31

영어교육 62권 4호 2007년 겨울

The Plausibility and Generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s Model of L2 Knowledge∗

Jaehak Chang (Kangwon National University)

Chang, Jaehak. (2007). The plausibility and generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s model of L2 knowledge. English Teaching, 62(4), 31-46.

This study examines the plausibility and generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model of L2 knowledge, among others. The main focus of the investigation, however, is placed on the adequacy of the model as it relates to English relative clauses. The data were collected from 685 students learning English in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States and a relative clause test was developed based on the accessibility hierarchy proposed by Keenan and Comrie (1977). The issues addressed in this paper, thus, include: (1) whether the same baseline model fits across different groups (e.g., Korean vs. non-Korean; EFL vs. ESL), and, if so, to what degree; (2) whether the constructs measured (i.e., form, meaning, and pragmatic use of relative clauses) are similar across different groups; and (3) the nature of the relationship between L2 grammatical and pragmatic knowledge (i.e., naturalness, formal and informal register).

I. INTRODUCTION Different notions of what it means to know and use a second language (L2) have

fundamental implications for L2 testing and teaching. The notion of what constitutes L2 proficiency, for instance, provides a sound theoretical basis for test design and development and serves as a general framework of reference for teaching. Due to the importance that an understanding of the nature of L2 proficiency bears on language teaching and testing, a number of researchers have proposed a variety of theoretical models of L2 proficiency (e.g., Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale, 1983; Carroll, 1961; Chapelle, 1998; Harley, Cummins, Swain, & Allen, 1990; Lado, 1961; Oller, 1979; Purpura, 2004; Spolsky, 1973). In short, our conceptualization of this construct has evolved, and been broadened, and

∗ This study was supported by 2007 Research Grant from Kangwon National Univeristy.

Chang, Jaehak

32

reconceptualized (see Canale & Swain, 1980, for an excellent review on earlier conceptions; also see Chalhoub-Deville, 1997; McNamara, 1996; Shohamy, 1996, for in-depth discussions on models of L2 proficiency that have been influential in the history of L2 assessment).

In the 1980’s, Canale and Swain’s (1980) theoretical framework of communicative competence was considered “state-of-the-art” in the field of applied linguistics. Rejecting Chomsky’s (1965) notion of linguistic competence due to its disregard for the social and functional aspects of language use, Canale and Swain (1980) not only incorporated Hymes’ (1972) expanded notion of competence, but also linked language teaching to testing. Among others, Hymes (1972) argued that the social rules of language were of equal if not of greater importance to linguistic rules in language learning. In addition to Chomsky’s notion of linguistic competence, Hymes’ (1972) notion of communicative competence also meant knowledge of language use and ability for use. For Hymes, language was used for communication and as a form of social interaction.

By incorporating into their model then-current communicative trends in L2 teaching as well as Hymes’ (1972) expanded notion of competence, Canale and Swain (1980) were able to provide researchers and educators with a sound theoretical framework of communicative competence. As a result, this theoretical framework has dominated the field for a decade (1) by serving as a working hypothesis for later empirical studies (e.g., Allen, Cummins, Mougeon, & Swain, 1983; Bachman & Palmer, 1982; Harley, Allen, Cummins, & Swain, 1987; Harley, Cummins, Swain, & Allen, 1990; Swain, 1985); and (2) by serving as a theoretical foundation for later elaboration and refinement (e.g., Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Clark, 1987; Bachman & Palmer, 1996).

Drawing upon earlier works of communicative competence and linguistic theory (e.g., Austin, 1962; Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Halliday, 1976; Hymes, 1972; Searle, 1969; Widdowson, 1978), Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) model of L2 ability has often been said to be the most comprehensive and inclusive model available in the 1990’s (e.g., McNamara, 1996). However, recent research findings have suggested that their model may still need refinement. For instance, while Bachman and Palmer (1996) viewed strategic competence as a set of metacognitive strategies, findings by Purpura (1997, 1999) have suggested that cognitive strategy use in addition to metacognitive strategy use may be the essence of strategic competence. Moreover, while Bachman and Palmer (1996) held a multi-componential view of metacognitive strategies, such a componential view was not confirmed empirically (e.g., Purpura, 1997, 1999).

In addition, there have been competing views of grammatical knowledge and unresolved issues related to it. Notions of grammatical knowledge held by the researchers mentioned thus far differ with respect to its level, its number of components, its scope, and its divisibility. While Bachman and Palmer (1996) viewed grammar as the structural aspect of language that operates at the sentence level, a number of other researchers (e.g.,

The Plausibility and Generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s Model of L2 Knowledge

33

Celce-Murcia, 1993; Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Givón, 1993; Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Larsen-Freeman, 1993; Purpura, 2004; Rea-Dickins, 1991) have argued that grammar operates not only at the sentence level, but also at the level of discourse. While Bachman and Palmer (1996) held a uni-componential view of grammatical knowledge, a number of other researchers (e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Purpura, 2004; Rea-Dickins, 1987) have argued that grammatical knowledge may be a multi-componential construct. Purpura (2004), for instance, states that grammatical knowledge consists of two highly related, but mostly separable components: grammatical form and meaning, whereas Rea-Dickins (1987) argues that these two components may not be distinct.

Larsen-Freeman (1991), on the other hand, contends that in addition to knowledge of grammatical form and meaning, knowledge of pragmatic use constitutes grammatical knowledge. She further argues that each linguistic structure consists of those three inter-related but (to a greater or lesser degree) distinguishable components. She suggests that those three dimensions be taught in order to enable L2 learners to use linguistic forms accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately. Although Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) notion of pedagogical grammar is intuitively appealing, a number of other researchers (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale & Swain, 1980; Purpura, 2004) have viewed the social and functional features of language use as pragmatics.

What these competing views of grammatical knowledge suggest is that there may not be one correct or easy answer to what it means to know and use an L2. If that is the case, it is possible that Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) or Purpura’s (2004) model would work as well, or even better than Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) or Canale and Swain’s (1980) model. However, no studies to date have examined the construct validity of the competing views addressed above. Nor has the adequacy of the aforementioned models been examined and compared empirically in a single study. Finally, the plausibility of these models has yet to be examined as they relate to a particular linguistic structure such as relative clauses that can be viewed from these various perspectives.

This study examines the plausibility and generalizability of several competing models of second language (L2) knowledge proposed in the L2 assessment and L2 acquisition literatures. The rationale behind examining several models of L2 knowledge is to narrow the number of plausible models and to better understand the nature of relationships among the theoretical constructs posited in the models and their hypothesized components. The models under study include Canale and Swain’s (1980) theory of communicative competence, Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model for teaching grammar, Purpura’s (2004) model of grammatical ability, and Rea-Dickins’ (1987) model of grammatical ability, among others. The main focus of the investigation, however, is placed on the adequacy of the models as they relate to English relative clauses.

Chang, Jaehak

34

In this paper, I will first summarize the main findings of single group analyses, which secure the preliminary construct validity for the models in question in the present study. Next, I will discuss the results of multigroup SEM for Korean and non-Korean groups. After that, I will briefly discuss theoretical and pedagogical implications of the findings of the present study.

II. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS In order to examine the adequacy of the models in question, Chang (2004) conducted a

construct validation study. In this study, the data were collected from 685 students learning English in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. The participants were secondary and college students in academic settings. All participants were 14 years of age or older with a median age of 17. The participants represented 19 different native languages, with the majority being Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Spanish. They were given a 44-item relative clause test, which consisted of a total of eight measures (i.e., test tasks). Five of the eight tasks sought to measure the form and meaning of relative clauses in English and the remaining three measures concerning the socially appropriate use of relative clauses.

Where relative clauses are concerned, the results suggested that Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) and Purpura’s (2004) models may be better representations of the data than Canale and Swain’s (1980) and Rea-Dickins’ (1987) models. More specifically, the results suggested that (1) English relative clause structure consists of three dimensions: form, meaning, and pragmatic use (Larsen-Freeman, 1991) and (2) grammatical form and meaning may be highly related, but this does not necessarily mean that they are identical (Purpura, 2004). In addition, a further examination of alternative models suggested that grammatical knowledge substantially involves knowledge of both grammatical form and meaning, but may not encompass knowledge of pragmatic use.

III. PRESENT STUDY

1. Research Questions The present study further examines the degree to which the preliminary findings

described hold true for Korean and non-Korean groups. More specifically, the present study examines factorial invariance – whether the hypothesized patterns of relationships among latent constructs represented in the models in question are equivalent across Korean and non-Korean groups, and, if so, to what degree.

The Plausibility and Generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s Model of L2 Knowledge

35

In short, the current study addresses the following research questions: 1. To what extent do the models in question represent the data for the Korean and

non-Korean groups? 2. To what extent are the constructs measured (i.e., form, meaning, and pragmatic use of

relative clauses) similar for the Korean and non-Korean groups?

2. Participants In the present study, 685 students in two groups were participated. The Korean group

consists of 215 students learning English in Korea and the non-Korean group consists of 470 students learning English in Japan, Taiwan or the United States. Three hundred and fifty six of them were males, representing 52% of the population and 329 participants were females, representing 48% of the population. The mean age was approximately 19, with the youngest being 14 and the eldest being 43. The median age was 17. Data from these two groups are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix Form Meaning Use Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1.SC – .51 .45 ..50 .32 .19 .15 .27 F 2. WO .54 – .43 .50 .35 .27 .14 .35

3. ER .63 .54 – .46 .38 .26 .25 .31 M 4. WM .58 .59 .65 – .43 .31 .27 .41 5. MM ..40 .39 .43 .52 – .20 ..15 .17

6. IR .25 .27 .42 .43 .28 – .29 .29 U 7. FR -.10 -.05 -.17 -.20 -.10 .15 – .21

8. NL .20 .29 .16 .28 .21 .18 .14 – Korean M 4.36 1.74 4.86 4.26 3.67 2.79 1.89 1.37

SD 1.86 1.13 3.32 2.08 1.19 1.23 1.39 .72 Non-Korean M 5.13 2.51 6.26 5.80 3.87 3.18 2.66 1.67 SD 1.45 .78 3.01 1.42 1.10 1.09 1.50 .61

The Korean group is presented below diagonal; the non-Korean group is presented above diagonal; F = Form, M= Meaning, U = Use; SC = Sentence completion; WO=Word order; ER=Error recognition/ correction; WM=Word meaning; MM= Morphosyntactic meaning; IR=Informal register; FR=Formal register; NL: Natural ness.

3. Measurement Instruments and Theoretical Constructs

Table 2 presents the description of the Relative Clause Test used in the present study and

the theoretical constructs underlying it. As shown in the table, language knowledge, as viewed in this study, is concerned with both grammatical knowledge and pragmatic

Chang, Jaehak

36

knowledge. L2 grammatical knowledge refers to the mental representation of what learners know about the form and meaning of expressions of their target language (Purpura, 2004). L2 pragmatic knowledge, on the other hand, is concerned with what learners know about social and functional uses of their target language (Bachman & Palmer, 1996).

TABLE 2

Description of the Relative Clause Test (44 items)

Scales No Items Used PART I: Grammatical Knowledge Section A: Grammatical Form 17 Trait Method Morphosyntactic form

with relatives MC-sentence completion 7 1 – 7

Morphosyntactic form with relatives

MC-word order 3 8 – 10

Morphosyntactic form with relatives

Grammaticality judgment (Error recognition/correction)

7 (11–17) +

Section B: Grammatical Meaning 12 Trait Method Word meaning with relatives Fill-in-the-blanks

(Word list provided) 7 18 – 24

Morphosyntactic meaning with relatives

Semantic interpretation (True/false)

5 25 – 29

Scales No. Items Used PART II: Pragmatic Knowledge Section C: Register Awareness (i.e., appropriateness) 12 Trait Method Informal register

with relatives Appropriateness judgment

(6-point scale) 6 31, 32, 35,

37, 38, 39 Formal register

with relatives Appropriateness judgment

(6-point scale) 6 30, 33, 34,

36, 40, 41 Section D: Naturalness 3 Trait Method Sensitivity to naturalness

with relatives Naturalness judgment

(More natural/less natural)3 42, 43, 44

MC = Multiple-Choice; Relatives = Relative clauses + The parenthesis indicates the items that are scored for the two criteria: error recognition and error correction.

L2 grammatical knowledge, as viewed in this study, is concerned with both form and

meaning. Grammatical form is concerned with the correct formation of words, phrases, and sentences, including phonological and morphosyntactic form. Therefore, Section A of

The Plausibility and Generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s Model of L2 Knowledge

37

the test aimed at measuring grammatical from and consisted of three parts: sentence completion, word order, and error recognition/correction and contained 17 items. Five of them were limited-production items. These tasks were designed to measure the test-takers’ ability to recognize or produce the correct formation of relative clauses. Example items for each of the three tasks are presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3

Example Items for Grammatical Form Circle the correct answer.

Morphosyntactic form (Sentence completion)

A: I think we should get together more often. B: That’s exactly _____ in mind.

(a) I had (b) I had it

(c) what I had (d) what I had it

Morphosyntactic form (Word order)

A: What do you think of Jack? B: Well, I wouldn’t trust _____. He has such a big mouth.

(a) every word he says

(b) he says every word (c) every word says he (d) word every he says

Decide if the underlined part of the sentence is correct or incorrect. If you think the

underlined part is correct, circle C (Correct) and go on to the next item. If you think it is incorrect, circle I (Incorrect) and correct it by changing, adding, or deleting only ONE of its elements. You can use the space provided if needed.

Morphosyntactic form (Error recognition / correction)

A: Do you have a pen I can borrow it? C I B: Here it is.

Grammatical meaning, on the other hand, refers to (1) the literal meaning expressed by words, phrases, and sentences, and (2) the meaning encoded in grammatical structures (Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Purpura, 2004), including word meaning and morphosyntactic meaning. Thus, morphosyntactic meaning, as viewed in this study, was defined as the context-independent, literal meaning of what is said. In this sense, what is referred to as

Chang, Jaehak

38

morphosyntactic meaning in the present study is similar to what Purpura (2004) terms as grammatical meaning in his model. Accordingly, Section B was designed to measure test-takers’ ability to recognize the lexical meanings of relative pronouns and adverbs, and the morphosyntactic meanings (i.e., literal meanings) of relative clauses. This section consisted of two parts: fill-in-the-blanks and semantic interpretation (true/false tasks) and contained 12 selected-response items. Example items for both of the tasks used in this section are presented in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Example Items for Grammatical Meaning Use the words listed below. Complete the sentences. You can use the same word as many times as needed.

Word meaning (Fill-in-the-blanks)

what, who, which, how, why, where, when

A: Wow. You did it so fast. I’m not sure I can do it myself. B: This time I’m going to show you _____ I did it step by step, Okay?

Read the first sentence. Then, decide if the second sentence is true or false. Circle T or F.

Morphosyntactic meaning (Semantic Interpretation: True/false)

The girl who speaks Greek is my cousin. My cousin speaks Greek. T F

T = True F = False

In the word meaning part of Section B, the relative pronouns and adverbs in the box

were given to test-takers. They were then asked to fill in the blanks using one of the given words. In the morphosyntactic meaning part of Section B, the test-takers were asked to decide if the second statement was true or false given the first statement.

L2 pragmatic knowledge as operationalized in this study, on the other hand, is concerned with sensitivity to register and naturalness (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). Register, as viewed in this study refers to linguistic choices we make that vary depending on context of use, including formal and informal registers.

Section C was thus designed to measure test-takers’ knowledge of when to use a particular linguistic form over another in a particular context. This section contained 12 items and some example items are presented in Table 5.

The Plausibility and Generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s Model of L2 Knowledge

39

TABLE 5 Example Items for Register Awareness

Register awareness (Appropriateness judgment) Rate each item in terms of what you would normally say in the

following situation, where zero means that you would be very unlikely to use the expression in the given situation, and five means that you would be very likely to use it. Note that all the options in each dialogue may be appropriate to use under certain situations. However, some expressions may be more appropriate to use for informal conversations between friends.

Dialogue 5 (At the party, you are introducing Sam to your friend.)

You: Hey, Joe. This is the guy ____________________. Joe: Sam? You: That’s right. Joe, this is Sam. Sam, this is Joe.

very unlikely very likely 30. whom I was talking about 0 1 2 3 4 5 31. I was talking about 0 1 2 3 4 5 32. about whom I was talking 0 1 2 3 4 5 33. who I was talking about 0 1 2 3 4 5

In this section, the test-takers were asked to rate each item in terms of what they would say normally, where zero meant that they would be very unlikely to use the expression in the given situation, and five meant that they would be very likely to use it. The test-takers were also informed that (1) all options might be appropriate to use in certain situations, and (2) some expressions might be more appropriate for use in informal conversations between friends.

Finally, Section D was designed to measure the sensitivity to naturalness.. Naturalness (and its lack thereof), as viewed in this study, refers to how similar a given utterance is to what a native speaker would normally say. In this section, the test-takers were given a pair of expressions. They were then asked to circle the expression that they thought sounded more natural to a native speaker. This section contained three items and an example item is presented in Table 6.

Chang, Jaehak

40

TABLE 6 An Example Item for Naturalness

Naturalness (Naturalness Judgment) Read the dialogue. Of each pair of expressions, circle the expression that would sound

more natural to native speakers. Dialogue 4 (You and your friend Khan are getting near your house)

42-44. You: How much farther, Khan? Khan: We’re almost there. Can you see the house ________ over there? You: Yeah. Is that your house?

42. (a) with the red roof (b) whose roof is red

IV. ANALYSES AND FINDINGS In the present study, to establish a baseline model that fit both Korean and non-Korean

groups, Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model was hypothesized to represent the relative clause data. Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model, as shown in Figure 1, was represented by the eight measured variables concerning the form, meaning, and pragmatic use of relative clauses. Specifically, this model postulated that: (1) knowledge of grammatical form accounts for the relationship among the three observed variables concerning the correct formation of relative clauses; (2) knowledge of semantic meaning accounts for the relationship between the two observed variables concerning the meaning of relative clauses in expressions; and (3) knowledge of pragmatic use accounts for the relationship among the three observed variables concerning the socially appropriate use of relative clauses.

Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model was first examined separately for each group and then simultaneously for both groups. As summarized in Table 7, the results of these single-sample and multigroup analyses suggested that Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model represented the data for each group reasonably well. Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model explained the data somewhat better for the Korean group than for the non-Korean group. The overall fit of Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model evaluated across both samples was also generally acceptable. Specifically, Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model produced a Satora-Bentler chi-square (S-Bχ2) statistic of 61.0756 with 33 degrees of freedom and a CFI of 0.976. This χ2/df ratio for the model was within the recommended value of 3. A review of other fit indices revealed that values for both the NFI and NNFI were above 0.95 and a value for the RMSEA was within the acceptable limit.

The Plausibility and Generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s Model of L2 Knowledge

41

In short, the overall results supported the hypothesis that Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model serves as a baseline model that applies equally well to both groups.

FIGURE 1

Simultaneous Multigroup CFA Results for Larsen-Freeman’ s (1991) Model with respect to Relative Clauses and with Equality Constraints on Factor Loadings

and with Standardized Parameter Estimates

TABLE 7 Goodness of Fit Summary

Goodness of fit summary Fit Indices Model χ2 S-Bχ2 df CFI NNFI RMSEA Single-sample analyses Korean group only 26.283 24.9159 16 .983 .971 .051(.000

Chang, Jaehak

42

Given these findings, the degree to which the constructs measured (i.e., form, meaning, and pragmatic use of relative clauses) were similar for both groups was examined. To this end, Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model was examined again but with cross-group equality constraints on the factor loadings not fixed at 1.0 for model identification (five in total: two on the grammatical form factor; one on the semantic meaning factor; two on the pragmatic use factor). As summarized in Table 7, results of this analysis suggested that the naturalness judgment task appeared to measure knowledge of pragmatic use differentially across the two groups. However, the results showed that the tasks of the relative clause test largely measured three hypothesized constructs (i.e., form, meaning and pragmatic use of relative clauses) in comparable ways for Korean students learning English in Korea and other ESL and EFL learners. In sum, the results provided support for the validity of inferences about knowledge of grammatical form and meaning and knowledge of pragmatic use for these two groups of students, based on these tasks.

V. CONCLUSION This study, utilizing structural equation modeling, examined the plausibility of several

models of L2 knowledge proposed in the L2 assessment and L2 acquisition literatures. The models examined in the present study had similarities and differences. What was universal in these models was that all of them include knowledge of grammatical form, semantic meaning, and pragmatic use. These models, however, differ in terms of the number of components and the scope of grammatical knowledge as it relates to relative clauses. For instance, one group of models (i.e., Canale & Swain, 1980; Rea-Dickins, 1987) predicts the eight measured variables concerning the form, meaning, and use of relative clauses to display two distinctive patterns of relationships (e.g., grammatical knowledge and sociolinguistic knowledge), whereas another group of models (i.e., Larsen-Freeman,1991; Purpura, 2004) expects the emergence of three distinctive patterns of relationships. In addition, Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model postulates that all the three hypothesized components (i.e., grammatical form, semantic meaning, and pragmatic use) constitute grammatical knowledge, whereas Purpura’s (2004) model posits that only the first two components (i.e., grammatical form and meaning) are part of grammatical knowledge and that pragmatic use belongs to a separate area of language knowledge (i.e., pragmatic knowledge).

The results of the present study, however, suggested that English relative clause structure may consist of three identifiable dimensions: grammatical form, semantic meaning, and pragmatic use. Similar results were also obtained for the Korean and non-Korean groups. Given these findings, the present study provided researchers with a sound theoretical basis for assessing the constructs of knowledge of grammatical form and meaning and of

The Plausibility and Generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s Model of L2 Knowledge

43

pragmatic use with respect to relative clauses. In addition, the present study also supplied valuable information about the degree to which Larsen-Freeman’s (1991) model could be generalizable for the Korean and non-Korean groups.

We do not know, however, how generalizable these findings are with respect to linguistic structures other than relative clauses. If linguistic structures other than relative clauses (e.g., question formation, negation, or modals) are selected for construct validation, can grammatical form and grammatical meaning be empirically separable? If the plausibility of the models in question is examined as they relate to English modals, for example, will the results reveal that L2 knowledge as measured by an English Modals Test consists of three empirically identifiable dimensions (i.e., form, meaning, and pragmatic use)? Subsequent validation research of the models in question with respect to linguistic structures other than relative clauses will thus give valuable insights on the nature of L2 grammatical knowledge.

Last but not least, the present study also provided pedagogically useful information about how well L2 learners know about the form, meaning, and use of relative clauses. Korean students learning English in Korea (i.e., the Korean group), for instance, were not fully aware that not all utterances that are grammatically correct are appropriate for use in informal talks between close friends. More specifically, Korean students who had high scores on the tasks on the correct formation of relative clauses tended to have low scores on the tasks on the socially appropriate use of relative clauses. Some of them even found formal utterances (e.g., this is a guy about whom I was talking) to be more appropriate for use in casual talks between close friends than informal utterances (e.g., this is a guy I was talking about). By contrast, such a negative relationship between grammatical accuracy and social appropriateness was not observed in the non-Korean group (i.e., students learning English in Japan, Taiwan and the United States). Given these findings, the differing degrees of formality of relative clauses in expressions should perhaps be one of instructional priorities for the Korean group of students in order to enable them to use this linguistic structure accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately.

REFERENCES

Allen, P., Cummins, J., Mougeon, R., & Swain, M. (1983). Development of bilingual proficiency: Second year report. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Bachman, L., & Clark, J. (1987). The measurement of foreign/second language proficiency.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 480, 20-33.

Chang, Jaehak

44

Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 449-65.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press.

Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 333-342). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Carroll, J. (1961). Fundamental considerations in testing for English language proficiency of foreign students. In Center for Applied Linguistics (Ed.), Testing the English proficiency of foreign students (pp. 31-40). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1993). A nonhierarchical relationship between grammar and communication Part II: Insights from discourse analysis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1992: Language, communication, and social meaning (pp. 166-178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book. Boston: Hinele & Hinele.

Chalhoub-Deville, M. (1997). Theoretical models, assessment frameworks and test construction. Language Testing, 14, 3-22.

Chang, J. (2004). Examining models of second language knowledge with specific reference to relative clauses: A model-comparison approach. Unpublished dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University.

Chapelle, C. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In, L. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction II. Philadelphia: John

Benjamins. Halliday, M. (1976). The form of a functional grammar. In G. Kress (Ed.), Halliday:

System and Function in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a

socio-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harley, B., Allen, J., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1987). The development of second

language proficiency: Final report. Toronto: Modern Language Centre. Harley, B., Cummins, J., Swain, M., & Allen, P. (1990). The nature of language proficiency.

In B. Harley, J. Cummins, M. Swain, & P. Allen (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 7-25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Plausibility and Generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s Model of L2 Knowledge

45

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 63-99.

Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1979). Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language Learning, 55, 333-351.

Lado, R. (1961). Language testing. New York: McGraw-Hill. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching

English as a second or foreign language (pp. 279-296). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1993). A nonhierarchical relationship between grammar and

communication Part II: Theoretical and methodological considerations. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1992: Language, communication, and social meaning (pp. 155-165). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman. Oller, J. (1979). Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. London: Longman. Purpura, J. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test-takers’ cognitive and

metacognitive strategy use and second language performance. Language Learning, 47, 289-325.

Purpura, J. (1999). Learner strategy use and second language test performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Purpura, J. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rea-Dickins, P. (1987). The relationship between grammatical abilities and aspects of

communicative competence: With specific reference to the testing of grammar. Unpublished dissertation. University of Lancaster.

Rea-Dickins, P. (1991). What makes a grammar test communicative? In J. Alderson & B. North (Eds.), Language testing in the 1990s: The communicative legacy (pp. 112-131). London: MacMillan.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An essays in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shohamy, E. (1996). Competence and performance in language testing. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and competence in second language acquisition (pp. 138-151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spolsky, B. (1973). What does it mean to know a language; or how do you get someone to perform his competence? In J. Oller & C. Richards (Eds.), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher (pp. 164-176). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Susan & C. Madden (Eds.), Input

Chang, Jaehak

46

in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Applicable levels: ESL and EFL learners at the secondary and college level Key words: L2 proficiency, relative clause, construct validation Jaehak Chang The Department of English Education, Kangwon National University Kangwon National University Road 1, Chunchon, Kangwon-Do, 200-701, Korea Email: jaehakchang@kangwon.ac.kr Received in August, 2007 Reviewed in September, 2007 Revised version received in November, 2007

The Plausibility and Generalizability of Larsen-Freeman’s Model of L2 KnowledgeⅠ. INTRODUCTIONⅡ. PRELIMINARY FINDINGSⅢ. PRESENT STUDYⅣ. ANALYSES AND FINDINGSⅤ. CONCLUSIONREFERENCES