Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning

Koike, Dale A.

doi:10.1515/9783110219289.2.257

Cited by 61 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: L2 Proficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Positive Proficiency Effects On Pragmatic Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence

Xiao

2015

SSLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper synthesizes cross-sectional studies of the effect of proficiency on second language (L2) pragmatics to answer the synthesis question: Does proficiency affect adult learners' pragmatic competence? Findings have revealed an overall positive proficiency effect on pragmatic competence, and in most cases higher proficiency learners have higher pragmatic competence. However, increased proficiency does not guarantee a native-like pragmatic performance because proficiency effect varies depending on the nature of target pragmatic features such as types of speech acts (degrees of directness and conventionality) (e.g., Cook & Liddicoat, 2002;Félix-Brasdefer, 2007), modalities of pragmatic performance (comprehension and production) (e.g., Bradovi-

show abstract

Section: L2 Proficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Positive Proficiency Effects On Pragmatic Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence

Xiao

2015

SSLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Martínez-Flor (2005), studies of the suggestion speech act fall into two major categories: cross-cultural pragmatic studies and interlanguage pragmatic studies (ILP)-the study of "nonnative speakers' use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge" (Kasper & Rose, 1999, p. 81). Compared with cross-cultural pragmatic studies of the suggestion speech act, however, there are only a few studies in the field of ILP (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1990, 1993Koike, 1994Koike, , 1996Alcón, 2001;Matsumura, 2001Matsumura, , 2003, with even fewer dealing with the development of foreign language learners' pragmatic ability to perform the speech act of suggestion. Because the ability to perform speech acts appropriately is an indication of foreign/second language learners' pragmatic competence, which, in turn, constitutes a part of their "communicative comptetence" (Hymes, 1972), it is imperative to study how foreign/second language learners develop their ability to perform speech acts in the target language.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatic Development of Chinese EFL Learners—A Study on FL Suggestions

Gu¹

2014

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the number of studies on the pragmatic development of nonnative English speakers has been increasing, surprisingly little research has been conducted on the development of the ability of foreign language learners to perform the suggestion speech act, with even less taking Chinese EFL learners as the target group. The present study examines the development of Chinese EFL learners' pragmatic competence by investigating their performance of the suggestion speech act over time. Three sub-corpora representing three different periods of Chinese EFL learners' performance were selected from the SECCL (Spoken English Corpus of Chinese Learners) to discover the changes in the use of linguistic formulae as well as suggestion strategies by Chinese EFL learners. Their performance was then compared with that of native English speakers to find out whether there was evidence of improvement across the years. The results show that (1) changes were taking place in the use of linguistic formulae and suggestion strategies by Chinese learners from 1997 to 2003, with greater changes taking place from the year 2000 to 2003, and (2) there was evidence of increasing similarity between Chinese learners' performance of the suggestion speech acts and that of native English speakers. It can thus be concluded that Chinese learners' pragmatic ability in English improved to some extent over the years of the study.

show abstract

“…In some cases, communication breakdown can occur. It is also widely believed that native speakers consider pragmatic errors to be more serious than phonological or syntactic errors (Koike, 1995;Thomas, 1983;Wolfson, 1989). As Blum-Kulka (1991) points out, requesting style is a good index of a cultural way of speaking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iranian EFL Learners’ Interlanguage Request Modifications: Use of External and Internal Supportive Moves

Najafabadi¹,

Paramasivam²

2012

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The present study investigated the interlanguage pragmatic knowledge of Iranian English learners at three levels of English language proficiency. The study focused on learners' ability to perform the speech act of request and their performance was compared with American native speakers of English to see to what extent they approximated native speakers in using external and internal modifications. A Discourse Completion Task (DCT) including 12 situations was employed to elicit performance data from 120 participants, 90 Iranian EFL learners and 30 American native speakers of English. The data were categorized using an adapted version of the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) classification. The study found that Iranian English learners overused external modifications and underused internal modifications compared to American native speakers. However, they showed pragmatic development toward native speaker norms with increase in language proficiency level. Advanced learners approximated native speakers both in the frequency of use and linguistic form of external modifications with regard to preparator, getting pre-commitment, promise of reward, sweetener, grounder, appreciations, confirmatory, and pre-pre strategies. However they did not approximate native speakers in the frequency of use of external modifications with regard to disarmer and apology strategies, and both in frequency of use and linguistic form of imposition minimizer strategy. In addition, advanced learners approximated native speakers both in the frequency of use and linguistic form of internal modifications with regard to conditional and understater strategies; and in the linguistic form of play down, politeness marker, consultative device, and upgrader strategies. However they did not approximate native speakers both in the frequency of use and linguistic form of downtoner strategy.

show abstract

Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning

Cited by 61 publications

References 0 publications

Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence

Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence

Pragmatic Development of Chinese EFL Learners—A Study on FL Suggestions

Iranian EFL Learners’ Interlanguage Request Modifications: Use of External and Internal Supportive Moves

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About