(2023) 13:44
Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00257-x

Language Testing in Asia

Open Access

REVIEW

A review study on discourse‑analytical
approaches to language testing policyin the South Korean context
Dongil Shin1* , Soohyeon Park2 and Eunhae Cho3

*Correspondence:
shin@cau.ac.kr
1

Department of English
Language and Literature, ChungAng University, Seoul, South
Korea
2
Institute of International
Education, Hanyang University,
Seoul, South Korea
3
Department of Applied
Linguistics, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, USA

Abstract
Research on language planning and policy (LPP) has transcended beyond enacting
government-initiated language policy and progressed towards uncovering inherent power relations. The discourse-analytical approach (DA) effectively captures
the relation between texts and other elements of social practices. Therefore, thisapproach has been adopted to analyze the meaning-making process in ideologies, practices, and different social contexts. The current study expands on previous
research and argues that language testing policies (LTP) be explored using the DA
because the former is also produced within the discursive practices of intertextual and interdiscursive links among texts (e.g., policy documents and media texts)
and social structures. Three empirical contexts are analyzed to demonstrate the needfor introducing tests: (1) introducing the National English Ability Test to replace
the preexisting English subject test of the College Scholastic Test in Korea to measure
speaking, writing, reading, and listening skills; (2) adopting cut-off scores for graduation
based on the Test of English for International Communication; and (3) implementing
the Test of Proficiency in Korean scores for screening and regulating the flow of immigrants. The results facilitate an understanding of the variability in LTP contexts, thereby
contributing to democratic pluralism in the LPP field.
Keywords: Language planning and policy, Language testing, Discourse-analytic
framework, Test-driven language policy enactment

Introduction
In recent decades, increasing awareness of the social impact of language tests has been
noted (McNamara & Roever, 2006; Messick, 1989; Shohamy, 2001). Shohamy (2008)
raised concerns over the power of high-stakes testing; she reported that tests act “aspowerful educational, societal, and political devices that have strong effects on de facto
language policy” (p. 371). When language testing is adopted to enable policy enactment, the power of language tests becomes notably significant. In recent years, researchon language testing has explored the enactment of language-related policies fueled by© The Author(s) 2023, corrected publication 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise ina credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted bystatutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy ofthis licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

high-stakes language testing and focused on the discourse-analytic approaches (DA) to
language planning and policy (LPP). Similar to other education policies (Ball, 1993) andlanguage education policies (Johnson, 2011; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996), language testing policies (LTP) must be conceptualized and probed as multilayered phenomena andprocesses.
In this study, LTP is considered a complex, multilayered social practice. The consideration is based on three example contexts wherein test development and administrationof English and Korean proficiency were adopted to enact the related policies in South
Korea (henceforth, Korea). This study aimed to illustrate that LTP is planned and implemented through “discourse.” The term “discourse” in this study does not mean a merelevel of language “beyond the sentence.” Discourse reflects social practices. It is not neutral but is motivated by sociopolitical interests. Discursive events in language testing andpolicy are understood as the sites of motivated meaning and actions, in which power
structures and actors affect each other dialectically. Policy meaning is discursively produced, reinforced, contested, and resisted, as policy discourse is both constitutive andconstructive of policy (Barakos & Unger, 2016).
By focusing on three empirical research contexts in Korea, wherein we participatedin LTP data collection and analysis as primary investigators, the relevance of the DA to
LTP (hereafter, DALTP) was revisited and elaborated. The following government-led
educational policies are discussed in this study: (1) reform policy for English language
education by the National English Ability Test (NEAT), (2) English benchmark policy forgraduation, initiated by the government and operationalized by Korean universities to
use the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), and (3) educational
policy for screening international students and foreign-born adolescents of an immigrant spouse by using the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) scores.

Literature review
Development of language planning and policy

Barakos and Unger (2016) categorized the LPP research into four “waves” of history,building upon the framework established by Ricento (2000) and expanded upon by Hult(2010) and Johnson (2013). It is essential to underscore that the “waves” should not beperceived as rigid categories; rather, they overlap, existing along a continuum. They serve
as a useful framework for future researchers to retroactively analyze trends in the field.
In the first wave, the focus of LPP research was on identifying, describing, and defining
official and indigenous languages. Standard languages were polished with the intentionof ensuring state modernization and with the aim to resolve language-related problems in postcolonial contexts following World War II. Societies with diverse linguistic
communities often saw LPP as a means for the government to address these challenges(Rubin, 1971). Governments often adopted problem-solving and cost–benefit models to
optimize economic growth (Ricento, 2000), and LPP research was considered ideologically neutral and scientific.
The second wave of LPP research began to challenge the positivist linguistic
approach of first wave, giving greater consideration to policy impact. Reseachers shifted their attention to the multifaceted contexts in which language planningoccurred, moving beyond the idea that it was solely imposed by government bodies.

Page 2 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

Scholars began to question the feasibility of earlier language planning models and put
the growing focus on the sociopolitical and ideological dimensions inherent in LPP.
The shift paved the way for the emergence of the third wave, known as “critical language policy” (Tollefson, 1991).
In the third wave, scholars delved deeper into the inherent power dynamics in language policy, critically examining how policies often served the interests of dominantsocial groups and perpetuated various forms of social inequalities (Tollefson, 2006).
They aimed at mitigating inequality and developing more democratic language policies, where minority languages could coexist. The third wave of critical language policies
highlighted the interactions between language ideologies and discourses, particularly inthe media.
Fourth-wave researchers have re-evaluated the conceptualizations of macro–micro
dichotomy (Johnson, 2009) and have proposed a new understanding of the dialectic relationships between the policy as text and discourse within the power structure (Ball, 1993;
Hult, 2010; Johnson & Johnson, 2015). Starting from this fourth wave, often referred toas “discursive approaches to language policy” (DALP) (Barakos & Unger, 2016), LPP wasperceived as a multilayered phenomenon shaped through the dialectical process within
historical contexts. Numerous theoretical and methodological considerations aimed tomove beyond the analysis of policy as mere text. For instance, Ricento and Hornberger(1996) applied the concept of situated practices of different actors to language educational policy, using the metaphor of an onion to illustrate the multiple layers of policy
development.
Discursive approaches to test‑driven language policy enactment

The contemporary understanding of LPP has evolved to be complex and dynamic (LoBianco, 2009), transitioning from a view of policy texts as objective knowledge to seeing them as subjective constructs shaped by individual or societal experiences and interactions (Fairclough, 1992). This shift also underscores the need to view formulationand implementation of LPP not as a linear policy formulation process but as a discursive construct and a battleground of competing interests. Among various facets of LPP,
issues related to language education policy have been recognized as highly dynamic,
value laden, and context bound. Therefore, it is essential to examine the analytic techniques in texts, such as intertextuality observed in policy documents and social media,
as well as the interdiscursivity among different genres, discourses, and styles. This assertion finds support in the empirical research conducted by Bubikova-Moan (2017) in the
Netherlands, Edwards (2020) in Norway, and Harding et al. (2020) in Iran.
The emphasis in the studies lies in comprehending LPP as a discursive construct thatis entrenched within text and practice, eventually manifesting in empirical evidence. For
instance, Rasti’s (2023) investigation of Iran’s foreign language education policy illustrates how the demand for global communication skills was justified, concurrently portraying social subjects as passive recipients of the policy. The transformation towards
communicative competence was depicted as an achievement of policymakers, thereby
legitimizing their actions. While Rasti’s study did not delve into the impact of this educational policy on testing cultures in Iran, it did provide crucial insights into how thepolicy implementation process establishes its credibility.

Page 3 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

The research conducted by Edwards (2020) and Bubikova-Moan (2017) showcased
how policy discourses influence the actions of social agents. Edwards (2020) investigated
the implementation of English as the medium of instruction in higher education, where
institutions had to navigate conflicting interests. They had to comply with state regulations that aimed to preserve Dutch while simultaneously promoting internationalization through English-medium instruction. By adhering to a language code of conduct,
institutions strategically positioned themselves as responsible actors amidst these divergent interests. Similarly, Bubikova-Moan’s (2017) study analyzed two policy documents
concerning children of non-Norwegian ethnolinguistic heritage in Norway, published
15 years apart. This analysis revealed a shift in discourse from promoting a group-based
pluralist framework to emphasizing the importance of a proficient command of the Norwegian language for achieving educational and social equity. These studies emphasize
the need to perceive language education policy as a discursive construct that extends
beyond mere text and significantly impacts society.
In the following paragraphs, we will narrow our focus further, transitioning from language education policy to language testing policy. We will explore why the discursive
approach is equally crucial for analyzing language testing policy. Language testing issues
often intersect due to the power dynamics that affect various stakeholders. Language
tests, often designed for specific purposes or used to legitimize the intentions throughstandardized scores, serve to concretize policies and set objective thresholds. Considering the interconnection between tests and policies, it is imperative for further research
to integrate language policy and testing to comprehend tests beyond their apparent
objectivity, delving into their broader historical and societal dimensions. In this study,
policy enactment driven by language tests is deemed as LTP. Moreover, this study posits
that LTP enactment is a discursive process that must also be examined from the discursive approach, as advocated by Barakos and Unger (2016).
The enactment of language policies driven by high-stakes language tests is influential
because of the power of testing. Language tests should not only be regarded as pedagogical tools but also as sociopolitical instruments or decision-making tools, with substantial impacts on different stakeholders (Shohamy, 2006). The widely referred to example isthe “No Child Left Behind” policy, which was implemented in the USA in 2001 and led
to explicit sanctions, including the closure of underperforming schools, student transfers to other schools, and reductions in school funding. The implementation of language
tests for immigration policies is another example that is frequently mentioned. These
tests serve not only to regulate immigration but also to assess eligibility for residency,
naturalization, and citizenship across the globe, as noted by Extra et al. (2009), HoganBrun et al. (2009), and Milani (2008).
Numerous researchers have focused on discursive approaches to test development andvalidation due to the social impact of language tests. Building on Messick’s (1989) conceptof test validity, for example, McNamara (2001) highlighted that sociopolitical values areembodied in the development and administration of language proficiency tests. The practice of testing should be seen in the arena of contestable social and cultural values, as wellas “in terms of the discourses within which language testing have their meaning” (McNamara & Roever, 2006, p. 199). Furthermore, language testing requires cultural and critical

Page 4 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

policy analysis, which frequently involves exploring questions about history and ideology
and utilizing qualitative and discursive interpretations (McNamara & Ryan, 2011).
While expanding on discursive approaches to the test development and validation
processes, LTP must be conceptualized and examined as a sociopolitical process. The
DALTP emphasizes the critical role of discourse in shaping language testing policy,
which is discursively created, implemented, interpreted, and re-situated (Barakos, 2012),
as a form of social practice. As discourses in LTP dialectically interact with the material
world, educational stakeholders, even the public, see policy meaning as, and through,discourses. The double functions of discourse as (1) the objective of LPP and (2) a vehicle for (re)constructing discourse should be highlighted more. “Discourse” in DALTP
should be understood as both a medium that facilitates social practices affecting individuals and as an outcome with the power to influence those individuals.

Critical discourse analysis as a discourse‑analytic framework
From a methodological perspective, various DAs have been posited in the literature. For
example, the ethnographical approach to policy enactment has been welcomed because
it is expected to address the gap by clarifying the agencies’ voices (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2015). Critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Barakos, 2016;
Johnson, 2011, 2015) offers a comprehensive structure for examining how language policy has evolved over time and across different locations (Savski, 2016).
CDA researchers can analyze how policy activities at the local level relate to macrolevel texts (such as government policy documents) and historically constituted discourses (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Wodak and Meyer (2009) categorized the CDA into
various theoretical orientations, such as Fairclough’s (1989, 1992) “dialectical–relational approach,” van Dijk’s (1988) “sociocognitive approach,” van Leeuwen’s (2008)“social actors approach,” and Reisigl and Wodak’s (2016) “discourse-historical approach.”Among these approaches, Fairclough’s (2016) CDA takes the stance that semiosis/language, discourse, and social structure are in a dialectical relationship.
Defining discourse as a social practice, Fairclough (1989) argued that the language
choice of a speaker or writer is primarily related to the social context of interpretationand production. Fairclough visualized three levels of social organizations, as depicted
in Fig. 1. These levels include the immediate social context, social institutions that provide a larger framework for the production and interpretation of discourse, and society as a whole. Fairclough’s intention was to emphasize the social reality in which texts
are embedded. Text is an integral part of a socially conditioned process. Discourse andsocial structure as a social practice are in dialectical relations that contribute to producing events and actions and lead to social change.
The text in the innermost rectangle relates to formal features, such as vocabulary
and grammar. Texts are linguistically construed within social organizations; therefore,
they function as traces and cues for understanding how they are produced and interpreted in the discourse practice. Textual practice traces how texts are represented formeaning-making resources. This emphasis on linguistic cues underlines the importanceof the discursive formation of language tests into entities that ultimately exert practicalpower. The outer square in the middle is the interaction between text and context that
captures discourse practice. The meaning-making process is captured by focusing on the

Page 5 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

Fig. 1 Discourse as text, interaction, and context (as cited in Fairclough, 1989, p. 25)

intertextuality among genres, styles, and discourses of texts. Finally, the outermost rectangle is a context that aims to explain social practices for the schematic framework, or
ideology, which in turn enables textual and discourse practice.
Fairclough (1989) outlined three dimensions of discourse, each requiring a different
analytical approach: description, interpretation, and explanation. In the “description”
stage, formal and semantic features of the texts, such as vocabulary choice and grammatical structures, are analyzed. Halliday’s (2014) systemic functional grammar is a useful tool for understanding the semantic functions of texts. During the “interpretation”
stage of iterative interpretation, the formal features of descriptive texts are re-examinedbased on the members’ resources in the process of social interaction. In the “explanation” stage, the social effects of the texts on production and interpretation are discussed
within the specific social context. Discourse is viewed as both constitutive of and constituted by social practice, and CDA researchers explain it as a form of social practice using
relevant social theories.
Fairclough (2003, 2016) highlighted three semiotic (or discourse-analytical) methods,
wherein texts are embedded in the elements of social practices and social events. Genres, discourses, and styles mediate between social practices and social events and reflect
the semiotic networks of social practices or intertextuality. Genres are linked to the“methods of acting and interacting.” Genre conventions determine how text is arranged
and presented and influence the semiotic features of interaction. For example, different

Page 6 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

genres, such as newspaper articles, policy documents, academic reports, or interviews
as speech data, will entail different rules or conventions for production and interpretation. Discourses are a “semiotic way of construing aspects of the world (physical, social,or mental) which can generally be identified with different positions or perspectives ofdifferent groups of social actors” (Fairclough, 2016, p. 11). Discourses are represented
through the textual formation and offer a means to interpret the process of meaningmaking, as they are materialized from their stances and identities. Styles are “ways of
being,” and an individual’s stylistic repertoire typically reflects their epistemologicalstance among interlocutors. For instance, depending on how writers identify themselves,the overall stance of editorials can be didactic or affiliating to the readers.
The overt focus on text analysis, however, has led to this approach becoming vulnerable to criticism that the voices of stakeholders are disregarded, thereby undermining
the ideological motivation. As Fairclough (2016) was also aware of the limitations, healso noted that dialectical-relational perspectives allow for economic and sociopolitical context to be included in the semiotic analysis, and the analyses enable researchers to understand the dialectic relations between structure (social practices) and events(actions). Moreover, while the term “critical” might suggest that the methodology falls
into the third wave of LPP (refer to “Development of language planning and policy” section), Fairclough’s (1989, 2003, 2016) work has consistently acknowledged the dialectical
relationship between texts and social practices, highlighting the essential role of semiotic networks in shaping social practices. This could situate Fairclough’s CDA as a DA
approach within the fourth wave of LPP.
Only a limited number of studies have employed critical discourse analysis as amethod for investigating the multilayers of language testing policies. The subsequentdiscursive analysis of language tests, along with their respective findings, demonstrates
the adaptability of this approach in various global contexts. For instance, Milani’s (2008,2009) research in Sweden focused on the proposal by the Swedish Liberal Party to
implement a language test for naturalization. Employing critical discourse analysis on
policy documents and newspaper articles, Milani (2008) scrutinized the overt and covert ideologies behind the language test for citizenship. Despite its stated aim of promoting social cohesion, the policy texts discursively associated language proficiency with
cultural knowledge, treating it as a prerequisite for citizenship. This discursive practiceeffectively heightened social differentiation, thereby legitimizing the exclusion of certain
groups from the civic and symbolic domains in Sweden.
In another study, Millar (2013) conducted a critical discourse analysis of the Canadian policy discourse concerning language and immigrant integration to intensify the
motivation for the increased emphasis on language in the policy, Through an interdiscursivity analysis (Fairclough, 2003), the study revealed how elements from neoliberal
skills discourse, an academic discourse of “language as communicative competency,” anda research discourse of “language as a factor of immigrant incorporation” were recontextualized within the Canadian immigration regime. The results indicated that changes inlanguage requirements and language testing within Canadian immigration policy were
driven by and interconnected with a neoliberal transformation of Canadian immigrationand integration policy.

Page 7 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

Additionally, Harding et al. (2020) examined the emergence of the “Secure English
Language Test,” officially recognized by the UK Home Office for immigration and visa
purposes in 2010. Through critical discourse analysis of the official tender documents,
the researchers explored the discursive construction of the test and different social
actors in relation to the concept of “securitization” (Buzan et al., 1998). Immigrants wererepresented as customers, bidders, and providers rather than identified as test-takers,
testing agencies, or government bodies. Furthermore, immigrants were often portrayed
as potential threats to national peace, particularly those engaging in unethical testing
behaviors, as they were discursively framed as disruptors of national tranquility. The
study revealed that security was a prominent theme in the tender, with prospective bidders required to adhere to detailed security requirements and supervise subcontractors.
Social actors, spaces, objects, policies, and procedures were consistently portrayed interms associated with securitization.

Three research contexts where DALTP were adopted
NEAT‑driven reform policy in secondary school contexts

The first example where LTP was implemented in Korea is the NEAT, an English proficiency test developed and executed by the Korean government as a domestic test tomeasure English speaking, writing, reading, and listening skills. A public need for communicative competence in English language abilities were noted, and the government
responded by creating a new English test. The NEAT, especially levels 2 and 3, could
exert influential power on individuals in determining their performance on college
admissions. Therefore, the introduction of the NEAT was one of the educational reform
policies driven by high-stakes testing in secondary school contexts. The English subject
curriculum primarily focused on reading and listening and necessitated a shift towards
incorporating communicative competences. This curriculum had transformed the culture of English learning and teaching in public schools. However, a new test led to discursive conflicts (Shin & Cho, 2020) and was then abolished rather abruptly.
Drawing upon Fairclough’s (2003) critical discourse analysis on the relevant policy
documents and newspaper articles, the following studies have demonstrated that testdriven policy enactment was planned within the discursive relationship among policy
documents and the production and interpretation of stakeholders within the social
structure. The discursive analytic approach to the introduction and abolishment of the
NEAT (Shin, 2012, 2019, 2023; Shin & Cho, 2020, 2021) revealed that the process wascreated, legitimized, and contextualized in and through discourses and mediated by thenewspapers and policy document.
The use of the DALTP indicates that the test was not developed in a vacuum but rather
materialized from the discursive approach to language policy. The social practice of
NEAT-driven policies led to the related texts being considered socially constitutive andthe discourses being shaped by the sociohistorical contexts. The textual analysis of relevant policy documents and newspaper articles has shown that the test-driven policy
enactment was planned within the dialectic relationship between stakeholders and policy documents (Shin, 2012, 2019; Shin & Cho, 2020, 2021). The process of test development, implementation, and abolishment was the product of negotiation.

Page 8 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

The underlying rationale for the introduction of the NEAT by the Korean government showed “bureaucratic ideologies” (Weber, 2015). For instance, the test was introduced under the guise of technology-oriented practice, where the test was represented
as a technology to resolve the current educational problem (Madaus, 2001). The test
was legitimized by highlighting the cost and benefit of developing a new test, thereby
appealing to economic discourses. The domestic test was considered cost-effective forthe nation, particularly when compared with the foreign tests, as well as for the private
expenditure of each household. The utilitarian approach also claimed that the domestic
test was more convenient and easier to access than the imported test. These discourses
were accepted within the underlying social structure, where technology is regarded as an
objective, apolitical, value-free panacea to resolve the current shortcomings in English
education. Reckless belief in the test and naïve perspectives on the positive washback
effect of the test also justified the teach-to-the-test culture.
These analyses were made available by examining the policy documents drawing upon
analyses related to genre, discourse, and style. Policy documents as a genre followed theconventional practice of reductive-positivist methods for resolving social problems,
which resulted in simplifying the multilayered sociopolitical issues in English education
into individualized and manageable problems. To improve the communicative competence of the public, the state initiated a test that would lead to washback effects on
public schools. Two discourses on policy documents revealed their attitudes and stances
towards languages and tests. First was that English language competence was a reifiable
entity that can be objectified with constructs, such as “practical English ability.” Second
was the test implementation procedure as technology for achieving the goals efficiently.
Styles are the means through which producers of policy documents identify themselves.
The non-animate, agentless sentence structure erased the process (e.g., the introduction of the NEAT) hiding explicit agents. Frequent use of measurement registers evokedcredibility of the style, and obligatory modalities showed their stance of having the upper
hand. These styles contributed to legitimizing the government’s voices.
Although the intertextuality between media and policy discourse has not been scrutinized in the literature, Shin (2019) and Shin and Cho (2020) have revealed that themedia contributed to policy enactment and functioned as one of the most importantsites for public discourses to be propagated and contested. The media managed a site fordiscourses to be mediated by the newspaper’s orientation. Shin and Cho (2020) analyzed
two newspapers (Chosun Ilbo and Hankyoreh) considered to be on opposite ideological sides. Chosun Ilbo arranged texts from market principles, thereby highlighting theimportance of fulfilling supply and demand, for which the state ought to intervene in thetest market and for which a test should replace another. Conversely, Hankyoreh focusedon the effectiveness of tests, thereby casting doubt on the household expenditure fortest preparation and the loss of national funds from NEAT. Hankyoreh also doubted
the effectiveness of tests in normalizing public education (e.g., making the classes moreinteractive), thereby leaning towards the abolition of the test.
While the discursive approach to NEAT effectively maps intertextual relationships
among various discourses, it exhibits two notable shortcomings: it does not thoroughly
delve into the dialectic impact of policy changes on individuals affected by them, nordoes it investigate the ways in which people navigate language requirements within

Page 9 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

power dynamics. An ethnographic investigation could enhance our understanding by
revealing how a government announcement regarding a new test initiates a chain reactions among teachers, students, and parents, for instance. Fieldwork could shed light on
how students and teachers exercise their agency by opting for alternative English tests
over NEAT for college admissions. The necessity for such ethnographic insights will befurther elaborated upon.
TOEIC for English graduation benchmark policy in higher education

The second example is TOEIC for English graduation benchmark policy in higher education. During the mid-1990s, the Korean government’s declaration of “Segyehwa” (literally, “globalization”) had begun to influence the education system and society. The
government-led discourse on globalization went beyond slogans and created actual policies that increased Korea’s national competitiveness in the global market and encouraged citizens to be more competitive.
Large corporations, such as Samsung, LG, and Hyundai, overhauled their hiring
practices and required applicants to demonstrate their work-related English language
skills. TOEIC has been one of the popular instruments designed for evaluating practical English-language communication skills required in the workplace. During the late
1990s, many universities adopted TOEIC as a graduation requirement for their students,
arguing that it would enhance the global competitiveness of individuals and universities
in the job market. According to the survey conducted by the Korea TOEIC Committee(2021), 112 out of 219 universities nationwide have continued to use TOEIC scores as a
graduation requirement, as of January 2021.
As there has been limited research on the policy of English graduation benchmarks,
Park and Shin (2016) investigated the policy in relation to policy power and interpretative agency, recognizing it as a multilayered phenomenon that is shaped and implemented in discourse (Barakos & Unger, 2016). Drawing on Fairclough’s (1989) CDA as a
research methodology, they examined how the related discourses (re)produced a belief
about English language requirements for graduation in Korean universities. Therefore,
they focused on the media discourse because it reflected and engendered ideologies
about English language learning and testing that, in turn, encouraged specific perceptions of testing-led policies as common sense—or as “just the way things are” (Johnson,
2013, p. 140)—and proliferated dominant discourses.
Park and Shin (2016) collected 86 newspaper articles from three major Korean newspapers, namely Chosun-ilbo, JoonAng ilbo, and Dong-a ilbo, starting with the government’s official declaration of “Segyehwa” in November 1994 to June 2016, which marked
the end of the study period. They adopted Fairclough’s relational perspective of texts andanalyzed relations between three levels: internal, external, and interdiscursive relations(Fairclough, 2003). The analysis of internal relations showed that different lexical andrhetorical strategies, such as rewording or overwording, synonyms and antonyms, collocation, and metaphors, contributed to creating coherent vocabulary relations. Modal
verbs of obligations (e.g., “must,” “should,” “ought to”) and legitimation strategies for
authorization and rationalization (van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999) also contributed toforming consistent semantic relations to the texts.

Page 10 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

An analysis of interdiscursive relations was conducted using the elements (genres,styles, discourses) of “orders of discourse” in order to identify the link between the text
per se and the social context. The genres of report and interview dominated the newspaper articles. Regarding the styles, however, the authoritarian voice of the presidents
was overwhelming in the genre of the interview, whereas the voices of different news
sources, such as presidents, professors, students, academic affairs deans, teaching staff,
and employment managers, appeared in the genre of the report. The texts of the graduation benchmark policy were embedded in the following themes (discourses): “English
language as (controllable) entities,” “language incompetence as a problem,” and “English
proficiency as an object (to be conquered).” After the English language competence ofcontrollable entities was identified to be deficient and problematic, it was then notedthat English language competence should be managed and conquered through testing
instruments, such as TOEIC.
The external analysis results indicated that the discourse of “deficiency” and “problem”
was associated with monolingualism or linguistic determinism. Considering monolingualism as a norm and allowing this norm to prevail over the media texts led to a social
system that perceives language as the primary cause of problems. According to Harrison(2007), the discourse on “lack of language skills as a barrier” (p. 75) leads to anotherdiscourse that language deficiencies reduce work efficiency and impede social integration. Consequently, the target language should be taught, learned, tested, and corrected.
This leads to silencing, or even disparaging, other language resources, life experiences,or other social variables that an individual already possesses and presumes the need formonolingualism as a solution.
Although English was not specified as the language of a majority or that of the official
language in the media discourse, the policy texts highlighted that native-like proficiency
in English prepared college students for improved employment opportunities in the eraof globalization. The consistent arrangement of texts validated the policy, thereby normalizing the power of English (language testing). At least in the space where the English benchmark policy was implemented, the English proficiency requirements can beconsidered a result of the discursive intervention that English should be efficiently utilized, educated, and tested to resolve related problems. If such discourses are reinforced,“monolingual habitus” will be legitimized, thereby recognizing only one linguistic norm
as valid in society or school (Gogolin, 1997, p. 41).
This study holds significance as it delves into the media discourse regarding the English graduation benchmark policy within Korean universities. However, the creation andimplementation of a language policy open up to a range of interpretations, not solely
confined to its creators but also extended to those expected to implement and use it(Johnson, 2013). Consequently, researchers should take into account the diverse arrayof actors involved in language policy, including school administrators and students, andtheir potential to exert influence or establish dominance within these contexts. Furthermore, empirical findings derived from ethnographic investigations of this policy will
provide insight into the process of language policy development and explore the interconnections across multiple layers, spanning from policy formulation to practical implementation (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Johnson & Ricento, 2013).

Page 11 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

TOPIK as a high‑stakes decision‑making tool for foreign residents

The third example is TOPIK as a high-stakes decision-making instrument for immigrants in Korea. Similar to the way in which national language tests have played key
roles in collecting information and decision-making for controlling foreign residents(Extra et al., 2009; Harding et al., 2020; Hogan-Brun et al., 2009; Milani, 2008, 2009; Millar, 2013), the TOPIK has wielded significant influence among foreigners living in Korea.
The number of immigrants has increased due to government-led immigration policies
since the 2000s. According to the Korea Immigration Service (2020), 2,524,656 foreigners were residing in the country, accounting for approximately 5% of the total population. Over the past 5 years, the number of foreign residents has grown at a rate of 7.4%
on average each year. Korean language proficiency tests play an important role in gatekeeping to determine the rights to residency, naturalization, and citizenship. Amongthem, TOPIK is the most influential test for foreigners in educational and social settings.
TOPIK is a written test designed to test Korean language proficiency in reading, listening, and writing comprehension. The National Institute for International Education(NIIED), which is under the direct control of the Ministry of Education, organizes andsupervises the test. According to the NIIED (2020), since the TOPIK’s first implementation in 1997, the cumulative number of applicants exceeded 2 million in 2018, and375,871 people took the test in 2019 alone. TOPIK results are commonly used to aid
in high-stakes decisions regarding foreign residents for college admission, employment,
visa issuance, permanent residency, or naturalization application.
Drawing on Fairclough’s CDA, Park (2020) examined how the TOPIK has been discursively constructed as a high-stakes decision-making instrument for immigrants in
Korea. She collected 377 articles from five major newspapers since 1995. The collected
data was analyzed using Fairclough’s (1989) model and was discussed in five stages inaccordance with the changes in Korean language testing policy: test development, policy
introduction, implementation, expansion, and enrichment.
In the description of policy texts, different linguistic features, such as rewording,metaphor, modes, modality, and foregrounding, were presented at each stage. Different
discursive practices were interpreted in this way. The TOPIK development was justified
by the “Korean-style globalization” discourse. In the introductory period of TOPIK-led
policies, the “languages as problem” discourse that problematized the lack of Korean
proficiency among immigrants, and the “test as a prescription” discourse wherein social
problems can be resolved through testing policies, appeared. In the implementation
stage, the “language as a requirement” discourse emerged, as standard Korean language
proficiency was assumed to be a prerequisite for participating in Korean society. In the
expansion stage, the “national language” discourse legitimized the urgent need for thedevelopment of TOPIK speaking, academic TOPIK, and junior TOPIK. In the enrichment stage, the TOPIK had been used as a requirement for permanent residency andnaturalization. The “test as a precaution” discourse, in which language testing policies could prevent immigrants from causing problems, was introduced in the media.
The neoconservative ideology (Apple, 2004), which can play a crucial role in teaching“correct” norms, knowledge, and values in a national and official language, was deeply
ingrained in the policy discourses. The TOPIK-led policies were discursively used toregain the “correct” form of Korean language knowledge, as well as to resolve various

Page 12 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

social problems, such as exclusion, alienation, underachievement, mental disorders, anddomestic violence.
The significance of this study lies in its examination of the media discourse concerning the Korean language testing policy for immigrants. It is meaningful to undertake
additional research that examines intertextual and interdiscursive connections between
media and other related documents within each specific domain. TOPIK holds a prominent position, serving as an important instrument in high-stakes decisions affecting
migrants, such as admissions, employment, residency status, permanent residence, andnaturalization. DALTP research can engage in further investigatioins into the interplay between macro-level discourses present in government policy reports and press
releases, and micro-level discourses observed in interviews with key policy stakeholders,
including test takers and administrators.
We have now examined exemplary research works in the Korean context, affirming its
relevance in language testing policy studies. DALTP is highly anticipated to enrich thefield by highlighting the constructive power of discourse in facilitating political communication among local actors. It is essential to collect and interpret the research texts fromdiverse stakeholders for a better understanding of how much DALTP has the potential toapply various analytic forms into the development and validation research of language
testing policy. As its significance needs to be enhanced by the critiques from various
approaches in different contexts of test-driven policy implementation, the examination
should not be restricted to just one particular framework, like Fairclough’s model mainly
discussed in this study.

Conclusion
The growing discussions on critical and discursive approaches to LPP can be attributed
to the global migration in the era of postmodern globalization. The movement of people
for various reasons, such as employment, immigration, naturalization, education, marriage, and tourism, leads to the convergence of diverse races, ethnicities, capital, knowledge, and technology. In this interconnected world, where various media channels playa crucial role, there has been a need to re-evaluate the underestimated area of research,“language”-related requirements in testing, and policies. In this context, the current
study has explored the meaningfulness of adopting discursive approach to “language”
testing policy. By using DA, the understanding of LTP, often implemented through highstakes language testing, can be enhanced.
The empirical studies (the English education reform through the adoption of speaking
and writing sections in the NEAT, the implementation of TOEIC as a graduation benchmark requirement in higher education, and the use of TOPIK as a high-stakes decisionmaking tool for foreign residents) discussed in this paper exemplify that LTP should beviewed as both critical and discursive practices. Adopting the DALTP can delve into theconstitutive power of discourse, thereby uncovering dominant social structures and theirimpact on individual discourses, perpetuating these structures. Furthermore, DALTP
can provide a valuable framework for analyzing intertextual discourses in interdisciplinary research, investigating how certain discourses prevail or fail in ideological battles.
The implications of adopting DALTP are significant. It allows a deeper understandingof the variability in LTP contexts by acknowledging the dialectic relationships between

Page 13 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

policy as text and discourse within a power network. LTP, in this case, is no longer
seen as a top-down, deterministic process where structural approaches tend to prevail.
Instead, it is viewed as a dialectic relationship where policy text and discourses on thepolicy interact and influence each other (Barakos & Unger, 2016; Johnson, 2004, 2016).
Moreover, by examining unfolding discourses on different LTPs, DALTP contributes todemocratic pluralism (Tollefson, 2013) by aiding government agencies in understanding standard (official) language policies, helping local organizations preserve dialects,
assisting schools in reviewing languages to teach, guiding enterprises to focus on multilingual resources, and supporting civic groups in advocating for the language rights ofminorities.
Despite being in the nascent stage, DALTP, however, is in need of extending its scope
beyond considering media and policy text as the sole source of discourse. While earlier
studies on DALTP have made strides in understanding the multilayered and sociopolitical aspects that influence the discourse formulation, future studies could benefit fromengaging with these members involved. Integrating ethnographic studies into DALTP
could enhance the analytic insights by offering a more nuanced framework, capturing
the interplay between discourses and social actors in shaping language education policy.
By doing so, researchers would be able to trace the impact of policies directly on thoseaffected, deeply exploring members’ perceptions, attitudes, and values in the context of
discourses on test-driven language policies. Incorporating ethnographic studies could
offer profound insights into how individuals affected by language testing policies interpret, apply, and even exercise their agency to shape situated practices (Pérez-Milans andTollefson, 2018; Johnson, 2011; Johnson & Ricento, 2013). This approach would further
enrich our understanding of the complex, dialectical relationship that exists among various levels of policy texts, discourses, and practices.
Abbreviations
CDA	Critical discourse analysis
DA	The discourse-analytical approach
DALP	Discursive approaches to language policy (see Barakos & Unger, 2016)
DALTP	The discourse-analytic approaches to language testing policy
LPP	Language planning and policy
LTP	Language testing policies
NEAT	The National English Ability Test
NIIED	National Institute for International Education
TOEIC	The Test of English for International Communication
TOPIK	The Test of Proficiency in Korean
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions“DS” as the first author and corresponding author made substantial contributions to the design of the work. “SP,” as thesecond author, made contribution to the framework of the study and oversaw “TOEIC for English graduation benchmark
policy in higher education” and “TOPIK as a high-stakes decision-making tool for foreign resident” sections. “EC,” as thethird author, was responsible for developing the methodology and contributing to “NEAT-driven reform policy in secondary school contexts” section. All authors critically reviewed and edited the manuscript for coherence and approved
the final manuscript.
Authors’ information
Dongil Shin is Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature at Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea. He
has taught and researched language testing (policy), (critical) discourse analysis, and critical language awareness, mostly
in newly emerging multilingual (Korean) contexts.
Soohyeon Park has recently earned a Ph.D. in the Department of English Language and Literature at Chung-Ang
University, Seoul, Korea. She teaches Korean as a foreign language in the Institute of International Education at Hanyang

Page 14 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

University, Seoul, Korea. Her research covers discursive approaches to language policy and testing, especially for immigrants in Korea.
Eunhae Cho is Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Applied Linguistics at Pennsylvania State University. Her researchinterests include (critical) discourse analysis and language socialization. Her current work focuses on Vygotskyian sociocultural approaches to L2 learning.
Funding
The authors declare that they have not received any funding for this research.
Availability of data and materials
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 2 May 2023 Accepted: 9 September 2023

References
Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​08959​04803​260022
Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2),
10–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01596​30930​130203
Barakos, E., & Unger, J. (2016). Introduction: Why are discursive approaches to language policy necessary? In E. Barakos& J. Unger (Eds.), Discursive approaches to language policy (pp. 1–9). Palgrave MacMillan. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​
978-1-​137-​53134-6_1
Barakos, E. (2016). Language policy and critical discourse studies: Toward a combined approach. In e Barakos & J.
Unger (Eds.), Discursive approaches to language policy (pp. 23–49). Palgrave MacMillan. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​
978-1-​137-​53134-6_2
Barakos, E. (2012). Language policy and planning in urban professional settings: Bilingualism in Cardiff businesses. Current
Issues in Language Planning, 13(3), 167–186. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14664​208.​2012.​722374
Bubikova-Moan, J. (2017). Constructing the multilingual child: The case of language education policy in Norway. Critical
Discourse Studies, 14(1), 56–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17405​904.​2016.​11903​89
Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Edward, A. (2020). Language policy and the law: How Dutch universities legally justify English-medium instruction. Dutch
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1/2), 38–59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1075/​dujal.​19028.​edw
Extra, G., Spotti, M., & Van Avermaet, P. (Eds.). (2009). Language testing, migration, and citizenship: Cross-national perspectives
on integration regimes. Continuum.
Fairclough, N. (2016). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak & M.
Meyer (Eds.), Method of critical discourse analysis (3rd ed., pp. 86–108). Sage Publications. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1075/z.​
184.​79dij
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power (2nd ed.). Pearson Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
Gogolin, I. (1997). The ‘monolingual habitus’ as the common feature in teaching in the language of the majority in different countries. Per Linguam, 13(2), 38–49. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5785/​13-2-​187
Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.; C. M. I. M. Matthiessen, Ed.). Routledge.
Harding, L., Brunfaut, T., & Unger, J. W. (2020). Language testing in the “hostile environment”: The discursive constructionof “secure English language testing” in the UK. Applied Linguistics, 41(5), 662–687. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​applin/​
amz017Harrison, G. (2007). Language as a problem, a right or a resource? A study of how bilingual practitioners see language
policy being enacted in social work. Journal of Social Work, 7(1), 71–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​14680​17307​075990
Hogan-Brun, G., Mar-Molinero, C., & Stevenson, P. (2009). Discourses on language and integration: Critical perspectives on
language testing regimes in Europe. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1075/​dapsac.​33
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language
education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/j.​1545-​7249.​2007.​tb000​83.x
Hult, F. M. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International Journal of theSociology of Language, 202, 7–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1515/​IJSL.​2010.​011
Johnson, D. C. (2004). Language policy discourse and bilingual language planning (Vol. 19). https://​repos​itory.​upenn.​edu/​
wpel.
Johnson, D. C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8(2), 139–159. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10993-​009-​9136-9
Johnson, D. C. (2011). Critical discourse analysis and the ethnography of language policy. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(4),267–279. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17405​904.​2011.​601636
Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Palgrave MacMillan.

Page 15 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2023) 13:44

Johnson, D. C. (2016). Theoretical foundations. In E. Barakos & J. W. Unger (Eds.), Discursive approaches to language policy(pp. 11–22). Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy, 14(3),
221–243. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10993-​014-​9333-​z\
Johnson, D. C., & Ricento, T. (2013). Conceptual and theoretical perspectives in language planning and policy: Situating
the ethnography of language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2013(219), 7–21. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1515/​ijsl-​2013-​0002
Korea TOEIC committee. (2021). Joreobinjeungje TOEIC hwaryong hyeonhwang [Status of utilization of TOEIC graduation
benchmark policy]. https://​exam.​toeic.​co.​kr/​common/​templ​ate/​viewC​onten​ts.​php?​conte​ntsCo​de=​25.
Korea Immigration Service. (2020). 2020 churipgugoeguginjeongchaek tonggyeyeonbo [Korea Immigration Service Statistics
2020] (No. 11-1270000-000465-10).
Lo Bianco, J. (2009). Critical discourse analysis (CDA) and language planning (LP): Constraints and applications of the critical in language planning. In T. Lê, Q. Lê, & M. Shortm (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: An interdisciplinary perspective(pp. 101–118). Nova Science Publishers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4018/​978-1-​60566-​842-0.​ch005
Madaus, G. (2001). Educational testing as a technology. National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy, 2, 2–13.
McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language Testing, 18(4), 333–349.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32201​01800​402
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Blackwell Publishing.
McNamara, T., & Ryan, K. (2011). Fairness versus justice in language testing: The place of English literacy in the Australian
citizenship test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 161–178. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15434​303.​2011.​565438
Messick, S. J. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). Palgrave MacMillan.
Milani, T. M. (2008). Language testing and citizenship: A language ideological debate in Sweden. Language in Society,37(1), 27–59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0047​40450​80800​20
Milani, T. M. (2009). At the intersection between power and knowledge: An analysis of a Swedish policy document on
language testing for citizenship. Journal of Language and Politics, 8(2), 287–304. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1075/​jlp.8.​2.​06mil
Millar, J. (2013). An interdiscursive analysis of language and immigrant integration policy discourse in Canada. Critical
Discourse Studies, 10(1), 18–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17405​904.​2012.​736696
NIIED. (2020). Jiwonja hyeonhwang [Status of applicants]. https://​www.​data.​go.​kr/​data/​30595​26/​fileD​ata.​do.
Park, S. (2020). A study on social dimension of TOPIK: Focusing on critical discourse analysis and assessment use argument[Doctoral dissertation, Chung-Ang University]. http://​www.​riss.​kr/​link?​id=​T1551​0511.
Park, S., & Shin, D. (2016). A critical discourse analysis of Korean newspaper reportage of Korean universities’ graduation
accreditation system for English proficiency certification. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 175–208. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17154/​kjal.​2016.​12.​32.4.​175
Pérez-Milans, M., Tollefson, J. W. (2018) Language Policy and Planning: Directions for Future Research. In J. W. Tollefson, &M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning, Oxford Handbooks (online ed.). OxfordAcademic. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​oxfor​dhb/​97801​90458​898.​013.​36.
Rasti, A. (2023). Rendering Iran language language-in-education policy problematic: A CDA poststructural approach. New
Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40841-​023-​00292-5
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical
discourse analysis (3rd ed., pp. 23–61). Sage Publications. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4135/​97808​57028​020.​d6
Ricento, T. K. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics,
4(2), 196–213. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1467-​9481.​00111
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional.
TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​35876​91
Rubin, J. (1971). Language planning. In J. Rubin & B. Jernudd (Eds.), Can language be planned? Sociolinguistic theory andpractice for developing nation (pp. 205–238). University of Hawai’i Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​s0047​40450​00043​95
Savski, K. (2016). State language policy in time and space: Meaning, transformation, recontextualisation. In E. Barakos &J. W. Unger (Eds.), Discursive approaches to language policy (pp. 51–70). Palgrave MacMillan. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​
978-1-​137-​53134-6_3
Shin, D. (2012). Analyzing newspaper articles on “TOEFL crisis” through critical discourse analysis. Foreign Languages
Education, 19(1), 187–210.
Shin, D. (2019). Analyzing media discourse on the development of the National English Ability Test (NEAT) in South Korea.
Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1–4. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40468-​019-​0081-z
Shin, D. (2023). Critical discursive approaches to evaluating policy-driven testing: Social impact as a target for validation.
Language Testing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32223​11638​63
Shin, D., & Cho, E. (2020). Discursive conflicts in news media and the suspension of a government-led test of English in
Korea. Language Testing in Asia, 10(1), 5. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40468-​020-​00100-7
Shin, D., & Cho, E. (2021). The National English Ability Test in Korea and its legitimising discourses. Journal of Multilingualand Multicultural Development, 42(6), 537–550. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01434​632.​2020.​17458​18
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Pearson Longman.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (2008). Language policy and language assessment: The relationship. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(3),363–373. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14664​20080​21396​04
Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. K. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory
and method (pp. 42–59). Pearson Longman. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​415822
Tollefson, J. W. (2013). Language policy and democratic pluralism. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education:
Critical issues (2nd ed., pp. 301–310). Taylor & Francis.
Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​26512/​discu​rsos.​v2i1.0/​8295

Page 16 of 17

Shin et al. Language Testing in Asia (2023) 13:44

van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies,
1(1), 83–118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​14614​45699​00100​1005
Weber, M. (2015). The “rationalization” of education and training. In R. Arum, I. R. Beattie, & K. Ford (Eds.), The structure ofschooling: Readings in the sociology of education (3rd ed., pp. 14–16). Sage Publications.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In R. Wodak & M.
Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–33). Sage Publications. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4135/​97808​57028​
020

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Page 17 of 17