Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 13 No. 06 (2026)
International Multidisciplinary Journal for Research & Development

Articles

PHRASEOLOGICAL COMPETENCE DIAGNOSTIC INDICATORS (FCDI): A COGNITIVE APPROACH TO ASSESSING EFL LEARNERS' PHRASEOLOGICAL PROFICIENCY

Published 2026-06-12

  • Kuvonchbek E. Ro'ziboyev

Kuvonchbek E. Ro'ziboyev
Teacher of Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Abstract

Abstract. Despite growing scholarly interest in phraseological competence within EFL contexts, a standardized diagnostic framework for assessing learners' phraseological proficiency has remained largely absent in applied linguistics literature. This article introduces the Phraseological Competence Diagnostic Indicators (FCDI) system — a comprehensive, criterion-referenced assessment framework developed and empirically validated within the Uzbekistani higher education context. Drawing on a cognitive linguistic theoretical base, the FCDI integrates four measurable dimensions: semantic accuracy, pragmatic appropriateness, contextual precision, and stylistic sensitivity. The framework was tested with 370 philology students across multiple higher education institutions in Uzbekistan. Experimental results yielded a mean score of 3.80 for the experimental group compared to 3.39 for the control group (chi-square empirical value: 14.55; critical threshold: 7.81), with an efficiency coefficient of 1.12. These findings demonstrate the FCDI system's validity and applicability as both a diagnostic and pedagogical instrument for enhancing phraseological instruction in EFL settings.

Keywords

Keywords: phraseological competence, FCDI, cognitive approach, EFL teaching, diagnostic assessment, higher education, Uzbekistan

PDF

References

  1. Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways to teach phraseology. EUROSLA Yearbook, 11, 109–127.
  2. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Mouton de Gruyter.
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
  4. Cieślicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22(2), 115–144.
  5. Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.
  6. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
  7. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
  8. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
  9. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
  10. Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners' English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647–672.
  11. Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. John Benjamins.
  12. Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Clarendon Press.
  13. Naciscione, A. (2010). Stylistic use of phraseological units in discourse. John Benjamins.
  14. Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
  15. Ro'ziboyev, K. E. (2025). Filologik yo'nalish talabalarining frazeologik kompetensiyasini kognitiv yondashuv asosida takomillashtirish [PhD dissertation]. Uzbekistan State World Languages University.
  16. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  17. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  18. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.