Developmental Differences in Speech Act Recognition: A Pragmatic Awareness Study

Output and English as a Second Language Pragmatic Development: The Effectiveness of Output-focused Video-based Instruction

“…The PAJT in the present study differed from Garcia's (2004) instrument in that the four choices were actual pragmatic forms (examples of speech acts). The PAJT items were organized around the four speech acts: request refusals and compliment responses (expressive speech acts) and advice giving and invitations (directives).…”

“…The pragmatic acceptability judgment task (PAJT) is a closed (i.e., multiple choice), instrument that gives participants the opportunity to identify pragmatically acceptable responses in 12 different dialogues (three for each of the targeted speech acts). Garcia (2004) utilized a PAJT, but focused on the identification of speaker intention. In the present study, the target was both identification of speaker intention and the acceptability of alternative pragmalinguistic forms as learners were required to choose from among possible responses.…”

“…The testing materials included an instrument to gauge pragmatic perception called a pragmatic acceptability judgment task (PAJT; Garcia, 2004) and a written discourse completion task (DCT; Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990;Liao & Bresnahan, 1996;Lorenzo-Dus, 2001). The pragmatic acceptability judgment task (PAJT) is a closed (i.e., multiple choice), instrument that gives participants the opportunity to identify pragmatically acceptable responses in 12 different dialogues (three for each of the targeted speech acts).…”

How Spoken and Written Questionnaires Vehicle Comprehension

“…To put it briefly, the former deals with pragmalinguistic forms (Thomas, 1983), and the latter with the interpretation of speakers' nonliteral meanings (Taguchi, 2012). Focusing on different characteristics of pragmatics, a group of studies have attempted to examine pragmatic awareness using listening tasks (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998;Carrell, 1984;Garcia, 2004;Niezgoda &Roever, 2001;Schauer, 2006).When examining ESL and EFL learners' pragmatic awareness, Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) comment that while their listening-based taskprovides clear situations, it can be more challenging for learners than written scenarios. Participants in their study were asked to decide if an utterance was grammatically correct or pragmatically appropriate.It was found thatproficiency level interacted with the learning context to influence awareness of errors in grammar and pragmatics.…”

“…While pragmatic comprehension is an important aspect of language learning, far too little attention has been paid to the medium used to examine foreign and second language learners' pragmatic comprehension. The mediums used to collect data in pragmatic comprehension studies include video-based andaudio-based listening tasks (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998;Carrell, 1984;Garcia, 2004;Niezgoda & Roever, 2001;Schauer, 2006;Taguchi, 2003Taguchi, , 2005Taguchi, , 2008aTaguchi, , 2008bTaguchi, , 2008cTaguchi, , 2008dTaguchi, , 2011Yamanaka, 2003)and reading tasks (Bouton, 1992(Bouton, , 1994a(Bouton, , 1994bCook & Liddicoat, 2002;Gibbs, 1983;Gibbs & Moise, 1997;Holtgraves, 2007;Takahashi & Roitblat, 1994).…”