See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303518345

Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

Research · May 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3254.6160

CITATIONS READS

0 414

1 author:

Ahmad Altasan
ArRass College of Technology
10 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmad Altasan on 25 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ahmad M. Altasan

Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

A Critical Review
Introduction:
As an EFL teacher, I will present a critical review of three studies that might help
me to have a better understanding of my students' pragmatic comprehension. Thus,
when I chose these studies, I was trying to answer the following questions: What are
the factors that affect the development of pragmatic comprehension? What is the most
effective method for teaching L2 pragmatics? What are the differences between non-
native and native speakers of English in speech act comprehension?
For the first query, I chose the study of Taguchi (2008) which investigated the
influence of cognitive processing ability and the amount of L2 contact on the
development of pragmatic comprehension among Japanese learners in ESL context.
Moreover, this study has investigated the relationship between pragmatic gains and
the amount of language contact in L2 context which has not been explored to any
extent. Thus, understanding the contextual features will help me decide what types of
pragmatic objects to be learned.
As for the second query, I chose the study of Takimoto (2007), which investigated
the effectiveness of three instructional methods for teaching L2 pragmatics to
Japanese learners of English. The target population of this study was EFL learners
hence the findings of this study may be generalizable to my Saudi students as EFL
learners. Moreover, no studies have compared the effectiveness of structured input
tasks with and without explicit information for L2 pragmatics. It has practical
applications, especially in EFL context.
The third study was written by Holtgraves (2007) which addressed the question of
whether the online comprehension of speech acts that occurs for native speakers of
English also occurs for nonnative speakers of English. Being a teacher, understanding
pragmatics features of L2 learners will help me to deal with low-level students.
However, these studies are derived from pragmatics research in SLA, but they are
based on different theoretical frameworks. All of them are quantitative studies, but
they used different methodologies. Therefore, reviewing these articles will add to my
knowledge and help me with my project because they are related to the topic of my
research proposal, which is " Pragmalinguistic competence in Request"
 Ahmad M. Altasan

Study (1)
Title: Cognition, Language Contact, and the Development of Pragmatic
Comprehension in a Study-Abroad Context.
Author: Naoko Taguchi
Journal reference: Language Learning 58/1: 33–71 (2008)

The researcher maintains that the distinction between accuracy and processing
speed in skill acquisition parallels Bialystok’s (1990, 1993) theoretical model of L2
pragmatic acquisition, which claimed that acquisition of pragmatic competence
involves acquiring efficient and speedy control over pragmatic knowledge.
This study addressed two questions: (1) whether there is development in accurate
and speedy comprehension of L2 pragmatic over time and (b) whether the
development are related to cognitive processing ability and the amount of language
contact in L2 sitting.
Methodology
The participants were 44 Japanese ESL learners in a Japanese affiliated college
in the United States. Their ages were between 18 to 28 years. They were low-level
learners of English and had the same background of education. Three instruments
were used: a) Pragmatic Listening Test (PLT) which consisted of 60 short dialogues
(refusals and opinions) spoken by male and female native English speakers. Each
dialogue was followed by a yes/no to measure the participant' ability to comprehend
implied speaker intentions.
b) Lexical Access Test (LAT), to assess the cognitive processing ability by
measuring participants’ speed in the semantic judgment. It had 80 words and the
participants decided on whether each word referred to a living or nonliving object
(e.g., the girl = living; a book = nonliving). c) Language Contact Survey, a survey
questionnaire, which was conducted in the L1 to examine the amount of outside class
contact with the target language input and use. Data collected while they were
receiving 28 hr of intensive English instruction per week and were staying with host
families who were native speaker of English.
The PLT and the LAT were conducted following each other three times over a 4-
month period (weeks 3, 8, and 19) by using computers. Test items were randomized
each time and the computer recorded all responses and their latencies. The language
contact survey was administered twice during the period. Immediately following the
second and third PLT and LAT (weeks 8 and 19).
 Ahmad M. Altasan

Results
In response to the first question, result showed that there is no significant
improvement in comprehension accuracy among the ESL learners over a 4-month
period. In contrast with accuracy gains, the comprehension speed development was
significant and improved every time the PLT was administered (weeks 3, 8, and 19).
These findings lend support to the previous theoretical models of skill development
(Anderson; Bialystok, as cited in Taguchi, 2008) which claimed that speed and
accuracy comprise distinct aspects of skill acquisition.
As for the second question, cognitive processing ability and language contact
significantly correlated with gains in speed, but had no correlation with gains in
accuracy. As for the amount of language contact, there was a remarkable variance
from learner to learner and from time to time. This lends support to the previous
studies (DuFon & Churchill; Freed; as cited in Taguchi, 2008) which argued that
living in a target language country alone does not always guarantee opportunities for
practice, and proficiency does not improve automatically by just spending time in the
L2 community.

Study (2)
Title: The Effects of Input-Based Tasks on the Development of Learners’
Pragmatic Proficiency
Author: Masahiro Takimoto
Journal reference: Applied Linguistics 30/1: 1–25 (2007)

According to the author, the effectiveness of the implicit and explicit instruction
for teaching pragmatics has been investigated by many researchers. Findings
suggested that both types of awareness-oriented instruction, explicit/implicit
instruction, are necessary in the development of L2 pragmatics. However, some
interventional studies on grammar and pragmatics teaching have revealed conflict
findings over the superiority of the two types.
This study draws on the interpretation framework proposed by Ellis (1997). It is
derived from the theories and frameworks built for grammar learning.
This study addressed the following question: What are the relative effects of three
different input tasks including (1) structured input with explicit information, (2)
problem-solving, and (3) structured input without explicit information on the
development of Japanese learners’ pragmatic proficiency in English?
 Ahmad M. Altasan

Methodology
The participants were sixty Japanese learners of English who were recruited on a
volunteer-basis. Their ages were between 18 and 40 and their level of English was
intermediate. They were divided into four groups (15 each): three treatment groups,
structured input tasks with explicit information, problem-solving tasks, and structured
input tasks without explicit information, and the control group.
All groups received four 40-minute treatment instructions from the same
instructor. The three instructional treatments were matched for target structure, and all
four groups were matched for instruction time. The first treatment session highlighted
lexical/clausal downgraders in English requests, and the second treatment session
focused on syntactic downgraders. The third and fourth treatment sessions were
reviews of the first and second treatments.
This study used a pre-test, post-test, and follow-up test design. Each test included
the following: 1) Discourse completion test, which consisted of 20 briefly described
situation in English. Subjects were asked to write a request in each situation in
English. 2) Role-play test, which contained 20 role cards. Each role card consisted of
situation and its role that required the subjects to start the conversation by requesting
something from the instructor. Role plays were tape-recorded. 3) Listening test,
which consisted of fifteen different dialogues between a Japanese university student
and a native speaker of English? Participants were asked to classify the
appropriateness of the Japanese university student’s request forms on a 5-point scale.
4) Acceptability judgment test (a computer based test), which required subjects
to read written descriptions of 20 situations. Participants were presented with a
number of requests and instructed to score the first request on an 11-point scale and
then to score subsequent responses proportionally higher or lower in accordance with
the degree of perceived acceptability.
Results
Data from the four tests were analyzed using a two-way repeated-measure
ANOVAs. The results showed identical significant main effects for Instruction, for
the three treatment groups and for Time across the pre-test, post-test, and follow-up
test. Moreover, Post-hoc Scheffe´ tests conducted on the post-test and the follow-up
test scores for the main effect for treatment.
 Ahmad M. Altasan

The findings showed the following two contrasts: (1) the three treatment groups
performed significantly better than the control group on the four tests and (2) there
were no significant differences among the three treatment groups. However, the group
that received the structured input tasks with explicit information did not maintain the
positive effects of the treatment between the post-test and follow-up test on the
listening test component.

Study (3)
Title: Second Language Learners and Speech Act Comprehension
Author: Thomas Holtgraves
Journal reference: Language Learning 57/4: 595–610 (2007)

It has been claimed that native speakers automatically recognize speech acts when
they comprehend utterances (Holtgraves & Ashley, as cited in Holtgraves, 2007). This
study was designed to examine whether this also occurs for nonnative speakers. Based
on previous research on pragmatic processing, the researcher expected online speech
act recognition to occur for L1 participants but not for L2 participants.
This study addressed the question of whether the online comprehension of speech
acts that occurs for native speakers of English also occurs for nonnative speakers of
English.
Methodology
The participants were 18 native speakers of English (their mean age = 19.72) and
16 non-native speakers of English (their mean age = 25.25). The non-native speakers
of English had been in the United States for a mean of 11.85 months and they were
students collected from various campus organizations. These students were natives of
several different countries. The experiment was conducted on a personal computer
using the Eprime software. Participants read conversational utterances and then
performed a lexical decision task.
The Lexicon decision task contained of a set of scenarios (12 speech act and 12
control scenarios). At the end of each scenario there was an utterance that either
performed a specific speech act (speech act version) or did not perform that speech act
(control version) and followed by a probe word naming the performed speech act
(e.g., beg, brag, etc.). Participants were asked to decide as quickly as possible whether
the probe was a word or not. Lexical decision speed and judgment (correct/incorrect)
as well as reading time for the final utterance were automatically recorded.
 Ahmad M. Altasan

Result
For lexical decision accuracy, the results of ANOVA showed no difference
between L1 and L2 subjects. As for lexical decision speed, the ANOVA's results
revealed that L1 participants were far faster (921 ms) than were L2 participants (2,196
ms). Standard deviations in the lexical decision task were greater for the L2
participants than for the L1 participants. Moreover, Levene’s test showed that these
differences were significant.
The finding, consistent with past research, suggested that online speech act activation
did not occur for L2 participants, as it did for L1 participants.

Discussion
Although, the three studies are related to pragmatic research, they investigated
different aspects using different design. Taguchi (2008) used a longitudinal design, a
pretest and a posttest, and used different instruments to collect data. One major
limitation is the validity of the language contact survey because there was a
remarkable variance from learner to learner and from time to time. The author argues
that a 4-month period might have been insufficient and future research with longer
time and with additional measures such as self-report journals should be done.
Takimoto (2007) used a longitudinal and a cross-sectional, three treatment groups
and one control group, design. The collected data was reliable because the researcher
used four different instruments for elicitation. One issue is that the study should be
conducted within an established educational institution in order to strengthen the
generalizability of the finding to other EFL situations.
Holtgraves (2007) used a cross-sectional design with only one instrument. One
major issue is that the researcher relied on the native speakers’ language as the only
measure of achievement in the L2. To avoid the trap of the comparative fallacy
researchers need to rely on alternative analytical procedures (Révész, 2002), such as
Mackey (1999), when she analyzed data with reference to a developmental sequence.
As for the target population, one major limitation in Taguchi (2008) and Takimoto
(2007) studies is the homogeneity of the participant population. Because the
participants were limited to adult Japanese EFL learners, findings cannot be
generalized to different groups of English language learners. Moreover, no random
selection was conducted.
 Ahmad M. Altasan

As for Holtgraves (2007) study, the participants had different language

backgrounds and different levels of English proficiency, factors that have been
reported to influence L2 pragmatic processing (e.g., Taguchi, 2005). The researcher
argues that future research should attempt to replicate this study to control for relevant
background variables.

Conclusion
These studies would add to the existing literature, particularly Taguchi (2008) and
Takimoto (2007) studies, because they explored aspects which have not been
investigated. As an EFL teacher, the study of Takimoto (2007) is the best study
because its findings have practical applications, especially in EFL context and helps
me make the right decision in terms of my language pedagogy. It contributes to our
understanding of how input-based approaches to teaching English pragmatics lead to
positive outcomes in the EFL context. However, I think there is a gap in this study
because it explored only the pragmatic development of request. Various aspects of
pragmatic competence (e.g. apologies, complaints, advice) should be explored.
Finally, after reviewing these three articles I have came up with some questions:
Is it possible for nonnative speakers to ever achieve true automaticity in speech act
recognition? Do native speakers and non-native speakers of English use the same
linguistic expressions to make speech acts? Do pragmalinguistic competence boost
learners’ confidence in making requests?

Bibliography
Holtgraves, T. (2007). Second Language Learners and Speech Act Comprehension.
Language Learning, 57 (4), 2024–2043.
Révész, A. (2002). How to Avoid the Comparative Fallacy during Data Analysis: A
Review of Doughty and Varela (1998) and Mackey (1999). TESOL & Applied
Linguistics, 4 (1), 1- 4.

Matsumura, S. (2003). Modeling the Relationships among Interlanguage Pragmatic

Development, L2 Proficiency, and Exposure to L2. The Modern Language
Journal, 89, 543–562.

Taguchi, N. (2007). Cognition, Language Contact, and the Development of Pragmatic

Comprehension in a Study-Abroad Context. Language Learning, 58 (1), 33–71.

Takimoto, M. (2007). The Effects of Input-Based Tasks on the Development of

Learners' Pragmatic Proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30 (1), 1-14.

View publication stats