Inclusion of Social Media Abbreviations in Communicative Language Testing
Inclusion of Social Media Abbreviations in
Communicative Language Testing
Correspondence:
|
Muhammad
Farukh Arslan
<farukhgill99@gmail.com>
|
PhD.
Candidate, Department of Applied Linguistics, Government College University,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
|
Dr. Aleem
Shakir
|
Assistant
Professor, Department of Applied Linguistics, Government College University,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
|
Communicative competence is
the broader term which covers all knowledge, capacity and skills. This
particular study invites the attention towards communicative abbreviations
which are used in social media platforms and electronic communication.
Researcher placed these abbreviations in pragmatic and grammatical knowledge in
Batchman (1999) model. These abbreviations are internationally recognized and
mutually intelligible by the community of social media. Keeping in mind the
idea that social media is an active and easily accessible platform to take
information and express views. Large amount of world’s population is active
users of social media. While accessing the communicative competence of speakers
these abbreviations should also be incorporated to access the communicative
competence of the speakers. Knowhow of these abbreviations will help the
speakers to perceive and produce information on social media more actively and
quickly. List of abbreviations with their meanings have been reported in this
study.
1. Introduction
The
term “communicative competence” was first coined in 1967 by the American
sociolinguist and anthropologist Dell Hymes (1927- 2009) in response to
Chomsky’s notion of linguistic competence. He defined communicative competence
as what “enables a member of the community to know when to speak and when to
remain silent, which code to use, when, where and to whom, etc. (Hymes, 1967,
p. 13).
Communicative
competence is an umbrella term which covers all linguistics, social and
strategic aspects of communication. Person can be declared as communicatively
competent if the person shows expertise in all above mentioned aspects and communicates
effectively but if the person lacks in any of these aspects he would lack the
communicative competence.
This
particular study aims to highlight the importance and gain attention towards
the emerging source of communication which is electronic and social media
communication. Two main plate forms of social media Facebook was founded in
2004 and twitter in 2006. According to Wang (2016), it has become a trend and
standard for the people to post about their daily activities, opinions about
social and current issues on these plate forms. Branckaute (2010) reported that
there are 55 million statuses posted on Facebook daily by 500 million Facebook
users. Meanwhile, 50 million tweets are observed on twitter daily and this rate
is tremendously increasing as the access to electronic devices and social media
is increasing.
So, all
plate forms of social media such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and many
others are found indulged in the frequent use abbreviations which are
recognized and mutually intelligible by the active community of social media. Keeping
this view in mind person should also have the knowhow and awareness of these
abbreviations used at the platforms of social media to be aware of the current
issues and activities on social media.
Influenced
by theory of structural linguistics and behaviourism, Lado (1961) theorized a
“skills-and-elements” model of L2 proficiency which specified three key
elements of language knowledge (i.e., phonology, structure, and the lexicon)
any of these elements could be examined with relation to four language skills
(i.e., listening, reading, speaking, and writing).
Following
Lado’s (1961) model Carroll (1968) proposed a skills-and-components model of
proficiency including phonology, orthography, grammar (morphology and syntax),
and lexis to be measured through the same four skills. Carrol (1968) argued in
the favor of integrative testing as compared to discrete element testing.
Widdowson
(1983) showed a distinction between competence and capacity. He defined
competence, i.e. communicative competence, the knowledge of linguistic and
sociolinguistic conventions. On the other hand, capacity which he referred to
as procedural or communicative capacity. He understood the ability to use
knowledge as means of creating meaning in a language.
Canale and
Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) summarized communicative competence as a
synthesis of an underlying system of knowledge and skill needed for
communication. Knowledge refers to the (conscious or unconscious) knowledge of
an individual about language and about other aspects of language use. In this
model communicative competence includes Linguistic competence, Socio-cultural
competence and strategic competence.
Farhady
(1983) states that communicative competence includes many functional
competencies with relation to the specific areas of language use and the
learners would gather and mold more functional competences according to their
educational and professional requirements. This promotes the idea that person
would need specific and narrower competencies according to the need and context
of use.
Kramsch
(1986) included the element of non-verbal which was not focused by previous
theorists in their models. Element of non-verbal communication also has
importance with relation to verbal communication to incorporate the overall
communicative competence.
Harding
(2014) reported the alarming situation that the frequent advancement in the
field of mobile and electronic communication has challenged the theoretical
background. This particular research aims to call attention towards a narrow
but frequently growing and highly influential aspect of the use of communicative
abbreviations on social media.
Young
generation and the active social media users have their own mutually
intelligible abbreviations and slangs which are adapted for the communication
on all social media forums such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and many
others. Researcher intends to suggest that those abbreviations should also be
kept under consideration while assessing the learner’s communicative
competence.
Researcher
provides the list of abbreviations which is used on social media and suggests
to be incorporated in the language tests because social media is the plate form
through which a person connects to the whole world.
2. Literature Review
The term
“communicative competence” was first coined in 1967 by the American
sociolinguist and anthropologist Dell Hymes (1927- 2009) in response to
Chomsky’s notion of linguistic competence. He defined communicative competence
as what “enables a member of the community to know when to speak and when to
remain silent, which code to use, when, where and to whom, etc. (Hymes, 1967,
p. 13).
Influenced
by theory of structural linguistics and behaviourism, Lado (1961) proposed a
“skills-and-elements” model of L2 proficiency which specified three key
elements of language knowledge (i.e., phonology, structure, and the lexicon)
any of these elements could be examined with relation to four language skills
(i.e., listening, reading, speaking, and writing). Tasks could be designed to assess each discrete component through one or
more skills.
Table 1: Frame work of Lado’s (1961) Model
Phonology
|
Structure
|
Lexicon
|
|
Listening
|
|||
Reading
|
|||
Speaking
|
|||
Writing
|
Chomsky
(1965) criticized Lado’s model by claiming that through structuralist approach
creative aspect of language cannot be examined more over the universal
characteristics of all the languages. Batchman (1990) argued that this model
did not explain how skill and component are linked to each other. (Carroll,
1961; Oller, 1979; Farhady, 1980; Spolsky, 1985) raised criticism about the
weakness of these tests to check the learner’s performance in the real life
context. Morrow (1979) believed that atomist approach to language is totally
wrong because language is totally different from its components.
Following
Lado’s (1961) model Carroll (1968) proposed a skills-and-components model of
proficiency including phonology, orthography, grammar (morphology and syntax),
and lexis to be measured through the same four skills. Carroll (1968) argued
that the assessment of language by “discrete-point” tasks (i.e., approach which
examines linguistic elements in isolation without context) needed to be
complemented by integrative tasks (i.e., approach which attempts to examine the
ability to use linguistic knowledge collectively at the same time while
performing some real life task). He maintained that language is an integrative
phenomenon in practice and unitary in nature (Farhady 1994).
These
language skills can be tested by asking learner to listen the instructions and
then right down the given task. Skills related to phonology, grammar,
morphology and syntax can be tested by following the approach of integrative
testing.
Carrol
(1961) and Oller (1979) introduced the new model to language testing
“Integrative testing”. Integrative testing was supported and given preference
over discrete element testing.
Oller
(1979) stated that language has a unitary nature and it is integrative in practice.
Oller’s hypothesis was refuted on the basis of both analytic flaws in the use
of factor analysis (Vollmer & Sang, 1983) and on findings from empirical
studies which examined the factorial structure of language knowledge. Results
of cloze tests do not represent the true ability of the learner (Alderson,
1991). Morrow (1979) reported that in cloze and dictation tests learners rely
on the instruction of the examiner and does not allow the spontaneous
production of language.
Widdowson
(1983) showed a distinction between competence and capacity. He defined
competence, i.e. communicative competence, the knowledge of linguistic and
sociolinguistic conventions. On the other hand, capacity as the procedural or
communicative capacity. He understood the ability to use knowledge as means of
creating meaning in a language. According to him, ability is not a component of
competence. It does not turn into competence, but remains “an active force for
continuing creativity”, i.e. force for the realization of what Halliday called
the “meaning potential” (Widdowson, 1983, p. 27). Widdowson gave more attention
to performance or real language use.
Aspect of
competence can be studied and tested proposed by widdowson (1983). Competence
includes linguistic; lexical and structural and socio linguistic; social and
cultural conventions with relation to language. Lexical and structural elements
can be tested through devising a test of writing and reading. Sociolinguistic
competence can be tested by asking testee to indulge in a speaking activity
through this social and cultural conventions can be tested.
Canale and
Swain (1980) criticized the purely functional approach. Vanek (1977) and Munby
(1978) gave more attention to linguistic knowledge to fulfill communicative
purpose. They added the element of sociolinguistic competence and proved that
neither language is produced in vacuum nor is just mare produced in mind as
Chomsky claimed (Adel & Hashemi, 2015; Ghaniabadi & Hashemi,
2015).
Canale and
Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) summarized communicative competence as a
synthesis of an underlying system of knowledge and skill needed for
communication. Knowledge refers to the (conscious or unconscious) knowledge of
an individual about language and about other aspects of language use.
According
to them, there are three types of knowledge:
1) Knowledge of
the underlying grammatical principles
2) Knowledge of
the use of language in a social context in order to fulfil communicative
functions
3) Knowledge of
how to combine utterances and communicative functions with respect to discourse
principles
Skill
refers to how an individual can use the knowledge in actual communication.
According to Canale (1983), skill requires a further distinction between
underlying capacity and its manifestation in real communication, that is to
say, in performance. The inclusion of strategic competence in this model was a
major step, it was influenced by the previous frameworks proposed by Munby
(1978) and Vanek’s (1977) idea of ‘functional and notional grammar’.
In this
model, grammatical competence has few similarities with linguistic competence
proposed by Chomsky. Knowledge of phonology, morphology, lexical items, syntax
and semantics. Sociolinguistic competence covers the aspect of social
situations, style, register, social conventions and different modes of
language. Strategic competence includes aspects of negotiation, breakdown of
speech etc.
Canale
(1983) revised the model by adding the aspect of discourse competence, it
included the mastery of cohesion and coherence and aspects of smaller
grammatical forms to combine unified texts. Strategic competence in this model
broadened the boundaries and included the aspects of verbal and non-verbal
strategic communication.
Farhaday
(1980) (one of the first active critics of the notion of Canale and Swain model
of communicative competence, communicative competence is so vast in domain and
complex in nature that it is not even possible for many native speakers to
reach it. In this regard, Farhady (1980) introduced the notorious concept of
“functional competence” As Halliday (1976) describes, functions refer to what
people do with language in different contexts. He considers four different
purposes for language use: ideational, manipulative, heuristic, and imaginative
and termed these purposes as general purposes of language. Based on the
functional model of testing, he designed functional tests in (1981) which
resulted to be more diagnostic and valid than integrative and discrete- point
tests.
According
to Farhady (1983) communicative competence comprises many functional
competencies within specific areas of language use and learners would
accumulate more functional competences depending on their educational and
professional careers. This view gave room to ESP and EAP syllabi’s and also
advocates the aspect of more specific and narrower functions which can be
performed with the help of language.
Savignon
(1972, 1983) put a much greater emphasis on the aspect of ability in her frame
of communicative competence. Namely, she described communicative competence as
“the ability to function in a truly communicative setting – that is, in a
dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total
informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic, of one or more
interlocutors” (Savignon, 1972).
Kramsch
(1986) argued that possessing shared knowledge of the world is not enough for
successful interaction in the context of real life. Verbal and non-verbal
interaction in real life context entail the dynamic elements of utterances and
meanings which cannot be pre-specified and pre-planned. According to Kramsch’s
(1986) definition, interaction is a dynamic process of matching between
intended, perceived and expected meaning. She refers to this knowledge as
interactional competence: an ability to process and negotiate the intended
meaning, anticipate listener’s response and possible misunderstanding, clarify
one’s own and others’ intentions and finally arrive at a communicative
decision. Interactional competence model as Kramsch (1986) describes, focuses
on “notions or concepts”, on “interactional processes and discourse skills”.
One of the
considerable advancements in the area of language testing was Bachman’s (1990)
comprehensive model of communicative competence which was an improvement over
the previous models, from diverse perspectives. This model not only specified
different components of communicative competence but also indicated how these
components interact with each other in a complex manner. Its main focus on the
central role of strategic competence including metacognitive strategies or
higher order process that explain the interaction of knowledge and affective
components of language use.
This
framework encompasses three elements of language competence, strategic
competence, and psychophysiological mechanisms. Language competence includes
organizational and pragmatic competences. Organizational competence, in turn
includes grammatical and textual abilities or competences, which are involved
in producing and comprehending language.
Pragmatic
competence includes illocutionary and sociolinguistic competence. Widdoson’s
(1983) term capacity is equal to the term strategic competence devised by Batchman
(1990).
Proposed Framework by Batchman
(1990) on Components of Language Competence
Batchman’s
grammatical competence is equal to Canale and Swain’s grammatical competence.
Textual competence includes cohesion and coherence of language, and knowledge
about how to start, maintain and end conversation. Batchman’s textual
competence has swain’s both strategic and discourse competence. Pragmatic
competence is mainly concerned with the relationship that what the person says
in that communicative act and what is the intended function in that
communicative act.
Batchman
and Palmer (1996) revised the frame work and proposed the categories of
language knowledge and strategic competence. Language knowledge includes
organizational and pragmatic knowledge. Organizational is composed of textual
and grammatical knowledge. Pragmatic includes, functional and sociolinguistic
knowledge.
Proposed Framework by Batchman and
Palmer (1996)
Placement
of Communicative abbreviations in Batchman and Palmer (1996), in this
particular study, the researcher intends to invite attention towards
communicative abbreviations incorporated in social media and electronic
conversation. Researcher places these abbreviations under the term pragmatic
knowledge and grammatical knowledge. These abbreviations are vocabulary items
and these vocabulary items have the specific function in the context of social
media and electronic communication. These abbreviations have specific intended
meanings which are mutually intelligible by the active users of social media
and electronic communication.
Celcia
Murcia, Thurrel and Dorney (1995) proposed the model of communicative
competence, at this time scope of communicative competence came to an end with
relation to content specification. This model included sociocultural,
linguistic, discourse, strategic and actional competence.
Discourse
competence included the aspects of cohesion and coherence, such as Dixies:
temporal, personal and spatial dixies and conversation structure such as turn taking,
collaboration, opening, re-opening and adjacency pairs. Actional competence
includes the aspects of functions can be covered through language such as greeting,
requesting, blaming, complaining, accusing, denying etc. Sociocultural aspect
covers sociocultural conventions and knowledge of language related to any
specific variety of language. Social and cultural context of language with
relation to pragmatics is also placed in sociocultural competence.
The nature
of communicative competence is not static but dynamic, it is more interpersonal
than intrapersonal and relative rather than absolute (Canale & Swain, 1980;
Skehan, 1998; Bachman & Palmer, 1996). Savignon (1983) referred to
competence as an underlying ability and to performance as an open manifestation
of competence. Savignon (1983) termed the communicative competence equal to the
language proficiency. This point also suggests that if a person has communicative
competence and has the grip on all aspects of communication such as
sociolinguistic, strategic and linguistic. The person will be considered
proficient user of the language.
Taylor
(1988) proposed to replace the term “communicative competence” with the term
“communicative proficiency”. Bachman (1990) suggested using the term
“communicative language ability”, claiming that this term combines in itself
the meanings of both language proficiency and communicative competence.
Harding
(2014) reported that there appears a strong challenges regarding the
theoretical construct in the area of communicative competence due to the
drastic increase of technology and electronic communication. Due to the advent
of the telecommunication and mobile based communication aspects of electronic
and social media communication should also be kept under consideration.
Jue (2005)
studied the social and psychological influence of the abbreviations on the life
of Chinese people. Study reported that use of abbreviations lay specific
function on ideological and psychological approaches to life. Frequent use of
abbreviations creates a new trend and approach towards life of the community
and people should have awareness of these aspects and changes in trends. Ruiyun
(2005) conducted a comparative study of the use of abbreviations in English and
Chinese News headlines and reported similarities between the use of
abbreviations. It shows that abbreviations are the currently growing phenomenon
in social and electronic media and it lays influence on the lives of the
people.
Social
media is the plate form which is considered more active and more valid as
compared to electronic and print media. Social media includes many plate forms
such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and many others. Young generation and
many other social media activists tend to post statuses and communicate with
each other by having their specific abbreviations and slangs which are mutually
intelligible by the active members of the social media.
Researcher
intends to propose that those internationally, culturally and more specifically
speaking on the plate form of social media recognized abbreviations and slangs
should also be kept under consideration while assessing the communicative
competence of native and non-native speakers. Keeping in mind, all plate forms
of social media are the easily available forums through which speakers can
easily communicate with the rest of the world. Most of communication is done in
written form and person should have grip on those abbreviations and slangs.
Researcher intends to propose that those abbreviations should also be dealt in
tests to declare the person as communicatively competent.
2.1 Research Question
Q. 1 What
are the abbreviations used for the Social media platforms?
Q. 2 What
are the abbreviations and slangs used on social media?
3. Results
3.1 Network-specific social media acronyms
IG Instagram
LI LinkedIn
YT YouTube
FB Facebook
TW Twitter
DM Direct message
MT Modified tweet
PM Private
Message
RT Retweeting
them
3.2 Conversational Social media abbreviations
It’s good
to know what these social media abbreviations mean so you know what your
audience is saying and provide them with a relevant response if needed. Some of
these abbreviations are also used as hashtags, and you can take advantage of
them for better visibility.
AFAIK As far as I know
AMA Ask me anything.
BRB Be right
back
BTAIM Be that as it may
BTS Behind the scenes.
BTW By the
way
DAE Does anyone
else. . .?
DYK Did you know.
. .?
ELI5 Explain like I’m five.
FBF Flashback
Friday. A theme in which people share old
pictures or posts with their
followers/
FBO Facebook
official. When you make a public announcement on
Facebook about a live event
such as a new relationship,
a change of job, etc.
FF Follow Friday. A trend that started out
on Twitter and
involves giving a shout out to people
involves giving a shout out to people
that you think deserve more recognition and followers.
FOMO Fear
of missing out.
FTFY Fixed that for you
FTW For the win
FYI For your information
G2G or GTG Got to go
GG Good game
GTR Got to run
HBD Happy birthday
HIFW How I feel
when. . .
HMB Hit me back
HMU Hit me up
HT or H/T Hat tip. Used for acknowledging,
appreciating or thanking
other users.
HTH Here to help or happy to help
ICYMI In case you
missed it. Typically used when sharing
content that’s not too current.
IDC I don’t care
IDK I don’t know
IKR I know,
right?
ILY I love you
IMHO In my humble
opinion
IMO In my opinion
IRL In real life
JK Just
kidding. Used for conveying a light-hearted tone.
LMAO Laughing my
a** off
LMK Let me know
LMS Like my
status. Used for inviting people to engage with
a post.
LOL Laughing out
loud
ROFL Rolling on the
floor laughing
MCM Man crush
Monday. Chipotle put its own twist to this
abbreviation to fit the product:
MFW My face when.
. .
MTFBWY May the Force be
with you. A “Star Wars” reference
commonly used to give encouragement.
NBD No big
deal
NM Not
much
NSFW Not safe for
work
NVM Never
mind
OH Used as
context for quotes
OMW On my way
OOTD Outfit of the
day
OP Original
poster
OTP One true
pairing. Commonly used in fandoms. Refers to
two people or fictional characters that you consider
the perfect pair/couple.
PPL People
ROFL Rolling on the floor laughing
ROFLMAO Rolling on
the floor laughing my a** off
SFW Safe for
work
SMH Shaking my
head. Used to express shock or disappointment.
TBH To be
honest
TBBH To be brutally
honest
TBT Throwback
Thursday. Like FBF, this involves sharing old
photos or posts.
TFW That feeling
when. . . Used for sharing a relatable
experience.
TGIF Thank God it’s Friday
TIL Today I
learned. . .
TL; DR Too long; didn’t
read.
TMI Too much
information
WBU What about you?
WBW Way back
Wednesday. Follows the same theme as FBF and TBT
WFH Work from
home
YOLO You only live
once
4. Discussion
Social
media and electronic modes of communication are frequently growing modes of
communication and connection with the world. All plate forms of social media
are considered very effective for opinion expression, throughout the last
one-decade social media has been gaining remarkable popularity among the young
generation (Khairutdinov, 2017). Experts and frequent users of social media
tend to write posts and comments in the specific ways usually slangs, jargons
and abbreviations are employed in their writings. This research mainly focuses
on communicative abbreviations enlisted above. Awareness regarding these
abbreviations is much necessary to be communicatively competent and proficient
in the language as termed by (sauvignon, 1983).
Keeping in
mind the idea that social media is the quite active and quick source of
connecting to the world for both purposes sharing and taking information.
Person should understand the communicative abbreviations used at the platforms
of social media. Awareness of the communicative abbreviations should also be
assessed in the communicative language tests.
5. Conclusion
It can be
concluded from this particular research that communicative abbreviations have
key importance in the modern era of technology in which healthy amount of
communication is done through social media and electronic devices. These
abbreviations should be incorporated in the communicative language tests and by
having the awareness of the use of these abbreviations person can perform role
in the society in a better way. Responses and views of the social media
community can be understood in a better way and person can compete and play
role by having grip about the use of these abbreviations.
References
References
Adel, M., & Hashemi, H. (2015).
Ontological analysis of identity formation and its linkage to the theories of
second language acquisition. Cumhuriyet Science Journal, 36(3), 141-161.
Alderson, J. C. (1991). Language testing
in the 90s: How far have we come? How much further have we to go? In Anivan, S.
(Ed.), Current development in language testing: Seameo regional language
center.
Amirian, S. M. R., Moqaddam, H. H.,
& Moqaddam, Q. J. (2017). Critical analysis of the models of language
proficiency with a focus on communicative models. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 7(5), 400-407.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental
considerations in language testing. Oxford university press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996).
Language testing in practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests
(Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Branckaute, F. (2010). Facebook
Statistics: The Numbers Game Continues. The Blog Herald, Filed as News on
Aug, 11.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980).
Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions
of language proficiency. Centre de recherches en éducation
franco-ontarienne, Institut d'études pédagogiques de l'Ontario= The Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Carroll, J.B. (1961). Fundamental
consideration in testing of English language proficiency of foreign students.
New York: MacGrohil.
Carroll, J. B. (1968). The psychology of
language testing. In Language testing symposium: A psycholinguistic approach
(pp. 46-69). Oxford University Press Oxford, UK.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., &
Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model
with content specifications. Issues in Applied linguistics, 6(2),
5-35.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the
theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Farhady, H. (1980). Justification,
development, and validation of functional language tests. Unpublished PhD
thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Farhady, H. (1983). New directions for
ESL proficiency testing. Issues in language testing research, 253-269.
Farhady, H., Jafarpur, A., &
Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills: From theory to practice. Tehran:
SAMT Publications.
Ghaniabadi, S., & Hashemi, H.
(2015). Exploring teachers’ reaction to the identity construction of Iranian
students in EFL context. Ciencia & Natura, 37(3), 106-122.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Kress, G. R.
(1976). System and function in language: Selected papers. Oxford
University Press.
Harding, L. (2014). Communicative
language testing: Current issues and future research. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 11(2), 186-197.
Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the
interaction of language and social setting. Journal of social issues, 23(2),
8-28.
Jue, W. A. N. G. (2005). A Study of the
Social Functions of Abbreviation [J]. Journal of Ningbo University (Liberal
Arts Edition), 2.
Khairutdinov, R. R., Mukhametzyanova, F.
G., & Gaysina, A. R. (2017). Socio Psychological Characteristics of the
Subject Use of the Subject Use of Slang and Abbreviations in English-Speaking
Social Networks. Turkish Online Journal of Design and Communication 7,
832-839.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language
proficiency to interactional competence. The modern language journal, 70(4),
366-372.
Lado, R. (1961). Language Testing: The
Construction and Use of Foreign Language Tests. A Teacher's Book.
Morrow, K. (1979). Communicative
language testing: Revolution or evolution? In
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus
design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Munby, J. (1978). 1978: Communicative
syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oller, J. (1979). Language tests at
school. London: Longman.
Ruiyun, W. (2005). A comparative study
of abbreviations used in net news headlines in English and Chinese. Applied
Linguistics, 1.
Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative
competence: An experiment in foreign-language teaching (Vol. 12). Marcel
Didier.
Savignon, S. J. (1987). Communicative
language teaching. Theory into practice, 26(4), 235-242.
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based
instruction. Annual review of applied linguistics, 18, 268-286.
Spolskey, B. (1985). The limits of
authenticity in language testing. Language Testing, 2(1), 3140.
Twitter, 2011. Twitter official blog.
Twitter inc, San Fransisco, California.http://blog.twitter.com/2011/numberss
Van Ek, J. A. (1977). The threshold
level for modern language learning in schools. London: Longman.
Vollmer, H. J., & Sang, F. (1983).
1983: Competing hypotheses about second language ability: a plea for caution.
In Oller, JW, Jr., editor, Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House, 29-79.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning
purpose and language use. Oxford University Press.
Wang, Y., Min, Q., & Han, S. (2016).
Understanding the effects of trust and risk on individual behavior toward
social media platforms: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Computers
in Human Behavior, 56, 34-44.
Source:
Comments
Post a Comment