The acquisition of requests by second language learners of Spanish

Abstract

This cross-sectional study in interlanguage pragmatics analyzes the requests employed by English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish, using data collected from university students at four different levels of language learning. The most common request strategies are first identified in a cross-linguistic analysis of Spanish and English and are then compared to the interlanguage data. The requests of lower-level students are found to be more idiosyncratic and pragmatically ambiguous than those of advanced learners, although not necessarily more direct. Advanced learners show signs of improvement, but still rely largely on L1 request behavior. Learners at all levels display more difficulties in areas in which there is cross-linguistic variation between the L1 and L2.

Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence

“…Moreover, more proficient learners are better at comprehending requests (Cook & Liddicoat, 2002) and identifying different types of speech acts (i.e., request, suggestion, correction and offer) (Garcia, 2004). With regard to pragmatic production, more competent learners have a larger repertoire of strategies to realize speech acts (e.g., Dalmau & Gotor, 2007;Trosborg, 1995), and are able to use more target-like pragmalinguistic forms such as intensifiers (e.g., Dalmau & Gotor, 2007), downgraders (e.g., Pinto, 2005) and contrastive markers (e.g., Geyer, 2007).…”

“…The positive proficiency effect was also documented in five studies of pragmatic production, with three of them investigating production of speech acts (Dalmau & Gotor, 2007;Pinto, 2005;Trosborg, 1995), and the other two examining pragmatic production at discourse level (Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012;Geyer, 2007).…”

“…13 out of the 28 selected studies revealed an overall increase in pragmatic performance from low to high proficiency levels (Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012;Bardovi & Dörnyei, 1998;Cook & Liddicoat, 2002;Dalmau & Gotor, 2007;Garcia, 2004;Geyer, 2007;Hoffman-Hicks, 1992;Koike, 1996;Maeshilba, Yoshinaga, Kasper, & Ross, 1996;Pinto, 2005;Trosborg, 1995;Wannaruk, 2008;Yamanaka, 2003), showing a positive proficiency effect on pragmatic competence.…”

“…The former refers to the knowledge of organizing utterances or sentences and texts such as lexical and grammatical knowledge, while the latter refers to the knowledge of using sentences and texts appropriately in situations (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010. In previous studies, levels of L2 proficiency were determined by standardized test scores (e.g., Allami & Naeimi, 2011;Garcia, 2004;Nguyen, 2008;Taguchi, 2005Taguchi, , 2006Takahashi, 1996;Xu, Case, & Wang, 2009 ), course or grade levels (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2008, 2011Félix-Brasdefer, 2007;Koike, 1996;Pinto, 2005), length of formal instruction (e.g., Bonganets, Kellerman, & Bentlage, 1987), and duration of residence in the target language community (e.g., Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986;Decapua & Dunham, 2007). Among these proficiency determinants, standardized test scores and course or grade levels are considered to be more reliable indicators of proficiency because standardized test scores allow for comparison across test takers, and course/grade levels are usually determined by a systematic evaluation within a course or program, including placement tests, teacher assessment and oral interviews.…”

Acculturation and acquisition of pragmatic routines in the study abroad context

“…The individual difference that has attracted the most attention among ILP scholars is proficiency (Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012;Bardovi-Harlig, 2009;Pinto, 2005;Taguchi, 2011b). In fact, the effect of different levels of proficiency on L2 pragmatic development is one of the most investigated topics in ILP (Li, 2014).…”