英语论文网

984). 　　These two approaches to language assessment—communicative and AEI—are based on differing views of the nature of language proficiency, and are thus likely to continue as separate, unrelated approaches in the years to come. Lowe (1988) has explicitly articulated such a separatist view, in stating that the “concept of Communicative Language Proficiency (CLP), renamed Communi-cative Language Ability (CLA), and AEI proficiency may prove 678 TESOL QUARTERLYincompatible” (p. 14). Communicative language testing and AEI assessment represent two different approaches to language test design, and each has developed a number of specific manifestations in language tests. As a result, language testing will be enriched in the years to come by the variety of tests and testing techniques that emerge from these approaches. 　　This summary has focused on common areas among four recent reviews of language testing. In addition to these common areas, each of the reviews mentions specific areas of progress or concern. Skehan (1991) and Alderson (1991) both note that until very recently other areas of applied linguistics have provided very little input into language testing. Skehan, however, is encouraged by the relevance to language testing of recent work in sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, and language teaching, and points out the need for language testing to be aware of and receptive to input from developments in other areas of applied linguistics such as the SLA-based approach to assessing language development of Pienemann, Johnston, & Brindley (1988). Skehan and Alderson both argue that language testing must continue to investigate new avenues to assessment, such as formats that measure communicative abilities more successfully (e. g., Milanovic, 1988); “series tasks,” in which specified language interactions are scored in terms of how particular aspects of information are communicated; group testing; self-assessment; and computer-based language testing. Alderson discusses two additional areas to which language testing needs to turn its attention in the years to come: “washback” effects and learner-centered testing. He points out that while we generally assume that tests have an impact on instruction (washback), there is virtually no empirical research into how, if at all, instructional impact functions, under what conditions, and whether deliberate attempts to design tests with positive instructional impact are effective. Alderson also argues persuasively for the greater involve-ment of learners in the activity of testing, in the design and writing of tests, and in the setting of standards for success. In this regard, I would mention the work of Brindley (1989) in assessing language achievement in learner-centered instructional settings and the papers in de Jong & Stevenson (1990), which address issues in individualizing language testing. A final area of development, mentioned by Bachman (1990b), is the renewed interest in language aptitude and developments in both the definition of the theoretical construct and in approaches to its measurement (Perry & Stansfield, 1990). 　　As a result of the developments of the 1980s, language testing has emerged as a discipline in its own right within applied linguistics. notes that since 1980 language testing has seen the creation of an internationally respected journal, Language Testing, as well as several regular newsletters; five new texts on language testing as well as over a dozen vol