what you are going to count when conducting verbal interviews and implementing
say? the SOLOM matrix. During both processes sociolinguistic
and pragmatic competences were emphasized and heeded
c) speak with occasional hesitations? most. Students had to role-play, take part in debates, etc.
Examples of test tasks are given in the appendix.
Connecting sentences: How easy it is for you to speak
several sentences together in a connected way?

a) impossible Participants
b) hard
c) easy We selected 36 participants, from two existing classes at in-
termediate level from Ishik University’s Preparatory School,
The concern and efforts to compile alongside sociolin- all of whom took Oxford computerized test, administered by
guistic and pragmatic tests performance assessment / meas- the school, to determine their level before they started their
urement procedures in order not to have L2 learners’ real courses at the school. Participation was voluntary. The 36
(in)ability neglected and not to be misled, while applying var- university prep-school students at an intermediate level in
ious tests during EFL/ESL learning/teaching process and to English were tested with various tasks discussed above,
use them effectively as formative, diagnostic, achievement, evaluating their sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences
progress tests led to the following results: SOPI- Simulated and performance. Participation was voluntary. Randomness
Oral Proficiency Interview, OPI -Oral Proficiency Interview, of the selection process was guaranteed by the fact that stu-
SOLOM- Student Oral Language Observation Matrix. dents’ origin, age, educational background, previous EFL
SOLOM (Wright, 2010: 162,163) is a frequently used learning experience were not heeded.
rubric, which facilitates it for teachers to make learners’
oral proficiency assessment during the classroom process,
serves formative evaluation purposed and focuses on five
aspects of a learners’ verbal abilities: Procedure
• Comprehension Students were given self-assessment questionnaires to
• Fluency define their level of verbal proficiency and performance in
• Vocabulary the above competences and had oral interviews with their
• Grammar English instructors. In addition, EFL teachers made obser-
• Pronunciation vations of peculiarities of L2 learners’ sociolinguistic and
pragmatic competence, performance and oral proficiency
Meticulously detailed are the criteria for assessing oral during the educational process. Students were also given
proficiency of L2 learners, it encompasses: ubiquitous fl - a written test containing discourse completion tasks as well
ency vs. accuracy issue, the issue of sociopragmatic appro- as rating questions, where the learners had to rate the state-
priacy and flexibilit , etc. ments in accordance with their level of formality, politeness,
alongside proverb completion tasks, and a task involving in-
• size (how long are the utterances produced?) terpretation of the tone of the statement.

• complexity (how far does the speaker attempt complex

language?)
Results
• speed (how fast does he speak?)
As a result the following picture was obtained (Table 1).
• flexibil ty (can the speaker adapt quickly to changes in
topic or task?) The average 1≥3 can be viewed as positive for items
3-10, while the average 3≥5 – negative, so the results on the
• accuracy (is it correct English?) whole are good enough, however, many enough students
feel they can talk on a limited number of topics (average 2.5)

49
 Elvira KORAN, Assessment of EFL learners’ Sociolinguistic and Pragmatic Competence and Performance

and have some difficulties while speaking (average 2.47 From the socio-pragmatic test it is evident that students
cope with congratulations best of all, compared with all other
speech acts – 25 % produce appropriate and correct ver-
Table 1: Students’ Self Assessment, Part I (1-Strongly Agree, 2- sions of it; requests, apologies and invitations present no
Agree, 3-Neutral, 4-Disagree, 5-Strongly Disagree) obstacles as well and relevant, though not entirely accept-
able forms of it are used by L2 learners – 52 , 50, 63 % re-
spectively; however, the number plunges dramatically, when
it comes to requesting, apologizing, and inviting appropri-
ately- 0, 2.7, and 8.3 % respectively.

The test, which involves recognizing and differentiating

between styles, reveals even a worse picture and discloses
the lack of explicit conscious sociolinguistic and pragmatic
knowledge among L2 learners; greeting and thanking forms
are easily seeded into groups (average of 7.3 correct an-
swers out of 10 items and 3 correct answers out of 4 items
respectively), while politeness strategies are harder to grasp
- the average of 1.69 points out of maximum 5, and finally,
completing a well-known saying and guessing the tone of
a speaker makes them fail altogether – average 0.6 and 0
points out of 5 and 2 respectively.

Table 2: SOLOM - student oral language observation matrix

Discussion
The lower the average, the more self-confident the stu-
dents feel. We can see that the students feel most confident One of the first conclusions that can be made based on the
at introducing themselves (item 6, average 1.77, while they testing and assessment results is that L2 learners develop
are least confident, expressing agreement and disagree- sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences and correspond-
ment (item 8, average 2.02). Thus, functions that get low ing performance in a haphazard way, i.e., either by means of
points should be paid more attention to, to improve the situ- various activities (not necessarily aimed at learning/ teach-
ation (Table2). ing these aspects) at an L2 lesson or acquire them outside
it through extensive listening or reading, which indicates the
SOLOM and self-assessment test act as cross- or dou- lack of consistency and consecutiveness in teaching and
ble-check mechanisms for teachers, they clarify what stands acquiring the above competences and performance. It was
behind the façade of students’ speaking L2 - whether there deduced and reconfirmed by the teacher observations and
are mental, self-confidence or emotional issues students the analysis of the data obtained from individual learners.
struggle to cope with, e.g., the second part of students’ self-
assessment indicates that students experience fear that Student self-assessment revealed that whereas learn-
they will not be able to speak at all- 13.88 % think so, while ers are confident about performing simple speech acts like
58 % find it complicated to manage, 22.23 % construct the introducing oneself (the mean of 1.92 - see table 1), they
whole sentence in their head (supposedly trying to translate are still hesitant whether they can manage a flow of several
the flow of words from their L1, which greatly hinders speech sentences connected - 72 % find it either hard or impossible
production), 61.11 % monitor their speech as they declare (table2).
that they often have to think before uttering something which
inhibits spontaneous speech; understanding difficultie is Learners are formidably deficient in social English, i.e.,
made even easier for teachers as they have at hand scores they lack sociolinguistic competence, socio-cultural knowl-
of all the aspects: vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, fl - edge of the target language. Presumably many of the cor-
ency and comprehension which either hinder or enhance rect responses are given at the expense of universal prag-
speech production (Table3,4). matic knowledge, i.e., what is ubiquitous in the modern
world for communication among contemporaries, what is

50
 Journal of Education in Black Sea Region

ISSN 2346-8246, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2015

Table 3: Students’ Self-Assessment, Part 2

Table 4: Socio-pragmatic test – part 1

Table 5: Socio-pragmatic test – part 2

51
 Elvira KORAN, Assessment of EFL learners’ Sociolinguistic and Pragmatic Competence and Performance

passed from language to language, no matter what cultural pragmatic tests in the format of those English examinations
patchwork the language is sewn from. The proof of the con- which due to organizational difficultie do not comprise oral
clusion is found in the fact that in discourse completion tasks interviews with examinees. Such tests with high probability
more learners give relevant, but not entirely appropriate an- measure the real level of language learners’ speaking skill.
swers than fully appropriate ones - 52, 50, 63 % and 0, 2,
8 % respectively; supposedly, they intuitively transfer their
universal knowledge to L2 and lack the cultural knowledge
in it. The conclusion can be reinforced by the fact that “com- Conclusion
pleting an English saying” part was done poorly by students
(although the teaching contained these proverbs). Such pre- There is a clear interdependence between sociolinguistic
fabricated expressions can serve as a way out when being and pragmatic competences and corresponding perfor-
in a dialogue and create the impression of native-likeness mance and oral proficiency in learners as the detailed
from the speaker, however students and/or teachers tend to analy-sis of individual learners’ results revealed. The
ignore them. best ones score the most points in most aspects and vice
versa, the weakest learners score low in most aspects. If
Fluency development is not entirely tied to refining the compe-tences are taught systematically and
socio-pragmatic competence, i.e. L2 learners achieve an consecutively, hence, develop appropriately with proper
average degree of fluency at the expense of ignoring so- activities in learners, the process will entail equal
ciolinguistic and pragmatic conventions of L2 usage. Or, improvement of corresponding per-formance and overall
formulated otherwise, speaking more or less fluently does oral proficiency.
not necessarily mean that learners observe socio-pragmatic
rules and do not violate them, the tests indicate that the op-
posite is the truth. The students’ level of comprehension re-
vealed to be solid, their grammatical competence is sound References
as well (table 5) that indicates grammar-orientedness of L2
classrooms. So, as the communicative goal has been more Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Lan-
or less reached, students and even teachers tend to disre- guage Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
gard the importance of sociolinguistic and pragmatic con-
ventions of L2 usage. Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language Testing
in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language
For students formulaic expressions like greeting and Tests. Oxford: OUP.
thanking are the easiest to cope with (tables 3 and 4),
whereas politeness strategies, skills of congratulation and Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to
apology usage are feeble and speech acts like invitations com-municative language pedagogy. In R. W. Jack C.
and requests are the most complicated for them. This fin - Richards, Language and Communication (p. 2-27). London:
ing points to failures that L2 classrooms experience in terms Longman.
of teaching communicative competence. None of the stu-
dents was able to answer the question how they perceive Canale, M. S. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
certain utterances -humorous, serious, ironic, etc. It means approaches to second language teaching and testing. Ap-
that they acutely lack the skill of understanding the intona- plied Linguistics, 1, p. 1-47.
tion, the situation, etc., which indicates deficiencies in the
pragmatic competence. Slightly better, still an extremely low Canale, M. (1983). A communicative approach to language
point 0.6 out of 2 was obtained in testing proverbs and well- proficiency assessment in a minority setting. In Rivera, C.
known English sayings, again indicating competence defi- (Ed.), Communicative Competence Approaches to
ciency in cultural aspects of L2. Lan-guage Proficiency Assessment: Research and
application, p. 107-122. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

CEFR - Common European Framework of Reference for

Recommendations Lan-guages: Learning, teaching, assessment. (2001).
Language Policy Unit, Strasbourg www.coe.int/lang-CEFR
• Sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence need purpose-
ful teaching, it is rarely created automatically while dealing Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
with linguistic competence. Cam-bridge, Massachussets: MIT Press.

• It is highly recommended to use the suggested tests Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in
and assessment to complement each other and to elicit linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (eds.) Language
a more realistic picture of L2 learners’ sociolinguistic and Acquisition: Models and Methods (p.3-28). London:
pragmatic performance and competence, to use them as Academic Press.
formative, diagnostic, progress tests. It is essential to avoid
a superficial assessment of L2 learners’ communicative Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative competence. In J.B.
competence and not to miss many nuances of it. Pride & J. Holmes Eds., Sociolinguistics (p. 269-293). Lon-
don: Penguin.
• It can be observed that fluency precedes sociolinguis-
tic and pragmatic competence, which means that a non-na- Kasper, G., Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in
tive English speaker will inevitably be hindered when facing Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
real interaction requiring cultural awareness, knowledge of
rules of interaction and the ability to interpret a speaker. McKay, S., Hornberger, N.H. (1996). Sociolinguistics and
Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
• It is highly recommended to include sociolinguistic and
Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative Competence: An Exper-

52
 Journal of Education in Black Sea Region

ISSN 2346-8246, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2015

iment in Foreign Language Teaching. Philadelphia: Center for

Curriculum Development.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teach-

ing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken language. Cambridge:
CUP.

Wright, W. E. (2010). Foundations for Teaching English Lan-

guage Learners, research, theory, policy, and practice. Phila-
delphia: Caslon, Inc.

53