How Might the Analysis of the Social Context Influence B2-C2 Level Learners’ Linguistic Choices in Oral Discourse?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22364/BJELLC.13.2023.10Keywords:
study abroad, sociopragmatics, oral discourse, L2 pragmatic competence, advanced language learnersAbstract
The significance of pragmatic competence in L2 speakers’ successful social integration has been highlighted, and the need for assessing it has increased as the number of international students in English-speaking countries has risen. Many existing pragmatic tests are based on the Speech Act Theory and employ discourse completion tasks. However, these have been criticized for overlooking the importance of the discursive side of pragmatics. Furthermore, there has been little research into gaining learners’ insight into their thought processes while analyzing the given social context, which in turn will influence their linguistic choices and pragmatic performance. The aim of this research was, therefore, to examine how the depth of learners’ context analysis might influence their linguistic choices in authentic tasks and impact the conversational strategies employed in order to achieve the communicative goal. Data were collected from thirty B2-C2 level international university students, who performed four monologic tasks. This was followed by a semi-structured interview to gain participants’ perspectives on the contexts. Task performance was analyzed qualitatively using Conversation Analysis, and interview data was utilized to better understand language use and strategies in task performance. The results indicate that with increasing proficiency, learners not only employed more pragmalinguistic devices when deemed necessary, but they also placed a stronger emphasis on cooperation and the mutual achievement of the communicative goal. The data from the semi-structured interviews also highlighted that with increased proficiency there was a greater depth of contextual analysis, focusing more closely on the conversational partner’s circumstances and potential reaction to the request.
References
Al-Gahtani, S. and Roever, C. (2012) Proficiency and sequential organisation of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33 (1): 42-65. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr031 [Accessed on 24 January 2015]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr031
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. (2010) Language Assessment in Practice. 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. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00525.x [Accessed on 27 September 2016]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00525.x
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013) Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63 (1): 68-86. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x [Accessed on 18 March 2017]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Bastos, M.-T. (2011) Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8 (3): 347-384. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.017 [Accessed on 17 February 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.017
Barron, A. (2003) Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.108
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds.) (1989) Cross-cultural Pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2019) Speech acts in interaction: negotiating joint action in a second language. In N. Taguchi (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics (pp. 17-30). London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-2
Cambridge English IELTS-CEFR Comparison Table. Available at https://www.ielts.org/ielts-for-organisations/common-european-framework [Accessed: 5 August 2014].
Dippold, D. (2008) Reframing ones experience: face, identity, and roles in L2 argumentative discourse. In M. Putz and J. A. Neff-van (eds.) Developing Contrastive Pragmatics. Interlanguage and Crosscultural Perspectives (pp. 131-154). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207217.2.131
Dornyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geraghty, B. and Conacher, J. E. (2014) Intercultural Contact, Language Learning and Migration. London: Bloomsbury.
Geyer, N. (2007) Self-qualification in L2 Japanese: An interface of pragmatics, grammatical, and discourse competences. Language Learning, 57: 337-367. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00419.x [Accessed on 20 December 2022]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00419.x
Grabowski, K. (2013) Investigating the construct validity of a role-play test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge at multiple proficiency levels. In S. J. Ross and G. Kasper (eds.) Assessing Second Language Pragmatics (pp. 149-171). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003522_6
Heritage, J. (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In M. J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020
House, J. (2007) What is an ‘Intercultural Speaker?’. In E. A. Soler and M. P. S. Jorda (eds.) Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 7-21). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_1
House, J. and Kasper, G. (1981) Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Koulmas (ed.) Conversational Routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809145.157
Ikeda, N. (2017) Measuring L2 Oral Pragmatic Abilities for Use in Social Contexts: development and validation of an assessment instrument for L2 pragmatics performance in university settings. Unpublished PhD thesis. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Kasper, G. (2006) Beyond repair: conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19 (1): 83-99. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.07kas [Accessed on 15 December 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.07kas
Kasper, G. and Roever, C. (2005) Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (ed.). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 317-34). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kasper, G. and Ross, S. J. (2013) Assessing second language pragmatics: an overview and introductions. In S. J. Ross and G. Kasper (eds.) Assessing Second Language Pragmatics (pp. 1-40). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003522_1
Kormos, J. (1998) Verbal reports in L2 speech production research. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (2): 353-358. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/3587590 [Accessed on 28 September 2016]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587590
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Liu, J. (2006) Measuring Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge of EFL Learners. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
McNamara, T. F. and Roever, C. (2006) Language Testing: the social dimension. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Roever, C. (2005) Testing ESL Pragmatics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04780-6
Roever, C. (2011) Testing of second language pragmatics: past and future. Language Testing, 28 (4): 463-482. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210394633 [Accessed on 16 April 2015]. 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. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq090 [Accessed on 22 June 2017]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq090
Roever, C. and Kasper, G. (2018) Speaking in turns and sequences: interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 35 (3): 331-355. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128 [Accessed on 18 November 2020]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128
Saldaña, J. (2015) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Taguchi, N. (2007) Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28 (1): 113-135. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml051 [Accessed on 5 June 2015]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml051
Takenoya, M. (2003) Terms of Address in Japanese: an interlanguage pragmatics approach. Sapporo: Hokkaido University Press.
Thomas, J. (1995) Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.
Thomas, J. (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2): 91-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91
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 and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286
Youn, S. J. (2015) Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mix methods. Language Testing, 32 (2): 199-225. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214557113 [Accessed on 21 July 2017]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214557113
Zheng, Y. (2009) Protocol analysis in the validation of language tests: potential of the method, state of the evidence. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5 (1): 124-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.5.1.124
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 University of Latvia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
