Traditional grammar and current theoretical approaches towards modelling grammatical knowledge ignore language in interaction: that is, words such as huh, eh, yup or yessssss. This groundbreaking book addresses this gap by providing the first in-depth overview of approaches towards interactional language across different frameworks and linguistic sub-disciplines. Based on the insights that emerge, a formal framework is developed to discover and compare language in interaction across different languages: the interactional spine hypothesis. Two case-studies are presented: confirmationals (such as eh and huh) and response markers (such as yes and no), both of which show evidence for systematic grammatical knowledge. Assuming that language in interaction is regulated by grammatical knowledge sheds new light on old questions concerning the relation between language and thought and the relation between language and communication. It is essential reading for anyone interested in the relation between language, cognition and social interaction.
In the field of second language assessment, there is limited empirical research on the alignment of different language proficiency standards. This study aims to establish level correspondences for overall language proficiency between China's Standards of English Language Ability (CSE) and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). All 467 CEFR descriptors and 104 CSE anchor descriptors were used in 15 questionnaires. Approximately 5441 teacher ratings and 23,260 student ratings were collected and analysed by Rasch analysis, fixed common item equating, and statistical comparison. The results show that CSE descriptors of a certain level tend to scatter at several adjacent CEFR levels, one of which is relatively predominant. CSE level 1 corresponds mainly to the CEFR below A1 level, level 2 to A1, level 3 to A2, level 4 and level 5 to B1, level 6 to B2, level 7 to B2 and C1, level 8 to C1 and C2, and level 9 to C2. This study enriches the literature on alignment between standards. It has implications for language teaching, learning, and assessment for different stakeholders in China and abroad.
The present paper adopts a cross-linguistic comparative approach to variations of topics against the very test ground of “root-phenomenon”（RP）, and finds that while topics in IndoEuropean languages are always restricted to RP, most topics in Chinese are free from it. This diametrical contrast is due to the difference between pragmatic and syntactic natures in deciding the identity of the topics of each side. In Chinese, the major division made between topics is topics with particles and those without. Particle-free topics, being syntactic in nature, are immune to RP. With particles, the grammatical-pragmatic topics trigger RP restriction. Besides, there are also lexical-pragmatic topics that are flagged by lexical topic markers. Canonical subjects in Chinese are not necessarily syntactic topics. Rather, they are unmarked pragmatic topics though displaying no topicality in some cases. Various topics can be transformed into pragmatic topics by adding topic particles. The observations made by this paper substantially update the results of Xu and Liu（1998）.
人类有从不同视角观察问题的能力,任何语篇都是作者从特定视角对事件识解的结果,体现其主观性.此识解过程包括三个层面的认知互动:所描述事件的知识内容层面、附加在知识内容上的说话人自我表达层面以及说话人与听话人的认知协作层面.英语学术语篇中,论文作者选取特定视角表达学术观点、交流研究成果,其视角主观性可以区分为常态主观性、显性主观性和隐性主观性,这为理解英语学术语篇背后的认知机制提供了统一阐释.
本研究采用Rasch模型针对基于课程标准开发的测试任务开展效度研究,以验证测试任务设计的有效性和评分方案制定的可靠性.测试成绩的单维度Rasch模型分析结果显示,测试任务拟合度符合预期,测试任务难度总体覆盖考生能力水平,残差数据符合单维性检验.由此可见,测试成绩反映拟测构念要素,测试任务信度较高,且具有较好的代表性,考生作答情况符合模型预期,测试任务整体设计有效.构答任务评分数据的多层面Rasch模型分析结果显示,评分员严厉度、考生能力和测试任务难度显示出较为理想的拟合;评分员一致性多面Rasch模型分析结果显示,评分员间严厉度差异显著低于考生能力跨度,4位评分员的加权均方拟合值和均方拟合值均在合理范围之间.由此可见,评分员使用评分方案的一致性较高,评分方案整体制定可靠.本研究旨在为基于课程标准研发高质量测试任务提供参考,并为Rasch模型在测试任务效度研究中的应用提供操作范式.
