Language Proficiency in Native and Nonnative Speakers: An Agenda for Research and Suggestions for Second-Language Assessment

Abstract

This article addresses the question of what language proficiency (LP) is, both theoretically and empirically. It does so by making a distinction, on one hand, between basic and higher language cognition and, on the other hand, between core and peripheral components of LP. The article furthermore critically examines the notion of level in most second language (L2) assessment scales, showing that it is confounded with people's intellectual functioning because higher levels of LP cannot be attained by people with lower intellectual, educational, occupational, or leisure-time profiles. It is probably for this reason that the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) fails to consistently distinguish between L2 development and L2 proficiency. The LP construct presented in this article can account for the fact that L2 learners with higher intellectual, educational, occupational, or leisure-time profiles may perform, at a given point in time, both better (i.e., in the domain of higher language cognition) and more poorly (i.e., in the domain of basic language cognition) than native speakers with lower profiles. While offering a research agenda for investigating individual differences in first language and L2 acquisition, the article also presents several implications for L2 assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Work on this article was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (grant 360-70-230). I thank the four anonymous reviewers and my associates at the University of Amsterdam for their useful feedback on earlier versions of this text.

Notes

¹The present article presents some of the main ideas of a book project and, because of its limited length, can only scratch the surface of its topics. As the book project, under the preliminary title Language Proficiency, is still in progress, comments on the ideas presented in this article will be highly appreciated.

²In Hulstijn (2007) I called this construct core language proficiency, but that name appeared to evoke unintended connotations among fellow researchers. For instance, for some people the word proficiency implies interindividual variability along one or several scales, whereas the essence of the construct is that there is hardly any variability. I have therefore changed the construct's name to basic language cognition (BLC).

³An alternative label of HLC is extended language cognition.

⁴One anonymous reviewer rightly pointed out that “obviously deaf populations that use sign languages develop a form of BLC, and perhaps often also HLC, that do not involve speech, and many deaf people fluent in a sign language can communicate effectively through reading and writing as well.” This issue, which is beyond the scope of the present article, will be addressed in the book mentioned in footnote 1.

⁵In Cummins (1980b), BICS is not formerly defined but only characterized with three examples: “Basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) in L1 such as accent, oral fluency, and sociolinguistic competence [emphasis added] may be independent of CALP” (p. 177).

⁶For evidence presented in support of the claim that grammatical and pragmatic knowledge form two separate components of LP, see Grabowski (2009). For a review of investigations into the componential nature of the construct of speaking proficiency, see De Jong et al. (in press).

⁷In the reading and writing studies (Schoonen et al., 2003; Van Gelderen et al., 2004), knowledge of reading and writing strategies were observed to be strong predictors, illustrating the fact that reading and writing typically belong to higher language cognition. See Hulstijn (2011) for a discussion of this finding.

⁸A related issue, beyond the scope of this article, concerns associations between L1P and L2P (see Hulstijn, 2011).