Language Learning Motivation and L2

Pragmatic Competence 1st Edition He

Yang
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/language-learning-motivation-and-l2-pragmatic-comp
etence-1st-edition-he-yang/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Stereotypes and Language Learning Motivation A Study of

L2 Learners of Asian Languages 1st Edition Larisa
Nikitina

https://ebookmeta.com/product/stereotypes-and-language-learning-
motivation-a-study-of-l2-learners-of-asian-languages-1st-edition-
larisa-nikitina/

The Calabi Yau Landscape From Geometry to Physics to

Machine Learning Yang Hui He

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-calabi-yau-landscape-from-
geometry-to-physics-to-machine-learning-yang-hui-he/

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language

Learning Bridging Theory and Practice 1st Edition Paula
Garrett Rucks

https://ebookmeta.com/product/intercultural-competence-in-
instructed-language-learning-bridging-theory-and-practice-1st-
edition-paula-garrett-rucks/

Practice and Theory for Materials Development in L2

Learning 1st Edition Hitomi Masuhara

https://ebookmeta.com/product/practice-and-theory-for-materials-
development-in-l2-learning-1st-edition-hitomi-masuhara/
English L2 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching Concepts
Principles and Pedagogy 1st Edition Lawrence J. Zwier

https://ebookmeta.com/product/english-l2-vocabulary-learning-and-
teaching-concepts-principles-and-pedagogy-1st-edition-lawrence-j-
zwier/

The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Volume 76

1st Edition Kara D. Federmeier

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-psychology-of-learning-and-
motivation-volume-76-1st-edition-kara-d-federmeier/

Pragmatic Python Programming: Learning Python the Smart

Way 1st Edition Gabor Guta

https://ebookmeta.com/product/pragmatic-python-programming-
learning-python-the-smart-way-1st-edition-gabor-guta/

Intercultural Communicative Competence in English

Language Teaching in Polish State Colleges 1st Edition
Piotr Romanowski

https://ebookmeta.com/product/intercultural-communicative-
competence-in-english-language-teaching-in-polish-state-
colleges-1st-edition-piotr-romanowski/

Cognition and Language Learning 1st Edition Sadia

Belkhir

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cognition-and-language-
learning-1st-edition-sadia-belkhir/
He Yang

Language Learning Motivation and L2

Pragmatic Competence
He Yang
College of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Xiamen University, Xiamen,
Fujian, China

ISBN 978-981-19-5279-1 e-ISBN 978-981-19-5280-7

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5280-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive

license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively
licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks,

service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the
absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the
advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate
at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer
Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04
Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore
Acknowledgements
Perhaps the most enjoyable aspect of completing my book is this
chance to properly thank those whose contributions shaped the final
result. This book started life as a Ph.D. thesis completed at the
University of Aberdeen in 2018, though it has grown and changed quite
a bit in several years of gestation. The thesis was supervised by
Professor Robert McColl Millar, who has been a constant source of
advice and encouragement and whose guidance has tremendously
influenced my development as both a scholar and a human being. I
could not have asked for a better supervisor.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Professor Wei Ren
of Beihang University for the many conservations and discussions that
helped me clarify my thoughts on various aspects of this book. His
critical comments and questions always enriched my own research. I
am also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers of this book for their
careful reading of my manuscript and their many insightful comments
and suggestions.
I also wish to thank the students who participated in the project,
and my colleagues at Xiamen University, who kindly allowed me to
involve their students in the data collection process. Without their
outstanding cooperation, my research for this book would not have
been completed. My appreciation is also extended to Dr. Peixin Zhang,
Dr. Agni Connor and Dr. Lorna Aucott for their assistance with the
statistical issues in my research.
My research for this book was facilitated by several funding sources.
I am greatly indebted to the China Scholarship Council (CSC) for
financially supporting my doctoral study, and also to the University of
Aberdeen and Xiamen University for sponsoring and financing my
participant recruitment and conference trips. Attending conferences
enabled me to present the findings of my research and to receive
constructive feedback from scholars and colleagues. Their support is
greatly appreciated.
Some of the material contained in this book has previously been
published elsewhere. I would like to thank John Benjamins Publishing
Company for permission to reproduce my article: Yang, H., & Ren, W.
(2019). Pragmatic awareness and second language learning motivation:
A mixed-methods investigation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 26(2–3), 447–
473. DOI: 10.​1075/​pc.​19022.​yan. Thanks are also due to Frontiers for:
Yang, H. (2022). Second language learners’ competence of and beliefs
about pragmatic comprehension: Insights from the Chinese EFL
context. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 801315. DOI: 10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2021.​
801315. My thanks go also to MDPI for: Yang, H., & Wu, X. (2022).
Language learning motivation and its role in learner complaint
production. Sustainability, 14, 10770. DOI: 10.​3390/​su141710770.
Last but not least, my heartfelt thanks go to my family for their
unconditional love: to my parents (without your help and your
dedication to Junyue, I could have never found the opportunity to
engage in the project, thank you so much); to my husband, Xiaoyu, who
took a long leave of absence from his work to take care of me and our
son in the UK; to my son, Junyue, who constantly reminded me not to
give up (thank you, my little boy, for your encouragement and for
moving to the UK to be with me, even when you did not know a single
English word). Without them, I could not have survived the many ups
and downs of my doctoral study overseas and concentrated on my
research.
Abbreviations
AJT Appropriateness Judgement Task
AMTB Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
ATLC Attitudes Towards the L2 Community
ATLE Attitudes Towards Learning English
CCSARP Cross-Cultural Speech Acts Realization Patterns
CI Cultural Interest
D Social Distance
DCT Discourse Completion Task
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ESL English as a Second Language
FTAs Face Threatening Acts
HM High Motivation
ID Individual Difference
ILE Intended Learning Efforts
ILP Interlanguage Pragmatics
ILS Ideal L2 Self
IN Instrumentality
KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
L2MSS L2 Motivational Self System
LM Low Motivation
M Mean
MCLQ Multiple-Choice Listening Questionnaire
MMD Mixed Methods Design
OLS Ought-to L2 Self
P Social Power
R Ranking of Imposition
RQ Research Question
SD Standard Deviation
SLA Second Language Acquisition
Contents
1 Introduction
1.​1 Current Situation of L2 Pragmatics
1.​2 The Purpose of the Study
1.​3 Research Questions
1.​4 Overview of the Chapters
References
2 Literature Review
2.​1 Pragmatics
2.​2 Second Language Pragmatics and L2 Pragmatic Competence
2.​2.​1 Definition and Research Scope of L2 Pragmatics
2.​2.​2 Communicative Competence and L2 Pragmatic
Competence
2.​3 Pragmatic Theories Adopted by L2 Pragmatics Research
2.​3.​1 Speech Acts Theories
2.​3.​2 Implicature
2.​3.​3 Politeness Theory
2.​4 Motivation to Learn a Foreign Language
2.​4.​1 Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model
2.​4.​2 L2 Motivational Self System
2.​4.​3 Research on the L2 Motivational Self System
2.​5 Studies Examining the Effects of L2 Motivation on L2
Pragmatic Competence
2.​5.​1 Studies Investigating the Effects of L2 Motivation on L2
Pragmatic Awareness
2.​5.​2 Studies Examining the Relationship Between
Motivation and L2 Pragmatic Production
 2.​5.​3 Summary and Discussions
2.​6 Chapter Summary
References
3 Methodology
3.​1 Mixed Methods Design
3.​2 Participants
3.​3 Instruments
3.​3.​1 The Web-Based Survey
3.​3.​2 Semi-Structured Interviews
3.​4 Procedures
3.​5 Data Analysis
3.​5.​1 Quantitative Data Analysis
3.​5.​2 Semi-Structured Interviews
3.​6 Chapter Summary
Appendices
References
4 EFL Learners’ Motivation for Studying English
4.​1 Questionnaire Results
4.​1.​1 Distribution of the Motivational Variables
4.​1.​2 The Perceived Role of the Seven Motivational Variables
4.​1.​3 Comparison of L2 Motivation Across Genders
4.​1.​4 Comparison of L2 Motivation Across Majors
4.​1.​5 Summary and Discussion
4.​2 Interview Results
4.​2.​1 Instrumentality
4.​2.​2 Cultural Interest in Studying English
 4.​2.​3 Ideal L2 Self
4.​2.​4 Enjoying Language Learning as a Reason for Studying
English
4.​2.​5 Attitude Towards the L2 Community
4.​3 Chapter Summary
References
5 L2 Motivation and Pragmatic Awareness
5.​1 L2 Pragmatic Awareness
5.​1.​1 Appropriateness Judgement Task Results
5.​1.​2 Interview Results
5.​2 Effect of L2 Motivation on L2 Pragmatic Awareness
5.​2.​1 Quantitative Results
5.​2.​2 Qualitative Results
5.​3 Chapter Summary
References
6 L2 Motivation and Pragmatic Comprehension
6.​1 L2 Pragmatic Comprehension
6.​1.​1 Multiple-Choice Listening Questionnaire Results
6.​1.​2 Interview Results
6.​1.​3 Paralinguistic Cues
6.​2 Effect of L2 Motivation on L2 Pragmatic Comprehension
6.​2.​1 Quantitative Results
6.​2.​2 Qualitative Results
6.​2.​3 Lack of Exposure to the L2 Community
6.​3 Chapter Summary
References
7 L2 Motivation and Pragmatic Production
7.​1 Comparison of Groups’ Use of the Complaining Act
7.​1.​1 Frequency of Opting Out
7.​1.​2 Range of Pragmatic Strategy Types
7.​1.​3 Frequency of Pragmatic Strategies
7.​2 Employment of Individual Pragmatic Strategies
7.​2.​1 Complaint Strategies
7.​2.​2 Internal Complaint Modifications
7.​2.​3 External Complaint Modifications
7.​3 Chapter Summary
References
8 Conclusions
8.​1 Summary of Findings
8.​1.​1 Research Question 1
8.​1.​2 Research Question 2
8.​1.​3 Research Question 3
8.​1.​4 Research Question 4
8.​2 Implications
8.​2.​1 Theoretical Implications
8.​2.​2 Methodological Implications
8.​2.​3 Pedagogical Implications
8.​3 Limitations of the Study
8.​4 Suggestions for Further Research
References
List of Figures
Fig.​2.​1 Brown and Levinson’s set of FTA-avoiding strategies

Fig.​2.​2 Gardner’s conceptualisatio​n of the integrative motive (1985)

Fig.​2.​3 Gardner’s socio-educational model of second language

acquisition (Gardner &​MacIntyre, 1993)

Fig.​3.​1 Mixed methods design and phases

Fig.​4.​1 Mean values of seven motivational variables across majors

Fig.​5.​1 Appropriateness ratings across scenarios

Fig.​7.​1 The motivational levels and gender interaction in relation to the

frequency of complaint strategies

Fig.​7.​2 The motivational levels and major interaction on the frequency

of complaint strategies

Fig.​7.​3 The effects of motivational levels and gender interaction on the

frequency of internal modifications
List of Tables
Table 2.​1 The Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975)

Table 3.​1 Descriptions of the DCT situations

Table 3.​2 The taxonomy of complaint strategies

Table 3.​3 Categories of internal modifications

Table 4.​1 Reliability estimates for the seven motivational variables

Table 4.​2 Cronbach alpha values, questionnaire items and factor

loadings of items for each motivational variable

Table 4.​3 Independent sample T-test for the overall L2 motivation

across genders

Table 4.​4 Independent Sample T test for the seven motivational

variables across genders

Table 4.​5 One-way ANOVA for the overall L2 motivation between

English majors, arts students (excluding English majors), science
students

Table 4.​6 Comparison of the motivational variables across majors

Table 4.​7 Condensed overview of interviewees’ reasons for learning
English

Table 5.​1 Descriptive statistics of participants’ performance in AJT

Table 5.​2 Correlation between overall motivation and pragmatic

awareness

Table 5.​3 Correlations between motivational variables and pragmatic

awareness

Table 5.​4 Stepwise regression model predicting L2 pragmatic

awareness

Table 6.​1 Items in MCLQ from easiest to most difficult

Table 6.2 Paired Sample T test for accuracy scores on two types of
implicature

Table 6.​3 Frequency distribution of factors reported for each item

Table 6.​4 Correlation between overall L2 motivation and pragmatic

comprehension
Table 6.​5 Correlations between motivational variables and pragmatic
comprehension

Table 6.​6 Stepwise regression model predicting L2 pragmatic

comprehension

Table 7.​1 Summary of participants’ general information

Table 7.​2 Comparison of frequency of opt-outs by situation

Table 7.​3 Descriptive statistics on the range of complaint strategy types

for the HM group and the LM group

Table 7.​4 Descriptive statistics on the range of internal modification

types for the HM group and the LM group

Table 7.​5 Descriptive statistics on the range of external modification

types for the HM group and the LM group

Table 7.​6 Frequency and percentage of complaint strategies for the HM

group and the LM group

Table 7.​7 Results of factorial ANOVA for complaint strategies involving

gender

Table 7.​8 Results of factorial ANOVA for complaint strategies involving

major
Table 7.​9 Frequency and percentage of internal modifications for the
HM group and the LM group

Table 7.​10 Results of factorial ANOVA for internal modifications

involving gender

Table 7.​11 Results of factorial ANOVA for internal modifications

involving major

Table 7.​12 Frequency and percentage of external modifiers for the HM

group and the LM group

Table 7.​13 Results of factorial ANOVA for external modifications

involving gender

Table 7.​14 Results of factorial ANOVA for external modifications

involving major

Table 7.​15 Number of “hint” employed according to status and distance

Table 7.​16 Number of “dissatisfaction” employed according to status

and distance

Table 7.​17 Number of “interrogation” employed according to status and

distance
Table 7.​18 Number of “accusation” employed according to status and
distance

Table 7.​19 Number of “request for repair” employed according to status

and distance

Table 7.​20 Number of “threat” employed according to status and

distance

Table 7.​21 Number of “downtoner” employed according to status and

distance

Table 7.​22 Number of “understater” employed according to status and

distance

Table 7.​23 Number of “subjectiviser” employed according to status and

distance

Table 7.​24 Number of “cajoler” employed according to status and

distance

Table 7.​25 Number of “appealer” employed according to status and

distance

Table 7.​26 Number of “intensifier” employed according to status and

distance
Table 7.​27 Number of “preparator” employed according to status and
distance

Table 7.​28 Number of “disarmer” employed according to status and

distance

Table 7.​29 Number of “providing evidence” employed according to

status and distance
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
H. Yang, Language Learning Motivation and L2 Pragmatic Competence
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5280-7_1

1. Introduction
He Yang1
(1) College of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Xiamen University,
Xiamen, Fujian, China

He Yang
Email: yanghe@xmu.edu.cn

Abstract
Language learning motivation is very likely to influence the process and
outcome of second language (L2) learning (Ellis, Understanding second
language acquisition, Oxford University Press, 2015). However, to date,
little research has explored the relationship between L2 motivation and
pragmatic acquisition. The potential role of motivation in the
acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence has been largely under-
researched (Taguchi and Roever, Second language pragmatics, Oxford
University Press, 2017). This book aims to explore how language
learners come to know what to say to whom in an English as a foreign
language (EFL) context and whether and to what extent their language
learning motivation impacts their learning. This chapter concisely
presents the current situation of second language (L2) pragmatics,
explains the rationale of the study, introduces the research questions,
and outlines the structure of the different chapters.

Keywords Language learning motivation – L2 pragmatics – Pragmatic

competence – Pragmatic awareness – Pragmatic comprehension –
Pragmatic production – L2 motivational self system – Mixed methods
design – EFL learners
A speaker of English as a foreign language who has done a presentation
as part of a course assignment goes to see his professor to get some
comments on his performance, and the professor says, “Nice
PowerPoint.” This student might take this comment as a “compliment”.
Another student in the same situation might interpret this comment as
“indirect criticism”. Both interpretations are certainly reasonable, but
most competent English speakers would consider the second to be the
correct interpretation, as the professor’s comment touches on only an
unimportant and irrelevant aspect of the student’s overall performance.
Making the first interpretation would indicate that the speaker has
made communication missteps, which might arise from not
understanding the social conventions or cultural rules and norms of the
target language rather than arising from a lack of grammatical
knowledge.
The present study explores how language learners come to know
what to say to whom in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context
and whether and to what extent their language learning motivation
impacts their learning. More specifically, it examines whether and how
Chinese university EFL learners’ various motivations for studying
English differently influence their second language (L2) pragmatic sub-
competencies, namely, their perception of the appropriateness of
speech acts, their comprehension of conversational implicatures and
their production of the speech act of complaining in English.

1.1 Current Situation of L2 Pragmatics

Language learning motivation is very likely to influence the process and
outcome of second language (L2) learning (Ellis, 2015). For this reason,
the topic has attracted considerable attention in the field of L2
acquisition. However, to date, little research has explored the
relationship between L2 motivation and pragmatic acquisition. The
potential role of motivation in the acquisition of L2 pragmatic
competence has been largely under-researched (Taguchi & Roever,
2017). Indeed, in their seminal book, Kasper and Rose (2002) called for
more research on the influence of motivation and attitudes in L2
pragmatic acquisition, since at the time, only Takahashi (2000) had
directly investigated the effect of motivation on learners’ awareness of
pragmalinguistic forms. However, more than a decade and a half later,
this situation remained nearly unchanged, as noted by Taguchi and
Roever (2017).
Studies exploring the effects of L2 motivation on pragmatic
acquisition are still lacking. Although some authors treat motivation as
a post hoc explanation for pragmatic acquisition (e.g., Cook, 2001;
Niezgoda & Roever, 2001), to date, only a few studies have measured
motivation as an independent variable and examined its effect on
pragmatic acquisition (e.g., Tajeddin & Moghadam, 2012; Takahashi,
2005, 2015). The limited number of empirical investigations into the
effect of learners’ motivation on L2 pragmatics reveals an important
area of research yet to be explored.
Pragmatic competence refers to the ability to use language
accurately and appropriately in social interactions and includes both
receptive and productive pragmatic competences (Kasper & Rose,
2002; Ren, 2015). However, few studies in L2 pragmatics research have
explored the two aspects of the same group of participants (exceptions
being Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011; Ren, 2015;
Schauer, 2009; Taguchi, 2012).
Moreover, the progress in research on these two sub-competencies
of L2 pragmatics has been unbalanced. In recent decades, pragmatic
competence has been analysed mainly through production skills,
especially the performance of speech acts (e.g., Achiba, 2002; Felix-
Brasdefer, 2004; Ren, 2013; Trosborg, 1995), although an increasing
number of studies have investigated learners’ L2 pragmatic
comprehension, such as the ability to identify pragmatic infelicities
(Bardovi-Harlig & Dö rnyei, 1998; Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin, 2005;
Schauer, 2006, 2009) and comprehend conventional expressions
(Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011; Roever, 2012), conversational
implicature (Bouton, 1992, 1994; Taguchi, 2005, 2011; Taguchi et al.,
2016), and speech acts (Cook & Liddicoat, 2002; Holtgraves, 2007;
Taguchi & Bell, 2020). Therefore, studies that have incorporated both
constructs in instruments are still scarce.
Studies that focus on only certain aspect(s) of L2 pragmatic
competence are likely to fail to uncover learners’ overall pragmatic
competence. More empirical studies concerning both aspects of
pragmatic competence are needed to achieve a more comprehensive
understanding of the acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence (Ren,
2015; Taguchi, 2010). Studies aiming to explore the impact of L2
motivation on the acquisition of both receptive and productive
pragmatic competences are of considerable interest because “different
aspects of L2 pragmatics may be differentially noticeable to learners
with different motivational profiles” (Kasper & Rose, 2002, p. 287).
That is, it is very likely that the two sub-competencies of L2 pragmatics
are differently influenced by language learning motivation.
Another concern is related to methodological issues. In the field of
L2 pragmatics, previous studies have mostly employed a quantitative
approach (e.g., Barron, 2003; Matsumura, 2001, 2003; Taguchi, 2008,
2011) but have rarely used qualitative approaches (e.g., Ren, 2014;
Taguchi, 2012). The two types of approaches each have their own
advantages. For example, quantitative data can provide researchers
with “a large numerical database”, whereas qualitative data often
provide “the richer contextualized data important for a fuller
understanding” (Mackey & Gass, 2016, p. 278). Employing a mixed
methods design (MMD), combining quantitative and qualitative
approaches, can provide “a greater triangulation of findings and help
identify and interpret ‘rich points’ in research” (Duff, 2010, p. 59, citing
Hornberger, 2006). Therefore, the adoption of MMD has recently been
advocated in L2 pragmatics research (Ren, 2015). This also follows the
general trend in applied linguistics research (Dewaele, 2005; Dö rnyei,
2007; Hashemi & Babii, 2013; Jang et al., 2014).
In addition, research on the acquisition of pragmatic competence
has predominantly examined learners as a homogenous group, focusing
on the effect of L2 proficiency or learning contexts (including study
abroad and formal classroom instruction). Few studies have explored
the effect of individual variation, for example, the link between
learners’ language learning motivation and L2 pragmatic competence
(e.g., Yang & Ren, 2019). Moreover, little effort has been made to
investigate the effect of motivation on L2 pragmatic development
through the lens of L2 Motivational Self System (Dö rnyei, 2005, 2009),
although L2 motivation is by nature dynamic, complex and multifaceted
(Dö rnyei, 2005; Ushioda, 2010). Finally, little research has examined
the relationships between learners’ motivation and their L2 pragmatic
competence in a Chinese EFL context.

1.2 The Purpose of the Study

Given the gaps in the scholarly analysis of the subjects discussed in
Section 1.1, the present study attempts to contribute to the current L2
pragmatic literature in a number of ways. First, it aims to explore the
significance of EFL learners’ motivation for their acquisition of L2
pragmatic competence. Second, this aim demands methodological
innovation: the study combines a Web-based survey and post hoc semi-
structured interviews; it bases its discussion on a triangulation of
quantitative and qualitative methods. Third, the study attempts to
explore the effect of L2 motivation on both receptive and productive
pragmatic competences of the same group of EFL learners. Finally, it
contributes to the field of L2 pragmatics research by examining Chinese
university EFL learners’ L2 pragmatics and L2 motivation, expanding
the range of first languages (L1)—in this case Chinese—that have been
investigated by contemporary L2 pragmatics studies.

1.3 Research Questions

The study investigates the effect of EFL learners’ L2 motivation on their
pragmatic competence. A total of 508 Chinese first-year students at a
public university participated in the study. Data were collected from a
Web-based survey and post hoc semi-structured interviews. The Web-
based test consisted of four sections: a motivation questionnaire using
a six-point Likert scale, an appropriateness judgement task (AJT), a
multiple-choice listening questionnaire (MCLQ) and a discourse
completion task (DCT). As stated in Section 1.2, the goal of this study is
to explore whether and to what extent learners’ L2 motivation—
including the seven motivational variables under investigation, namely,
attitude towards the L2 community, cultural interest, instrumentality,
ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, attitude towards learning English, and
intended learning effort—is related to their receptive competence (i.e.,
pragmatic awareness and comprehension) and productive competence
(i.e., pragmatic production) in L2 pragmatics. Therefore, the
overarching research questions (RQ) that the present study seeks to
answer are as follows:

RQ 1: What is the status of language learning motivation among

Chinese university EFL learners?
RQ 2: To what extent does Chinese university EFL learners’ L2
motivation influence their level of L2 pragmatic awareness?
RQ 3: To what extent does Chinese university EFL learners’ L2
motivation influence their level of L2 pragmatic comprehension?
RQ 4: To what extent does Chinese university EFL learners’ L2
motivation influence their level of L2 pragmatic production?

1.4 Overview of the Chapters

This book consists of eight chapters. I will start in Chapter 2 by
reviewing the theories, concepts and studies that are relevant to the
present study. Then, Chapter 3 presents the research methodology in
terms of the mixed methods design, research site and participants,
instrumentation, data collection procedures and data analysis of the
study. Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7 report and discuss the main findings
according to the research questions. Specifically, Chapter 4 deals with
RQ 1, which presents the results of the investigation into Chinese
university EFL learners’ language learning motivation. Chapter 5
addresses RQ 2, which examines the results of the investigation into the
effect of L2 motivation on EFL learners’ levels of L2 pragmatic
awareness. Chapter 6 addresses RQ 3, which explores the extent to
which learners’ motivation for studying English affects their levels of
pragmatic comprehension. Chapter 7 reports on and discusses the
findings with regard to RQ 4, which examines whether learners’ L2
motivation level (high and low) plays a role in their acquisition of
pragmatic production. The final chapter provides a summary of the
main findings from the study and presents theoretical, methodological,
and pedagogical implications. It also considers the limitations of the
study and suggests further research.
References
Achiba, M. (2002). Learning to request in a second language: Child interlanguage
pragmatics. Multilingual Matters.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource:

Recognition and production of conversational expressions in L2 pragmatics.
Language Learning, 59(4), 755–795.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of
interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics.
Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 347–384.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dö rnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic

violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the
ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401–415.

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things

with words in a study abroad context. John Benjamins.

Bouton, L. F. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it

come automatically without being explicitly taught? In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.),
Pragmatics and language learning monograph (Vol. 3, pp. 66–80). University of
Illinois.

Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language learned slowly

when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 157–167.

Cook, H. (2001). Why can’t learners of Japanese as a foreign language distinguish

polite from impolite speech styles? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in
language teaching (pp. 80–102). Cambridge University Press.

Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). The development of comprehension in inter-

language pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of
Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 19–39.

Dewaele, J. M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in

instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language
Journal, 89(3), 367–380.
Dö rnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dö rnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative

and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Dö rnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dö rnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters.

Duff, P. (2010). Research approaches in applied linguistics. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The

Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 45–59). Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford

University Press.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of

residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587–653.

Hashemi, M., & Babii, E. (2013). Mixed methods research: Toward new research
designs in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 828–852.

Holtgraves, T. (2007). Second language learners and speech act comprehension.

Language Learning, 57(4), 595–610.

Hornberger, N. (2006). Negotiation methodological rich points in applied linguitics

research: An ethnographer’s view. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. Chapelle, & P. Duff
(Eds.), Inference and generalizability I: Applied linguistics (pp. 221–240). John
Benjamins.

Jang, E., Wagner, M., & Park, G. (2014). Mixed methods research in language testing
and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 123–153.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a Second language. Blackwell
Publishers.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design
(2nd ed.). Routledge.

Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach
to second language socialization. Language Learning, 51(4), 635–679.

Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationship among interlanguage pragmatic

development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465–491.
Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function
of learning environment? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 63–79). Cambridge University Press.

Ren, W. (2013). The effect of study abroad on the pragmatic development of the
internal modification of refusals. Pragmatics, 23(4), 715–741.

Ren, W. (2014). A Longitudinal investigation into L2 learners’ cognitive processes

during study abroad. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 575–594.

Ren, W. (2015). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad contexts. Peter Lang.

Roever, C. (2012). What learners get for free (and when): Learning of routine
formulae in ESL and EFL environment? ELT Journal, 66, 10–21.

Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and
development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269–318.

Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context.

Continuum.

Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language.

The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543–562.

Taguchi, N. (2008). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic

comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58(1), 33–71.

Taguchi, N. (2010). Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg

(Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 333–361). Mouton de Gruyter.

Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience in

pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61(3), 904–939.

Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence.

Multilingual Matters.

Taguchi, N., & Bell, N. D. (2020). Comprehension of implicatures and humor in a

second language. In K. P. Schneier & E. Ifantidou (Eds.), Handbook of developmental
and clinical pragmatics (pp. 331–360). Mouton De Gruyter.

Taguchi, N., Gomez-Laich, P. M., & Arrufat-Marques, M. J. (2016). Comprehension of

indirect meaning in Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 677–
698.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Tajeddin, A., & Moghadam, A. Z. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatic motivation: Its

construct and impact on speech act production. RELC Journal, 43, 353–373.

Takahashi, S. (2000). The effects of motivation and proficiency on the awareness of

pragmatic strategies in implicit foreign language learning. Unpublished manuscript.

Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and

proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90–120.

Takahashi, S. (2015). The effects of learner profiles on pragmalinguistic awareness

and learning. System, 48, 48–61.

Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies.

Mouton de Gruyter.

Ushioda, E. (2010). Motivation and SLA: Bridging the gap. EUROSLA Yearbook, 10, 5–
20.

Yang, H., & Ren, W. (2019). Pragmatic awareness and second language learning
motivation: A mixed-methods investigation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 26(2–3), 447–
473.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
H. Yang, Language Learning Motivation and L2 Pragmatic Competence
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5280-7_2

2. Literature Review
He Yang1
(1) College of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Xiamen University,
Xiamen, Fujian, China

He Yang
Email: yanghe@xmu.edu.cn

Abstract
This chapter first represents the theoretical framework of the study,
starting with a brief overview of pragmatics with a focus on speech acts
theories, conversational implicatures, and politeness theory, followed
by empirical studies adopting the aforementioned theories in the field
of L2 pragmatics. Then, this chapter reviews research on L2 motivation,
including Robert Gardner’s work (with a focus on the concept of
integrative motivation) and Dö rnyei’s L2 motivational self system.
Given the extensive literature on L2 pragmatics and language learning
motivation, this chapter provides a concise and logical review of the
relevant theories that lay a solid theoretical foundation for the study.
Finally, empirical studies investigating the relationship between
language learning motivation and L2 pragmatic competence are
examined. The research gap on the effects of individual difference (i.e.,
motivation) on pragmatic competence is highlighted.

Keywords Speech acts – Complaints – Conversational implicatures –

Politeness theory – Language learning motivation – Integrative
motivation – L2 motivational self system – L2 pragmatic competence –
Pragmatic awareness – Pragmatic production
This study investigates the effects of language learning motivation on
the acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence in the EFL context, an area
that has received limited attention in the past. This chapter reviews
theories, concepts and studies relevant to the present study. It is
organized as follows. Section 2.1 briefly discusses the history of
pragmatics. Section 2.2 introduces a definition of L2 pragmatics, the
research scope of such pragmatics and different aspects of L2
pragmatic competence. The focus of Section 2.3 is on three important
topics in traditional pragmatics research: speech act theory, implicature
and politeness. Section 2.4 presents past research on motivations for
studying a foreign language. Finally, Section 2.5 reviews existing
empirical studies on the association between L2 motivation and L2
pragmatic competence.

2.1 Pragmatics
Pragmatics, a relatively young linguistic discipline, has its origins in the
philosophy of language and in the work of the philosopher Charles
Morris (1938), who proposed the first definition of pragmatics as “the
study of the relation of signs to interpreters” (p. 6), placing it within a
semiotic trichotomy, along with semantics (the study of the relation of
signs to what they denote) and syntax (the study of the formal relation
between one sign with another) (Huang, 2014; Levinson, 1983). All
definitions of pragmatics put forward since Morris’s work can be traced
back to this insight. However, although pragmaticians such as Stalnaker
(1972), Levinson (1983, 2000), Leech (1983), Mey (2001) and Crystal
(1997) have attempted to discuss possible definitions for pragmatics,
no consensus exists among contemporary scholars on what exactly the
discipline or concept comprises. Considering the purpose of the present
study, I adopt a widely cited definition offered by Crystal (1997, p. 301),
who defines pragmatics as:

The study of language from the point of view of users, especially

of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using
language in social interaction and the effects their use of
language has on other participants in the act of communication.
 In this sense, pragmatics essentially focuses on actual language use
and the social conventions governing it. Moreover, this definition
emphasizes that pragmatics research should be conducted from both
speaker-producer and hearer-interpreter perspectives. During the
process of interaction, language users (speaker and hearer) shape and
infer meaning in a sociocultural context. Crystal further expands the
concept of pragmatics by incorporating into the definition the effects of
social interaction on interlocutors. Kasper and Rose (2002) point out
that the act of communication refers not only to speech acts, which are
among the most rigorously researched areas in pragmatics, but also to
different kinds of discourse and various speech events.
In addition, Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983) propose dividing
pragmatics into pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics.
Pragmalinguistics refers to the resources used to convey
communicative acts and relational or interpersonal meanings.
Resources of this type include pragmatic strategies such as directness
and indirectness, routines, and a large range of linguistic forms that can
intensify or soften communicative acts. For example, speakers can
choose different linguistic strategies to express their complaints, such
as You have already played rock music for hours or It’s midnight and I
need to go to work tomorrow. Although the speakers are complaining in
both cases, they directly put responsibility on the hearer only in the
first sentence. In the second sentence, they avoid directly blaming the
hearer for the music by employing non-conventional indirectness
(Blum-Kulka, 1997, p. 46). In a complaint situation, the speaker may
choose directness, indirectness or non-conventional indirectness,
depending on factors such as interpersonal distance, familiarity,
attitudes and affect.
Sociopragmatics, on the other hand, is “the sociological interface of
pragmatics” (Leech, 1983, p. 10) and refers to the social perceptions
underlying participants’ interpretation and performance of
communicative action. Speech communities differ in their assessment
of speakers’ and hearers’ social distance and social power, their rights
and obligations, and the degree of imposition involved in particular
communicative acts (Kasper & Rose, 2002). Appropriate
communicative behaviour requires speakers to assess social factors,
such as social distance, relative social power, and the degree of
imposition involved in a communicative act (Brown & Levinson, 1987),
as well as an assessment of cultural values, which determine rights and
obligations in a society (Thomas, 1983).
In summary, pragmatics as a discipline has roots in the philosophy
of language. It focuses on actual language uses and the ways in which
they are performed in a social context. Pragmatics studies encompass
both the production and the interpretation of linguistic forms.
Pragmatics consists of pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. Second
language pragmatics, the sub-field of pragmatics that the present study
is situated in, is reviewed in the next section.

2.2 Second Language Pragmatics and L2 Pragmatic

Competence
This section presents the theoretical basis and research scope of second
language pragmatics. Section 2.2.1 introduces the definition and
research scope of L2 pragmatics. Section 2.2.2 discusses how recent
models of communicative competence have situated pragmatic
competence as an essential component of L2 ability.

2.2.1 Definition and Research Scope of L2

Pragmatics
Over the past three decades, much attention in second/foreign
language learning research has been devoted to L2 learners’ pragmatic
competence, which has led to the establishment of the study of second
language (L2) pragmatics as one of the central areas of investigation in
second language acquisition (SLA) research (Taguchi & Roever, 2017).
L2 pragmatics, also named interlanguage pragmatics, or ILP, addresses
“nonnative speakers’ use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge”
(Kasper & Rose, 1999, p. 81). As indicated by its name, L2 pragmatics
belongs to the domains of both second language acquisition and
pragmatics (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). The “hybrid” nature of L2
pragmatics is also reflected in Kasper and Rose’s (2002) definition of
ILP: “As the study of second language use, interlanguage pragmatics
examines how nonnative speakers comprehend and produce action in a
target language. As the study of second language learning,
interlanguage pragmatics investigates how L2 learners develop the
ability to understand and perform action in a target language” (p. 5).
Kasper and Rose’s (2002) definition underscores two important
aspects of L2 pragmatics. First, learners’ L2 pragmatic competence
should be investigated through abilities related to both pragmatic
comprehension and pragmatic production. In this sense, L2 pragmatic
competence corresponds to Crystal’s (1997) definition of pragmatics
discussed in Section 2.1. According to Kasper and Rose’s (2002)
definition of ILP, L2 pragmatic competence consists of both receptive
pragmatic perception and productive pragmatic competence. More
specifically, receptive pragmatic perception entails pragmatic
awareness and pragmatic comprehension (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). In
this study, pragmatic awareness is operationalized as the ability to
identify pragmatic (in)felicities in a particular context (Bardovi-Harlig
& Dö rnyei, 1998; Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin, 2005; Schauer, 2006, 2009),
and pragmatic comprehension refers to the ability to comprehend the
intended meaning conveyed by certain utterances (Bouton, 1992, 1994;
Taguchi et al., 2016; Taguchi, 2005, 2011b). The former is investigated
through learners’ judgement of the appropriateness of utterances in a
range of speech act scenarios, and the latter is investigated through
their understanding of conversational implicatures. In addition,
productive pragmatic competence refers to the ability to vary one’s
language use appropriately according to the social context to perform a
communicative act (Ishihara, 2006; Thomas, 1983). Such competence is
investigated in this study through learners’ written production
performance in performing the speech act of complaining.
Second, this definition also emphasizes the importance of
investigating learners’ acquisition and development of L2 pragmatic
competence (Ren, 2015). However, while some investigations into the
development of L2 pragmatics have been conducted,1 little attention
has been given to factors that might influence development. Although
some research has recently started to explore such factors,2 these
studies have predominantly examined learners as a homogenous group,
as pointed out in the previous chapter. Therefore, little is known about
how individual variation affects learners’ L2 pragmatic competence.
Empirical studies examining the impact of individual variation on
the development of L2 pragmatic competence are rather few and far
between, although Kasper and Rose (2002) push for such research to
be conducted. To date, L2 pragmatic researchers have analysed factors
relevant to learners’ individual differences, such as age (e.g., Kim, 2000;
Marriott, 1995; Regan, 1995), gender (e.g., Kerekes, 1992; Rintell, 1984;
Siegal, 1994), language aptitude (Li, 2017) and language learning
motivation (Chiravate, 2012; Cook, 2001; Takahashi, 2005, 2015;
Yamato et al., 2013; Yang & Ren, 2019).
Among these factors, language learning motivation is of
considerable importance to the present study. On the one hand, in the
field of SLA research, motivation has been considered a vital factor, as it
is very likely to “affect the rate of learning and ultimate achievement”
(Ellis, 2015, p. 46). On the other hand, in the L2 pragmatics research to
date, only a few studies have assessed L2 motivation as an independent
variable and explored its effect on pragmatic development (Tajeddin &
Moghadam, 2012; Takahashi, 2005, 2015). The limited number of
empirical investigations into learners’ motivation in L2 pragmatics
reveals an important area of research yet to be explored.
In summary, there is a need to investigate L2 pragmatic competence
through abilities related to both pragmatic comprehension and
pragmatic production. With respect to the acquisition of L2 pragmatic
competence, some empirical studies have looked at the trajectory of L2
pragmatics development. As an emerging area of study, the research on
L2 pragmatics has continued to deepen, encompassing learners’
pragmatic use and development and the factors influencing such
development. However, the power of individual variation in explaining
and predicting learners’ differences in L2 pragmatic learning has still
been largely understudied. In particular, the effects of learners’
language learning motivation on L2 pragmatic competence have been
largely unexplored.

2.2.2 Communicative Competence and L2

Pragmatic Competence
The purpose of the present study is to investigate L2 pragmatic
competence and its relationship to language learning motivation in an
EFL context; therefore, it is critical to discuss the term “pragmatic
competence” so as to define the scope of the research and,
subsequently, to facilitate the selection of suitable data collection
instruments to measure this competence.
Pragmatic competence derives from a broader concept—
communicative competence—which has gained attention in both
linguistics and language pedagogy since the 1970s. The term
communicative competence, coined by anthropologist and sociolinguist
Dell Hymes (1972), refers to the ability to use language accurately and
appropriately in social interactions. In his seminal work, Hymes (1972)
observes that while Chomsky’s (1957) theory may represent the
culmination of structural linguistics, the latter’s treatment of language
as an abstract mental device isolated from the uses and functions of
language should be challenged. According to Hymes (1972), a person’s
knowledge of language encompasses both grammatical knowledge and
sociocultural knowledge, and communicative competence must involve
not only the rules of grammar but also the rules of appropriate
language use.
More models of communicative competence based on Hymes’s
conceptualization have emerged (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer,
1996, 2010; Canale & Swain, 1980). These models have helped to
situate pragmatic competence as an essential component of L2 ability,
as argued by Taguchi and Roever (2017), since they highlight the fact
that communication failures can result from not understanding social
conventions or rules of communication in addition to the more obvious
failures resulting from a lack of grammatical, discourse or strategic
competences. L2 speakers should have pragmalinguistic knowledge, i.e.,
the linguistic resources in the target language L2 learners can apply to
convey their pragmatic intention. At the same time, they also need
sociopragmatic knowledge, i.e., “knowledge of the relationships
between communicative action and power, social distance, and the
imposition associated with a past or future event, knowledge of mutual
rights and obligations, taboos, and conversational practices” (Kapser &
Roever, 2005, p. 317). L2 learners need to master both of these
knowledge types so that they can choose appropriate linguistic
realizations on the basis of contextual factors (e.g., social status, social
distance, and the degree of imposition in a particular interaction) to
achieve communicative goals.
 For example, learners of English should know not only the linguistic
forms of the target language but also sufficient sociocultural rules of the
target community so that they can use their L2 to achieve
communicative goals in real interactions. At the very beginning of the
book, an example of the problems caused by these issues is provided. In
the example, the two students are aware of the grammatical rules of
English, as they both understand the literal meaning of the professor’s
comment “Nice PowerPoint”, regardless of whether their interpretation
is “compliment” or “indirect criticism”. However, only the second
student succeeded in deriving the implied meaning of the utterance—
only the layout or colour of the PowerPoint was successful. This
conclusion might be drawn from his or her better sociocultural
knowledge of the target language; for example, saying something
positive or commenting on only positive aspects is a common way to
show speakers’ politeness and friendliness in English-speaking
countries. As exemplified in this case, the content and logic of a
presentation outweigh the way in those components are conveyed in
most academic settings. A competent English speaker is very likely to
consider the professor’s comment “indirect criticism” rather than a
“compliment”, as only evaluating the unimportant part of the
presentation and omitting the most relevant component is typical for
the former type of commentary in English.
This discussion somewhat supports the argument that “pragmatic
competence is multi-dimensional and multi-layered” (Taguchi & Roever,
2017, p. 8). The primary aspects of pragmatic competence encompass
pragmalinguistic knowledge and sociocultural knowledge. Sociocultural
knowledge is concerned with the ability to interpret and create
utterances that are appropriate to specific language use settings. These
two types of knowledge are equally important for L2 learners in social
interactions. As a sub-field of pragmatics, L2 pragmatics research has
based its investigations on some theoretical frameworks from general
pragmatics, such as speech act theories (e.g., Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969,
1975, 1976), the cooperative principle (e.g., Grice, 1975),
conversational implicature (e.g., Grice, 1989) and politeness theory
(e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987; Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983), which
I will discuss in the following section.
2.3 Pragmatic Theories Adopted by L2 Pragmatics
Research
In this section, important topics and theories in traditional pragmatics
research that have been commonly adopted in L2 pragmatics research
are outlined and discussed in depth. Section 2.3.1 primarily reviews
Austin’s and Searle’s theories of speech acts and studies on the speech
act of complaining. Section 2.3.2 introduces conversational implicature
and existing studies on the L2 comprehension of conversational
implicature. Finally, politeness theory, with a focus on the face-saving
model, is reviewed in Section 2.3.3.

2.3.1 Speech Acts Theories

Speech act theory catalyses the study of pragmatics as a field in
linguistics (Levinson, 1983). As a pragmatic theory, it inherently
involves an intention on the part of the speaker and an inference on the
part of the hearer (Birner, 2013). This section first briefly reviews the
works by two pioneers—Austin and Searle—in this field of inquiry to
provide theoretical frameworks. Then, having already been examined
to assess learners’ productive competence of L2 pragmatics in the
present study, the speech act of complaining is discussed, and the
existing research into the classifications of this act is reviewed.

2.3.1.1 Austin’s Theory of Speech Acts

Though greatly influenced by the Austrian-born British philosopher
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953) and his views about language games,
speech act theory is usually attributed to the British philosopher J.L.
Austin (Huang, 2014). In his seminal book entitled How to do things
with words, Austin (1962) makes an interesting point that to utter
something is to do something. The act of speaking is, first and foremost,
an act. Reacting to the very influential philosophical movement of
logical positivism, Austin’s view, a breakthrough in linguistics, is that
some ordinary declarative sentences are not employed to make true or
false statements, as is firmly asserted by logical positivists. Rather, they
are intended not only to say things but also to actively do things; thus,
these utterances could be considered speech acts (Austin, 1962).
Accordingly, based on this notion, he introduces a threefold distinction
among the acts:
1. Locutionary act (the production of a meaningful linguistic
expression).

2. Illocutionary act (the intention or force realized by a linguistic

expression, either explicitly or implicitly).

3. Perlocutionary act (the consequences or effects an utterance has on

the hearer).

As Birner (2013) suggests, the differences between locutionary and

illocutionary acts involve the ways of performing specific acts: the
former relies on “of saying something”, while the latter relies on “in
saying something” (p. 187). In other words, the locutionary act is the
act of saying something with a certain meaning, whereas the
illocutionary act is what you intend to do by means of saying it. A
perlocutionary act is what is actually achieved by means of the speech
act. For example, in the utterance “It’s hot here!”, the locutionary act is
simply the statement that the temperature in the room is rather high.
The illocutionary act refers to what the speaker intends to achieve by
saying this sentence, in this case, that the hearer would open the
window or turn up the air conditioner. The perlocutionary effect of the
statement could be observed if the hearer interprets the utterance as a
request and makes some changes as the speaker suggested. From the
example, it might be found that the illocutionary act is speaker-based,
whereas the perlocutionary act is hearer-based.
Of the three facets of a speech act, it is the illocutionary act that has
been the core interest of pragmaticians (Levinson, 1983; Schauer,
2009). This might be because illocutionary acts are intentional and are
fully controlled by the speaker, while perlocutionary effects are not.
Moreover, illocutionary acts are more conventionally associated with
linguistic forms, while perlocutionary acts are less associated with
them (Huang, 2014).

2.3.1.2 Searle’s Contributions

Searle attempts to systematize and develop Austin’s original speech act
theory by expanding felicity conditions, formulating the typology of
speech acts, and putting forward the notion of indirect speech acts
(1969, 1975, 1979). Austin believes that there must be certain
conditions for speech acts to be successfully performed and their
illocutionary force to be achieved. These contextual (and intentional)
requirements for the felicity of a speech act are named the felicity
conditions for that act (Austin, 1962, p. 14). Searle (1969) expands on
these felicity conditions, using the speech act of promising as his model.
Searle stresses that felicity conditions are not only ways in which a
speech act can be said to be felicitous but also “jointly constitute the
illocutionary force” (Huang, 2014, p. 131). That is, the felicity
conditions are the constitutive rules, and accordingly, to perform a
speech act is to obey certain conventional rules that are constitutive of
that type of act.
Another important contribution from Searle (1975, 1979) is that he
develops a new typology of speech acts based on Austin’s taxonomy of
speech acts, and Searle’s typology remains the most influential and
widely accepted typology (Barron, 2003; Huang, 2014). Austin (1962)
classifies speech acts into five major categories: (a) verdictives—giving
a verdict, (b) exercitives—exercising power, rights, or influence, (c)
commisives—promising or otherwise undertaking a task, (d)
behabitives—showing attitudes and social behaviour, and (e) expositives
—fitting an utterance into the course of an argument or conversation.
However, this classification is built solely on the performative verb
through which a speech act is expressed (Nguyen, 2005). Therefore,
Austin’s taxonomy may exclude many speech acts, as the number of
speech acts in every language greatly exceeds the number of
corresponding performative verbs. Another concern is that “his classes
are a fuzzy set allowing for overlaps” (Sbisá , 2009, p. 236), which is
partially due to the lack of a clear or consistent conceptual framework
upon which Austin’s taxonomy rests.
Aiming at a neater typology, Searle selects three dimensions as
classification criteria for speech acts: (a) the illocutionary point or
purpose of a speech act, (b) the direction of the fit or relationship
between the words and the world, and (c) the psychological state the
act expresses (Searle, 1979, pp. 2–5). The five types of speech acts are
grouped as follows:
Representatives/assertives (These speech acts commit speakers to the
truth of the expressed proposition and thus carry a truth value; they
express the speaker’s belief).
Directives (These speech acts represent attempts by speakers to get
hearers to do something; they express the speaker’s desire/wish for
hearers to do something).
Commissives (These speech acts commit speakers to some future
course of action; they express the speaker’s intention to do
something).
Expressives (These speech acts express speakers’ psychological
attitude or state).
Declarations (These speech acts bring about changes in the world).
The third improvement Searle made in speech act theory is that he
proposes the important notion of indirect speech acts. According to
Searle (1979), a speaker says what he or she means in a direct speech
act, whereas the speaker means something more than what he or she
says in an indirect speech act (emphasis added). In other words, if there
is a direct match between structure (i.e., sentence type) and function
(e.g., illocutionary force), the act is a direct speech act. On the other
hand, if there is no direct relationship between them, it is an indirect
speech act (Barron, 2003; Huang, 2014).
Following the research traditions in pragmatics and interlanguage
pragmatics, the present study will take Searle’s typology as a basis for
discussing the speech act of complaining in the following sub-section.

2.3.1.3 Speech Act of Complaining

A complaint is generally defined as an illocutionary act in which a
speaker (the complainer) “expresses his/her disapproval, negative
feelings etc. towards the state of affairs described in the proposition
(the complainable) and for which he or she holds the hearer (the
complainee) responsible, either directly or indirectly” (Trosborg, 1995,
p. 311). In Searle’s classification, complaints are in the expressive
category because the speaker criticizes an act that has caused or may
cause an offence, and thus the speaker expects or demands some
remedial action.
Based on whether the complainee is present or not, complaints can
be divided into two categories: direct complaints and indirect
complaints (Boxer, 1993a, 1993b). Direct complaints occur when
speakers address complaints towards hearers and believe that those
hearers are accountable for the speaker’s dissatisfaction, whereas
indirect complaints occur when speakers do not hold the hearers
responsible for the offense but are conveying dissatisfaction about
themselves or someone/something that is absent (Boxer, 1993b, pp.
106–107). The latter may also be termed third party complaints since
they are made about some absent party or external circumstances. Also
described as troubles-talk, troubles-telling, troubles-talk narratives,
and troubles-sharing, indirect complaints fulfil various functions in
social interactions in everyday life (Boxer, 1996; Drew, 1998; Edwards,
2005; Jefferson, 1984; Laforest, 2009; Má rquez-Reiter, 2005; Orthaber
& Má rquez-Reiter, 2011; Ouellette, 2001; Traverso, 2009).
Boxer (1993b) found that indirect complaints could be perceived as
a phatic communion because people often use them as a means of
commiseration to start and carry on a conversation with strangers or
little-known interlocutors. This may establish a momentary bond
between them (p. 121). In the present study, indirect complaints will
not be investigated. That is, the present study focuses on direct
complaints—complaints about the recipient only.
Classification Systems for Complaints
Complaints are face-threatening speech acts. According to Leech
(1983), complaints are conflictive acts and are thus intrinsically
impolite. For Brown and Levinson (1987), complaints are face
threatening because the complainer expresses his or her disapproval or
criticism or display (uncontrolled) negative emotions to the
complainee, and the complaint is likely to damage or threaten either
the complainee’s positive face—the wish to be admired or appreciated
—or his or her negative face—the wish to be free from imposition, or
even both (Chen et al., 2011). Má rquez-Reiter (2005, 2011) argues that
the complaint may challenge or threaten the complainer’s negative face
too, as the complainer may not wish to be seen as a person who
imposes his or her troubles on others.
In this study, a pragmatic strategy refers to a linguistic form (e.g., a
word, phrase, or sentence) that “a speaker selects on a particular
occasion, and which is recognized by the interlocutor in order to convey
pragmatic intent” (Félix-Brasdefer, 2008, p. 72). Pragmatic strategies
that carry negative evaluations of someone or some event in the given
context are referred to as complaint strategies, whereas pragmatic
strategies added to mitigate or aggravate the illocutionary force of
complaints are referred to as modifiers.
Following the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Patterns (Blum-
Kulka et al., 1989, henceforth CCSARP) coding system, the present
study analysed modifiers in the form of internal and external modifiers.
Internal modifiers are not the essential component for identifying the
illocutionary force of a speech (the head act) but serve to mitigate or
emphasize the act’s potential effects. External modifiers, on the other
hand, precede or follow the head act and affect the context in which the
head act occurs, therefore modifying the illocutionary force of the head
act indirectly (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989).
Complaint Studies in L2 Pragmatics
Like other speech acts, the speech act of complaining takes place in
daily communications, including complaints at home (e.g., Laforest,
2002; Lee, 2012), in institutional settings (e.g., Murphy & Neu, 1996) or
in service encounters (Chen et al., 2011). In this section, I will review
studies that have examined how learners of English with different L1
backgrounds formulate complaints in English. As my investigation
focuses on the effect of learners’ language learning motivation on their
L2 pragmatic production, I have only included studies related to this,
and studies concerning cultural contrasts will not be reviewed here
(see, e.g., Chen et al., 2011; Ellwood, 2008; House & Kasper, 1981).
Olshtain and Weinbach’s (1993) study is one of the first
investigations focusing on L2 complaint realizations by EFL learners.
Data were collected with a discourse completion questionnaire
involving Hebrew learners of English and native British and American
English speakers. They found that more than half of all respondents in
each group chose to perform the speech act of complaining, whereas
approximately one-third of them chose to opt out by indicating on the
questionnaire that they would prefer to “say nothing”. The results also
showed that Hebrew learners of English used more words and moves
than native speakers, especially when their interlocutors had more
power than they did. With respect to modifications, learners employed
intensifiers more frequently than native speakers.
Trosborg (1995) compared complaints in English by three groups of
Danish learners of English with complaints by native speakers of
English and native speakers of Danish and used role playing to collect
data. Based on the data obtained, Trosborg identified four main
categories of complaint strategies: (1) no explicit reproach (i.e., giving a
hint); (2) expression of annoyance or disapproval; (3) accusation, and (4)
blame. These categories are ordered from the most indirect (1) to the
most direct (4) strategy (Trosborg, 1995, pp. 315–320). The findings
showed that the total number of complaint strategies performed by
Danish learners of English was significantly lower than that of native
speakers of English. In regard to individual strategies, it was found that
the strategies performed by the learner groups and native speaker
groups were very similar, with the expression of annoyance occurring
most frequently, followed by hints, accusation and blame. However,
regarding modifications, Danish learners of English produced
significantly fewer internal modifiers (i.e., downgraders and upgraders)
than native speakers. For the external modifiers, the learners were
found to be good at providing evidence and supportive reasons to
justify their complaints, but they used fewer preparators and disarmers
than native English speakers did.
Geluykens and Kraft (2007) compared the complaint-mitigating
strategies (i.e., downgraders and upgraders) of German learners of
English and native English speakers by giving them a discourse
completion task (DCT) questionnaire consisting of six scenarios. They
found that learners used more internal modifiers than native English
speakers. This is in line with findings from previous studies that the
complaints produced by language learners were longer and more
verbose than those produced by native speakers (Trosborg, 1995).
With respect to gender differences, it was found that females,
regardless of whether they were learners or native speakers, tended to
use more mitigating strategies than males did. For example, L2 females
produced more downgraders, such as the politeness marker “please”,
than native speakers. Among all female participants, female German
learners of English employed more downgraders than female native
English speakers. On the other hand, male participants used more
negative address terms and swear words than females did. An
interesting finding is that the gender of the addressee also played a role
in the use of upgraders by participants, as more negative address terms
and swear words were used to male addressees.
By using an oral production task, Lee (2012) investigated how
complaints were realized by Cantonese learners of English from
childhood into their teens. The results showed that their complaints
were moderate in terms of directness and severity. As learners grew
older, they tended to use fewer direct strategies and show stronger
sociopragmatic awareness. Pragmalinguistically, learners had a similar
ability to produce internal modifiers (e.g., intensifiers and softeners),
whereas the teenage groups were good at producing external modifiers
and descriptions and requesting the modification of the force of the act.
To some degree, this study provides evidence for the development of
pragmatic production by Cantonese learners of English.
Based on the review of studies in this section, learners of English
are likely to use more words and moves to make complaints (Geluykens
& Kraft, 2007; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993) but to use a smaller number
of complaint strategies than native English speakers do (Trosborg,
1995). Learners’ complaints are moderate in terms of directness and
severity (Lee, 2012). With respect to the use of internal modifications,
contradictory results have been obtained. For example, when
formulating complaints, learners used more internal modifiers, such as
intensifiers, than native English speakers when data were collected
using a written DCT (Geluykens & Kraft, 2007; Olshtain & Weinbach,
1993); on the other hand, learners used fewer internal modifiers than
native English speakers did when data were elicited through oral
production tasks (Trosborg, 1995). Concerning the external modifiers,
learners were found to be good at providing evidence and supportive
reasons to justify their complaints, but they used fewer preparators and
disarmers than native English speakers (Trosborg, 1995). Finally, the
effect of gender differences played a role in formulating complaints for
both learners and native speakers (Geluykens & Kraft, 2007).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
7666 Fairfax Chas 111 Sept
A 3
Nov
12091 Farland T 6 I
19
14 Oct
11247 Farley W Art
F 21
100 Oct
10259 Farrell Jas
C 3
169 Aug
5840 Farn C
G 16
Aug
5946 Fairman H B Art 6M
17
Aug
6995 Fawry Jno “ 2C
27
115 Aug
7415 Face J
E 31
Sept
10057 Fareclough R 2F
20
100 Sept
9609 Ferris C
E 23
14 Sept
8439 Ferris Robt Art
I 3
July
3452 Ferris Jno 5E
17
69 Aug
4760 Felter F
C 5
14 Aug
7260 Ferguson H C
C 30
39 Sept
7498 Ferguson M
G 1
164 Aug
7412 Felton Geo
C 31
8407 Feasel H Art 7F Sept
 3
15 Sept
9779 Ferguson J M Cav
G 26
155 Jan
12507 Finnerty P 65
G 22
Mar
247 Fich Jno 8M 64
30
96 July
3869 Fincucum Jno
E 24
Aug
6192 Fields F Art 2L
19
22 Aug
6656 Finch Henry Cav
L 24
22 Sept
8699 Finch Jas “
L 14
70 Sept
10072 Findley Andrew
D 20
Oct
11482 Finlay A Art 7D
26
Aug
6215 Fish L V “ 7B
20
179 July
4412 Fish H
A 31
52 Aug
5752 Fish F
K 15
12 Sept
9723 Fish J W, S’t Cav
C 25
17 Apr
279 Fish Wm
H 1
124 Oct
11651 Fisher C P
C 30
Sept
10049 Fisher Conrad Cav 1E
29
5104 Fisher Daniel 45 Aug
F 9
125 June
2389 Fisher D
K 24
59 Jan
12542 Fisher H 65
K 27
39 Oct
10966 Fisher L 64
D 15
Oct
10171 Fitch A 3F
1
24 Aug
4819 Fitch C Bat
- 5
111 July
3569 Fitzgerald N
C 19
24 Aug
6453 Fitzgerald Thos Bat
- 22
10 Jan
12400 Fitzpatrick Cav 65
G 5
100 Aug
6961 Fitzpatrick O 64
E 27
Aug
6500 Flagler Wm Art 7M
22
Sept
7452 Flanigan Ed “ 7C
1
40 Aug
5558 Flenigan P
D 13
22 Sept
8583 Fleming P Cav
E 12
Fletcher Wm, 13 Mar
190 Cav
Cor G 27
102 Jan
12537 Flintkoff F 65
E 27
774 Florence B 99 Apr 64
 H 28
76 Sept
7690 Fluke J
K 3
24 Sept
8379 Flynn J Bat
- 10
13 Nov
11958 Flynn J
K 11
71 Sept
9242 Flynn Wm
E 19
169 Sept
9283 Fohnsbelly C
A 19
Sept
8042 Folden H Art 7B
6
July
3987 Folet D Cav 1A
26
Oct
10841 Follard Jas “ 1 I
13
100 Aug
4807 Foulke Peter
F 5
112 Mar
175 Ford E B
K 26
13 Aug
7344 Foreber A Cav
F 31
77 Nov
11736 Foley F
B 2
85 June
1589 Forget G H, Cor
K 3
June
2470 Foster H Cav 1B
25
Apr
759 Foster J “ 5G
27
Apr
408 Foster James “ 2D
6
 6115 Fox A 49 Aug
K 19
152 Oct
11173 Fox D
A 19
15 July
2830 Fox M Art
K 3
57 Sept
9432 Frahworth F
I 21
11 Sept
8393 Frake S
G 10
July
2863 Francis P L Cav 2H
4
39 Sept
9997 Franklin J
I 28
22 July
4227 Franklin J C Cav
L 29
73 Oct
10484 Fraser J H
C 7
Oct
11353 Freilander C Cav 2B
23
52 Aug
4820 Freburg E
F 5
85 Aug
6619 Fredinburg Jas
H 23
30 Aug
6668 Free C
B 24
Oct
11363 French J Cav 2H
23
22 Oct
10968 French James “
G 15
Aug
6998 French John C “ 5H
27
1395 Freiser John 111 May
 K 2
111 Aug
5125 Frisby W L, Cor
B 9
16 Oct
11421 Frositer F Cav
L 24
49 July
3806 Fuller A
K 22
52 Oct
11638 Fuller C
H 30
85 July
3713 Fuller J B
F 21
18 Oct
11050 Fuller N
C 17
122 Oct
10295 Fuller W
A 4
39 Oct
10328 Funday F
B 4
62 Oct
10140 Fricks A
L 1
85 June
2472 Gagan Thos
C 25
Aug
5773 Gale George 2A
15
May
1148 Gallagher G Cav 5D
16
47 Aug
6106 Gallagher P
D 18
20 Aug
4699 Gallewin Thos Art
F 4
Oct
10489 Galush W Cav 5F
7
Sept
7678 Gandley J “ 3F
3
6993 Gannon S Art 7E Aug
27
94 Apr
385 Gansey ——
B 5
52 Oct
1153 Gardner H
A 19
155 Aug
5251 Gardner R
K 10
132 May
982 Gardner H
E 9
104 May
1313 Gardner O
C 24
Sept
9206 Gardner Wm Cav 7 I
18
46 Sept
7926 Garlock Jno
B 5
126 Sept
8982 Gaman J
H 17
40 Sept
8383 Garney C
A 10
95 Aug
7033 Garry Jas 64
C 27
65 June
2688 Garrison J
H 30
22 Aug
7216 Gartill H Cav
L 29
169 Aug
7044 Gartland ——
- 27
32 Mar
94 Garbey Jno
K 22
82 Oct
10539 Gatiff H
D 8
5270 Garette C 134 Aug
 G 10
142 Aug
6868 Gear Jas
A 26
95 Aug
7120 Gees A
I 28
39 Sept
7930 Geiser Chas
D 5
6 Sept
8878 Gemminge J Art
- 16
65 Sept
7650 Gesler Jas
E 3
11 Aug
6728 Gian Benj
- 24
Oct
10967 Gibbs Chas Art 4B
15
22 Aug
6259 Gibbs M H Cav
E 20
170 July
3218 Gibson J
A 12
82 Nov
12017 Gibson J
I 15
115 Aug
6942 Giddings J
H 26
111 June
2042 Gifford H N
- 15
43 July
4185 Gilbert E
D 28
22 Oct
10925 Gilbert E Cav
B 14
111 June
1834 Gilbert J
K 11
85 Oct
11270 Gillis G
G 21
10160 Gill Jno F Cav 1B Oct
1
111 June
2413 Gill Jas
K 24
107 July
3339 Gillen M
E 15
85 Sept
7898 Gillett Wm
F 5
17 Dec
12345 Gilmore M
B 27
Gimrich P, July
3106 C 2K
Bugler 10
June
1678 Gleick Wm Cav 1A
6
97 July
3946 Gleason Thos
D 25
16 Oct
10336 Goaner F
K 4
104 June
2553 Goffney J
D 27
Sept
8639 Goldsmith Wm 2F
13
104 July
2962 Gond E
C 6
147 Aug
7088 Goodbread J F
B 28
122 Jan
12529 Goodell F, Cor 65
K 26
Goodenough 140 July
4145 64
Jas, Cor D 28
154 Aug
7342 Goodman J A
A 31
3042 Goodrich F 154 July
 B 8
Goodrich Geo, Aug
4561 Cav 2D
Cor 2
June
1415 Gorman G Art 3K
17
64 Sept
8228 Goodnow J
I 9
49 Feb
12604 Golt C 65
D 7
132 June
2203 Goss Jas 64
G 19
61 July
3322 Gould Richard
D 14
146 Nov
11985 Gough H
B 13
147 July
3765 Gower J
B 22
14 Oct
10499 Graff F Cav
M 8
15 Sept
9347 Graham J “
L 20
12 Aug
7089 Graham Wm “
F 28
52 Sept
10093 Grampy M J
D 30
111 June
2640 Grandine D S
E 29
98 July
3638 Granger A
I 20
107 Aug
5798 Granger John
H 15
62 July
4131 Granner H
I 28
3212 Grant C 96 July
B 12
125 July
3875 Grant James, S’t
K 24
Aug
6449 Grant J K 9D
22
42 Sept
9511 Grass H
G 22
Dec
12200 Graves E Cav 2 I
1
Aug
4787 Graves W F 2H
5
Aug
5354 Gray John Art 6H
11
85 May
1342 Green E
C 24
146 Jan
12522 Green H W 65
E 26
109 Oct
10277 Green J H 64
K 3
76 Aug
6863 Greer John
B 26
154 Aug
5202 Green O 64
G 10
Greenman J S, June
2184 Cav 2D
S’t 19
120 Sept
7634 Gregory A D L
E 2
61 July
4322 Gregory John
E 30
Sept
7492 Gregory L Art 7M
1
7201 Grenals H 70 Aug
 F 29
Oct
11502 Griffin J B Cav 7D
26
40 July
3816 Griffin John
H 23
52 Aug
5766 Griffin N
F 15
24 July
3101 Griffith A Bat
- 10
85 Oct
11185 Griffith E P
D 19
69 Sept
8351 Gilmartin A
- 10
Griswold B F, 109 July
3815
Cor F 23
47 May
1220 Groncly M
E 19
68 Oct
10944 Gross C
E 14
140 Sept
9553 Gross J
I 24
151 Sept
9981 Gross J
B 29
49 July
3092 Groven Josh
F 10
73 Oct
10997 Grundy R J
G 16
Oct
10813 Gunan Wm Cav 8D
12
95 Aug
5867 Gundaloch F
A 16
12 May
1459 Gunn Calvin Cav
G 29
6651 Gunnahan J 85 Aug
G 23
Sept
9372 Gunnell Jno Cav 2B
20
154 Sept
8317 Guile A L, S’t
C 10
15 Nov
12145 Guyer F Art
A 24
69 Dec
12328 Gwin Chas
H 24
12 Aug
6495 Hack J
K 22
43 Oct
10194 Hackett C
C 2
12 June
2623 Hackett —— Cav
F 28
Aug
7113 Hackett J Art 7D
28
10 Aug
6876 Hagate Jacob Cav
F 26
52 Aug
4677 Hager ——
H 4
59 July
3646 Hager J
B 20
147 Aug
6869 Hagerty Wm
E 26
20 Sept
8275 Hadden C
- 9
14 Apr
473 Haddish T
A 9
Sept
7721 Hadsell F Art 2L
3
8924 Haight J E “ 8H Sept
 16
89 July
2887 Hair G
A 4
85 Oct
11036 Halbert A H, Cor
D 16
July
3342 Halbert L 1D
15
12 Mch
170 Haline Gotfred C
K 26
Oct
11310 Hall C Drag 1H
28
12 June
2214 Hall Chas Cav
K 20
109 Aug
5003 Hall Chas
G 8
40 Jan
12370 Hall C W 65
I 1
111 May
870 Hall Ed 64
C 3
July
2846 Hall Jas Cav 9E
3
109 Aug
4459 Hall Jno
E 1
14 Sept
9661 Hall S Cav
L 24
Sept
7731 Hall W C Cav 8K
3
Sept
7819 Hall William 2K
4
145 Oct
10865 Hallembeck S
B 13
146 July
4175 Halloway J
D 28
9253 Halpin P 68 Sept
- 19
134 Oct
11049 Halper Jno
F 17
132 Sept
8213 Hamilton H
D 8
111 Jan
12405 Hamilton J 65
G 6
Sept
10032 Hamilton Jno Art 6L 64
29
Aug
6601 Hamilton Thos Art 6L
23
66 Aug
5634 Hammond M
G 14
May
1104 Hand L Cav 5C
15
180 Sept
9862 Hanlon Thos
F 27
169 Oct
11076 Hand H S
A 17
July
3589 Hanks J Cav 1L
19
22 July
3857 Hanley D
B 24
29 Jan
12448 Hanley Wm 65
D 13
Aug
6009 Hancock R Cav 2D 64
17
12 May
1207 Hanor Frank
G 19
67 Aug
6432 Hansom C
F 22
11149 Hardy J 95 Oct
 C 19
Sept
9363 Hardy I, S’t Cav 5 I
20
95 Sept
10101 Hardy W
E 30
Hannom Jno, 164 Sept
7929
Cor I 5
85 May
1411 Haines Philip
I 27
95 June
2383 Harp M
I 23
126 Sept
8323 Harper J
G 10
52 Oct
10115 Hanen F J
C 1
63 Aug
5550 Harris C
E 13
Aug
5482 Haynes H Cav 5 I
13
85 Aug
6784 Harris Thos
C 25
July
4056 Harris V S Cav 8M
27
71 May
1378 Harrington Pat
D 26
76 Oct
10384 Harrison Henry
K 5
14 Sept
8362 Harrison O
K 10
143 June
2726 Harry A
K 26
109 Aug
4705 Hart D R
D 4
5148 Hart J Cav 12 Aug
F 15
Oct
11524 Hart J Art 7K
21
146 Sept
8287 Hart S, Cor
B 9
22 Sept
8337 Hart S Cav
M 10
40 Aug
7432 Hartman J N
H 31
April
766 Harty John Cav 2M
27
39 Oct
10812 Hasket A
I 12
119 Sept
8758 Hasler M
C 14
49 Nov
11947 Hass J F
F 10
24 June
1891 Hathaway Chas Bat
- 13
Oct
10878 Hanse John Cav 1L
13
6 June
2262 Haveland H Art
- 21
22 Oct
11461 Havens Geo
G 25
141 July
3826 Havens H
A 23
104 Aug
4814 Havens S, S’t
A 5
66 July
8523 Haverslight H
E 18
11629 Hawley W L Cav 2D Oct
 28
76 Oct
10646 Hawley F
E 11
Aug
5355 Hayatt L P, Cor Cav 1A
11
Nov
11786 Hayes C 2F
4
69 Sept
8022 Hayes Edward
G 6
Sept
9080 Hayes J 6A
18
39 Oct
10904 Hayes James
E 14
35 Oct
1264 Hayes P
H 21
Sept
9134 Head Thos Art 6A
18
July
3394 Haynes W C Art 6G
16
125 Oct
10220 Hayner L
H 2
66 Oct
10662 Heacock R, S’t
H 11
47 July
3581 Hecker C
C 19
Aug
6181 Heddle Wm Cav 5M
19
132 July
3155 Hefferman D
C 11
63 Sept
8135 Helafsattan J
K 8
Oct
11382 Helf J C Cav 1G
24
6828 Heller D Art 14 Aug
- 25
85 Aug
7330 Henderson N J
K 30
100 Oct
10206 Hendfest J B
K 2
15 Oct
11380 Henertes B
I 24
Nov
11733 Hilbert G 5E
2
Sept
8336 Hennesy M Art 3K
10
85 Aug
7196 Henyon W
H 29
Oct
10870 Heratage Thos 8C
13
111 Mch
196 Herget Jno
A 27
Hermance F C, 20 July
3119 StM
Cor A 10
100 Nov
11996 Hermance J
C 13
39 Aug
4496 Herrick Chas
M 1
140 Aug
6627 Henning C
I 23
69 Oct
10566 Hestolate Jno 64
- 9
Nov
12104 Hewes J Cav 1A
20
100 Oct
11193 Hewes R, Cor
C 20
7605 Hicks W H 99 Sept
 I 2
52 Mch
99 Hietzel C
B 22
43 Sept
9937 Higgins J
G 28
99 May
888 Higgins Wm
B 4
85 July
4058 Higley Geo
F 27
85 Sept
7652 Hildreth H
K 3
88 July
3698 Hildreth L C
D 21
44 April
777 Hill A A
G 28
Sept
8643 Hill A J, Cor 2F
13
July
8970 Hill Frank Cav 2K
25
22 Nov
11998 Hill L
B 13
24 Nov
11912 Hill Wm Cav
E 8
85 July
3316 Hillman Geo
B 14
126 Aug
4454 Hines J
G 1
140 Sept
9060 Hingman A
G 17
Mch
31 Hinkley B Cav 9B
9
Aug
6255 Hinkley D “ 1E
20