Grammatical complexity and lexical diversity in official oral examinations at B2 of the CEFR: the case of FCE and Official Language Schools in Spain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58859/resla.867Abstract
Official examinations of English for speakers of other languages resort to substantially different tasks in order to assess oral proficiency. However, there is a lack of studies specifically comparing the language features elicited in oral tasks from different official examinations with the same population. This study compares measures of grammatical complexity and lexical diversity in the peer-peer interactions of 10 adult L1-Spanish learners of English performing one task from Cambridge’s First Certificate in English (FCE), and a B2 task from the Escuela Oficial de Idiomas (EOI, Spain) speaking tests. The results reveal statistically significant differences both at both grammatical and lexical levels. The ratio of dependent clauses to the total number of clauses was statistically significantly higher in the FCE task. Conversely, the EOI task elicited a significantly more varied lexicon from participants than the FCE task. The study sheds light on the potential of the FCE and EOI tasks to generate comparatively higher levels of grammatical complexity and lexical diversity respectively and highlights the need for further empirical research comparing different oral task samples from official language tests within the same population.
Global Statistics ℹ️
|
21
Views
|
6
Downloads
|
|
27
Total
|
|
References
Azpilicueta-Martínez, R. (2017). Negotiation for meaning and assessment of oral proficiency through paired interactive tasks: Evidence from EFL children and adults at beginner levels of competence [Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Pública de Navarra]. Academica-e.unavarra.es.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT® test: A lexico‐grammatical analysis. ETS Research Report Series, 2013(1), 1–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02311.x
Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing, 26(3), 341–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104666
Brown, A. (2006a). Candidate discourse in the revised IELTS Speaking Test. IELTS Research Reports, 6, 71–89. IELTS Australia and British Council.
Brown, A., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2005). An examination of rater orientations and test‐taker performance on English‐for‐academic‐purposes speaking tasks. ETS Research Report Series, 2005(1), 1–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2005.tb01982.x
Byrnes, H. (1987). Proficiency as a framework for research in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 71(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1987.tb01054.x
Cambridge English: Understanding results guide. (2014). Cambridge English: Understanding results guide. http://www.gml.cz/prof/zajickova/Cambridge%20exams_information/Understanding%20results%20guide.pdf
Cobb, T. (n.d.). Web Vocabprofile [An adaptation of Heatley, Nation, & Coxhead’s (2002) Range]. Retrieved January 2021, from http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/
Davies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq018
De Jong, J. H., & Van Ginkel, L. W. (1992). 15 dimensions in oral foreign language proficiency. In L. Verhoeven & J. de Jong (Eds.), The construct of language proficiency (pp. 187–207). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.62.19jon
De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x
Ducasse, A. M. (2008). Interaction in paired oral proficiency assessment in Spanish [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. School of Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, The University of Melbourne.
Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104669
Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2011). The role of interactive communication in IELTS speaking and its relationship to candidates’ preparedness for study or training contexts. IELTS Research Reports, 12, 1. https://www.ielts.org/for-researchers/research-reports/volume-12-report-3
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x
Foot, M. C. (1999). Relaxing in pairs. ELT Journal, 53(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.1.36
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x
Galaczi, E. D. (2004). Peer-peer interaction in a paired speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University.
Galaczi, E. D. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300801934702
Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017
Galaczi, E. D., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816
García-Ponce, E. E., & Tavakoli, P. (2022). Effects of task type and language proficiency on dialogic performance and task engagement. System, 105, 102734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102734
García-Ponce, E. E., Mora-Pablo, I., Lengeling, M. M., & Crawford, T. (2018). Task design characteristics and EFL learners’ complexity, accuracy and fluency during uncontrolled pair interactions: A naturalistic perspective. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 75–92.
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010
Heaton, J. B. (1988). Writing English language tests. Longman Inc.
Higgs, T. V., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push towards communication. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57–79). National Textbook Company.
Hsieh, C. N., & Wang, Y. (2019). Speaking proficiency of young language students: A discourse-analytic study. Language Testing, 36(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217734240
Hu, X. (2021). Predicting CEFR levels in L2 oral speech, based on lexical and syntactic complexity. Asia Pacific Journal of Corpus Research, 2(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.22925/apjcr.2021.2.1.35
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written in three grade levels (Research Report No. 3). National Council of Teachers of English. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED113735.pdf
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm017
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information‐processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00160
Kormos, J. (2014). Speech production and second language acquisition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203763964
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., Housen, A., & De Clercq, B. (2019). Variation in syntactic complexity: Introduction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12255
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
McNamara, T. F. (1990). Item response theory and the validation of an ESP test for health professionals. Language Testing, 7(1), 52–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229000700105
Michel, M. C., Révész, A., Shi, D., & Li, Y. (2019). The effects of task demands on linguistic complexity and accuracy across task types and L1/L2 speakers. In Wen & Ahmadian (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy (pp. 133–151). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.07mic
Mylläri, T. (2020). Words, clauses, sentences, and T-units in learner language: Precise and objective units of measure? Journal of the European Second Language Association, 4(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.63
Nation, I. S. P. (2018, July 5). Information on the BNC/COCA word family lists [Unpublished technical document]. Victoria University of Wellington. https://www.victoria.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1689349/Information-on-the-BNC_COCA-word-family-lists-20180705.pdf
Ortega, L. (1999). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 109–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001047
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045
Perrone, J. M. (2010). The impact of the First Certificate in English (FCE) examination on the EFL classroom: A washback study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and second language learning (pp. 9–34). Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024600
Seedhouse, P., Harris, A., Naeb, R., & Üstünel, E. (2014). The relationship between speaking features and band descriptors: A mixed methods study. IELTS Research Reports Online Series, 30. https://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/208149
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 510–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Tavakoli, P. (2011). Pausing patterns: Differences between L2 learners and native speakers. ELT Journal, 65(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq020
Tavakoli, P. (2018). L2 development in an intensive study abroad EAP context. System, 72, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.009
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2011). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61, 37–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x
Taylor, L. (2000). Investigating the paired speaking test format. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations Research Notes, 2, 14–15.
Tuzcu, A., & Yalçın, Ş. (2019). The combined effects of manipulating tasks in two dimensions on L2 speech performance. In 2017 Second Language Research Forum. Cascadilla Proceedings Project (pp. 175–184).
Van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586922
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
Yan, X., Kim, H. R., & Kim, J. Y. (2018). Complexity, accuracy and fluency features of speaking performances on Aptis across different CEFR levels. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/yan_et_al_b.pdf
Yan, X., Kim, H. R., & Kim, J. Y. (2020). Dimensionality of speech fluency: Examining the relationships among complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) features of speaking performances on the Aptis test. Language Testing, 0(00), 1–26.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Raul Azpilicueta, Martin Majercik
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Public licensing terms for published work
All articles published in {$contextName} are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License, unless otherwise stated.
This means that authors retain copyright and that anyone is free to:
- Share – copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
- Adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Provided that the following conditions are met:
- Attribution – Proper credit must be given to the authors and the journal, a link to the license must be provided, and any changes must be indicated.
- No additional restrictions – No legal terms or technological measures may be applied that restrict others from using the work.
For more information, please refer to the full license text at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
