Chapter in:
Advancedness in Second Language Spanish: Definitions, challenges, and possibilities
Edited by Mandy R. Menke and Paul A. Malovrh
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 31] 2021

The (limited) contributions of proficiency assessments in defining advancedness

| University of Minnesota
| University of South Carolina
Standardized proficiency tests are the primary means of determining advancedness in educational settings and have effectively established a common language for describing language proficiency. Emerging evidence additionally identifies specific linguistic features that correlate with each level; nonetheless, we argue that the ability of such assessments to contribute to our evolving understandings of advancedness are limited given their conflation of cognition and language and inability to capture contextually-dependent language use. In this chapter, we discuss the contributions, challenges, and future of proficiency assessment.
Keywords: standardized assessment, advanced proficiency, linguistic correlates
References

References

ACTFL
(1982) ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.Google Scholar
(1986) ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.Google Scholar
(1999) ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.Google Scholar
(2015) Oral proficiency levels in the workplace. Retrieved from https://​www​.actfl​.org​/sites​/default​/files​/pdfs​/TLE​_pdf​/OralProficiencyWorkplacePoster​.pdf (6 July, 2020).
(2017a) 2017 Annual report. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. Retrieved from https://​www​.actfl​.org​/sites​/default​/files​/reports​/annualreport2017​/index​.html (6 July, 2020).
(2017b) Assigning CEFR ratings to ACTFL assessments. Retrieved from https://​www​.actfl​.org​/publications​/additional​-resources​/assigning​-cefr​-ratings​-actfl​-assessments (6 July, 2020).
Alderson, J. C.
(2007) The challenge of (diagnostic) testing: Do we know what we are measuring? In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner, & C. Doe (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 21–39). Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C., & Huhta, A.
(2005) The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing, 22, 301–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alonso, E.
(1997) La evaluación de la actuación oral de los hispanoparlantes bilingües mediante las directrices de ACTFL [The evaluation of oral performance of bilingual Spanish speakers according to ACTFL guidelines]. Hispania, 80, 328–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F.
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1988) Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 149–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S.
(1996) Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful tests. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L., & Purpura, J.
(2008) Language assessments: Gate-keepers or door closers? In B. M. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 456–468). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnwell, D. P.
(1996) A history of foreign language testing in the United States: From its beginnings to the present. Tempe, AZ: Bilingual Press.Google Scholar
Bartning, I., Martin, M., & Vedder, I.
(Eds.) (2010) Communicative proficiency and linguistic development. Intersections between SLA and language testing research (Eurosla Monograph Series 1). Paris: European Second Language Association. Retrieved from http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.html (6 July, 2020).
Brecht, R. D., & Riversm, W. P.
(2000) Language and national security in the 21st century. The role of Title VI/Fulbright-Hays in supporting national language capacity. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar
Brown, T., & Bown, J.
(2015a) Conclusion: To advanced proficiency and beyond: Charting a new course in the twenty-first century. In T. Brown & J. Bown (Eds.), To advanced proficiency and beyond. Theories and methods for developing superior second language ability (pp. 205–211). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(2015b) To advanced proficiency and beyond. Theories and methods for developing superior second language ability. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H.
(2002) Toward academic-level foreign language abilities: Reconsidering foundational assumptions, expanding pedagogical options. In B. L. Leaver & B. Shekhtman (Eds.), Developing professional-level language proficiency (pp. 56–76). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Perspectives: Interrogating communicative competence as a framework for collegiate foreign language study. Modern Language Journal, 90, 244–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Advanced language proficiency. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 506–522). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., Weger-Guntharp, H. D., Sprang, K. A.
(Eds.) (2002) Educating for advanced foreign language capacities. Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M.
(1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carillo Cabello, A., Paesani, K., & Soneson, D.
(2019) Developing advanced proficiency: Instructional and curricular models for post-secondary language programs. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B.
(1967) Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1, 131–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks / Centre des niveaux de competence linguistique canadiens
(2019) Overview of CLB and NCLC competency levels. Retrieved from https://​www​.language​.ca​/overview​-of​-clb​-and​-nclc​-competency​-levels/ (6 July, 2020).
Chalhoub-Deville, M. & Fulcher, G.
(2003) The oral proficiency interview: A research agenda. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 498–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. L. D.
(1980) Toward a common measure of speaking proficiency. In J. F. Firth (Ed.), Measuring spoken language proficiency (pp. 15–26). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Clifford, R., & Cox, T. L.
(2013) Empirical validation of reading proficiency guidelines. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 45–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collier, V. P.
(1992) A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 187–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617–641. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Connor-Linton, J., & Shohamy, E.
(2011) Register variation, oral proficiency, sampling and the promise of multi-dimensional analysis. In D. Biber & S. Conrad (Eds.), Variation in English: Multidimensional studies (pp. 124–137). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Retrieved from https://​www​.coe​.int​/en​/web​/common​-european​-framework​-reference​-languages (6 July, 2020).
Cox, T. L., & Clifford, R.
(2014) Empirical validation of listening proficiency guidelines. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 379–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cox, T. L., Malone, M. E., & Winke, P.
(2018) Future directions in assessment: Influences of standards and implications for language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 104–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J.
(1991) Interdepenence of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystock (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1979) Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 219–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dandonoli, P., & Henning, G.
(1990) An investigation of the construct validity of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Guidelines and Oral Interview procedure. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 11–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davin, K. J., & Heineke, A. J.
(2017) Seal of biliteracy: Variation in policy and outcome. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 486–499. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davin, K. J., Heineke, A. J., & Egnatz, L.
(2018) The seal of biliteracy: Successes and challenges to implementation. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 275–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, D., Clifford, R., & Cox, T.
(2015) L1, L2, and cognitive development: Exploring relationships. In T. Brown & J. Bown, (Eds.), To advanced proficiency and beyond Theories and methods for developing superior second language ability (pp. 23–41). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., & Sharwood Smith, M.
(2001) Reinventing the native speaker: Or ‘What you never wanted to know about the native speaker so never dared to ask.’ Eurosla Yearbook, 1, 275–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, M.
(2006) Language placement exams for heritage speakers of Spanish: Learning from students’ mistakes. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 595–604. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg, F., & Bartning, I.
(2010) Can linguistic features discriminate between the communicative CEFR levels? A pilot study of written L2 French. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development. Intersections between SLA and language testing research (Eurosla Monograph Series1) (pp. 133–158). Paris: European Second Language Association. Retrieved from http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.html (6 July, 2020).
Freed, B.
(1995) What makes us think that student who study abroad become fluent? In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G.
(1996) Invalidating validity claims for the ACTFL oral rating scale. System, 24, 163–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, V.
(1987) From defining proficiency to developing proficiency: A look at the decisions. In H. Byrnes & M. Canale (Eds.), Defining and developing proficiency: Guidelines, implementations, and concepts (pp. 25–73). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Gyllstad, H., Granfeldt, J., Bernardini, P., & Källkvist, J.
(2014) Linguistic correlates to communicative proficiency levels of the CEFR: The case of syntactic complexity in written L2 English, L3 French, and L4 Italian. Eurosla Yearbook, 14, 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanban, F. A. Q.
(2010) What is Confucius Institute? Retrieved from http://​english​.hanban​.org/ (6 July, 2020).
He, A. W., & Young, R.
(1998) Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M.
(2010) The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 101–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hervey, W.
(1916) Oral practice: Its purpose, means, and difficulties. The Modern Language Journal, 1, 79–91.Google Scholar
Heuser, F.
(1921) Regents examination in German. The Modern Language Journal, 5, 186–199.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. V.
(1986) Proficiency and the assessment and the humanities. Association of Department of Foreign Languages Bulletin, 18, 6–9.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (1984) Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Holquist, M.
(2006) Language and literature in the globalized college/university. ADFL Bulletin, 37(2–3), 5–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2007) The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimension of language proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 91, 663–667. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Linking L2 proficiency to L2 acquisition: Opportunities and challenges for profiling research. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (Eurosla Monograph Series 1) (pp. 233–238). Paris: European Second Language Association. Retrieved from http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.html (6 July, 2020).
(2011) Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 229–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 422–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers. Theory and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Alderson, J. C., & Schoonen, R.
(2010) Developmental stages in second-language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them? In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development. Intersections between SLA and language testing research (EUROSLA Monograph Series 1). Paris: European Second Language Association. Retrieved from http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.html (6 July, 2020).
Hymes, D.
(1972) On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K.
(2016) Introduction: Perspectives on advanced second language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam (Ed.), Advanced proficiency and exceptional ability in second language (pp. 1–13). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ilieva, G. N.
(2012) Hindi heritage language learners’ performance during OPIs: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Heritage Language Journal, 9, 18–36.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. E., & Wylie, E.
(1979/1999) The International Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ISLPR®). Brisbane: Centre for Applied Linguistics and Languages, Griffith University.Google Scholar
Kagan, O., & Friedman, D.
(2003) Using the OPI to place heritage speakers of Russian. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 536–545. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R.
(2000) Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kern, R., & Schultz, J. M.
(2005) Beyond orality: Investigating literacy and the literary in second and foreign language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 381–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C.
(2006) From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 249–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lafford, B.
(1995) Getting into, through and out of a situation: A comparison of communicative strategies used by students studying Spanish abroad and ‘at home’. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 97–121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W.
(1988) Proficiency: Understanding the construct. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 181–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1985) Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal, 69, 337–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leal, T.
(2018) Data analysis and sampling: Methodological issues concerning proficiency in SLA research. In A. Gudmestad & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp. 63–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leaver, B. L., & Campbell, C.
(2015) Experience with higher levels of proficiency. In T. Brown & J. Bown (Eds.), To advanced proficiency and beyond. Theory and methods for developing superior second language ability (pp. 3–21). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Leaver, B. L., & Shekhtman, B.
(Eds.) (2002) Developing professional-level language proficiency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenk, U.
(1998) Making discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Liskin-Gasparro, J.
(2003) The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the oral proficiency interview: A brief history and analysis of their survival. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 483–490. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., Gor, K., & Jackson, S.
(2012) Linguistic correlates of second language proficiency. Proof of concept with ILR 2–3 in Russian. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 99–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, P.
(1983) The ILR oral interview: Origins, applications, pitfalls, and implications. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 16, 230–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, C., Brady, M., Norrie, J., & Poedjianto, N.
(2007) Picture description in neurologically normal adults: Concepts and topic coherence. Aphasiology, 21, 340–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Magnan, S. S.
(1987) Rater reliability of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 43, 267–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malone, M.
(2018) Afterword and next steps. In P. Winke & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Foreign language proficiency in higher education (309–318). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Martin, C.
(2010) Assessing the oral proficiency of adult learners, “heritage” and “native” speakers using the ILR descriptors and ACTFL guidelines: Considering the challenges. Russian Language Journal, 60, 167–181.Google Scholar
Martin, C., Swender, E., & Rivera-Martínez, M.
(2013) Assessing the oral proficiency of heritage speakers according to the ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012-speaking. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 211–225.Google Scholar
McAloon, P.
(2015) From proficiency to expertise: Using HR evaluation methods to assess advanced foreign language and culture ability. In T. Brown & J. Bown (Eds.), To advanced proficiency and beyond theories and methods for developing superior second language ability (pp. 153–169). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Milani, T.
(2008) Language testing and citizenship: A language ideological debate in Sweden. Language in Society, 37, 27–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, K., & Hulstijn, J. H.
(2011) Linguistic skills of adult native speakers as a function of age and level of education. Applied Linguistics, 32, 475–494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
North, B.
(1993) The development of descriptors on scales of language proficiency. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar
Oller, J. W.
(1976) Evidence of a general language proficiency factor: An expectancy grammar. Die Neuren Sprachen, 76, 165–174.Google Scholar
Omaggio, A. C.
(1983) Methodology in transition: The new focus on proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 67, 330–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1985) Learnability and syllabus construction In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–75). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G.
(1988) Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., & Malone, M.
(2018, Dec.). An investigation of the relative difficulty of typologically different languages: Toward a more nuanced view of language difficulty. Paper presented at the Interagency Language Roundtable, College Park, MD.
Ross, S. J.
(2011) The social and political tensions of language assessment. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 786–797). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rubio, F., & Taylor, L.
(2019, Nov.). Looking under the hood of the advanced level. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Washington, DC.
Schulz, R. A.
(2006) Reevaluating communicative competence as a major goal in postsecondary language requirement courses. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 252–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P.
(2013) Oral proficiency interviews as varieties in interaction. In S. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 199–219). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E.
(1994) The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing, 11, 99–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., LaFlair, G. T., & Egbert, J.
(2017) Comparing language use in oral proficiency interviews to target domains: Conversational, academic, and professional discourse. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 194–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Street, J., & Dąbrowska, E.
(2014) Lexically specific knowledge and individual differences in adult native speakers’ processing of the English passive. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 97–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Surface, E., & Dierdorff, E.
(2003) Reliability and the ACTFL oral proficiency interview: Reporting indices of interrater consistency and agreement for 19 languages. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 507–519. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swaffar, J.
(2006) Terminology and its discontents: Some caveats about communicative competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 246–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swender, E.
(2003) Oral proficiency testing in the real world: Answers to frequently asked questions. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 520–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swender, E., Martin, C., Rivera-Martínez, M., & Kagan, O.
(2014) Exploring oral proficiency profiles of heritage speakers of Russian and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 423–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E.
(2013) Perspectives. Modern Language Journal, 97, 528–530. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M.
(1994) Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 44, 307–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, I.
(1995) A study of interrater reliability of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview in five European languages: Data from English, French, German, Russian, and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 407–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tschirner, E.
(2018) Language testing: Current practices and future development. Die Unterrichstspaxis / Teaching German, 51, 105–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of State
n.d.). Languages. Retrieved from https://​2009​-2017​.state​.gov​/m​/fsi​/sls​/orgoverview​/languages​/index​.htm (6 July, 2020).
Valdés, G.
(1989) Teaching Spanish to Hispanic bilinguals: A look at oral proficiency testing and the proficiency movement. Hispania, 72, 392–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Lier, L.
(1989) Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 489–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Violin-Wigent, A., & Grubbs, T.
(2019) Collaborative dialogues in upper-level Spanish literature and French linguistics classes. In A. Carrillo Cabello, K. Paesani, & D. Soneson (Eds.), Developing advanced proficiency: Instructional and curricular models for post-secondary language programs (pp. 35–77). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Vollmer, H. J.
(1981) Why are we interested in ‘general language proficiency’? In J. C. Alderson & A. Hughes (Ed.), Issues in language testing (pp. 152–175). London, UK: The British Council.Google Scholar
Walker, G.
(1989) The less commonly taught languages in the context of American pedagogy. In H. Lepke (Ed.), Shaping the future: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 111–138). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
Warner, C.
(2011) Rethinking the role of language study in internationalizing higher education. L2 Journal, 3, 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, S.
(2003) Cohesion and coherence strategies in paragraph-length and extended discourse in Japanese oral proficiency interviews. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 555–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weigle, S., & Friginal, E.
(2015) Linguistic dimensions of native speaker and non-native speaker academic writing in English: A comparison of writing tests and disciplinary writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, 25–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar