An Investigation into How B2-C2 Level English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Learners Display Their Pragmatic Competence in Speaking
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22364/BJELLC.08.2018.10Keywords:
EFL, pragmatic competence, assessment, task formats, oral discourseAbstract
The importance of testing second language (L2) learners’ pragmatic competence is becoming evident following increasing research (e.g. Ross and Kasper, 2013). Current pragmatic tests mainly use the Speech Act Theory as a theoretical framework and discourse completion tasks (DCTs) as test instruments. However, these have been criticized lately for overlooking the importance of the discursive side of pragmatics. The main objective of this research was to contribute towards the assessment of B2-C2 level EFL learners’ pragmatic competence by experimenting with task formats that allow the examination of extended oral discourse. The empirical study examined how two speaking task formats allowed test takers to display their pragmatic competence. It also aimed to identify some criterial features defining the level of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. Six university students took part in this mixed-method study, which included four monologic and two dialogic tasks, followed by a semi-structured interview. Performance of the tasks was video recorded, transcribed and analyzed quantitatively as well as qualitatively using a Conversation Analytic framework. It was concluded that both task formats allow learners to display their pragmatic competence in terms of the sequential organization of speech and selection/use of pragmalinguistic devices. Results also showed that with increasing proficiency the number and range of pragmalinguistic devices seemed to increase and the sequential organization of speech tended to become somewhat more natural.
References
Al-Gahtani, S. and Roever, C. (2012) Proficiency and sequential organisation of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33 (1): 42–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr031
Bachman, L. F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009) Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59 (4): 755–795. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00525.x
Barron, A. (2003) Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds.) (1989) Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cambridge English (n.d.) Available from www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/177867-the-methodology-behind-the-cambride-english-scale.pdf [Accessed on 5 August 2014]
Canale, M. (1983) From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards and R. Schmidt (eds.) Language and Communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman.
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. (eds.) (1983) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.
Gonzalez-Lloret, M. (2010) Culture and its effect on speech act performance. In A. Martinez-Flor and E. Uso-Juan (eds.) Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hassall, T. (2013) Beyond strategy choice: A Reply to Al-Gahtani and Roever. Applied Linguistics, 34 (4): 501–506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt009
Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Hudson, T., Detmer, E. and Brown, J.D. (1992) A Framework for Testing Cross-cultural Pragmatics (Technical Report 2). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Kane, M. T. (2006) Validation. In R. L. Brennan (ed.) Educational Measurement, 4th ed. (pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
Kasper, G. (2006) Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Felix-Brasdefer and A. S. Omar (eds.) Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11 (pp. 281–314). University of Hawai’i at Manoa: National Foreign Language Resource Centre.
Kasper, G., and Rose, K. R. (2002) Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, J. (2006) Measuring Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge of EFL Learners. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Myles, F., Hooper, J. and Mitchell, R. (1998) Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48: 323–363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00045
Roever, C. (2005) Testing ESL Pragmatics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04780-6
Roever, C. (2006) Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23 (2): 229–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt329oa
Roever, C. (2011) Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28 (4): 463–482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210394633
Roever, C. (2012) What learners get for free: learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal 66 (1): 10–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq090
Ross, S. J. and Kasper G. (eds.), (2013) Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003522
Schegloff, E. A. (2007) Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
TOEFL (2010) Linking TOEFL iBT Scores to IELTS Scores – A Research Report ETS. Available from www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/linking_toefl_ibt_scores_to_ielts_scores.pdf [Accessed on 5 August 2014]
Trosborg, A. (1995) Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286
Walters, F. S. (2007) A conversation-analytic hermeneutic rating protocol to assess L2 oral pragmatic competence. Language Testing, 24 (2): 155–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207076362
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.