基于体裁的商务英语话语能力研究：构念界定与测试开发
|
摘要
全国有600多所院校设立了商务英语专业或在英语专业中开设了商务英语方向，截至2012年，教育部已正式批准62所高校设立商务英语本科专业。商务英语测试开发和效度研究对于保证专业教学的有效性，改进专业教学质量和提高学生语言能力具有积极的意义。由于起步较晚，国内商务英语专业测试开发尚处在起步阶段，缺乏系统完善的商务英语能力考核体系。商务英语测试开发的首要问题是，定义所要测量的语言能力，这是测试开发的理论基础。为了使测试能够更好地服务于专业英语教学，测试开发者必须保证所开发测试的效度。正是在上述背景下，本文选择商务英语测试开发这一课题，重点探讨商务英语话语能力的构念界定和测试开发。
本论文主要有三个目的：一、通过对语言教学与测试理论的梳理，提出“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”构念。二、围绕拟测构念“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”，开发和设计标准化学业测试——商务英语专业八级考试（TBEM-8）。三、提出社会认知视域中的整体效验模式，对所开发的测试进行效度研究。
根据以上研究目的，本论文围绕商务英语专业八级考试的开发和设计研究以下内容：
第一，测试构念的界定。本论文在文献分析的基础上，从话语共同体与实践共同体出发，构建商务英语话语研究的框架，并在该框架的指导下详细研究了商务英语专业的体裁谱系及各个体裁的特征。基于各种商务英语专业体裁，界定“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”构念，从文本知识、语用知识、体裁知识、话题知识、情境组织能力五个方面具体化。
“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”是指商务英语专业毕业生应具有扎实的英语语言基础和熟练的综合语言应用能力，同时具有较高的专业思维、宽阔的国际视野和较强的国际商务话语能力，能够在专业培养的学术英语及职业英语领域内，即在特定商务英语话语研究及国际商务活动领域内，参照应用语言学研究共同体及国际商务实践的规则与惯例，结合特定交际任务的语境因素，运用情境组织能力及文本、体裁和语用知识，结合自身素质，通过专业体裁的建构、解释和使用，进行意义协商，有效完成书面和口头交际任务的跨文化沟通能力。
第二，测试开发和设计。为了保证所开发测试的科学性和可行性，本论文参考与借鉴美国教育考试服务（ETS）和英国剑桥大学ESOL考试中心等著名语言能力评估机构的研究成果，提出商务英语专业八级考试开发的设计原则和开发流程。
商务英语专业八级考试的设计目标是，能够科学地反映考生”基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”，以保障专业教学的质量，为社会培养合格的商务英语人才。考试开发遵循以下几个原则：明确考查的知识和能力范围；确保测试任务的真实性和代表性；确保考试的信度和效度；确保对商务英语专业教学的正向反拨作用。
第三，测试的效度验证。商务英语专业八级考试是专业教学的重要环节，而考试效度的检验和提高则是保证考试有效性的重要问题。本论文提出社会认知视域中的整体效验模式，基于效度整体观（Messick，1989）和社会认知效验模式（Weir，2005），结合考试流程，从考试构念、考试内容、效标关联、评分结果和考试后效这五个方面收集证据，检验TBEM-8是否能够有效地测量所界定的目标构念。
构念效度研究的对象是五所大学参加TBEM-8范型试卷考试的341名考生。分数数据分析包括测试内部一致性分析和测试构念的探索性因子分析；作文文本分析重点考察考生作文的语篇特征；定性研究通过口述报告揭示考生的写作过程。研究结果发现：就题目的测量学属性而言，TBEM-8各分测试与总分之间有较强的相关，表明测试题目具有同质性；而分测试之间的相关程度中等，表明它们分别测量了构念的不同方面。测试的维度方面，因子分析能够提取三个公共因子，即听力能力、阅读能力和体裁能力。这说明TBEM-8与测试构念模型的拟合程度较好。口述报告的分析显示，高分组考生在写作过程中体现了测试开发者所预期的行为，其写作行为与写作测试所要考核的技能基本吻合。这些证据总体上说明，TBEM-8能够检测构念相关能力，具有比较好的构念效度。
内容效度研究通过问卷调查，收集六位专家对于TBEM-8测试内容合适性和代表性的评定意见，接着采用统计分析方法计算内容效度指数和测试任务关联度。研究结果表明，TBEM-8具有较好的内容效度，测试题目能够合理地反映考试大纲规定的测量内容范围。
效标关联效度研究选取学生的专业课平均成绩、任课教师对学生英语能力的排序和剑桥商务英语考试（高级）成绩作为TBEM-8的效标，研究对象为商务英语专业2008级的163名学生。研究结果发现：TBEM-8成绩能够反映学生真实的商务英语话语能力，考试具有良好的效标关联效度。
评分效度研究重点考察翻译和写作测试评分结果的可靠性。参加实验的对象为担任TBEM-8翻译和写作评分任务的八名评分员。统计结果表明，评分员间的相关系数在0.80以上，配对样本T检验显示不同评分员的评分结果无显著差异。由此可以得出结论：TBEM-8翻译和写作测试具有较高的评分效度，评分结果是可靠有效的。
后效效度研究通过问卷调查和访谈的方法，分析TBEM-8对商务英语专业教学和学习的反拨作用。341名学生参加了TBEM-8范型试卷考试并填写了“考试后效学生调查问卷”，共收回有效问卷318份。访谈对象为商务英语专业的15名在职教师。问卷和访谈结果表明：学生和教师认为，TBEM-8将对商务英语专业教学与学习具有良好的反拨作用，考试的实施能够强化和促进教学目标的实现，考试结果可以为教学与学习提供有价值的反馈信息。
本论文由八章构成。
第一章是引言，主要对所研究问题的背景、目的和意义进行介绍。本章概述了商务英语专业教学和测试理论与实践的发展历程，指出商务英语测试开发和效度研究具有现实的必要性。需要对商务英语测试进行深入的研究，使其能够客观准确地测量教与学的实际水平，对教学起到正向反拨作用。
第二章是文献综述部分，目的是为本研究提供理论基础和方法依据。本章对语言能力有关理论进行了较为广泛的评述；对效度、构念、构念效度、效度验证等概念进行了讨论；对国内外语言测试实践进行了简要回顾，探讨这些测试的成功经验对商务英语测试开发和设计的启示。
第三章介绍了研究的设计和采用的分析方法，具体包括本研究的整体设计思路、商务英语专业八级考试的开发流程和考试效度验证的研究框架。
第四章和第五章是本研究设计与实施的理论基础。第四章对商务英语话语共同体、商务英语专业体裁研究和基于体裁的商务英语专业话语实践展开深入讨论。在此基础上，第五章提出“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”构念框架。
第六章介绍了商务英语专业八级考试的设计和开发过程，详细描述了从测试设计、操作到实施这三个阶段的各主要环节。
第七章描述了商务英语专业八级考试的效度验证过程。效验研究基于效度整体观，以构念效度为核心，从内容效度、构念效度、效标关联效度、评分效度和后效效度五个方面收集和分析效度证据。
第八章是结论部分，总结了本研究所得到的发现及获得的结论，对使用的研究方法和过程进行了评述。本章还指出了本研究对于商务英语测试的贡献和不足之处，并提出了与本研究相联系的未来研究方向和思路。
More than600universities offer undergraduate business English programs orundergraduate English programs with a focus on business English. And62universities have been approved by the Department of Higher Education, MOE, toofficially offer undergraduate business English programs. There exists an urgent needfor an achievement test to inform and improve the teaching and learning ofundergraduate business English majors. Business English test design and validationare particularly important as these may offer an insight into language learning andteaching, thereby facilitating business English teaching programs. However, testing ofEnglish for business purposes is still in its rudimentary stage and lacks awell-established system to assess business English competence.
The fundamental consideration in test development is to clearly define theconstructs being measured, which constitutes the theoretical foundation in testdevelopment. Furthermore, test designers should provide evidence of howrequirements of practicality, reliability, validity and washback are met by their test. Itis out of these considerations that the current research seeks to explore the constructof language tests for business English majors, with attentions being drawn to testdesign and validation.
The research embodies three main aims. One is define the construct of“Genre-based Discursive Competence of Business English” based on an extensivereview of relevant theories and practices in applied linguistics. The second aim is todevelop the Test for Business English Majors–Band8(TBEM-8) which isspecifically designed to meet the needs of assessing business English teaching andlearning. The third aim is to establish the validity, namely construct validity, contentvalidity, criterion-related validity, scoring validity and washback validity, of thenewly-developed test.
To achieve the above aims, the research focuses on the following aspects withrespect to test development and validation.
To start with, a framework was proposed to describe genre-based discursive competence of business English. It is based on a comprehensive review of theoriesand principles of the socio-cognitive perspective of literacy, genre studies, languagetesting, English for Specific Purposes, text linguistics, corpus linguistics anddiscourse analysis. The framework comprises five components: textual knowledge,pragmatic knowledge, generic knowledge, topical knowledge and the organizationalcompetence for business situations.
Genre-based discursive competence of business English refers to the graduatesshould be able to carry out the negotiation of meaning by constructing, interpretingand exploiting academic and professional genres, in compliance with the rules, normsand conventions of the discourse community of applied linguistic studies and thecommunity of international business practitioners. In particular, they should be able toaccomplish tasks of oral and written intercultural communication by incorporating thecontextual factors of specific communicative tasks and activating the textual,pragmatic generic and topical knowledge with the organizational competence forbusiness situations.
Based on the construct definition, an achievement test, namely the Test forBusiness English Majors-Band8, was designed. The guidelines that govern goodtesting practices were formulated based on an extensive review of research findings ofthe Educational Testing Service in the US and the Cambridge ESOL in the UK.
The TBEM-8is a criterion-referenced achievement test of English for businessEnglish majors in Heilongjiang University. It aims to measure genre-based discursivecompetence of business English majors, and to examine whether they have met therequirements specified in the curriculum of the undergraduate business Englishprogram. The guiding principles of test design call for clear specifications of testdomains, adequate coverage of the content in the curriculum, authenticity andrepresentativeness of test tasks, high reliability and validity, as well as positivewashback on learning and teaching.
The later parts of the thesis were devoted to the validation of the TBEM-8. Inlight of the influence that the test might exert on language learners and teachers inbusiness English program, validation should be a continuous process through which a variety of types of evidence about test score interpretation and test use is produced.Based on the framework of a unitary conceptualization of validity in language testing(Messick1989), validity of the TBEM-8was evaluated in terms of test construct,content, external criterion, rating of constructed-response items, and washback effects.
Evidence for construct validity was gathered by employing a combination ofquantitative and qualitative approaches.341senior students majoring in businessEnglish from five universities took the TBEM-8prototype test and answered aquestionnaire after the test. Quantitative analyses investigated the internal structure ofthe test by assessing the extent to which the internal components of the test match thedefined construct. Correlational studies, exploratory factor analysis and analysis oftextual features of candidates’ essays were conducted to support the validityarguments in this regard. Qualitative analysis attempted to supply evidence for thesubstantive aspect of construct validity by revealing the extent to which expectedknowledge was utilized and hypothesized processes were involved in candidates’performances on the test.
Results of correlation analysis suggested that the test had satisfactory internalstructure and items were of a homogeneous nature. Exploratory factor analysisrevealed that11tasks loaded heavily on three factors, namely listening, reading andgeneric competence. The results lent support to the argument that the structure of thetest was a good representation of the proposed construct framework. Analysis ofverbal reports provided additional support regarding test construct by examining theextent to which writing performances fit the defined construct. In sum, the studyprovided ample evidence of the validity of the TBEM-8in measuring the proposedconstruct.
Content-related validity was investigated on the basis of experts’ evaluations ofthe extent to which the test’s content represents the specified content domain. Sixexperts were invited to fill in a questionnaire designed to gather their views ofrelevance, importance, clarity, and lacks of bias in test items or tasks, as well asprocesses involved in completing the tasks. Results indicated that test contentrepresented the knowledge and competences stipulated in the test’s specifications.
Criterion-related validity evidence was achieved from correlational studies of therelationships between the TBEM-8and the external criteria, including candidates’achievements, ranking order provided by language teachers, and BEC (higher) scores.Data were obtained from163senior students majoring in business English. TheTBEM-8was proved to be a valid measure in light of its relationships to othermeasures that the test should, theoretically, have high correlations with.
Rating-related validity attempted to investigate the ways in which raters used therating scales as intended. The marking schemes of the TBEM-8translating andwriting consist of both analytic and holistic rating scales. Two teams of eight ratersparticipated in the scoring session and the inter-rater correlations were over0.80.T-test results demonstrated that no significant difference existed among ratersapplying the same rating scale. These findings provided evidence in regard to thereliability of translating and writing scores as well as the validity of the rating scalesused in the test.
Questionnaires and interviews were conducted to explore washback effects of theTBEM-8on teaching and learning.341students took the test and answered thequestionnaire, and15language teachers took part in the interview sessions. Resultssuggested that the TBEM-8could exert positive effects on language teaching andlearning, and feedback provided by the test scores would improve the quality ofteaching and learning.
The thesis consists of eight chapters.
Chapter One is an overview of the study. The rationale is that the developmentand validation of an English test for Business purposes are imperative. An in-depthanalysis of business English testing is crucial for the design of the test and the insightsgained in this study could promote language teaching and learning.
Chapter Two reviews literature on theoretical models of language competence,and theories and studies on test validity, construct, and validation.
Chapter Three presents the overall design of the current study, including researchpurposes, questions, and procedures of test development and validation.
Chapter Four and Five lay a solid theoretical foundation for the study. A thorough study of business English discourse, business English genres andgenre-based discourse practice of the Major is described in Chapter four. Based on anextensive literature review, the framework of “Genre-based Discursive Competence ofBusiness English” is provided in Chapter Five.
Chapter Six elaborates on the development of the TBEM-8, an achievement testfor business English majors.
Chapter seven reports the validation of TBEM-8based on the evidence-basedvalidation framework. Empirical evidence used in support of the validity argumentswas collected from different perspectives, including test content, internal structure,response process, external criterion, and washback effects.
Conclusions are drawn in Chapter Eight. Limitations of the present study andsuggestions for further research in this field are also provided.
本论文主要有三个目的：一、通过对语言教学与测试理论的梳理，提出“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”构念。二、围绕拟测构念“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”，开发和设计标准化学业测试——商务英语专业八级考试（TBEM-8）。三、提出社会认知视域中的整体效验模式，对所开发的测试进行效度研究。
根据以上研究目的，本论文围绕商务英语专业八级考试的开发和设计研究以下内容：
第一，测试构念的界定。本论文在文献分析的基础上，从话语共同体与实践共同体出发，构建商务英语话语研究的框架，并在该框架的指导下详细研究了商务英语专业的体裁谱系及各个体裁的特征。基于各种商务英语专业体裁，界定“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”构念，从文本知识、语用知识、体裁知识、话题知识、情境组织能力五个方面具体化。
“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”是指商务英语专业毕业生应具有扎实的英语语言基础和熟练的综合语言应用能力，同时具有较高的专业思维、宽阔的国际视野和较强的国际商务话语能力，能够在专业培养的学术英语及职业英语领域内，即在特定商务英语话语研究及国际商务活动领域内，参照应用语言学研究共同体及国际商务实践的规则与惯例，结合特定交际任务的语境因素，运用情境组织能力及文本、体裁和语用知识，结合自身素质，通过专业体裁的建构、解释和使用，进行意义协商，有效完成书面和口头交际任务的跨文化沟通能力。
第二，测试开发和设计。为了保证所开发测试的科学性和可行性，本论文参考与借鉴美国教育考试服务（ETS）和英国剑桥大学ESOL考试中心等著名语言能力评估机构的研究成果，提出商务英语专业八级考试开发的设计原则和开发流程。
商务英语专业八级考试的设计目标是，能够科学地反映考生”基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”，以保障专业教学的质量，为社会培养合格的商务英语人才。考试开发遵循以下几个原则：明确考查的知识和能力范围；确保测试任务的真实性和代表性；确保考试的信度和效度；确保对商务英语专业教学的正向反拨作用。
第三，测试的效度验证。商务英语专业八级考试是专业教学的重要环节，而考试效度的检验和提高则是保证考试有效性的重要问题。本论文提出社会认知视域中的整体效验模式，基于效度整体观（Messick，1989）和社会认知效验模式（Weir，2005），结合考试流程，从考试构念、考试内容、效标关联、评分结果和考试后效这五个方面收集证据，检验TBEM-8是否能够有效地测量所界定的目标构念。
构念效度研究的对象是五所大学参加TBEM-8范型试卷考试的341名考生。分数数据分析包括测试内部一致性分析和测试构念的探索性因子分析；作文文本分析重点考察考生作文的语篇特征；定性研究通过口述报告揭示考生的写作过程。研究结果发现：就题目的测量学属性而言，TBEM-8各分测试与总分之间有较强的相关，表明测试题目具有同质性；而分测试之间的相关程度中等，表明它们分别测量了构念的不同方面。测试的维度方面，因子分析能够提取三个公共因子，即听力能力、阅读能力和体裁能力。这说明TBEM-8与测试构念模型的拟合程度较好。口述报告的分析显示，高分组考生在写作过程中体现了测试开发者所预期的行为，其写作行为与写作测试所要考核的技能基本吻合。这些证据总体上说明，TBEM-8能够检测构念相关能力，具有比较好的构念效度。
内容效度研究通过问卷调查，收集六位专家对于TBEM-8测试内容合适性和代表性的评定意见，接着采用统计分析方法计算内容效度指数和测试任务关联度。研究结果表明，TBEM-8具有较好的内容效度，测试题目能够合理地反映考试大纲规定的测量内容范围。
效标关联效度研究选取学生的专业课平均成绩、任课教师对学生英语能力的排序和剑桥商务英语考试（高级）成绩作为TBEM-8的效标，研究对象为商务英语专业2008级的163名学生。研究结果发现：TBEM-8成绩能够反映学生真实的商务英语话语能力，考试具有良好的效标关联效度。
评分效度研究重点考察翻译和写作测试评分结果的可靠性。参加实验的对象为担任TBEM-8翻译和写作评分任务的八名评分员。统计结果表明，评分员间的相关系数在0.80以上，配对样本T检验显示不同评分员的评分结果无显著差异。由此可以得出结论：TBEM-8翻译和写作测试具有较高的评分效度，评分结果是可靠有效的。
后效效度研究通过问卷调查和访谈的方法，分析TBEM-8对商务英语专业教学和学习的反拨作用。341名学生参加了TBEM-8范型试卷考试并填写了“考试后效学生调查问卷”，共收回有效问卷318份。访谈对象为商务英语专业的15名在职教师。问卷和访谈结果表明：学生和教师认为，TBEM-8将对商务英语专业教学与学习具有良好的反拨作用，考试的实施能够强化和促进教学目标的实现，考试结果可以为教学与学习提供有价值的反馈信息。
本论文由八章构成。
第一章是引言，主要对所研究问题的背景、目的和意义进行介绍。本章概述了商务英语专业教学和测试理论与实践的发展历程，指出商务英语测试开发和效度研究具有现实的必要性。需要对商务英语测试进行深入的研究，使其能够客观准确地测量教与学的实际水平，对教学起到正向反拨作用。
第二章是文献综述部分，目的是为本研究提供理论基础和方法依据。本章对语言能力有关理论进行了较为广泛的评述；对效度、构念、构念效度、效度验证等概念进行了讨论；对国内外语言测试实践进行了简要回顾，探讨这些测试的成功经验对商务英语测试开发和设计的启示。
第三章介绍了研究的设计和采用的分析方法，具体包括本研究的整体设计思路、商务英语专业八级考试的开发流程和考试效度验证的研究框架。
第四章和第五章是本研究设计与实施的理论基础。第四章对商务英语话语共同体、商务英语专业体裁研究和基于体裁的商务英语专业话语实践展开深入讨论。在此基础上，第五章提出“基于体裁的商务英语话语能力”构念框架。
第六章介绍了商务英语专业八级考试的设计和开发过程，详细描述了从测试设计、操作到实施这三个阶段的各主要环节。
第七章描述了商务英语专业八级考试的效度验证过程。效验研究基于效度整体观，以构念效度为核心，从内容效度、构念效度、效标关联效度、评分效度和后效效度五个方面收集和分析效度证据。
第八章是结论部分，总结了本研究所得到的发现及获得的结论，对使用的研究方法和过程进行了评述。本章还指出了本研究对于商务英语测试的贡献和不足之处，并提出了与本研究相联系的未来研究方向和思路。
More than600universities offer undergraduate business English programs orundergraduate English programs with a focus on business English. And62universities have been approved by the Department of Higher Education, MOE, toofficially offer undergraduate business English programs. There exists an urgent needfor an achievement test to inform and improve the teaching and learning ofundergraduate business English majors. Business English test design and validationare particularly important as these may offer an insight into language learning andteaching, thereby facilitating business English teaching programs. However, testing ofEnglish for business purposes is still in its rudimentary stage and lacks awell-established system to assess business English competence.
The fundamental consideration in test development is to clearly define theconstructs being measured, which constitutes the theoretical foundation in testdevelopment. Furthermore, test designers should provide evidence of howrequirements of practicality, reliability, validity and washback are met by their test. Itis out of these considerations that the current research seeks to explore the constructof language tests for business English majors, with attentions being drawn to testdesign and validation.
The research embodies three main aims. One is define the construct of“Genre-based Discursive Competence of Business English” based on an extensivereview of relevant theories and practices in applied linguistics. The second aim is todevelop the Test for Business English Majors–Band8(TBEM-8) which isspecifically designed to meet the needs of assessing business English teaching andlearning. The third aim is to establish the validity, namely construct validity, contentvalidity, criterion-related validity, scoring validity and washback validity, of thenewly-developed test.
To achieve the above aims, the research focuses on the following aspects withrespect to test development and validation.
To start with, a framework was proposed to describe genre-based discursive competence of business English. It is based on a comprehensive review of theoriesand principles of the socio-cognitive perspective of literacy, genre studies, languagetesting, English for Specific Purposes, text linguistics, corpus linguistics anddiscourse analysis. The framework comprises five components: textual knowledge,pragmatic knowledge, generic knowledge, topical knowledge and the organizationalcompetence for business situations.
Genre-based discursive competence of business English refers to the graduatesshould be able to carry out the negotiation of meaning by constructing, interpretingand exploiting academic and professional genres, in compliance with the rules, normsand conventions of the discourse community of applied linguistic studies and thecommunity of international business practitioners. In particular, they should be able toaccomplish tasks of oral and written intercultural communication by incorporating thecontextual factors of specific communicative tasks and activating the textual,pragmatic generic and topical knowledge with the organizational competence forbusiness situations.
Based on the construct definition, an achievement test, namely the Test forBusiness English Majors-Band8, was designed. The guidelines that govern goodtesting practices were formulated based on an extensive review of research findings ofthe Educational Testing Service in the US and the Cambridge ESOL in the UK.
The TBEM-8is a criterion-referenced achievement test of English for businessEnglish majors in Heilongjiang University. It aims to measure genre-based discursivecompetence of business English majors, and to examine whether they have met therequirements specified in the curriculum of the undergraduate business Englishprogram. The guiding principles of test design call for clear specifications of testdomains, adequate coverage of the content in the curriculum, authenticity andrepresentativeness of test tasks, high reliability and validity, as well as positivewashback on learning and teaching.
The later parts of the thesis were devoted to the validation of the TBEM-8. Inlight of the influence that the test might exert on language learners and teachers inbusiness English program, validation should be a continuous process through which a variety of types of evidence about test score interpretation and test use is produced.Based on the framework of a unitary conceptualization of validity in language testing(Messick1989), validity of the TBEM-8was evaluated in terms of test construct,content, external criterion, rating of constructed-response items, and washback effects.
Evidence for construct validity was gathered by employing a combination ofquantitative and qualitative approaches.341senior students majoring in businessEnglish from five universities took the TBEM-8prototype test and answered aquestionnaire after the test. Quantitative analyses investigated the internal structure ofthe test by assessing the extent to which the internal components of the test match thedefined construct. Correlational studies, exploratory factor analysis and analysis oftextual features of candidates’ essays were conducted to support the validityarguments in this regard. Qualitative analysis attempted to supply evidence for thesubstantive aspect of construct validity by revealing the extent to which expectedknowledge was utilized and hypothesized processes were involved in candidates’performances on the test.
Results of correlation analysis suggested that the test had satisfactory internalstructure and items were of a homogeneous nature. Exploratory factor analysisrevealed that11tasks loaded heavily on three factors, namely listening, reading andgeneric competence. The results lent support to the argument that the structure of thetest was a good representation of the proposed construct framework. Analysis ofverbal reports provided additional support regarding test construct by examining theextent to which writing performances fit the defined construct. In sum, the studyprovided ample evidence of the validity of the TBEM-8in measuring the proposedconstruct.
Content-related validity was investigated on the basis of experts’ evaluations ofthe extent to which the test’s content represents the specified content domain. Sixexperts were invited to fill in a questionnaire designed to gather their views ofrelevance, importance, clarity, and lacks of bias in test items or tasks, as well asprocesses involved in completing the tasks. Results indicated that test contentrepresented the knowledge and competences stipulated in the test’s specifications.
Criterion-related validity evidence was achieved from correlational studies of therelationships between the TBEM-8and the external criteria, including candidates’achievements, ranking order provided by language teachers, and BEC (higher) scores.Data were obtained from163senior students majoring in business English. TheTBEM-8was proved to be a valid measure in light of its relationships to othermeasures that the test should, theoretically, have high correlations with.
Rating-related validity attempted to investigate the ways in which raters used therating scales as intended. The marking schemes of the TBEM-8translating andwriting consist of both analytic and holistic rating scales. Two teams of eight ratersparticipated in the scoring session and the inter-rater correlations were over0.80.T-test results demonstrated that no significant difference existed among ratersapplying the same rating scale. These findings provided evidence in regard to thereliability of translating and writing scores as well as the validity of the rating scalesused in the test.
Questionnaires and interviews were conducted to explore washback effects of theTBEM-8on teaching and learning.341students took the test and answered thequestionnaire, and15language teachers took part in the interview sessions. Resultssuggested that the TBEM-8could exert positive effects on language teaching andlearning, and feedback provided by the test scores would improve the quality ofteaching and learning.
The thesis consists of eight chapters.
Chapter One is an overview of the study. The rationale is that the developmentand validation of an English test for Business purposes are imperative. An in-depthanalysis of business English testing is crucial for the design of the test and the insightsgained in this study could promote language teaching and learning.
Chapter Two reviews literature on theoretical models of language competence,and theories and studies on test validity, construct, and validation.
Chapter Three presents the overall design of the current study, including researchpurposes, questions, and procedures of test development and validation.
Chapter Four and Five lay a solid theoretical foundation for the study. A thorough study of business English discourse, business English genres andgenre-based discourse practice of the Major is described in Chapter four. Based on anextensive literature review, the framework of “Genre-based Discursive Competence ofBusiness English” is provided in Chapter Five.
Chapter Six elaborates on the development of the TBEM-8, an achievement testfor business English majors.
Chapter seven reports the validation of TBEM-8based on the evidence-basedvalidation framework. Empirical evidence used in support of the validity argumentswas collected from different perspectives, including test content, internal structure,response process, external criterion, and washback effects.
Conclusions are drawn in Chapter Eight. Limitations of the present study andsuggestions for further research in this field are also provided.
引文
1. Alderson, J. Charles&Caroline Clapham&Dianne Wall. Language TestConstruction and Evaluation [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995.
2. Anderson, J.&Gerbin, D. W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: AReview and Recommended Two-Step Approach [J]. Psychological Bulletin,1988,103(3):411-423.
3. American Psychological Association (APA). American Educational ResearchAssociation, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards forEducational and Psychological Tests and Manuals [M]. Washington, DC: Author,1999.
4. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. ACTFL ProficiencyGuidelines2012[M]. ACTFL, Inc.,2012
5. Anastasi, Anne. Psychological testing [M]. Fifth edition. New York: McMillan,1982.
6. Angelelli, C and Jacobson H.E. Testing and Assessment in Translation andInterpreting Studies [A]. ATA Scholarly Monographs Series [C]. John Benjamins:Amsterdam,2009.
7. Association of Language Testers in Europe. The ALTE can do project: articlesand can do statements produced by the members of ALTE1992-2002[M].2002
8. Aston G. Learning Comity [M]. Gologna: Editrice CLUEB,1988.
9. Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1962.
10. Bachman, L. F. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1990.
11. Bachman, L. F. Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment [M]. Cambridge:CUP,2004.
12. Bachman, L. F. Building and Supporting a Case for Test Use [J]. LanguageAssessment Quarterly,2005,1,1-34.
13. Bachman, L. F. Linking Interpretation and Use in Educational Assessments [Z].Paper presented at the National Council for Measurement in Education, SanFrancisco,2006,4.
14. Bachman, L. F. Language Assessment: Opportunities and Challenges [Z]. Paperpresented at the AAAL2007Conference, Costa Mesa, California,2007,4.
15. Bachman, L.F. and Palmer. The Construct Validation of Some Components ofCommunicative Proficiency [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1982,16,49-65.
16. Bachman, L. F.&Palmer. Language Testing in Practice [M]. Oxford UniversityPress,1995.
17. Bachman&Palmer. Language Assessment in Practice Developing LanguageAssessments and Justifying their Use in the Real World [M]. Great Britain:Martins the Printer Ltd,2010.
18. Bailey, K. Working for Washback：A Review of the Washback Concept inLanguage Testing [J]. Language Testing,1996,13(3),241-256.
19. Bawarshi&Reiff, Genre an introduction to history, theory, research, andpedagogy[M]. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press,2010,46.
20. Bhatia V. K. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings [M].London: Longman Publishing House,2004.
21. Bhatia, Vijay K. Worlds of Written Discourse [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignEducation Press,2008.
22. Biber, D. Variations across Speech and Writings [M]. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,1988.
23. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S.&Finegan, E. Longman Grammarof Spoken and Written English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press,2000.
24. Bloomfield, L. Language [M]. New York: Holt,1933.
25. Bloomfield, L., Linguistics and Reading [J]. Language Learning,1955,5,94-107.
26. Canadian Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters Councils (2005). CTTICStandard Certification Translation Examination-Marker’s Guide. Retrieved June2,2011, from http://www. cttic.org/examDocs/guide.markersE.pdf
27. Canale, M. and M. Swain. Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches toSecond Language Teaching and Testing [J]. Applied Linguistics,1980,(1),1-47.
28. Canale, M. From Communicative Competence to Communicative LanguagePedagogy [A]. In Richards, J. C.&R. W. Schmidt (eds.). Language andCommunication [C]. London: Longman,1983,2-27.
29. Candlin, C. N. How can discourse be a measure of expertise?[Z]. Paperpresented at the International Association for Dialogue Analysis, University ofBirmingham. UK.1999.
30. Carroll, J. Fundamental Consideration in Testing for English Langage Proficiencyof Foreign Students [A]. In Allen&Campbell (eds.). Teaching English as aSecond Language, McGraw-Hill Book Company,1961.
31. Carroll, J. B. The psychology of language testing In Davies (Ed.),1968.
32. Carroll, J. B. Testing Communicative Performance [M]. London: Permagon Press,1980.
33. Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [M].Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press,1965.
34. Clark, H. H. Bridging [A]. In R. C. Schank&B. L. Nash-Webber (Eds.),Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing [C]. New York: Associationfor Computing Machinery,1975.
35. Cook, V. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and second language learning [J].Applied Linguistics,1985,(6)1,1-18.
36. Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:Learning, Teaching, Assessment [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001.
37. Cronbach, Lee J. Construct validation after thirty years [A]. In R. L. Linn (ed.)Intelligence: Measurement theory and public policy. Proceedings of a symposiumin honor of Lloyd G. Humphreys [C]. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press,1989,147-171.
38. Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Testing [M]. Cambridge: Harper andRow Publication Inc,1984.
39. Cummins, J. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency, LinguisticInterdependence, the Optimum Age Question, and Some Other Matters [Z].Working Papers on Bilingualism,1979,(19),197-205.
40. Cummins, J. The Role of Primary Language Development in PromotingEducational Success for language minority students [A]. In California StateDepartment of Education. Schooling and Language Minority Students: ATheoretical Framework [C]. Los Angeles: California State University, LosAngeles, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center,1981,3-49.
41. Cummins, J. Language proficiency, Biliteracy and French Immersion [J].Canadian Journal of Education,1983,8(2),117-138.
42. Cutting, J. Analysing the Language of Discourse Communities[M]. Oxford:Elsevier Science Ltd,2000.
43. Daft, R. L. Management [M]. Beijing: Qinghua University Press,2006.
44. Darity, W. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences(2ndEdition)[Z].London: Macmillan,2008,129.
45. Douglas, D. Assessing Language for Specific Purposes [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
46. Douglas, D. Language for Specific Purposes Assessment Criteria: Where do TheyCome from?[J]. Language Testing,2001,18(2).
47. Dudley-Evans, T.&St John, M. Developments in ESP: A Multi-DisciplinaryApproach [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1998.
48. Duszak, A. Between Styles and Values: An Academic Community in Transition[A]. In Cortese, G.&Duszuk,A.(eds). Indentity, Community, Discourse [C].Berlin: Peter Lang,2005.
49. Ebel, R.L. and Frisbie, D.A. Essentials of Educational Measurement (5th ed)[M].Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,1991.
50. Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics [M]. London:Pinter,1994.
51. Faerch, C.,&Kasper, G. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication [M].London: Longman,1983.
52. Faerch, C. K. Haastrup, and R. Phillipson. Learner language and langugelearning [M]. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters,1984.
53. Faigley, L. Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal [J]. CollegeComposition and Communication,1986.
54. Farhady, H. On the Plausibility of the Unitary Language Proficiency Factor [A].In J. W. Oller,(ed.). Issues in language testing research [C]. Rowley, MA:Newbury House,1983,10-28.
55. Fennell, B. Carl, H.&Carolyn, M. Mapping Discourse Communities[A]. Paperpresented at the CCC Convention,1987.
56. Firth, J R. Papers in Linguistics1934-1951[C]. London: Oxford UniversityPress,1951.
57. Firth, J. R. The Treatment of Language in General Linguistics[A]. In Palmer F R(ed.) Selected Papers of J. R. Firth [C]. London: Longmans,1968.
58. Fowler, R. The structure of criticism and the languages of poetry: An approachthrough language [A]. In M. Bradbury&D. Palmer (eds.). ContemporaryCriticism [C]. London: Edward Arnold,1970,173-194.
59. Glaser, R. Instructional Technology and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes:Some Questions [J]. American Psychologist,1963,18.
60. Goodman, K. S. Behind the Eye: What Happens Is Reading [A]. In K. S.Goodman and O. S. Niles (Eds), Reading: Process and Urbana[C]. LL: NationalCouncil of Teachers of English,1970.
61. Goodwin, L. D. Changing Conceptions of Measurement Validity: An Update onthe New Standards [J]. Journal of Nursing Education,2002,42,103.
62. Graesser, A.C., Mcnamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M.&Cai, Z. Coh-Metrix:Analysis of Text on Cohesion and Language [J]. Behavior Research Methods,Instruments, and Computers,2004(36),193-202.
63. Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation in Cole and Morgan(eds)[A]. Syntax andSemantics. Vol.3, Speech acts [C]. New York: Academic Press,1975.
64. Groom, N&Littlemore,J. Doing Applied Linguistics—A Guide for Students[M].Longdon and New York: Routledge, Tylor&Francis Group,2011.
65. Gudykunst, W.B.&Kim,Y.Y. Communicating with Strangers:An Approach toIntercultural Communication[M]. NY:The McGraw-Hill Companies,Inc.,1997
66. Guilford, J. P. New Standards for Test Evaluation [J]. Educational andPsychological Measurement,1946,437-438.
67. Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation ofLanguage and Meaning [M]. London: Edward Arnold,1978.
68. Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2008,27.
69. Halliday, M. A. K.&R. Hasan. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman,1976.
70. Halliday, M. A. K.&R. Hasan. Language, Context, Text. Context and Text:Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective [M]. USA: OxfordUniversity Press,1985.
71. Hasan, R. Text in the systemic-functional model [A]. In W. Dressler (ed.).CurrentTrends in Text Linguistics [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyler,1977,228-246.
72. Hedge, D. Teaching and learning in the language classroom [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,2000.
73. Henning, Grant. A Guide to Language Testing [M]. Cambridge, Mass: NewburyHouse,1987.
74. Henning, Grant. A Guide to Language Testing: Development, Evaluation andResearch [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Heinle&Heinle/Thomson Learning,2001.
75. Herzberg, B. The Politics of Discourse Communities [A]. Paper presented at theCCC Convention,1986.
76. Hughes, A. Testing for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2003.
77. Hughes, A.&Woods, A. J. Interpreting the performance on the CambridgeProficiency Examination of Students of Different Language Backgrounds [A]. InHughes, A., Porter, D.(eds). Current Development in Language Testing [C]. NewYork: Academic Press,1983.
78. Hutchinson T and Waters A. English for Specific Purposes [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
79. Hyland, K.&Tse, P. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal [J].Applied Linguistics,2004,25(2),157.
80. Hyland, K. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Conext [M]. London:Continuum,2009.
81. Hymes, D. On Communicative Competence [M]. Pennsylvania: PennsylvaniaUniversity Press,1971.
82. Hymes, D. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach [M].Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,1974,61.
83. Ingram, D. E. Basic Concepts in Testing [A]. In J.P.B. Allen&A Davies (Eds.)Testing and Experimental Methods [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1977,18.
84. Ingram, D.E. Wylie. Developing Proficiency Scales for CommunicativeAssessment [R]. Paper presented at the National Assessment Consultation of theNational Assessment Framework for Languages at Senior Secondary LevelSydney,1989.
85. Ingram, D.E. Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ASLPR)[M],Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra,1994.
86. Interagency Language Roundtable. Interagency Language Roundtable LanguageSkill Level Descriptions [M]. Washington, D.C.,1985
87. Jakobson, R. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics [A]. In Sebeok, T.A.(ed.)Style in language [C]. Mass: MIT Press,1960.
88. Johns, Ann M.&Dudley-Evans, Tony. English for Specific Purposes:International in Scope, Specific in Purpose [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1991,25(2),297-314.
89. Kane M.T. Validity [A]. In R.L.L inn (Eds.) Educational Measurement [C]. NewYork: American Council on Education/Macmillan publishing Co.(4thed.),2006.
90. Katharina, R.&Hans J. Vermeer. Grundlegung einer allgemeinenTranslationstheorie [M]. Tubingen: Niemeyer,1984.
91. Kim, Young Yun. Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory ofCommunication and Cross-cultural Adaptation [M]. CA: Sage Publications,2001.
92. Kinneavy, J.L. A theory of discourse: the aims of discourse [M]. EnglewoodCliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall International,1971.
93. Kress, G.&van Leeuwen,T. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Mediaof Contemporary Communication [M]. London: Arnold,2001.
94. Kucer Stephen B. Dimenstions of literacy [M]. London: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,2005.
95. Lado, R. Language Testing: the Construction and Use of Foreign Language Tests[M]. London: Longman,1961.
96. Leech G. N. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman,1983.
97. Lehman, C. M. Business Communication [M]. Dalian: Dongbei University ofFinance&Economics Press,2005.
98. Lewkowicz, Jo A. Authenticity in Language Testing [D].1998.
99. Lewkowicz, Jo A. Authenticity in Language Testing: Some OutstandingQuestions [J]. Language Testing,2000,17(1),43-64.
100. Longacre, R.E. An Anatomy of Speech Notions [M]. Lisse: Peter de RidderPress,1976.
101. Mackay, R.&Mountford, A.(Eds.). English for Specific Purpose：A CaseStudy Approach [M]. London: Longman,1978.
102. Malinowski, B. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages [A].OGDEN C K, RICHARDS I A. The Meaning of Meaning[C]. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul,1923.
103. Malinowski, B. Coral Gardens and Their Magic, Vol.2[M]. London:Routledge,1935.
104. Martin Judith N.&Nakayama, Thomas K. Intercultural Communication InContexts (2nd ed.)[M]. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company,2000.
105. Martin, J. R. English Text: System and Structure [M]. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company，1992,459
106. Martin, J. R. A contextual theory of language, in The Powers of Literacy-AGenre Approach to Teaching Writing [M]. Pittsburgh: University of PittsburghPress,1993.
107. Martin, J.R. Process and Text: Two Aspects of Human Semiosis [A]. InBenson, J. D. and W.S. Greaves. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse [C].Norwood, N. J.: Ablex,1985,74-248.
108. McNamara T. F. Measuring Second Language Performance [M]. London:Addisioin Wesley Longman Limited,1996.
109. McNamara, T. Language Testing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000.
110. McNamara, T.F&C. Roever. Language testing: The social dimension [M].Malden, MA&Oxford: Blackwell,2006.
111. Messick, S. The once and future issues of validity: assessing the meaning andconsequences of measurement [A]. In H.Wainer&H.Braun (eds.). Test Validity[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun,1988.
112. Messick, S. Validity [A]. In R. L. Linn (eds.). Educational Measurement (3rdedition)[C].New York: Macmillan,1989.
113. Messick, S. Validity and Washback in Language Testing [J]. LanguageTesting,1996(13),241-256.
114. Messick, S. Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferencesfrom Personas Responses and Performance as Scientific Inquiry into ScoringMeaning [J]. American Psychologist,1995,9,741-49.
115. Messick，S. Evidence and Ethics in the Evaluation of Tests [J]. EducationalResearcher,1981,10,9-20.
116. Miller, C. Genre as Social Action [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,1984,70(1),151.
117. Morrow, K. Evaluating Communicative Tests [A]. In Anivan, S., editor,Current Developments in Language Testing [C]. Singapore: SEAMEO RegionalLanguage Centre,1991,111(18).
118. Moates, D.R.&Schumacher, G.M. An Introduction to cognitive psychology[M]. Belmont: Wadsworth,1980.
119. Munby, J. Communicative Syllabus Design [M]. Cambridge University Press,1978.
120. Oller, J.W. Evidence for a general language proficiency factor: an expectancygrammar [A]. In J.W. Oller,(ed.). Issues in Language Testing Research [C].Rowley, MA: Newbury House,1983,3-10.
121. Oller, J.W. Evidence of a General Language Proficiency Factor: AnExpectancy Grammar. Die Neuen Sprachen,1976,165-74.
122. Oller, J.W. Language Tests at School [M]. London: Longman,1979.
123. Pawlikowska-Smith, G. Canadian Language Benchmarks2000: English as aSecond Language–for Adults [M]. Ottawa, ON: Centre for Canadian LanguageBenchmarks,2000.
124. Popham, W. J. Criterion-referenced Measurement [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall,1978.
125. Popham, W. J. The Instructional Consequences of Criterion-referencedClarity [J]. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,1994,13,(15-20),39.
126. Porter, J. The Problem of Defining Discourse Communities [A]. Paperpresented at the CCC Convention,1988.
127. Robinson, P. ESP Today: A Practitioner's Guide [M]. London: Prentice Hall,1991.
128. Saville-Troike, M. The Ethnography of Communication [M]. Oxford: BasilBlackwell,1982.
129. Searl, J. R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979.
130. Selinker, L.&Douglas, D. Principles for language tests within the ‘discoursedomains’theory of interlanguage：research,test construction and interpretation[J].Language Testing,1985(2),205-226.
131. Shohamy, E.,&Inbar, O. Validation of Listening Comprehension Tests: TheEffects of Text and Question Type [J]. Language Testing,1991,8(1),23-40.
132. Shohamy, E. Beyond Proficiency Testing: A Diagnostic Feedback TestingModel for Assessing Foreign Language Learning [J]. The Modern LanguageJournal,1992,76(4).
133. Skinner, B. F. Verbal Behavior [M]. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft,1957.
134. Smith, N. D.&Wilson. Modern Linguistics [M]. The Results of Chomsky’sRevolution, Penguin Books,1979.
135. Snell-Hornby, M. Communicating in the global village: on language,translation and cultural identity [J]. Current Issues in language&Society,1999,(6),103.
136. Sperber, D.&Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M].Oxford, UK: BasilBlackwell,1986/2001.
137. Spitzberg, B. H. A Model of Intercultural Communication Competence [A].In L.A. Samovar and R.E. Porrer (Eds.). Intercultural Communication: A Reader(8thed.)[C]. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,1997.
138. Strevens, P. ESP after Twenty Years: A Re-Appraisal [A]. In Tichoo M.(ed.).ESP: State of the Art [C]. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre,1988.
139. Swales, J. M. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings [M].Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,1990.
140. Swales, J. M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001,24-27.
141. Upshur, J. and T.J. Homburg. Some Relations among Language Tests atSuccessive Ability Levels [C]. In Oller, J.W. jr (ed.) Issues in language testingresearch [A]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,1983,188-202.
142. Urquhart, A. H.&Weir, C. J. Reading in a Second Language: Process,Product and Practice [M]. Addison Wesley Longman Higher Education,1998.
143. Vande Kopple, W. J. Some Explanatory Discourse on Metadiscourse[J].College Composition and Communication,1985,83.
144. Ventola, E. Generic and Register Qualities of Texts and Their Realization [A].In P. H. Fries and M. Gregory (eds). Discourse in Society: Systemic FunctionalPerspectives [C]. Norwood N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation,1995,3-28.
145. Vollmer, H.J.&Sang, F. Competing Hypotheses about Second LanguageAbility: A Plea for Caution. In J.W. Oller,(ed.). Issues in Language TestingResearch [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,1983.29-79.
146. Weigle, S.C. Integrating reading and writing in a competency test fornon-native speakers of English [J]. Assessing Writing,2004(9),27-55.
147. Weigle, S.C. Investigating rater/prompt interactions in writing assessment:Quantitative and qualitative approaches [J]. Assessing Writing,1999,6,145-178.
148. Weigle，S.C. Assessing Writing [M]. Cambridge：Cambridge University Press,2002.
149. Weir, C. J. Comparative Language Testing [M]. New York: Prentice Hall,1990.
150. Weir, C. J. Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-based Approach[M]. Palgrave Macmillan,2005.
151. Weir, C. J.&Porter, D. The Multi-divisible or Unitary Nature of Reading:the Language Tester between Scylla and Charybdis [J]. Reading in A ForeignLanguage,1994(10).
152. Whyte, S. Discourse Domains Revisited: Expertise and Investment inConversation[J]. Pragmatics and Langauge Learning,1992(3),81-102.
153. Widdowson, H. G. Learning Purpose and Language Use [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1983.
154. Williams, E.&C. Moran. Reading in a Foreign Language at Intermediateand Advanced Levels with Particular Reference to English [J]. LanguageTeaching,1989,22,217-228
155. Wood, R. Assessment and Testing [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1993.
156.蔡芸、陈林汉．英语本科毕业生素质要求调查报告[J]．《广东外语外贸大学学报》，2004，（1）：76-82．
157.曹合建．《基于语料库的商务英语研究》[M]．北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2008．
158.陈宏．在语言能力测验中如何建立结构效度[J]．《语言教学与研究》，1997．
159.方琰．浅谈语类[J].《外国语》，1998（1）：21．
160.福柯．《知识考古学（谢强等译）》[M]．上海：三联出版社，2003．
161.辜向东、彭康洲．从测试有用性到测试使用论证：Bachman语言测试理论的新发展[J]．《中国外语》，2008（6）：37-41，46．
162.桂诗春．潜伏语义分析的理论及其应用[J]．《现代外语》，2003（1）．
163.韩宝成．L. F. Bachman的语言测试理论模式[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1995，（1）．
164.韩宝成．国外语言能力量表述评[J]．《外语教学与研究》，2006，38（6）．
165.韩宝成．语言测试：理论、实践与发展[J]．《外语教学与研究》，2000，（1）．
166.韩金龙、秦秀白．体裁分析与体裁教学法[J]．《外语界》，2000，（2）：11-18．
167.何自然．《语用学概论》[M]．湖南教育出版社，2002．
168.胡曙中．《美国新修辞学研究》[M]．北京：上海外语教育出版社，1999．
169.胡壮麟、朱永生等．系统功能语法概论[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1989：17．
170.胡壮麟．语法隐喻[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1996，（4）．
171.黄锐．现代教育测量理论在标准参照语言测试中的应用与案例研究[D]．厦门大学，2007．
172.金艳．提高考试效度，改进考试后效：大学英语四、六级考试后效研究[J]．《外语界》，2006，（6）．
173.剑桥大学考试委员会外语考试部．《新剑桥商务英语（BEC）系列剑桥BEC真题集（第4辑）（高级）》[M]．北京：人民邮电出版社，2009．
174.蓝岚．国外语言学界语境研究概述[J].《安徽农业大学学报》，2004（5）：134．
175.李清华．语言测试之效度理论发展五十年[J]．《现代外语》，2006，（2）：87．
176.李太志．《商务英语言语修辞艺术》[M]．北京：国防工业出版社，2006．
177.李筱菊．《语言测试科学与艺术》[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，2001．
178.廖美珍．目的原则与交际模式研究[J]．《外语学刊》，2009（4）：62．
179.廖平胜．《现代测量理论在考试中的应用》[M]．武汉:华中师范大学出版社，2003．
180.廖瑛、莫再树．《国际商务英语语言与翻译研究》[M]．北京：机械工业出版社，2005．
181.莫再树．基于语言经济学的商务英语教育研究[A]．《第七届全国国际商务英语研讨会论文集》[C]．北京：高等教育出版社，2006：3-11．
182.南佐民．论话语制衡[J]．《社会科学家》，2008，（9）：152-161．
183.戚雨村．弗斯和伦敦语言学派—纪念弗斯诞辰一百周年[J]．《外国语》，1990（5）：7．
184.秦秀白．“体裁分析”概说[J]．《外国语》，1997，（4）：8-15．
185.孙德金．《语言测试专业硕士论文精选》[M]．北京:北京语言大学出版社，2005．
186.索绪尔．《普通语言学教程》[M]．高名凯译．北京：商务印书馆，1980．
187.谭惠娟．商务英语常见误译例析[J]．《上海科技翻译》，1999，（2）：20-21
188.涂纪亮．《维特根斯坦后期哲学思想研究》[M]．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2007．
189.唐雄英．ESP能力测试问题再探索[J]．《外语教育与教学》，2004（06）．
190.汪顺玉、彭康洲．语言测试真实性维度的再认识[J]．《重庆工学院学报（社会科学）》，2009（8）．
191.王兴孙．对国际商务英语学科发展的讨论[J]．《国际商务研究》，1997，（1）：24-28．
192.王振亚．英汉语言测试词典[M]．北京：北京语言大学出版社，2008．
193.维特根斯坦．哲学研究[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2005年．
194.温顺玉．语言测试的构念效度研究——以2005年TEM8客观试题跨群体构念一致性分析为例[D]．2006:62-63．
195.徐强．《交际法英语教学和考试评估》[M]．上海：外语教育出版社，2000．
196.许力生．《跨语言研究的跨文化视野》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006．
197.许余龙．《对比语言学概论》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992．
198.严明、冯莉．《商务英语专业教育调查与发展策略研究》[M]．哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社，2007．
199.严明．话语分析的基础:话语共同体[J]．《外语学刊》，2009，（4）：100-102.
200.严明．体裁视阈下商务英语测试真实性研究[J]．黑龙江高教研究，2010（12）．
201.颜晓华．认知语境的构建与沉默的意义解读[J].《湘潭师范学院学报（社会科学版）》，2009（4）．
202.杨自俭．英汉对比研究管窥[A]．李瑞华．《英汉语言文化对比研究》[C]．上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996：45-55．
203.杨伶俐．商务英语的教学法探讨[J]．《对外经济贸易大学学报》，2003，（05）：82-89．
204.应国丽、周红．模糊限制语语用功能与礼貌原则相关性研究[J]．《中国外语》，2009（3）．
205.张德禄、苗兴伟、李学宁．《功能语言学与外语教学》[M]．北京：外语教育与研究出版社，2005：17．
206.张凯．《语言测试理论及汉语测试研究》[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2006．
207.张凯．《语言测验理论与实践》[M]．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，2002．
208.张武保、严新生．物流的演变与翻译[J]．《广东外语外贸大学学报》，2006，（1）：86-88．
209.张新红、李明．《商务英语翻译》[M]．北京：高等教育出版社，2003．
210.张佐成．《商务英语话语》[M]．北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2005．
211.赵英玲，于秀成．言语行为研究走向——兼论言语事件研究方法[J]．《东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)》，2004(5)．
212.朱永生．《语境动态研究》[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005．
213.邹申．语言教学大纲与语言测试的衔接——TEM8的设计与实施[J]．《外语界》，2003，（6）：71-78．
214.邹申．《语言测试》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2005：183-261．
215.邹申、陈炜．TEM4评分效度与计算机辅助评卷[J]．《外语电化教学》，2010：56-72．
2. Anderson, J.&Gerbin, D. W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: AReview and Recommended Two-Step Approach [J]. Psychological Bulletin,1988,103(3):411-423.
3. American Psychological Association (APA). American Educational ResearchAssociation, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards forEducational and Psychological Tests and Manuals [M]. Washington, DC: Author,1999.
4. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. ACTFL ProficiencyGuidelines2012[M]. ACTFL, Inc.,2012
5. Anastasi, Anne. Psychological testing [M]. Fifth edition. New York: McMillan,1982.
6. Angelelli, C and Jacobson H.E. Testing and Assessment in Translation andInterpreting Studies [A]. ATA Scholarly Monographs Series [C]. John Benjamins:Amsterdam,2009.
7. Association of Language Testers in Europe. The ALTE can do project: articlesand can do statements produced by the members of ALTE1992-2002[M].2002
8. Aston G. Learning Comity [M]. Gologna: Editrice CLUEB,1988.
9. Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1962.
10. Bachman, L. F. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1990.
11. Bachman, L. F. Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment [M]. Cambridge:CUP,2004.
12. Bachman, L. F. Building and Supporting a Case for Test Use [J]. LanguageAssessment Quarterly,2005,1,1-34.
13. Bachman, L. F. Linking Interpretation and Use in Educational Assessments [Z].Paper presented at the National Council for Measurement in Education, SanFrancisco,2006,4.
14. Bachman, L. F. Language Assessment: Opportunities and Challenges [Z]. Paperpresented at the AAAL2007Conference, Costa Mesa, California,2007,4.
15. Bachman, L.F. and Palmer. The Construct Validation of Some Components ofCommunicative Proficiency [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1982,16,49-65.
16. Bachman, L. F.&Palmer. Language Testing in Practice [M]. Oxford UniversityPress,1995.
17. Bachman&Palmer. Language Assessment in Practice Developing LanguageAssessments and Justifying their Use in the Real World [M]. Great Britain:Martins the Printer Ltd,2010.
18. Bailey, K. Working for Washback：A Review of the Washback Concept inLanguage Testing [J]. Language Testing,1996,13(3),241-256.
19. Bawarshi&Reiff, Genre an introduction to history, theory, research, andpedagogy[M]. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press,2010,46.
20. Bhatia V. K. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings [M].London: Longman Publishing House,2004.
21. Bhatia, Vijay K. Worlds of Written Discourse [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignEducation Press,2008.
22. Biber, D. Variations across Speech and Writings [M]. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,1988.
23. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S.&Finegan, E. Longman Grammarof Spoken and Written English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press,2000.
24. Bloomfield, L. Language [M]. New York: Holt,1933.
25. Bloomfield, L., Linguistics and Reading [J]. Language Learning,1955,5,94-107.
26. Canadian Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters Councils (2005). CTTICStandard Certification Translation Examination-Marker’s Guide. Retrieved June2,2011, from http://www. cttic.org/examDocs/guide.markersE.pdf
27. Canale, M. and M. Swain. Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches toSecond Language Teaching and Testing [J]. Applied Linguistics,1980,(1),1-47.
28. Canale, M. From Communicative Competence to Communicative LanguagePedagogy [A]. In Richards, J. C.&R. W. Schmidt (eds.). Language andCommunication [C]. London: Longman,1983,2-27.
29. Candlin, C. N. How can discourse be a measure of expertise?[Z]. Paperpresented at the International Association for Dialogue Analysis, University ofBirmingham. UK.1999.
30. Carroll, J. Fundamental Consideration in Testing for English Langage Proficiencyof Foreign Students [A]. In Allen&Campbell (eds.). Teaching English as aSecond Language, McGraw-Hill Book Company,1961.
31. Carroll, J. B. The psychology of language testing In Davies (Ed.),1968.
32. Carroll, J. B. Testing Communicative Performance [M]. London: Permagon Press,1980.
33. Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [M].Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press,1965.
34. Clark, H. H. Bridging [A]. In R. C. Schank&B. L. Nash-Webber (Eds.),Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing [C]. New York: Associationfor Computing Machinery,1975.
35. Cook, V. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and second language learning [J].Applied Linguistics,1985,(6)1,1-18.
36. Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:Learning, Teaching, Assessment [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001.
37. Cronbach, Lee J. Construct validation after thirty years [A]. In R. L. Linn (ed.)Intelligence: Measurement theory and public policy. Proceedings of a symposiumin honor of Lloyd G. Humphreys [C]. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press,1989,147-171.
38. Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Testing [M]. Cambridge: Harper andRow Publication Inc,1984.
39. Cummins, J. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency, LinguisticInterdependence, the Optimum Age Question, and Some Other Matters [Z].Working Papers on Bilingualism,1979,(19),197-205.
40. Cummins, J. The Role of Primary Language Development in PromotingEducational Success for language minority students [A]. In California StateDepartment of Education. Schooling and Language Minority Students: ATheoretical Framework [C]. Los Angeles: California State University, LosAngeles, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center,1981,3-49.
41. Cummins, J. Language proficiency, Biliteracy and French Immersion [J].Canadian Journal of Education,1983,8(2),117-138.
42. Cutting, J. Analysing the Language of Discourse Communities[M]. Oxford:Elsevier Science Ltd,2000.
43. Daft, R. L. Management [M]. Beijing: Qinghua University Press,2006.
44. Darity, W. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences(2ndEdition)[Z].London: Macmillan,2008,129.
45. Douglas, D. Assessing Language for Specific Purposes [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
46. Douglas, D. Language for Specific Purposes Assessment Criteria: Where do TheyCome from?[J]. Language Testing,2001,18(2).
47. Dudley-Evans, T.&St John, M. Developments in ESP: A Multi-DisciplinaryApproach [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1998.
48. Duszak, A. Between Styles and Values: An Academic Community in Transition[A]. In Cortese, G.&Duszuk,A.(eds). Indentity, Community, Discourse [C].Berlin: Peter Lang,2005.
49. Ebel, R.L. and Frisbie, D.A. Essentials of Educational Measurement (5th ed)[M].Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,1991.
50. Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics [M]. London:Pinter,1994.
51. Faerch, C.,&Kasper, G. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication [M].London: Longman,1983.
52. Faerch, C. K. Haastrup, and R. Phillipson. Learner language and langugelearning [M]. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters,1984.
53. Faigley, L. Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal [J]. CollegeComposition and Communication,1986.
54. Farhady, H. On the Plausibility of the Unitary Language Proficiency Factor [A].In J. W. Oller,(ed.). Issues in language testing research [C]. Rowley, MA:Newbury House,1983,10-28.
55. Fennell, B. Carl, H.&Carolyn, M. Mapping Discourse Communities[A]. Paperpresented at the CCC Convention,1987.
56. Firth, J R. Papers in Linguistics1934-1951[C]. London: Oxford UniversityPress,1951.
57. Firth, J. R. The Treatment of Language in General Linguistics[A]. In Palmer F R(ed.) Selected Papers of J. R. Firth [C]. London: Longmans,1968.
58. Fowler, R. The structure of criticism and the languages of poetry: An approachthrough language [A]. In M. Bradbury&D. Palmer (eds.). ContemporaryCriticism [C]. London: Edward Arnold,1970,173-194.
59. Glaser, R. Instructional Technology and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes:Some Questions [J]. American Psychologist,1963,18.
60. Goodman, K. S. Behind the Eye: What Happens Is Reading [A]. In K. S.Goodman and O. S. Niles (Eds), Reading: Process and Urbana[C]. LL: NationalCouncil of Teachers of English,1970.
61. Goodwin, L. D. Changing Conceptions of Measurement Validity: An Update onthe New Standards [J]. Journal of Nursing Education,2002,42,103.
62. Graesser, A.C., Mcnamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M.&Cai, Z. Coh-Metrix:Analysis of Text on Cohesion and Language [J]. Behavior Research Methods,Instruments, and Computers,2004(36),193-202.
63. Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation in Cole and Morgan(eds)[A]. Syntax andSemantics. Vol.3, Speech acts [C]. New York: Academic Press,1975.
64. Groom, N&Littlemore,J. Doing Applied Linguistics—A Guide for Students[M].Longdon and New York: Routledge, Tylor&Francis Group,2011.
65. Gudykunst, W.B.&Kim,Y.Y. Communicating with Strangers:An Approach toIntercultural Communication[M]. NY:The McGraw-Hill Companies,Inc.,1997
66. Guilford, J. P. New Standards for Test Evaluation [J]. Educational andPsychological Measurement,1946,437-438.
67. Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation ofLanguage and Meaning [M]. London: Edward Arnold,1978.
68. Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2008,27.
69. Halliday, M. A. K.&R. Hasan. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman,1976.
70. Halliday, M. A. K.&R. Hasan. Language, Context, Text. Context and Text:Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective [M]. USA: OxfordUniversity Press,1985.
71. Hasan, R. Text in the systemic-functional model [A]. In W. Dressler (ed.).CurrentTrends in Text Linguistics [C]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyler,1977,228-246.
72. Hedge, D. Teaching and learning in the language classroom [M]. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,2000.
73. Henning, Grant. A Guide to Language Testing [M]. Cambridge, Mass: NewburyHouse,1987.
74. Henning, Grant. A Guide to Language Testing: Development, Evaluation andResearch [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Heinle&Heinle/Thomson Learning,2001.
75. Herzberg, B. The Politics of Discourse Communities [A]. Paper presented at theCCC Convention,1986.
76. Hughes, A. Testing for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2003.
77. Hughes, A.&Woods, A. J. Interpreting the performance on the CambridgeProficiency Examination of Students of Different Language Backgrounds [A]. InHughes, A., Porter, D.(eds). Current Development in Language Testing [C]. NewYork: Academic Press,1983.
78. Hutchinson T and Waters A. English for Specific Purposes [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
79. Hyland, K.&Tse, P. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal [J].Applied Linguistics,2004,25(2),157.
80. Hyland, K. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Conext [M]. London:Continuum,2009.
81. Hymes, D. On Communicative Competence [M]. Pennsylvania: PennsylvaniaUniversity Press,1971.
82. Hymes, D. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach [M].Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,1974,61.
83. Ingram, D. E. Basic Concepts in Testing [A]. In J.P.B. Allen&A Davies (Eds.)Testing and Experimental Methods [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1977,18.
84. Ingram, D.E. Wylie. Developing Proficiency Scales for CommunicativeAssessment [R]. Paper presented at the National Assessment Consultation of theNational Assessment Framework for Languages at Senior Secondary LevelSydney,1989.
85. Ingram, D.E. Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ASLPR)[M],Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra,1994.
86. Interagency Language Roundtable. Interagency Language Roundtable LanguageSkill Level Descriptions [M]. Washington, D.C.,1985
87. Jakobson, R. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics [A]. In Sebeok, T.A.(ed.)Style in language [C]. Mass: MIT Press,1960.
88. Johns, Ann M.&Dudley-Evans, Tony. English for Specific Purposes:International in Scope, Specific in Purpose [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1991,25(2),297-314.
89. Kane M.T. Validity [A]. In R.L.L inn (Eds.) Educational Measurement [C]. NewYork: American Council on Education/Macmillan publishing Co.(4thed.),2006.
90. Katharina, R.&Hans J. Vermeer. Grundlegung einer allgemeinenTranslationstheorie [M]. Tubingen: Niemeyer,1984.
91. Kim, Young Yun. Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory ofCommunication and Cross-cultural Adaptation [M]. CA: Sage Publications,2001.
92. Kinneavy, J.L. A theory of discourse: the aims of discourse [M]. EnglewoodCliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall International,1971.
93. Kress, G.&van Leeuwen,T. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Mediaof Contemporary Communication [M]. London: Arnold,2001.
94. Kucer Stephen B. Dimenstions of literacy [M]. London: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,2005.
95. Lado, R. Language Testing: the Construction and Use of Foreign Language Tests[M]. London: Longman,1961.
96. Leech G. N. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman,1983.
97. Lehman, C. M. Business Communication [M]. Dalian: Dongbei University ofFinance&Economics Press,2005.
98. Lewkowicz, Jo A. Authenticity in Language Testing [D].1998.
99. Lewkowicz, Jo A. Authenticity in Language Testing: Some OutstandingQuestions [J]. Language Testing,2000,17(1),43-64.
100. Longacre, R.E. An Anatomy of Speech Notions [M]. Lisse: Peter de RidderPress,1976.
101. Mackay, R.&Mountford, A.(Eds.). English for Specific Purpose：A CaseStudy Approach [M]. London: Longman,1978.
102. Malinowski, B. The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages [A].OGDEN C K, RICHARDS I A. The Meaning of Meaning[C]. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul,1923.
103. Malinowski, B. Coral Gardens and Their Magic, Vol.2[M]. London:Routledge,1935.
104. Martin Judith N.&Nakayama, Thomas K. Intercultural Communication InContexts (2nd ed.)[M]. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company,2000.
105. Martin, J. R. English Text: System and Structure [M]. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company，1992,459
106. Martin, J. R. A contextual theory of language, in The Powers of Literacy-AGenre Approach to Teaching Writing [M]. Pittsburgh: University of PittsburghPress,1993.
107. Martin, J.R. Process and Text: Two Aspects of Human Semiosis [A]. InBenson, J. D. and W.S. Greaves. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse [C].Norwood, N. J.: Ablex,1985,74-248.
108. McNamara T. F. Measuring Second Language Performance [M]. London:Addisioin Wesley Longman Limited,1996.
109. McNamara, T. Language Testing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000.
110. McNamara, T.F&C. Roever. Language testing: The social dimension [M].Malden, MA&Oxford: Blackwell,2006.
111. Messick, S. The once and future issues of validity: assessing the meaning andconsequences of measurement [A]. In H.Wainer&H.Braun (eds.). Test Validity[C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun,1988.
112. Messick, S. Validity [A]. In R. L. Linn (eds.). Educational Measurement (3rdedition)[C].New York: Macmillan,1989.
113. Messick, S. Validity and Washback in Language Testing [J]. LanguageTesting,1996(13),241-256.
114. Messick, S. Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferencesfrom Personas Responses and Performance as Scientific Inquiry into ScoringMeaning [J]. American Psychologist,1995,9,741-49.
115. Messick，S. Evidence and Ethics in the Evaluation of Tests [J]. EducationalResearcher,1981,10,9-20.
116. Miller, C. Genre as Social Action [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech,1984,70(1),151.
117. Morrow, K. Evaluating Communicative Tests [A]. In Anivan, S., editor,Current Developments in Language Testing [C]. Singapore: SEAMEO RegionalLanguage Centre,1991,111(18).
118. Moates, D.R.&Schumacher, G.M. An Introduction to cognitive psychology[M]. Belmont: Wadsworth,1980.
119. Munby, J. Communicative Syllabus Design [M]. Cambridge University Press,1978.
120. Oller, J.W. Evidence for a general language proficiency factor: an expectancygrammar [A]. In J.W. Oller,(ed.). Issues in Language Testing Research [C].Rowley, MA: Newbury House,1983,3-10.
121. Oller, J.W. Evidence of a General Language Proficiency Factor: AnExpectancy Grammar. Die Neuen Sprachen,1976,165-74.
122. Oller, J.W. Language Tests at School [M]. London: Longman,1979.
123. Pawlikowska-Smith, G. Canadian Language Benchmarks2000: English as aSecond Language–for Adults [M]. Ottawa, ON: Centre for Canadian LanguageBenchmarks,2000.
124. Popham, W. J. Criterion-referenced Measurement [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall,1978.
125. Popham, W. J. The Instructional Consequences of Criterion-referencedClarity [J]. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,1994,13,(15-20),39.
126. Porter, J. The Problem of Defining Discourse Communities [A]. Paperpresented at the CCC Convention,1988.
127. Robinson, P. ESP Today: A Practitioner's Guide [M]. London: Prentice Hall,1991.
128. Saville-Troike, M. The Ethnography of Communication [M]. Oxford: BasilBlackwell,1982.
129. Searl, J. R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979.
130. Selinker, L.&Douglas, D. Principles for language tests within the ‘discoursedomains’theory of interlanguage：research,test construction and interpretation[J].Language Testing,1985(2),205-226.
131. Shohamy, E.,&Inbar, O. Validation of Listening Comprehension Tests: TheEffects of Text and Question Type [J]. Language Testing,1991,8(1),23-40.
132. Shohamy, E. Beyond Proficiency Testing: A Diagnostic Feedback TestingModel for Assessing Foreign Language Learning [J]. The Modern LanguageJournal,1992,76(4).
133. Skinner, B. F. Verbal Behavior [M]. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft,1957.
134. Smith, N. D.&Wilson. Modern Linguistics [M]. The Results of Chomsky’sRevolution, Penguin Books,1979.
135. Snell-Hornby, M. Communicating in the global village: on language,translation and cultural identity [J]. Current Issues in language&Society,1999,(6),103.
136. Sperber, D.&Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M].Oxford, UK: BasilBlackwell,1986/2001.
137. Spitzberg, B. H. A Model of Intercultural Communication Competence [A].In L.A. Samovar and R.E. Porrer (Eds.). Intercultural Communication: A Reader(8thed.)[C]. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,1997.
138. Strevens, P. ESP after Twenty Years: A Re-Appraisal [A]. In Tichoo M.(ed.).ESP: State of the Art [C]. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre,1988.
139. Swales, J. M. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings [M].Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,1990.
140. Swales, J. M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001,24-27.
141. Upshur, J. and T.J. Homburg. Some Relations among Language Tests atSuccessive Ability Levels [C]. In Oller, J.W. jr (ed.) Issues in language testingresearch [A]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,1983,188-202.
142. Urquhart, A. H.&Weir, C. J. Reading in a Second Language: Process,Product and Practice [M]. Addison Wesley Longman Higher Education,1998.
143. Vande Kopple, W. J. Some Explanatory Discourse on Metadiscourse[J].College Composition and Communication,1985,83.
144. Ventola, E. Generic and Register Qualities of Texts and Their Realization [A].In P. H. Fries and M. Gregory (eds). Discourse in Society: Systemic FunctionalPerspectives [C]. Norwood N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation,1995,3-28.
145. Vollmer, H.J.&Sang, F. Competing Hypotheses about Second LanguageAbility: A Plea for Caution. In J.W. Oller,(ed.). Issues in Language TestingResearch [C]. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,1983.29-79.
146. Weigle, S.C. Integrating reading and writing in a competency test fornon-native speakers of English [J]. Assessing Writing,2004(9),27-55.
147. Weigle, S.C. Investigating rater/prompt interactions in writing assessment:Quantitative and qualitative approaches [J]. Assessing Writing,1999,6,145-178.
148. Weigle，S.C. Assessing Writing [M]. Cambridge：Cambridge University Press,2002.
149. Weir, C. J. Comparative Language Testing [M]. New York: Prentice Hall,1990.
150. Weir, C. J. Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-based Approach[M]. Palgrave Macmillan,2005.
151. Weir, C. J.&Porter, D. The Multi-divisible or Unitary Nature of Reading:the Language Tester between Scylla and Charybdis [J]. Reading in A ForeignLanguage,1994(10).
152. Whyte, S. Discourse Domains Revisited: Expertise and Investment inConversation[J]. Pragmatics and Langauge Learning,1992(3),81-102.
153. Widdowson, H. G. Learning Purpose and Language Use [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1983.
154. Williams, E.&C. Moran. Reading in a Foreign Language at Intermediateand Advanced Levels with Particular Reference to English [J]. LanguageTeaching,1989,22,217-228
155. Wood, R. Assessment and Testing [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1993.
156.蔡芸、陈林汉．英语本科毕业生素质要求调查报告[J]．《广东外语外贸大学学报》，2004，（1）：76-82．
157.曹合建．《基于语料库的商务英语研究》[M]．北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2008．
158.陈宏．在语言能力测验中如何建立结构效度[J]．《语言教学与研究》，1997．
159.方琰．浅谈语类[J].《外国语》，1998（1）：21．
160.福柯．《知识考古学（谢强等译）》[M]．上海：三联出版社，2003．
161.辜向东、彭康洲．从测试有用性到测试使用论证：Bachman语言测试理论的新发展[J]．《中国外语》，2008（6）：37-41，46．
162.桂诗春．潜伏语义分析的理论及其应用[J]．《现代外语》，2003（1）．
163.韩宝成．L. F. Bachman的语言测试理论模式[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1995，（1）．
164.韩宝成．国外语言能力量表述评[J]．《外语教学与研究》，2006，38（6）．
165.韩宝成．语言测试：理论、实践与发展[J]．《外语教学与研究》，2000，（1）．
166.韩金龙、秦秀白．体裁分析与体裁教学法[J]．《外语界》，2000，（2）：11-18．
167.何自然．《语用学概论》[M]．湖南教育出版社，2002．
168.胡曙中．《美国新修辞学研究》[M]．北京：上海外语教育出版社，1999．
169.胡壮麟、朱永生等．系统功能语法概论[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1989：17．
170.胡壮麟．语法隐喻[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1996，（4）．
171.黄锐．现代教育测量理论在标准参照语言测试中的应用与案例研究[D]．厦门大学，2007．
172.金艳．提高考试效度，改进考试后效：大学英语四、六级考试后效研究[J]．《外语界》，2006，（6）．
173.剑桥大学考试委员会外语考试部．《新剑桥商务英语（BEC）系列剑桥BEC真题集（第4辑）（高级）》[M]．北京：人民邮电出版社，2009．
174.蓝岚．国外语言学界语境研究概述[J].《安徽农业大学学报》，2004（5）：134．
175.李清华．语言测试之效度理论发展五十年[J]．《现代外语》，2006，（2）：87．
176.李太志．《商务英语言语修辞艺术》[M]．北京：国防工业出版社，2006．
177.李筱菊．《语言测试科学与艺术》[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，2001．
178.廖美珍．目的原则与交际模式研究[J]．《外语学刊》，2009（4）：62．
179.廖平胜．《现代测量理论在考试中的应用》[M]．武汉:华中师范大学出版社，2003．
180.廖瑛、莫再树．《国际商务英语语言与翻译研究》[M]．北京：机械工业出版社，2005．
181.莫再树．基于语言经济学的商务英语教育研究[A]．《第七届全国国际商务英语研讨会论文集》[C]．北京：高等教育出版社，2006：3-11．
182.南佐民．论话语制衡[J]．《社会科学家》，2008，（9）：152-161．
183.戚雨村．弗斯和伦敦语言学派—纪念弗斯诞辰一百周年[J]．《外国语》，1990（5）：7．
184.秦秀白．“体裁分析”概说[J]．《外国语》，1997，（4）：8-15．
185.孙德金．《语言测试专业硕士论文精选》[M]．北京:北京语言大学出版社，2005．
186.索绪尔．《普通语言学教程》[M]．高名凯译．北京：商务印书馆，1980．
187.谭惠娟．商务英语常见误译例析[J]．《上海科技翻译》，1999，（2）：20-21
188.涂纪亮．《维特根斯坦后期哲学思想研究》[M]．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2007．
189.唐雄英．ESP能力测试问题再探索[J]．《外语教育与教学》，2004（06）．
190.汪顺玉、彭康洲．语言测试真实性维度的再认识[J]．《重庆工学院学报（社会科学）》，2009（8）．
191.王兴孙．对国际商务英语学科发展的讨论[J]．《国际商务研究》，1997，（1）：24-28．
192.王振亚．英汉语言测试词典[M]．北京：北京语言大学出版社，2008．
193.维特根斯坦．哲学研究[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2005年．
194.温顺玉．语言测试的构念效度研究——以2005年TEM8客观试题跨群体构念一致性分析为例[D]．2006:62-63．
195.徐强．《交际法英语教学和考试评估》[M]．上海：外语教育出版社，2000．
196.许力生．《跨语言研究的跨文化视野》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2006．
197.许余龙．《对比语言学概论》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992．
198.严明、冯莉．《商务英语专业教育调查与发展策略研究》[M]．哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社，2007．
199.严明．话语分析的基础:话语共同体[J]．《外语学刊》，2009，（4）：100-102.
200.严明．体裁视阈下商务英语测试真实性研究[J]．黑龙江高教研究，2010（12）．
201.颜晓华．认知语境的构建与沉默的意义解读[J].《湘潭师范学院学报（社会科学版）》，2009（4）．
202.杨自俭．英汉对比研究管窥[A]．李瑞华．《英汉语言文化对比研究》[C]．上海:上海外语教育出版社,1996：45-55．
203.杨伶俐．商务英语的教学法探讨[J]．《对外经济贸易大学学报》，2003，（05）：82-89．
204.应国丽、周红．模糊限制语语用功能与礼貌原则相关性研究[J]．《中国外语》，2009（3）．
205.张德禄、苗兴伟、李学宁．《功能语言学与外语教学》[M]．北京：外语教育与研究出版社，2005：17．
206.张凯．《语言测试理论及汉语测试研究》[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2006．
207.张凯．《语言测验理论与实践》[M]．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，2002．
208.张武保、严新生．物流的演变与翻译[J]．《广东外语外贸大学学报》，2006，（1）：86-88．
209.张新红、李明．《商务英语翻译》[M]．北京：高等教育出版社，2003．
210.张佐成．《商务英语话语》[M]．北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2005．
211.赵英玲，于秀成．言语行为研究走向——兼论言语事件研究方法[J]．《东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)》，2004(5)．
212.朱永生．《语境动态研究》[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005．
213.邹申．语言教学大纲与语言测试的衔接——TEM8的设计与实施[J]．《外语界》，2003，（6）：71-78．
214.邹申．《语言测试》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2005：183-261．
215.邹申、陈炜．TEM4评分效度与计算机辅助评卷[J]．《外语电化教学》，2010：56-72．