Читать книгу The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics - Carol A. Chapelle - Страница 109

Linguists acknowledge that almost all linguistic forms are associated with semantic meaning, and that semantico‐grammatical knowledge is a critical component of the ability to comprehend and generate literal propositions (Purpura, 2016). In other words, graphological/phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic, cohesive, information management, and interactional forms all encode a semantic dimension, and when these form‐meaning mappings are arranged in syntax, they produce utterances which carry propositional meaning (Purpura, 2004). In assessment, the semantic dimension needs to be taken into account since response data vary in terms of semantic meaningfulness. Imagine a context in which a patient calls his doctor for a consultation, and the doctor replies: “I work with a patient now” (literal meaning, my current job is to do this work). This response reflects a knowledge gap in the connection between the morphosyntactic form work and its associated meaning (habitual time), and in this context, such an error may produce a misunderstanding. However, if the doctor responded: “I working with a patient now” or “I'm working with a patient now” the meaning in both cases, despite the form error, would be: “I am currently occupied—and unavailable to talk.” The meaning of the proposition would have been conveyed. Note that assessment decisions related to all three responses would obviously be different, again underscoring the importance of the meaning dimension. To highlight the importance of semantic meaning as a resource for L2 proficiency, Purpura (2004, 2016) extended the form‐based model of grammatical knowledge to include a semantic dimension. Figure 4 presents a characterization of semantico‐grammatical knowledge, along with items typically used to measure this dimension.

Figure 4 Semantico grammatical knowledge (adapted from Purpura, 2004, reproduced with permission of Cambridge University Press through PLSclear, and Purpura, 2016, used with permission)

When grammatical forms combine with their individual meanings in a well‐formed utterance, they express a proposition (i.e., an idea, opinion, belief). This is referred to as the propositional (also, topical or content) meaning of an utterance. Propositional meaning is encoded in all utterances. An examinee draws on propositional or topical knowledge in LTM (long‐term memory) when she understands or expresses ideas. Thus, propositional or topical knowledge is intrinsically related to semantico‐grammatical ability and to L2 proficiency, since without propositional content, we would have language ability with nothing to say. Furthermore, it is unlikely that we could express well‐formed propositional content with no symbolic resources for expressing this content.

Moving beyond the semantic meaning of individual forms, language assessment focuses on the evaluation of one or more propositions in response data. However, given the long tradition of a form‐based approach to assessment, the scoring of utterances revolves mostly around the accuracy of the forms, rather than the quality or meaningfulness of the information expressed. To highlight the importance of propositional meaning as a resource for communication, Purpura (2016) extended the notion of semantico‐grammatical knowledge to include a propositional dimension. Figure 5 presents a characterization of propositional knowledge, along with items typically used to measure this dimension.

In many L2 assessments, examinees are expected to understand or express utterances with no reference to context beyond what is embodied in a sentence or two (see Figure 5). This aspect of semantics is referred to as the linguistic meaning of a sentence. In real‐life language use, however, language users have full access to the situational context. In these instances, they use semantico‐grammatical forms to understand and express utterances that carry propositional information within some goal‐oriented, interactional activity. The propositional content of the utterances comes from each interlocutor's topical knowledge in LTM (e.g., situational, interpersonal, transactional, experiential, autobiographical, imaginative, academic, or professional information). Interlocutors use these literal propositions not only to communicate topical content, but also to perform communicative acts or functions (e.g., to agree, complain) within the situation. In other words, examinees use functional knowledge to express language functions in context. Consider how the proposition I'm Italian is used to convey two contextualized language functions, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5 Extended model of semantico‐grammatical knowledge (adapted from Purpura, 2004, reproduced with permission of Cambridge University Press through PLSclear, and Purpura, 2016, used with permission)

Figure 6 Speech acts and functional meaning

Figure 7 Meaning‐oriented model of L2 proficiency (adapted from Purpura, 2016, used with permission)

Semantico‐grammatical resources are used to form literal propositions, which embody a speaker's intended functional meaning (e.g., offer) within a communicative context. The literal and intended meaning of an utterance may have the same meaning (direct speech act) as the functional goal, or may differ significantly from the functional goal depending on context (indirect speech act). Finally, a well‐formed proposition can also be used to simultaneously encode a range of other meanings implied within the situational context. In the indirect speech act in Figure 6, the use of the expression I'm Italian to respond to an offer also encodes the sociocultural assumption that Italians like drinking red wine. The proposition in this context also encodes informality (sociolinguistic meanings) and even playfulness (psychological meanings). Purpura (2016) proposed a meaning‐oriented model of L2 knowledge that characterizes a learner's implicational knowledge as a pragmatic resource for understanding or expressing implied meanings derivable only from context (Figure 7).

In sum, the ability to perform real‐world competencies depends on the learners' semantico‐grammatical knowledge and their ability to use context to accurately form utterances that communicate not only propositions, but also contextualized pragmatic meanings. From an assessment perspective, these components are all implicated in real‐life language use. However, depending on the purpose of the test, these components can also be measured separately (see Grabowski, 2009; Kim, 2009), especially when finer grained information is needed.