Reliability and Validity of WDCT in Testing Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence for EFL Learners Lan Xu School of Foreign Languages, Institute of Social Technology, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand Anchalee Wannaruk School of Foreign Languages, Institute of Social Technology, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand Abstract—Interlanguage pragmatic competence is of vital importance for the EFL learners because misunderstanding always occurs among people from different cultures. The present study aimed to develop an interlanguage pragmatic competence test in the field of speech acts with WDCT. Altogether 100 English major students and 33 native speakers in Guizhou University of China participated in the developing of the test, and another 60 English majors in Guizhou University of China took the test. The analysis of the reliability and validity of WDCT was based on Many Facets Rasch Model. The results showed that WDCT had both high reliability and validity in the Chinese context in testing the interlanguage pragmatic competence in speech acts performance. Index Terms—speech acts, WDCT, reliability, validity, EFL learners I. INTRODUCTION Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) is the study of language learners’ comprehension, production and acquisition of linguistic action in a second language (Kasper, 1998). Pragmatic competence is an indispensable component of overall language competence. It is the ability to use available linguistic resources (pragmalinguistics) in a contextually appropriate fashion (sociopragmatics), that is, how to do things appropriately with words (Kasper & Rose 1999). It is the appropriateness in communication, which includes all kinds of knowledge needed in discourses and based on context (He & Chen 2004). Si (2001) states that for Chinese EFL learners, pragmatic competence includes the following three aspects: pragmalinguistic ability, sociopragmatic ability and the awareness of the difference between English and Chinese. Misunderstanding is a central issue in interlanguage pragmatics, which may occur between people from different cultural backgrounds. According to the National Language Research Institute (Shinpro ‘Nihongo’ Dai 2-han 1999a, 1999b), speakers of different languages and with different cultural backgrounds interpret pragmatic behaviors differently. Nishihara (1999) claims that the pragmatic standards for a country or culture will not be universally accepted. Thus, when we conduct an intercultural or international research, we need to be cautious to avoid overgeneralizing our own beliefs. Misunderstanding in communication between EFL learners and native speakers can naturally occur frequently due to the learner’s weak understanding of the target culture. In China, for many students, the purpose of learning English is to pass all kinds of English examinations. They memorize a large number of words, grasp enough grammatical knowledge and do reading and listening and writing exercises frequently for gaining high scores, but speaking is not included in most national tests for university students in China. Verbal communication in English is their weak point, even with the English majors. On the one hand, the students regard communication is nothing important for their scores; on the other hand, Chinese teachers often ignore the students’ errors in their speaking, so some non-standard or non-habitual utterances of the students can be with them for many years. It is not an uncommon phenomenon that an English learner in China can get over 600 points in Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOFEL) and over 2000 in Graduate Record Examination (GRE) but does not know how to make a simple speech act in English in real communication (Liu 2004). However, the studies on ILP competence testing are still on their initial stage, and there is no exception in China (Ma 2010). Up to now, no comprehensive testing of ILP in speech acts has been found. Most researchers concentrate on the reliability and validity of different kinds of testing methods with very limited speech acts, such as request, refusal and apology (Hudson 2001a, 2001b, Yamashita 1996a, 1996b, Yoshitake 1997, Liu 2007, Brown 2001, 2008, Roever 2010), advice (Hinkel 1997). Thus, it is urgent to design reliable and valid measurements for a wider scope of ILP competence testing. The present study aims to make some contribution in this field and hopes it will be helpful for both the teachers and learners in developing the ILP competence level in English. ISSN 1798-4769 Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 1206-1215, November 2015 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0606.07 © 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION