Freeman, 1999; Greenbaum & Quirk, 1990; Parrott, 2000; Swan, 1995; Yule, 1998). A ourth source o inormation used was second language acquisition (SLA) research.The th source o inormation or the
design involved a close examination o thegrammar and listening level descriptors in the
served, to the extentpossible, as a basis or describing six levels o language prociency. The nal source o inormation used to design the OOPT was a survey o themes and topics in selected OUPand other ESL/EFL coursebooks. These themes and topics were used to contextualize testdevelopment. Each o these sources o design inormation is discussed in more detail below.
2.2 Theoretical Defnition o Language Knowledge Underlying the OOPT
It is generally accepted that acquiring knowledge o a language in terms o its explicit or implicit rules o use is a key part o knowing and using a language. However, the eectiveuse o grammar involves more than the recognition and use o correct grammatical
;it also involves the recognition and use o the
o the words arranged insyntax and the interlocutor’s
in relation to some context. The literaland intended meaning o an utterance in context is reerred to as the
o an utterance
(Purpura, 2004, 2007). In short, semantic meaning embodies the literal andintended meaning o an utterance, and is derived both rom the sum o the meanings o thewords arranged in syntax and rom the ways in which the words are used to conveythe speaker’s intention in context.
Consider the ollowing example:
Beyond these grammatical orms and the literal and intended meanings associated withthem, learners must be able to understand and convey a range o
, which can
be derived rom the discourse context in which they arecommunicated. Wrapped around these are other contextual eatures which shapecommunication such as the ormality o the situation in which communication occurs, thesocial relationships between the speakers, their social and cultural identities, their attitudinaland aective stance toward one another, the messages being conveyed, and so on. Themore these actors come into play and the greater role that context plays in determiningmeaning, the more likely it is that the communication will carry a range o implied or codiedmeanings—layered on the semantic meaning o the utterances. This area o impliedmeaning moves the language in question away rom grammatical orms and their semanticmeaning into the area o
Consider the ollowing example in whichgrammatical orm, semantic meaning, and pragmatic meaning are compared.
“Semantic meaning” is sometime reerred to as “grammatical meaning” (Purpura, 2004), utterance meaning, word andsentence meaning (Swain, 1980), linguistic meaning (Lado, 1961), orm-meaning mappings, lexical-semantic-syntacticinteraces or the compositionality o the utterance.
Oxford online placement test3
(derivedrom the words in syntax)
(associated with literalmeaning)
(derived rom thespeaker’s intention incontext)
(associated withintended meaning incontext)
Would you mind straightening upyour room?
Would it trouble you toclean up your room?Could be…
Clean up your room! Request or action,acknowledging potentialimposition
[I’m not troubled] I’ll do it. [No need to acknowledgeimposition] Expression o complianceI’ll do it!Expression o compliance
Table 1: Semantic meaning—the relationship between literal and intended meaning
(Based on Purpura, 2004, p. 66 and Purpura, 2007)