Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T10:48:52.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Proficiency Movement: Second Language Acquisition Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Claire Kramsch
Claire Kramsch
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , October 1987 , pp. 355 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albrechtsen, D., Henriksen, B., & Faerch, C. (1980). Native speaker reactions to learners' spoken Interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 365–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwright, R. (1984). Why don't learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In Singleton, D. M. & Little, D. G. (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3–18). Dublin: Irish Association of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastingson-Hudson, NY: Author.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. (1987). Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Paper presented at the Evaluation of Foreign Language Proficiency Symposium, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Bachman, L., & Savignon, S. J. (1985). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL proficiency interview. Modern Language Journal, 70, 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, E. B. (1984). Toward an information-processing perspective in foreign language reading. Modern Language Journal, 68, 322–331.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, E. B. (1986). Proficient texts or proficient readers? Association of Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin, 18, 25–28.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
Carrell, P. L. (1984). Schema-theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications. Modern Language Journal, 68, 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1985). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency and academic achievement. In Oller, J. W. (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 108–129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Galtung, J. (1981). Structure, culture and intellectual style. Social Science information, 20, 817–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwitz, E. K. (1982). The relationship of conceptual level to communicative competence in French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986a). From language proficiency to interactional competence. Modern Language Journal, 70, 366–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986b). Proficiency versus achievement: Reflections on the proficiency movement. Association of Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin, 18, 22–24.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and application. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal, 69, 337–345.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Frawley, W. (1986). Proficiency: Understanding the construct. Paper presented at the Modern Language Association Annual Convention, New York.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1979). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28, 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocullural competence and language transfer: The case of apology. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 232–249). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Snow, C. (1987). Beyond conversation: Second language learners' acquisition of description and explanation. In Lantolf, J. & Di Pietro, R. (Eds.), Second language acquisition in the classroom setting (pp. 3–16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar