Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of...

Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affectspeech act production? Analysis of appropriateness,

accuracy, and fluency

NAOKO TAGUCHI

IRAL 49 (2011), 265–293 0019042X/2011/049-265DOI 10.1515/iral.2011.015 c©Walter de Gruyter

Abstract

This cross-sectional study examined the effect of general proficiency and study-abroad experience in production of speech acts among learners of L2 English.Participants were 25 native speakers of English and 64 Japanese college stu-dents of English divided into three groups. Group 1 (n = 22) had lower profi-ciency and no study-abroad experience. Group 2 (n = 20) and Group 3 (n = 22)had higher proficiency than Group 1 but differed in their study-abroad experi-ence. Group 2 had no study-abroad experience, but Group 3 had a minimum ofone-year study-abroad experience in an English-speaking country. They com-pleted a pragmatic speaking test (PST) measuring their ability to produce twospeech acts: requests and opinions. Speech acts were examined for appropri-ateness, grammaticality, planning time, and speech rate. Results revealed asignificant effect of proficiency on appropriateness, grammaticality and speechrate, but study-abroad experience had no effect on these variables. There wasno significant group difference on planning time.

1. Background

With a burgeoning interest in the functional and social aspects of second lan-guage (L2) ability, the last few decades has seen a steep increase in studieson L2 pragmatic competence and development (e.g., Barron and Warga 2007;Cohen 2008; Kasper and Rose 2002; Kasper and Röver 2005). The primary ob-jectives of these studies have been to reveal factors that affect pragmatic com-petence and development. Among the factors, general proficiency and study-abroad experience have been addressed most in the previous research becausethese factors are considered to explain the variation observed among learnersin the outcome of development and augment our understanding of the underly-ing mechanisms of the development. Previous studies have compared learnersacross proficiency levels or different living arrangements. The section below

266 Naoko Taguchi

reviews studies that have compared learners’ pragmatic competence across pro-ficiency levels or between different living arrangements (e.g., study-abroad vs.domestic setting).

1.1. Proficiency and pragmatic competence

Previous cross-sectional studies compared L2 learners’ pragmatic productionacross different proficiency levels determined by standardized exams, gradelevel, or length of formal study (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig 2009; Dalmau and Go-tor 2007; Félix-Brasdefer 2003, 2007; Geyer 2007; Hill 1997; Maeshiba et al.1996; Pinto 2005; Rose 2000; Röver 2005; Taguchi 2006, 2007; Takahanshi1996; Trosborg 1995; Yamashita 1996). Target pragmatic features examinedin these studies are wide-ranging, including speech acts of various types, po-liteness forms and honorifics, address terms, quantifiers, hedging, and routineexpressions. These studies have generally found that high proficiency corre-sponds to increased pragmatic abilities, but it does not guarantee a native-likeperformance (e.g., see Bardovi-Harlig 2001 for review). Here I will reviewseveral cross-sectional studies that involve production of speech acts, partic-ularly the speech act of requests, which are directly relevant to the presentstudy.

In an early study, Trosborg (1995) used a role play method to elicit speechacts of requests, complaints, and apologies, and compared performance overthree proficiency groups of EFL learners: secondary school, high school, anduniversity. The use of internal and external modifications improved with in-creasing proficiency, approximating native speaker patterns. Advanced stu-dents provided more explanations for requests and downgraders (e.g., polite-ness markers) for complaints to reduce the potential threat.

Hill (1997) analyzed how Japanese EFL learners performed a speech act ofrequest. Sixty learners of three different proficiency levels (proficiency deter-mined by a cloze test) filled out a written discourse completion test (DCT)of eight request-eliciting scenarios. The results showed that, with increasingproficiency, learners decreased the use of direct strategies and became morenative-like, although they had difficulty in applying micro-level strategies (e.g.,internal modifiers) even at advanced levels.

In a more recent study, Félix-Brasdefer (2007) examined the speech act ofrequest performed by American learners of L2 Spanish in three proficiencygroups. Open role plays were used to collect data in four request situations ofdifferent levels of formality. Frequencies of request head acts as well as internaland external modifications were compared across groups. The results showedthat the beginner group produced the largest number of direct requests, whileintermediate and advanced groups produced more conventionally indirect re-

Proficiency and study-abroad experience 267

quests with a decline in direct requests, approximating the native speaker pat-terns.

While most previous studies examined the impact of proficiency on learners’appropriate use of pragmatic functions, only a few studies to date have exam-ined fluency involved in speech act production. House (1996), for instance,investigated the effect of explicit and implicit teaching in the development oflearners’ pragmatic fluency in speech acts. In this study, fluency was mea-sured at temporal level (e.g., speech rate, pauses, and repairs) as well as atdiscourse level (e.g., use of discourse strategies, conversational routines, andgambits).1 Thirty-two advanced German learners of EFL received implicit orexplicit instruction over 14 weeks. In the explicit instruction group, the learnersreceived metapragmatic information and analyzed their own taped productionwith metapragmatic feedback. The implicit group did the same things but didnot receive metapragmatic information or feedback. The results showed thatboth groups improved but the explicit group used more gambits and discoursestrategies. No difference was found for speech acts performance between thetwo groups.

More recently, Taguchi (2007) examined the proficiency effect on the pro-cessing dimension of pragmatic competence. Fifty-nine Japanese students ofEnglish at two different proficiency levels produced speech acts of requestsand refusals in a role play task. The task had two situation types. In one situ-ation type, the power relationship was equal, the distance was small, and thedegree of imposition was small, while in the other situation type, the listenerhad greater power, the distance was large, and the degree of imposition wasalso large. The learners’ productions were analyzed for overall appropriateness(rated on a six-point scale), planning time (amount of time taken to prepare foreach role play), and speech rate (average number of words spoken per minute).There was a significant proficiency effect on appropriateness ratings and speechrate, but not on planning time. There was only a marginal difference in the typesof linguistic strategies between the two proficiency groups.

In sum, previous cross-sectional studies revealed positive effects of profi-ciency on pragmatic production. As their proficiency develops, learners gainbetter control of pragmatic functions, as evidenced in their level of directnessand appropriateness in speech act production and use of more target-like miti-gating expressions. However, there is also evidence that advanced level learnersstill lack native-like sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge and lag

1. House (2003) defined pragmatic fluency consisting of five characteristics: (1) appropriateuse of gambits, discourse strategies, and phrase-specific speech acts; (2) ability to initiatetopics and topic shifts using routines; (3) ability to hold floor; (4) ability to align one’s turnsappropriately in on-going discourse; and (5) ability to manage appropriate speech rate, pauses,and repairs.

268 Naoko Taguchi

behind in the processing efficiency (speed and ease) of pragmatic production,suggesting that linguistic competence is a prerequisite to pragmatic compe-tence but not sufficient for it.

1.2. Study-abroad experience and pragmatic competence

Previous studies have examined the role of learning context in pragmatic com-petence and development (e.g., Barron, 2003; Bardovi-Harling and Hartford,1993; Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei 1998; Matsumura 2001, 2003; Niezgodaand Röver 2001; Olshtain and Blum-Kulka 1985; Röver 2005; Schauer 2006,2009; Shimizu 2009; Taguchi 2008b; Takahashi and Beebe 1987; Walga andScholmberger, 2007). These studies are largely divided into two groups. One isa line of cross-sectional studies that compared learners’ pragmatic competenceacross different physical arrangements (e.g., second language vs. foreign lan-guage; study-abroad and domestic instructional setting). The other is a groupof longitudinal studies that tracked down pragmatic development within sin-gle group of learners living in the target language community. Here the formerline of cross-sectional studies that compared pragmatic competence betweenL2 groups in the second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) context arereviewed because these studies are directly relevant to the present study thatcompared learners with and without study-abroad experience. While a major-ity of these studies revealed an advantage of SL over FL context in pragmaticperformance, evidence also exists that FL learners demonstrated superior per-formance than SL learners. Furthermore, the positive effect of residence abroadwas not all-encompassing over different pragmatic targets: acquisition of somepragmatic features were better assisted by experiences living in the SL context,while others were susceptible to learning context.

Shimizu (2009), for instance, revealed a positive effect of study-abroad ex-perience in the speech act of compliment in L2 Japanese. He compared com-pliment responses produced by 48 American learners of Japanese as a secondlanguage (JSL) and as a foreign language (JFL). The data elicited through anoral DCT were analyzed at three levels: compliment response strategies, pat-terns of semantic formula, and lexical/phrasal characteristics. The quantitativeand qualitative analyses showed that the JSL learners outperformed the JFLlearners in their use of target-like avoidance strategy in compliment responses.In contrast, the JFL learners were apt to emphasize negation in their responsesat all three levels, diverging from the target norm.

Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) also lend support to the superiority ofSL over FL in increased pragmatic competence. They examined ESL and EFLlearners’ (mixed L1s) ability to detect pragmatic and grammatical errors inspeech acts of requests, apologies, suggestions, and refusals. Learners watched


video scenes in which the speech acts contained either grammatical or prag-matic errors. EFL learners detected more grammatical errors whereas ESLlearners detected more pragmatic errors. High proficiency ESL learners showedbetter grammatical and pragmatic awareness. Using the same instrument,Schauer (2006) also found similar findings: Compared with EFL learners inGermany, German ESL learners recognized a considerably higher number ofpragmatic errors. Their pragmatic awareness continued to improve during theirnine-month study-abroad period almost to the native speaker level.

However, Niezgoda and Röver’s (2001) study, another replication ofBardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei, provided counter evidence. Compared with ESLlearners of mixed L1s, EFL learners of German identified a higher numberof pragmatic and grammatical errors and judged both error types as more se-rious. The EFL learners’ sensitivity to pragmatic inappropriateness was at-tributed to their advanced proficiency level. Low-proficiency learners in bothenvironments recognized more pragmatic than grammatical errors and ratedpragmatic errors as more severe, but the tendency was the opposite for thehigh-proficiency learners.

In another study, Röver (2005) compared ESL learners in the U.S.A. andEFL learners in Germany on three pragmatic constructs: comprehension of im-plicatures, comprehension of routines, and production of speech acts. The im-plicature section tested comprehension of two types of implicatures: formulaicimplicatures that were marked by conventional structures (e.g., showing agree-ment by saying “Is the Pope Catholic?”) and idiosyncratic, non-conventionalimplicatures. The routine items tested recognition of situational routines thatwere tied to specific situations and functional routines that were not situation-bound. The speech act section had 12 items that elicited requests, refusals, andapologies. There was a significant effect of the residence abroad experience onthe comprehension of routines but no effect of context on the comprehensionof implicatures and production of speech acts. However, there was a significantL2 proficiency effect on both.

To sum up, previous cross-sectional studies yielded mixed findings regard-ing the effect of residence abroad on pragmatic performance and development.Findings generally support the facilitative effect of SL context over FL contextin the perception of pragmatic appropriateness (Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei1998; Matsumura 2001; Schauer 2006) and production of speech acts (Beebeand Takahashi 1985; Olshtain and Bulm-Kulka 1985; Shimizu 2009). However,counter evidence exists that FL learners outperformed their SL counterparts inthe perception of appropriateness (Niezgoda and Röver, 2001; Röver 2005). Insome cases, general proficiency was a mediating variable.

These findings suggest a complex interplay among proficiency, residenceabroad experience, and pragmatic targets. The structure of pragmatic targets,along with proficiency and residence experience in the host country, interact

270 Naoko Taguchi

with each other and jointly influence one’s ability to perform pragmatic func-tions. More empirical research is needed to confirm these generalizations par-ticularly because Röver (2005) is the only existing study that examined theeffect of both proficiency and host country experience in pragmatic produc-tion.

In addition, to further expand the construct of pragmatic competence, the ef-fects of proficiency and residence abroad should be examined for fluency, notonly for appropriateness of pragmatic production. Following Kasper’s (2001)claim that pragmatic competence entails the acquisition of pragmatic knowl-edge and gaining automatic control in processing it in real time, several re-cent studies have examined the fluency aspect of pragmatic performance (e.g.,Taguchi 2008a, 2008b, 2009). Most of these studies examined fluency in prag-matic comprehension – how rapidly learners can draw inferences of indirectmeaning. Findings generally confirmed that accuracy and fluency form distinctdimensions of pragmatic competence and do not develop in parallel. BecauseTaguchi (2007) is the only existing study that examined the proficiency effectin fluent speech act production, as measured by speech rate and planning time,and very little research has examined the effect of study-abroad on pragmaticfluency, more research is needed to fill the gap in the literature. It is worthinvestigating whether or not different dimensions of pragmatic production –appropriateness, accuracy and fluency– are affected differently by proficiencyand residence abroad experience. The present study is an effort in this direction.It examines the effect of general L2 proficiency and study-abroad experienceon the production of speech acts in L2 English. The study was guided by a re-search question: Do L2 learners of different proficiency level and study-abroadexperience perform speech acts differently in terms of appropriateness, accu-racy, and fluency of production?

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

Participants were 64 Japanese students of English in an English-medium uni-versity in Japan (hereafter EFL students). The university provides a uniqueimmersion environment where all courses are taught in English, 60 % of thefaculty members are foreign nationals, and international students occupy 10–15 % of the population. First-year students receive about 20 hours of instruc-tion per week in the intensive English program. After they finish the Englishprogram, they proceed to upper-level courses to complete their undergraduatedegree. Students are required to study abroad for the whole of their third year.The 64 participants in this study formed three groups (see Table 1). Students in


Table 1. Demographic information about the participants

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Gender (male: female) 6:16 6:14 3:19Average age (range) 18.18 (18–20) 20.15 (19–24) 21.55 (19–29)Formal English study 5.91 years 7.60 years 8.46 yearsAverage TOEFL (SD) 443.64

(SD = 12.71)554.70(SD = 16.81)

554.86(SD = 17.38)

Study-abroad experience none none average: 13.73 months

Group 1 were all first-semester EFL students who had lower proficiency basedon their TOEFL scores. Group 2 and 3 students were from the upper-level ofthe college. Both groups had higher proficiency than Group 1, but differed intheir study-abroad experience. Group 3 students had studied in an English-speaking country minimum of one year, while Group 2 students had never leftJapan. Group 3 students’ average time in Japan after the study abroad was 15months, ranging from 3 months to 3 years. In addition to the EFL participants,25 native speakers of English participated and provided base-line data.

2.2. Instrument: Pragmatic speaking test

A computerized pragmatic speaking test (PST) was developed to examine EFLstudents’ ability to produce speech acts appropriately in a situation. It took theformat of an oral discourse completion task (DCT) in which participants readsituational descriptions and produced speech acts. Production of two types ofspeech acts was tested: requests (a directive speech act; k=4) and opinions (anexpressive speech act; k=4).2 These two speech acts were divided into twosituation types: low- and high-imposition situations. These distinctions were

2. The speech acts of requests and opinions were selected after consulting Garcia’s (2004)corpus-based study on naturalistic conversations in university settings. Garcia analyzed con-versations across three registers: conversations between a professor and a student, conver-sations among study group members, and service encounter conversations. She found thatspeech acts of directives (requests) and expressives (opinions) are common in the corpora.From the examples in the corpus data, four requests and four opinion situations were adaptedfor this study. The requests and opinions taken from the study group conversations were dis-tinctively different from those from the office hour conversations because they occurred be-tween interlocutors of equal power relationship and the size of imposition was small (e.g.,asking a friend for a pen). The teacher-student conversations generated speech acts betweeninterlocutors of a different power relationship, and the degree of imposition was large (e.g.,asking a professor for an extension on an assignment). The speech acts from the study groupconversations were called low-imposition speech acts, while those from office hour conversa-tions were called high-imposition speech acts.

272 Naoko Taguchi

based on Brown and Levinson (1987) who claimed that the level of directness isdetermined by contextual factors such as power and social distance between theinterlocutors, and the degree of imposition involved. In a more formal situation,a speech act involves a high-degree of imposition and is addressed to a personwho has more power. In such a situation, it is generally considered that thegreater degree of indirectness is required to protect the face of the interlocutor.In contrast, when the speech act involves a low-degree of imposition and isproduced for a person in equal relationship, the degree of required indirectnessis considered to be smaller.

To confirm the distinction between low- and high-imposition situations, apilot study was conducted. This involved developing a survey that asked par-ticipants to indicate on a Likert scale of 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult) according to thedegree of perceived ease/difficulty in performing the target speech act. The sur-vey also asked the participants to indicate the degree of commonality of eachspeech act on a scale from 1 (very rare) to 5 (very common). The survey wasgiven to 20 native speakers of English in a U.S. university.3 The low-impositionsituations received a mean difficulty rating of 1.6 (SD = .8) for requests and 2.2(SD = .9) for opinions. High-imposition situations received a mean difficultyrating of 3.1 (SD = 1.1) for request and 3.8 (SD = .9) for opinion speech acts.Paired-sample t-test revealed a significant difference between the two situationtypes, t = 6.76 (p = .00) for requests, and t = 6.26 (p = .00) for opinions,indicating that high-imposition speech acts were perceived to be more diffi-cult to perform socially than low-imposition speech acts. Regarding the per-ceived level of commonality, low-imposition requests received a commonalityrating of 4.1 (SD = 1.2), while low-imposition opinions received a rating of3.3 (SD = .9). High-imposition situations received a commonality rating of 2.7(SD = 1.0) for requests and 3.6 (SD = .9) for opinions . All situations werearound or above the rating of 3.0 on the 5-point scale, indicating that they wereperceived not rare and thus acceptable.4 Table 2 displays sample speech actsused in the PST.

The length of the situational description was controlled across items. Thenumber of words used in each description ranged from 55 to 57 with a meanof 55.55 (SD = .6). To reduce effects from different vocabulary knowledge, allvocabulary in conversations and option sentences were drawn from the JACETList of 8000 Basic Words (JACET 2003). Since the 3,000 most frequent wordsare high school level, they were used to write conversations and option sen-tences. These vocabulary items were considered attainable by the EFL students

3. In addition to the 20 native English speakers, the situations were checked with 12 ESL learnersin the U.S.A. via informal interviews.

4. Paired-sample t-test revealed a significant difference between low- and high-imposition re-quests, t = 3.27 (p = .00), but not for opinions, t = 1.21 (p = .23).


Table 2. Sample PST speech acts

Low-imposition Request Asking a friend for a penOpinion Expressing negative opinion to a friend about his/her

clothes

High-imposition Request Asking a teacher for an extension of a paperOpinion Expressing negative opinion to a teacher about his/her

class

in this study because they were all high school graduates and passed the collegeentrance exam. Grammatical structures used to write sentences were kept at ba-sic level. In addition to the two target speech acts, four routine situations wereincluded as filler items. The final version of the PST had a total of 14 items:four low-imposition speech acts, four high-imposition speech acts, four filleritems, and two practice items. The PST was computerized using the Revolutionsoftware (1997). The items were presented in written form on the screen. ThePST was piloted with 25 native speakers of English and 12 EFL students inU.S. prior to the main study.

2.3. Evaluation of speech acts

Participants’ speech acts were evaluated on three aspects: appropriateness,grammaticality, and fluency. Appropriateness was defined as the ability to per-form speech acts at the proper level of politeness, directness, and formality inthe given situations. It was assessed on a five-point rating scale ranging from1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). Grammaticality was also evaluated based on afive-point rating scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent).5 For bothappropriateness and grammaticality, the sum of the ratings of the four low-imposition and four high-imposition speech acts were used for analysis. A maleand female native speaker of English who grew up in the U.S.A. and were in-volved in English teaching in Japan were used as judges to rate the samples.

5. The following scale was used for the grammaticality:Excellent There are almost no grammatical and lexical errors. Almost perfect.Good There are one or two minor grammatical and lexical errors, which are hardly

noticeable.Fair There are a few major grammatical and lexical errors, but they do not interfere

with understanding.Poor There are many major grammatical and lexical errors that cause misunderstand-

ing.Very poor The expressions are incomprehensible because they are fragmental or contain

excessive grammatical mistakes.

274 Naoko Taguchi

They were asked to listen to the speech acts, along with the transcripts, andto indicate the rating based on the rating descriptions. Interrater reliability wasr = .85 for appropriateness and r = .77 for grammar. About 7 % of the sampleswere two points off in rating. These differences were discussed in the follow-up meetings to reach a consensus. For the cases with one point off, the averagescore between the two raters was assigned as the final score.

Following Taguchi (2007), two temporal measures were used to assess flu-ency: pre-task planning time and speech rate. Planning time was operational-ized as the time taken to prepare for each speech act. Speech rate was oper-ationalized as the average number of words spoken per minute. Word countsexcluded false starts and repetitions. Speech rate has been used extensively inthe previous research of oral fluency (Lennon, 1990; Riggenbach, 1991; Tow-ell, 2002), as well as in task-based studies (e.g., Robinson, 2001). Previousresearch also found that speech rate positively correlated with other measuresof fluency, such as pause length (Segalowitz & Freed 2004). Average planningtime and speech rate were computed for low- and high-imposition speech actsand analyzed separately.

2.4. Linguistic analysis of speech acts

In addition to the appropriateness, grammaticality and fluency, speech actswere also analyzed linguistically. Expressions used to formulate requests andopinions were classified for their directness levels by using coding frameworksadapted or developed based on the previous literature (e.g., Beebe and Taka-hashi 1989; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Murphy and Neu 1995). Appendix con-tains the complete coding frameworks used in this study.6 The frequencies ofall the expression types were tallied and compared to find trends between thethree EFL groups. Native speaker data formed the base-line data. The speechacts were coded by four graduate students in applied linguistics. About 20 % ofthe data was extracted randomly and coded by two coders. Intercorder agree-ment was between .95 and .96.

6. A total expression type analyzed for the request speech act was 24 (10 head acts and 13 ex-ternal modifications) and 19 for the opinion speech act. Due to the space limit, I limited theanalysis to frequent expressions. In the coding framework for requests, I included the categorycalled “mitigated preparatory” (bi-clausal, embedded sentence structures), and each opinionexpression was also coded either mitigated or unmitigated. This decision was based on Taka-hashi’s (1996) finding that Japanese EFL learners did not have pragmatic knowledge that arequest in English can be mitigated by making it syntactically more complex, for example, byembedding it within another clause. Hence, analysis of sentence structures (wither embeddedor mono-clausal) was considered important for more precise assessment of the participants’production of requests and opinions.


2.5. Data collection

The PST was administered individually using PC computers via the programRevolution. The participants put on headphones with a microphone attachedand read directions in English with Japanese translations. They were instructedto read each situational scenario and respond as if they were in a real situationand performing the role. The participants practiced two items and then pro-ceeded to the 12 test items. Each item started with a situational scenario on thecomputer screen. The participants took as much time as they needed to read thescenario and prepare for the speech act. When they were ready, they clicked onthe “continue” button to start the item. Once they clicked the button, the sce-nario disappeared and the message “start speaking” appeared on the screen.After they finished the item, they clicked on the “continue” button to moveon to the next item. The computer recorded the participants’ oral responses.Planning time was recorded from the moment the scenario appeared on thecomputer screen until the moment the participants clicked on the “continue”button to begin speaking. Speech time was measured between the moment theparticipants started speaking until the moment they clicked on the “continue”button to exit the item. Participants’ speech was transcribed for further analy-sis.

2.6. Data analysis procedures

This study investigated the effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experi-ence in EFL students’ pragmatic production. Pragmatic production was oper-ationalized as the ability to produce two speech acts: requests and opinions,appropriately, grammatically, and fluently. Appropriateness and grammatical-ity were measured by the PST on an interval scale between 0 and 40 across twosituation types: low-imposition speech acts (requests and opinions combined;k = 4, scale of 0–20) and high-imposition speech acts (requests and opinionscombined; k = 4, scale of 0–20). Fluency was assessed by two temporal mea-sures: planning time (i.e., average number of seconds taken to prepare for eachspeech act) and speech rate (i.e., the number of words per minute). The inde-pendent variable was a group that had three levels: lower proficiency, no studyabroad experience (Group 1), higher proficiency, no study abroad experience(Group 2) and higher proficiency with study abroad experience (Group 3). Thedependent variables were appropriateness scores, grammaticality scores, plan-ning time, and speech rate. The Kuruskal-Wallis test was used to examine thegroup differences in the four variables. Because planning time did not followthe normal distribution, a logarithmic transformation was performed beforesubmitting it to the statistical analyses. Outliers were also checked. The alpha

276 Naoko Taguchi

level was adjusted to .0125 because of four statistical comparisons. For theanalyses of linguistic expressions, the main request and opinion expressionsproduced by the participants were classified according to the coding frame-works (See Appendix A). Frequencies for different types of expressions weretallied according to each situation (i.e., high- and low-imposition situations)and compared among the three EFL groups, with the native speaker data asbase-line data.

3. Results

3.1. Analyses of appropriateness, grammaticality, and fluency

Tables 3 and 4 display descriptive statistics of the PST appropriateness scores,grammaticality scores, planning time, and speech rate. All groups had higherappropriateness and grammaticality scores when producing requests and opin-ions in low-imposition situations than when producing those in high-impositionsituations. A similar effect of situation type was observed in the planning time:all groups took notably shorter time (about 10 seconds shorter) when preparingfor low-imposition than high-imposition speech acts, although speech rate wassimilar between the two situation types. Not surprisingly, native speakers took

Table 3. Descriptive statistics: PST appropriateness and grammaticality scores

Group Mean SD Min. Max.

AppropriatenessLow-imposition 1 4.01 0.98 1.50 5.00(k = 4) 2 4.74 0.53 2.75 5.00

3 4.73 0.34 4.00 5.00High-imposition 1 2.56 0.73 1.00 4.00(k = 4) 2 2.93 0.54 2.00 3.75

3 3.2 0.6 2.50 5.00

GrammaticalityLow-imposition 1 3.84 0.66 2.63 5.00(k = 4) 2 4.47 0.43 3.63 5.00

3 4.51 0.36 3.63 5.00High-imposition 1 3.52 0.46 2.50 4.68(k = 4) 2 4.04 0.48 3.25 4.75

3 4.18 0.35 3.25 4.63

Notes. Group 1: lower proficiency, no study-abroad (n = 22). Group 2: higher proficiency, nostudy-abroad (n = 20). Group 2: higher proficiency with study-abroad (n = 22).


Table 4. Descriptive statistics: PST planning time and speech rate

Group Mean SD Min. Max.

Planning timeLow-imposition 1 46.34 10.06 25.20 60.42(k = 4) 2 39.65 14.45 15.80 71.16

3 41.29 15.85 14.05 70.11NS 20.10 7.36 8.09 36.68

High-imposition 1 55.77 13.64 22.27 77.81(k = 4) 2 49.94 18.54 17.65 85.23

3 52.51 29.99 14.20 101.93NS 28.09 13.89 8.70 62.26

Speech rateLow-imposition 1 59.24 12.01 36.58 85.47(k = 4) 2 81.56 20.63 46.81 132.77

3 79.44 37.94 31.31 227.45NS 167.92 31.30 117.62 236.55

High-imposition 1 57.80 12.93 41.45 84.39(k = 4) 2 83.61 27.33 59.16 159.12

3 81.51 21.42 27.05 144.05NS 158.96 24.10 119.15 206.32

Notes. Group 1: lower proficiency, no study-abroad (n = 22). Group 2: higher proficiency, no study-abroad (n = 20). Group 2: higher proficiency with study-abroad (n = 22). NS: native speakers(n = 25). Planning time refers to average number of seconds taken to prepare for each speech act.Speech rate refers to average number of words spoken per minute.

a shorter planning time and their speech rate was faster than all EFL groups.However, a similar effect of situation type was found in the native speaker data:compared with the low-imposition speech acts, their planning time was longerfor high-imposition situations, and their speech rate was also slower.

The Kuruskal-Wallis test revealed significant group differences in appro-priateness scores: chi-square = 21.23 (p < .0125) for low-imposition speechacts, chi-square = 20.86 (p < .0125) for high-imposition speech acts. Simi-larly, significant group differences were found in grammaticality scores: chi-square = 14.26 (p < .0125) and chi-square = 19.33 (p < .0125) for low- andhigh-imposition speech acts, respectively. In order to detect the location of thedifferences, the Mann-Whitney U test was conducted. See Tables 5 and 6 forthe summary.

There was a significant difference in the appropriateness scores for both low-and high-imposition speech acts between Group 1 and Group 2, and betweenGroup 1 and Group 3, but not between Group 2 and Group 3. An analysis

278 Naoko Taguchi

Table 5. Summary of pair-wise comparisons: PST appropriateness and grammar scores

Low-imposition High-imposition

Appropriateness Grammar Appropriateness Grammar

Group 1 vs. 2 z = −3.78∗ z = −3.13∗ z = −3.10∗ z = −3.16∗Group 1 vs. 3 z = −4.10∗ z = −3.36∗ z = −4.32∗ z = −4.23∗Group 2 vs. 3 z = −.97 z = −.11 z = −1.22 z = −.75

Notes. *p < .25. Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad. Group 2: higher proficiency, nostudy abroad. Group 3: higher proficiency with study abroad.

Table 6. Summary of pair-wise comparisons: PST planning time and speech rate

Low-imposition High-imposition

Plan time Speech rate Plan time Speech rate

Group 1 vs. 2 z = −1.76 z = −3.95∗ z = −1.08 z = −4.03∗Group 1 vs. 3 z = −1.43 z = −2.77∗ z = −.99 z = −4.25∗Group 2 vs. 3 z = −.32 z = −.68 z = −.16 z = −.76

Notes. *p < .25. Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad. Group 2: higher proficiency, nostudy abroad. Group 3: higher proficiency with study abroad. Analysis of planning time is basedon the transformed data.

of grammaticality scores revealed exactly the same pattern: in both situationtypes, a significant group difference was observed between Group 1 and theother two groups, but not between Group 2 and Group 3. The findings sug-gest that proficiency, not study-abroad experience, was a factor for differentlevels of appropriateness and grammaticality of speech acts, regardless of thesituation type.

The fluency aspect of speech act performance revealed a mixed picture. TheKruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant group differences in planning time:chi-square = 3.54 (p = .17) for low-imposition speech acts, and chi-square= 1.47 (p = .48) for high-imposition speech acts. Pair-wise comparisons ofplanning time also showed no group difference in any of the contrasts. Onthe other hand, the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant group differencesin speech rate: chi-square = 15.89 (p < .0125) for low-imposition speech acts,and chi-square = 23.52 (p < .0125) for high-imposition speech acts. As shownin Table 6, pair-wise comparisons revealed a significant group difference be-tween Group 1 and Group 2, and between Group 1 and Group 3 for both low-and high-imposition speech acts. However, there was no significant differencebetween Group 2 and Group 3 regardless of the situation type. These findingsthen parallel those of appropriateness and grammaticality scores: proficiency,


not study-abroad experience, was the factor that contributed to speech rate. Incontrast, neither factors affected planning time – how quickly one can under-stand situational descriptions and prepare for given speech acts.

3.2. Analyses of linguistic expressions of speech acts

Tables 7 and 8 display frequency distributions of request expressions. Fre-quency percentage was calculated by dividing the raw frequency by the totalnumber of requests analyzed. In the low-imposition requests, a notable groupdifference was found in the use of imperatives with “please.” Group 1 used itabout 40 % of the time, while the frequency was 15 % in Group 2 and onlyabout 2 % in Group 3, approximating native speaker frequency. Instead, Group2 and 3 used preparatory questions (e.g., “Could you” + verb) more often. Con-ventional questions (e.g., “Do you have a pen?” “Pardon?”) occupied about40 % of the native speaker data. Among the three EFL groups, Group 3 was theclosest to the native speaker frequency of this expression.

See the excerpts below for examples. They are from a low-imposition requestsituation (i.e., asking someone to repeat what he/she has said).

Table 7. Frequencies of request expressions, low-imposition situations (k = 2)

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 NSs(n = 22) (n = 20) (n = 22) (n = 25)

I. Direct Expressions1. Imperatives 38.6% 15.0% 2.3% 02. Performatives 0 0 0 03. Obligation statements 0 0 0 04. Want statements 4.6 0 0 0

II. Indirect Expressions5. Preparatory questions 29.5 47.5 48.0 29.26. Permissions 18.2 30.0 32.8 27.17. Suggestions 0 0 0 08. Mitigated preparatory 0 30.0 33.0 09. Hint 9.1 2.50 4.55 2.1

III. Conventional questions 13.6 15.0 23.0 41.7

Notes. Frequency % was calculated by dividing the raw frequency by the total number of requestsanalyzed. Each participant produced two low-imposition requests, so the total number of requestsanalyzed was 44, 42, 44, 50, for Group 1, 2, 3, and native speakers (NSs) respectively.

280 Naoko Taguchi

Table 8. Frequencies of request expressions, high-imposition situations (k = 2)


I. Direct Expressions1. Imperatives 22.7% 5.0% 2.7% 02. Performatives 0 0 0 03. Obligation statements 0 0 0 04. Want statements 22.7 17.5 15.9 1.9

II. Indirect Expressions5. Preparatory questions 20.5 60.9 40.9 9.66. Permissions 15.9 50.0 43.2 13.57. Suggestions 0 0 0 08. Mitigated preparatory 0 2.5 2.7 73.29. Hint 0 2.5 0 0

III. Conventional questions 0 0 0 0

Notes. Frequency % was calculated by dividing the raw frequency by the total number of requestsanalyzed. Each participant produced two high-imposition requests, so the total number of requestsanalyzed was 44, 42, 44, and 50 for Group 1, 2, 3, and native speakers (NSs) respectively.

Group 1 student“I’m sorry, please explain that again? I couldn’t understand.”Group 2 student“Ah, what did you say? Can you say that again because I couldn’t un-derstand.”Group 3 student“Pardon? I couldn’t catch you.”

As for the high-imposition requests, Group 1 used the imperatives with “please”most often, diverging from the native speaker frequency, while the percentagewas only 5% or smaller for the Group 2 and 3. A marked group differencewas in the use of mitigated expressions: More than 70% of the native speak-ers used mitigated expressions –requests embedded in clause structures (e.g.,“I’m wondering if” + verb) – but this syntactic form was almost completelyabsent in the EFL data. Hence the EFL students in this study, regardless of pro-ficiency levels or study-abroad experience, were not familiar with mitigated ex-pressions. The excerpts below illustrate the group differences. They are from ahigh-imposition request situation (i.e., asking a professor to reschedule a test).

Group 1 student“Dr. Smith, the Monday is my cousin’s wedding day, so I, please changethe day for me.”


Group 2 student“Hello professor Smith, you know, I have a test in class next Monday,but I realized that I have to go back to my hometown, because I haveto attend my cousin’s wedding, so ah, can I take the test some otherdays?”Group 3 student“I’m sorry, I was totally forgetting about ah, I have my cousin’s wed-ding on the, on exactly that day, so could I take the exam for your classmaybe some other day?”Native speaker“Hi professor, I’m really sorry but, uh, I just realized that I have a fam-ily obligation that I, that I have to, I can’t be in class on Monday to takethe test. Is it all right if I can take it some other time. Um, either beforeor after would be fine, uh, I really appreciate it.”

Tables 9 and 10 display frequency distributions of the opinion speech act ex-pressions. In the low-imposition opinions, while most of the expression typesrevealed similar frequency distributions across groups, one striking differencewas found in the use of hedging expressions (e.g., “maybe”, “a little bit,”and “perhaps”). Compared with native speaker data, the EFL groups’ percent-age was considerably lower. Group 1 used them only about 2 % of the time,while Group 2 and 3 students demonstrated notable increase, more than 20 %in Group 2 and 30 % in Group 3. See example excerpts below from a low-imposition opinion situation (i.e., expressing a negative comment to a friendabout his/her paper). Hedging expressions are underlined.

Group 1 student“Uhm . . . the paper is well written but I think it is too long.”Group 2 student“Hi, hello Cindy, it’s well written and I think it’s great paper, but theintroduction is too, ah, a little bit too long.”Group 3 student“Cindy, you did really good job, and this, this essay is well organizedand well written, but if, if I add my advise, maybe introduction is a littlebit long, so it should be shorter.”

Similar patterns of hedging were found in the high-imposition opinions.While native speakers used hedging more than 60 % of the time, EFL groupsused it only about 10 %. The percentages of Group 2 and 3 were still higherthan Group 1. Another notable tendency was the use of unmitigated “want” inrequests. While Group 1 and 2 students used the unmitigated “want” over 40 %of the time, Group 3 students used it in considerably lower frequency, about18 %, approaching native speaker frequency (6.3 %). On the other hand, un-

282 Naoko Taguchi

mitigated requests appeared more than 65 % of the time in Group 1 data, whilethe percentage significantly dropped in Group 2 and 3 data. The excerpts belowillustrate these differences. They are from a high-imposition opinion situation(i.e., expressing opinion about a class to a professor).

Group 1 student“Oh, I think it’s interesting, but ah, I like French, ah, history, and recent,recent history very much, so please, ah, teach me this kind of Frenchtoo.”Group 3 student“I think your class is very interesting, but ah I appreciate it if you ex-plain more about French pop culture and music.”Native speaker“I really like it but, I really like how we talk about history, but do youthink we could talk some time more about sort of modern French cul-ture in addition to, to history coz I think that would be, I think that’ll bereally helpful.”

In summary, analyses of linguistic expressions revealed qualitative differ-ences among the three EFL groups. Group 1 students received appropriatenessand grammaticality scores that were significantly lower than that of Group 2or 3 students. This proficiency influence was observed in Group 1 students’overuse of imperatives with “please,” under-use of conventional questions inrequests, and under-use of hedging in opinions. In the speech act of opinion,with increasing proficiency and study-abroad experience, there was a tendencyfor students to use more mitigated than unmitigated expressions, approximat-ing native speaker patterns, although the use of some syntactic forms remainedunder-developed.

4. Discussion

This study found that general proficiency was a decisive factor in the appro-priateness and grammaticality of speech acts, while study-abroad experiencehad little impact on them, and this tendency was the same for low- and high-imposition speech acts. The proficiency effect on low-imposition speech actsis hardly surprising considering that they were linguistically and pragmaticallyless demanding for learners to produce. All groups scored at least four (“good”on the rating scale) out of five on the appropriateness and 3.8 or above on thegrammaticality. Relative ease of these speech acts are probably due to the lowerdegree of politeness required in those situations. Asking a friend for a pen orexpressing opinions on his/her clothes require little facework; as a result, theexpressions used to perform these speech acts were relatively short, simple,


Table 9. Frequencies of opinion expressions, low-imposition situations


1. Opiniona. Mitigated 54.5% 55.0% 56.8% 43.8%b. Unmitigated 27.3 25.0 25.0 45.8

2. Wanta. Mitigated 0 0 0 0b. Unmitigated 0 0 0 0

3. Requesta. Mitigated 0 0 0 0b. Unmitigated 4.6 0 4.6 4.2

4. Suggestiona. Mitigated 20.5 45.0 34.1 22.9b. Unmitigated 59.1 50.0 56.8 47.9

5. Grounding 6.8 7.5 4.6 2.16. Positive comments 61.4 77.5 61.4 62.57. Hedging 2.3 22.5 34.1 121.0

Notes. Frequency % was calculated by dividing the raw frequency by the total number of requestsanalyzed. Each participant produced two low-imposition opinions, so the total number of requestsanalyzed was 44, 40, 44, and 50 for Group 1, 2, 3, and NSs respectively. The % greater than 100means that the expression appeared more than once per sample.

and linguistically easier for the learners to handle. The illocutionary force canbe realized by using fixed linguistic conventions, such as a “Could you” + verbphrase. Simple syntactic structures such as “I don’t like” + noun or suggestionformulas (e.g., “Why don’t you” + verb) serve as an acceptable opinion expres-sion between close friends. In addition, the low-imposition situations used inthis study were probably more frequent in their bilingual campus environmentand were more contextually accessible.

Due to the simplicity of the expressions, combined with the frequent natureof the low-imposition situations, higher proficiency learners were more ad-vantaged than lower proficiency learners in producing low-imposition speechacts accurately and appropriately. Study-abroad experience did not matter asmuch. As long as they had sufficient linguistic resources and processing capa-bilities to use the resources, they were able to perform these speech acts suc-cessfully, without experience in the target community. In contrast, lower profi-ciency group fell short of “excellent” level even with these easier speech acts,because their linguistic skills were not mature enough to handle the speechacts while coping with the processing demands of on-line tasks. In addition,

284 Naoko Taguchi

Table 10. Frequencies of opinion expressions, high-imposition situations


1. Opiniona. Mitigated 40.6% 52.5% 38.6% 38.3%b. Unmitigated 13.6 10.0 6.8 17.0

2. Wanta. Mitigated 0 10.0 2.3 8.3b. Unmitigated 45.5 40.0 18.2 6.3

3. Requesta. Mitigated 4.6 10.0 31.8 38.3b. Unmitigated 63.6 37.5 25.0 12.8

4. Suggestiona. Mitigated 2.3 2.5 15.9 0b. Unmitigated 0 5.0 2.3 2.1

5. Grounding 38.6 92.5 77.3 51.16. Positive comments 34.1 37.5 52.3 48.97. Hedging 2.3 12.5 9.1 61.7

Notes. Frequency % was calculated by dividing the raw frequency by the total number of requestsanalyzed. Each participant produced two high-imposition opinions, so the total number of requestsanalyzed was 44, 40, 44, and 50 for Group 1, 2, 3, and NSs, respectively. “Mitigated” refers to anutterance in bi-clausal structure, and “unmitigated” refers to an utterance in mono-clausal structure.

being in their first semester, lower proficiency learners probably did not havemuch experience with these situations in English on campus, compared withjuniors and seniors who formed the high proficiency group. As a result, theirability to perform those speech acts was limited. Lending support to this in-terpretation, linguistic analyses revealed their lack of knowledge of appropri-ate request-making expressions. They overused the imperatives with “please”(e.g., “Please say it again.”) and under-used the conventional questions (e.g.,“Pardon?”)

On the other hand, high-imposition situation speech acts used in this studyrequired a greater degree of pragmatic considerations of politeness, directness,and formality. Linguistic demands of these speech acts are also greater because,when asking a professor for an extension on a paper or expressing opinionsabout an unreasonable grade, complex, embedded sentences are typically used.For instance, in high-imposition requests, more than 70 % of the native speak-ers in this study used mitigated preparatory expressions that involved complex,clausal structures (e.g., “Do you mind if” + clause), while these structures ap-peared in less than 3 % of the time for all EFL groups. People also produce


longer discourse to express themselves in those high-imposition situations.They use a variety of supporting devices, such as hedges, indefinite responses,and positive politeness strategies, to mitigate the potential face-threat, as illus-trated in the analyses of linguistic expressions. Hence, it seems that linguisticsophistication is a prerequisite for a successful high-imposition speech act; asa result, learners of higher proficiency demonstrated superior performance inaccuracy and appropriateness of this type of speech act than the lower pro-ficiency group. The present findings lend support to previous cross-sectionalresearch which found positive effects of proficiency on speech act production(e.g., Félix-Brasdefer 2007; Geyer 2007; Hill 1997; Taguchi 2006; Trosborg1995).

The fact that there was no significant effect of study-abroad experience onhigh-imposition speech acts found in this study is open to a number of interpre-tations. Intuitively, one might think that a year abroad in an English-speakingcountry would help learners access a wide range of social communities, in-volving both formal and informal registers, which will essentially lead them tonotice appropriate linguistic forms that map the speech functions onto the so-ciocultural context. Given that the students were enrolled in regular undergrad-uate courses during their time abroad, they probably had more opportunitiesto interact with professors directly than those with no experience in studyingabroad. Despite this presumed advantage, when proficiency is controlled, thestudents who spent a year abroad did as poorly as those who stayed in theirhome country, barely above the level of “fair.” The findings imply that thestudy-abroad experience did not boost learning of proper linguistic resourcesto perform face-threatening speech acts. This is illustrated by the example be-low from a higher proficiency student who studied one year at a university inthe U.S.A.

High-imposition request: Asking a professor to reschedule a test“Hi professor Smith, ah . . . I have a family business thing this week,and so I have to go, I have to leave this town for a while, and I wannatake your test in other time.”

The raters gave a score of 3 (fair) for this speech act because the student puthis demand up front by using the direct “want” expression, without asking forthe professor’s willingness. The vague reason he gave for missing the test alsodid not help the student’s justification of the request.

The present findings add to the previous literature that failed to reveal theadvantage of second language over foreign language context in the develop-ment of different aspects of pragmatic competence (e.g., Niezgoda and Röver2001; Röver 2005). Some longitudinal studies conducted in the second lan-guage context provide some implications for the slow acquisition of pragmalin-guistic forms. These studies found that learners’ pragmatic growth was “mod-

286 Naoko Taguchi

est” at best after one or two semesters of residence abroad (e.g., Barron 2003;Bardovi-Harling and Hartford 1993; Schauer 2006, 2009; Walga and Scholm-berger 2007). Learners usually begin with a limited range of pragmalinguisticresources, often symbolized by the overgeneralization of a few forms over arange of functions or the use of formulaic language. They gradually expandtheir pragmalinguistic repertoire by adopting a new form-function mappinginto their systems. This process is slow, unless learners are exposed to explicitcorrection, feedback, or modeling. These observations could well apply to thepresent findings. The syntax and lexis needed to encode pragmatic intentionsdid not develop quickly, even after a year abroad.

While the analysis of appropriateness and grammaticality revealed a strongproficiency effect on speech act production, the analysis of the processingaspect of production yielded somewhat inconclusive findings. Proficiency af-fected speech rate, but not planning time. There was no study-abroad advantageon either temporal variable. The results lend support to Taguchi’s (2007) studythat found a significant proficiency effect on speech rate but not on planningtime in speech acts of requests and refusals by Japanese learners of English.One implication drawn from these findings is that speech rate and planningtime have distinct characteristics from each other and represent different under-lying cognitive and affective mechanisms. These interpretations are in line withthe two types of planning proposed by Wendel (1997): off-line planning (i.e.,planning prior to a task) and on-line planning (i.e., planning while perform-ing a task). The former reflects pre-task planning time, and the latter reflectsspeech rate. On-line and off-line planning engages learners with different at-tentional resources. Because speaking tasks were more anxiety-provoking thanother skill areas (e.g., Young 1992), it is possible that affective factors such asanxiety and tension, as well as personality factors such as risk-taking and will-ingness to communicate, may have influenced pre-task planning time. On theother hand, cognitive factors such as attention, semantic access, and phonolog-ical coding may have affected speech rate due to the on-line demand of pro-duction. Previous research also provided empirical evidence for this distinction(e.g., Yuan and Ellis 2003).

The fact that there was no proficiency effect on planning time could be ex-plained by the linguistic simplicity of the prompt used in the pragmatic speak-ing task. The situational descriptions were relatively short (55-57 words), writ-ten with simple, declarative sentences, and the vocabulary was familiar to thelearners (taken from the JACET basic word list). The three groups spent sameamount of time preparing for the speech acts probably because socioculturalconsiderations of the task, not linguistic considerations, occupied much oftheir planning. Processing sociocultural information such as speaker relation-ship and the degree of formality of the situations, as well as searching for theappropriate expressions that match up with the situation, carried weight in de-


ciding how to proceed with the speech acts. In addition, due to the socioculturalnature of the task, it is also possible that affective and personality factors hadgreater impact on these results than L2 proficiency.

In sharp contrast, speech rate, another temporal variable examined in thisstudy, was significantly affected by L2 proficiency. Different from pre-task,off-line planning that involves conceptualization of sociopragmatic thoughts,speech rate is more of a reflection of on-line planning and monitoring (Wendel1997), and it is a measure of oral fluency that represents the “smoothness” oflanguage use (Freed 1995). In this study, after learners finished planning, thesituational descriptions disappeared from the computer screen, and they hadto produce the speech acts immediately. Under this task condition, speech ratewas probably a reflection of the speed at which learners retrieved situationaldescriptions from memory, articulated their thoughts, and monitored their per-formance. In cases of forgetting or failed lexical retrieval, they had to quicklyre-adjust their course of action by employing various compensatory strategies(e.g., circumlocution, paraphrasing). These moment-to-moment decisions in-volved in on-line production probably engaged learners with different types ofcognitive resources than the planning time. It is likely that cognitive factorssuch as lexical access, attention allocation, and phonological coding affectedspeech rate. Cognitive demand and psychological pressure were even greater inthe present task because it took on a monologue format; in a conversation tasklearners can gain processing time through turn-takings, but in a monologue,they cannot.

These task characteristics and cognitive demands involved in the task couldexplain the proficiency effect on speech rate but not on planning time found inthis study. Different from pre-task planning speed, speech rate seems to moreclosely reflect one’s overall proficiency and corresponding efficiency in deal-ing with linguistic resources. Because learners had to translate their pragmaticintentions into language rapidly and smoothly under the temporal constraintsof on-line processing, general proficiency, which is a reflection of overall lin-guistic management skill and language-related experience, is likely to play arole in promoting speech rate. Previous studies also revealed a positive rela-tionship between proficiency and oral fluency assessed by speech rate, pauselength, and mean-length-of-run (e.g., Iwashita, et al. 2008).

Study-abroad experience, another variable examined in this study, did notaffect planning time or speech rate. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, con-sidering that L2 exposure and practice available in the target language com-munity are likely conditions in which performance speed develops. Accordingto the cognitive theories of skill acquisition, the speed of language processingdevelops naturally in accordance with increased associative practices betweeninput and response (e.g., Anderson 1993). At the beginning phase of languageacquisition, performance requires a great deal of attention, and thus takes time.

288 Naoko Taguchi

As learners become more skilled, basic processing components (e.g., phonemerecognition) become automatic, freeing up space for more complex process-ing components. Repetition and practice promote this development of perfor-mance speed (Segalowitz 2007). Hence, study-abroad context, which providesabundant processing practice in a naturalistic setting, is an ideal place for thedevelopment of fluency.

The present study, however, did not support this premise. One potential ex-planation is that the students with study-abroad experience examined here wereall returnees. They had spent a year abroad previously but were residing inJapan at the time of data collection. They had spent 15 months in Japan in av-erage after returning from study-abroad. Hence, it is possible that the fluencythey gained during study abroad gradually decreased after they came back toJapan. In that sense, they were no different from the other EFL participantgroup with no study-abroad experience because they were living in Japan andhad limited incidental exposure and processing practice in English at the timeof data collection. Hence, speedy retrieval of pragmatic knowledge of whatforms to use under what situations, as well as spontaneous articulation of theknowledge in on-line speaking, may require a substantial amount of practice,and the practice needs to be incessant to sustain fluency. Several recent stud-ies that examined learners’ linguistic progress while and after study-abroadsupport this interpretation. For instance, Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau (2009)analyzed L2 English learners’ written compositions for fluency, accuracy, andcomplexity gains after the study-abroad. They found that the study-abroad pe-riod resulted in significant progress, followed by mid-term loss of improvementupon 15 months after return.

5. Limitations and implications for future research

Besides small sample size, a limitation of this study is that it “indirectly” ex-amined the effect of study-abroad experience on pragmatic production. Theparticipants with study-abroad experience were all returnees and were not liv-ing in the host country at the time of data collection. In order to seek a moredirect relationship between residence abroad and pragmatic production, futureresearch should include L2 groups recruited from the host country environ-ment.

This study is also limited because it used only one measure of oral fluency,namely speech rate, and did not include other measures such as pause lengthand mean-length-of-run. Because speech rate measured as words per minuteis not sensitive to the nature of speech that often involves multi-word lexicalchunks, future research should apply a wider range of oral fluency measures toconfirm the generalizability of the present findings.


Another limitation of the study is the format of the task. This study useda structured oral DCT and did not take into account sequential and interac-tional features of speech acts. Corresponding to Kasper’s (2006) approach ofdiscursive pragmatics, an increasing number of recent studies have applied theConversational Analysis (CA) to study action, meaning, and context in speechacts. Future studies should follow this lead and explore alternative methods toanalyze speech acts in interaction. When we use interactive data, we can applyperformance-based analysis that involves examination of wide-ranging featuresof interactional competence, not limited to linguistic elements, such as conver-sation management skills and communication strategies because these featurescould be affected differently by proficiency and study-abroad experience.

Carnegie Mellon University〈[email protected]〉

Appendix. Coding Frameworks for Speech Act Expressions

Request

I. Direct expressions

1. Imperatives (IMP): The illocutionary force is directly conveyed by impera-tive sentences.(e.g.) Please lend me a pen.

2. Performatives (PF): The illocutionary force is explicitly stated by performa-tive verbs.(e.g.) I’d like to ask you to lend me a pen.

3. Obligation Statements (OB): The illocutionary force is derivable in obliga-tory sentences.(e.g.) You should lend me a pen.

4. Want Statements (WA): The illocutionary force is derivable in want/wish/need sentences.(e.g.) I want you to lend me a pen.

II. Indirect expressions

6. Preparatory Questions (PQ): Reference to preparatory conditions such asthe hearer’s ability, willingness or possibility to perform the action.(e.g.) Could you lend me a pen?

7. Suggestions (SUG): The illocutionary intent is phrased as a suggestion.(e.g.) How about lending me a pen?

[email protected]

290 Naoko Taguchi

8. Permissions (PERM): The speaker asks for the hearer’s permission.(e.g.) May I borrow a pen?

9. Mitigated Preparatory (MIT): Reference to preparatory conditions (i.e. thehearer’s ability, will, and possibility) or reference to the speaker’s want andwish in embedded questions or sentences.(e.g.) I’m wondering if you could lend me a pen.

10. Hint (H): Questions or statements with implicit reference to the action.(e.g.) My pen just quit.

III. Conventional Questions (CON): Formulaic questions that convey the re-quest intent(e.g.) Do you have a pen? (asking someone to repeat) Pardon?

Opinion

1. Expressions of personal opinions, feelings, and observations (OP)Mitigated (e.g.): I’m not sure if it’s really a good color.Unmitigated (e.g.): Brown is not your color.

2. Expressions of want, wish, and interest (WA)Mitigated (e.g.): I wish we talked about recent things.Unmitigated (e.g.): I’m interested in recent things.

3. Request (REQ): The speaker requests the hearer for action or informationthat benefits the speaker.Mitigated (e.g.): I was wondering if you could speak more about currentissues.Unmitigated (e.g.): Could you explain that?

4. Suggestion (SUG): The speaker suggests the hearer to do something for thehearer’s benefit.Specific action to be taken is explicitly said or implied from the utterance.Mitigated (e.g.): I tend to think you should cut down the introduction a little.Unmitigated (e.g.): You should cut it back.

5. Grounding (G): The speaker gives reasons or explanations to justify his/herposition.(e.g.) I got C, but I always turned in homework on time, and I got 80 % onthe test.

6. Positive comments (PC): Positive evaluation of the hearer.(e.g.) I really like your class.

7. Hedging (HG): Single words that minimize self-expression.(i.e.) a little, a bit, maybe, perhaps, just, possibly, probably, kind/sort of.

Note. “Mitigated” refers to an utterance in bi-clausal structure, while “unmiti-gated” refers to an utterance in mono-clausal structure.


References

Anderson, John. 1993. Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A re-

search agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49. 677–713.Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Zoltan Dörnyei. 1998. Do language learners recognise pragmatic vio-

lations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly32. 233–259.

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Empirical evidence of the need for instruction in pragmatics. InKenneth Rose & Gabriel Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 13–32. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2009. Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recog-nition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 59.755–795.

Barron, Anne. 2003. Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics. Learning how to do things withwords in a study abroad context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Barron, Anne & Muriel Warga. 2007. Acquisitional pragmatics: Focus on foreign language learn-ers. Special issue of Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2).

Beebe, Leslie & Tomoko Takahashi. 1989. Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned variationin second language acquisition. In Susan Gass, Carolyn Madden, Dennis Preston & LarrySelinker (eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and pragmatics, 199–218. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Biber, Doglas, Conrad, Susan, Reppen, Randi, Byrd, Pat & Marie Helt. 2002. Speaking and writingin the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly 36. 9–48.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Julie & Gabriel Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requestsand apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, Andrew. 2008. Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners?Language Teaching 41. 213–235.

Dalmau, Maria Sabaté & Hortènsia Curell i Gotor. 2007. Form “sorry very much” to “I’m everso sorry”: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. InterculturalPragmatics 4(2). 287–315.

Du Bois, John, Chafe, Wallace, Meyer, Charles & Sandra Thompson. 2000. Santa Barbara corpusof spoken American English, Part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.

DeKeyser, Robert. 2007. Study abroad as foreign language practice. In Robert DeKeyser (ed.),Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychol-ogy, 208–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Félix-Brasdefer, Ceser. 2003. Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strate-gies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua 22. 225–255.

Félix-Brasdefer, Ceser. 2007. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2). 253–286.

Freed, Barbara. 1995. Second language acquisition in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Garcia, Paula. 2004. Meaning in academic contexts: A corpus-based study of pragmatic utterances.Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University dissertation.

Geyer, Naomi. 2007. Self-qualification in L2 Japanese: An interface of pragmatics, grammatical,and discourse competences. Language Learning 57. 337–367.

Hill, Thomas. 1997. The Development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Tokyo: Temple University-Japan dissertation

House, Juliane. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 18. 225–252.

292 Naoko Taguchi

House, Juliane. 2003. Teaching and learning pragmatic fluency in a foreign language: The case ofEnglish as a lingua franca. In Alicia Martinez Flor, Esther Uso Juan, & Ana Fernandez Guerra(eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching, 133–160. Casstello: Publica-cions de a Universitat jaume I.

Iwashita, Noriko, Brown, Anna, McNamara, Tim & Sally O’Hagan. 2008. Assessed levels of sec-ond language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics 29. 24–49.

JACET Japan Association of College English Teachers 2003. JACET List of 8,000 Basic Words.Tokyo: JACET.

Kasper, Gabriele. 2001. Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22.502–530.

Kasper, Gabriele. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In KathleenBardovi-Harlig, Ceser Félix-Brasdefer & Alwiya Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and languagelearning, vol. 11, 281–314. Hawaii: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth Rose. 1999. Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguis-tics 19. 81–104.

Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth Rose. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford,UK: Blackwell.

Kasper, Gabriele & Carsten Röver. 2005. Pragmatics in second language learning. In Eli Hinkel(ed.), The handbook of research in second language learning, 317–334. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lennon, Paul. 1990. Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning40. 387–417.

Maeshiba, Naoko, Gabriele Kasper & Steven Ross. 1996. Transfer and proficiency in interlanguageapologizing. In Susan Gass & Joyce Neu (eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges tocommunication in a second language, 155–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Matsumura, Shoichi. 2001. Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to sec-ond language socialization. Language Learning 51. 635–679.

Matsumura, Shoichi. 2003. Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic develop-ment, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics 24. 465–491.

Murphy, Beth & Joyce Neu. 1996. My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining. InSusan Gass and Joyce Neu (ed.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communicationin a second language, 191–216. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Niezgoda, Kimberly & Carsten Röver. 2001. Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A functionof learning environment? In Kenneth Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in languageteaching, 63–79. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Olshtain, Elite & Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 1985. Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions tonative speech act behavior. In Input in second language acquisition, Susan Gass and CarolynMadden (eds.), 303–325. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Pérez-Vidal, Carmen & Maria Juan-Garau. 2009. The effect of study abroad on written perfor-mance. In Roberts, Leah, Daniel Véronique, Anna Nilsson & Marion Tellier (eds.), EUROSLAYearbook Volume 9, 269–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pino, Derrin. 2005. The acquisition of requests by second language learners of Spanish. Spanishin Context 2. 1–27.

Riggenbach, Heidi. 1991. Towards an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnativespeaker conversations. Discourse Processes 14. 423–441.

Robinson, Peter. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactionsin a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22. 27–57.

Rose, Kenneth. 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic develop-ment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22. 27–67.

Röver, Carsten. 2005. Testing EFL Pragmatics. Frankfurt: Gunter Narr.Runtime revolution Ltd., author 1997. Edinburgh, UK: Runtime Revolution Ltd.


Schauer, Gila. 2006. Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development.Language Learning 56. 269–318.

Schauer, Gila. 2009. Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London:Continuum.

Segalowitz, Norman. 2007. Access fluidity, attention control, and the acquisition of fluency in asecond language. TESOL Quarterly 47. 181–186.

Segalowitz, Norman & Barbara Freed. 2004. Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acqui-sition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27. 175–201.

Shimizu, Takafumi. 2009. Influence of learning environment on L2 pragmatic realization: A com-parison between JSL and JFL learners’ compliment responses. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), Prag-matic competence, 167–198. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sperber, Dan & Dan Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition 2nd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Takahashi, Satomi. 1996. Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18:189–223.

Takahashi, Tomoko & Leslie Beebe. 1987. The development of pragmatic competence by Japaneselearners of English. JALT Journal 8. 131–158.

Taguchi, Naoko. 2006. Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Prag-matics 16. 513–535.

Taguchi, Naoko. 2007. Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics 28: 113–135.

Taguchi, Naoko. 2008a. Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. ModernLanguage Journal 92. 558–576.

Taguchi, Naoko. 2008b. The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic compre-hension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 30. 423–452

Taguchi, Naoko. 2009. Comprehension of indirect opinions and refusals in L2 Japanese. In NaokoTaguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence, 249–274. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Towell, Richard. 2002. Relative degrees of fluency: A comparative case study of advanced learnersof French. International Review of Applied Linguistics 40. 117–150.

Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. New York:Mouton de Gruyter.

Yamashita, Sayoko. 1996. Six Measures of JSL Pragmatics Technical Report No. 14. Honolulu:University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Young, Dorothy. 1992. Language anxiety from the foreign language specialist’s perspective: In-terviews with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley, Terrell, and Radin. Foreign Language Annals 25.157–172.

Yuan, Yu & Rod Ellis. 2003. The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning onfluency,complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24. 1–27.

Warga, Murriel & Ursula Scholmberger 2007. The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in astudy abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2). 221–251.

Wendel, J. 1997. Planning and second language production. Tokyo: Temple University-Japan dis-sertation.

Xu, Wei, Case, Rod & Yu Wang. 2009. Pragmatic and grammatical competence, length of resi-dence, and overall L2 proficiency. System 37. 205–216.

Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of...

Documents

Transcript of Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of...