Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English
Abstract
Fifty-nine Japanese college students of English at two different proficiency levels were evaluated for their ability to produce a speech act of request in a spoken role play task. Learners’ production was analyzed quantitatively by rating performance on a six-point scale for overall appropriateness, as well as qualitatively by identifying the directness levels of the linguistic expressions used to produce requests. Results revealed a significant L2 proficiency influence on overall appropriateness, but only a marginal difference in the types of linguistic expressions used between the two proficiency groups. Moreover, grammatical and discourse control encoded in the rating scale seemed to have affected the quality of speech acts.
Quick links
ACTFL
(1986) ACTFL proficiency guidelines. In H. Byrnes & M. Canale (eds.), Defining and developing proficiency: Guidelines, implementations, and Concepts. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Bachman, L
Bachman, L., and A. Palmer
(1996) Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K
(1999) Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49: 677-713. 
Bardovi-Harlig, K., and B. Hartford
(1991) Saying "No": Native and nonnative rejections in English. In L.F. Bouton, & Y. Kachru (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (vol.2). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, pp. 41-57.
(1993a) Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 279-304.
(1993b) Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. In L.F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (vol.4). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, pp. 143-165.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Kasper
Brown, J.D
(2001) Pragmatics tests: Different purposes, different tests. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301-326.
Brown, P., and S. Levinson
(1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 256-289.
Canale, M., and M. Swain
(1980) Theoretical aspects of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1-47.
Cohen, A
(1994) Assessing language ability in the classroom. Rowley, MS: Newbury House.
Cohen, A., and E. Olshtain
(1993) The production of speech acts by ESL learners. TESOL Quarterly 27: 33-56.
DuFon, M.A
(2001) Triangulation in qualitative SLA research on interlanguage pragmatics. In S. Bonch- Bruevich, W. Crawford, J. Hellermann, C. Higgins, & H. Nguyen (eds.), The past, present, and future of second language research: Selected proceedings of the 2000 second language research forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 251-270.
Eisenstein, M., and J. Bodman
(1993) Expressing gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 43-57.
Felix-Brasdefer, J.C
(2003) Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua 22: 225-255.
Gass, S.M., and N. Houck
Hartford, B.S, and K. Bardovi-Harlig
(1992) Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In L.F. Bouton (ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (vol.3). University of Illlinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, pp. 33-52.
Hill, T
(1997) The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tokyo: Temple University-Japan.
Hoffman-Hicks, S
(1992) Linguistic and pragmatic competence: Their relationship in the overall competence of the language learner. In L.F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series vol.3. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, pp. 66-80.
Hudson, T., E. Detmer, and J.D. Brown
(1995) Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report No.7). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
John, J
(1992) The Ontario test of ESL oral interaction test. System 20: 305-316.
Kasper, G., and E. Kellerman
Maeshiba, N., G. Kasper, and S. Ross
(1996) Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. Gass & J. Neu (eds.), Speech acts across cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 155-187. BoP
North, B
(1995) The development of a common framework scale of descriptors of language proficiency based on a theory of measurement. System 23: 445-465.
(2000) The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang.
Psathas, G
(1994) Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. London: Sage Publications.
Roever, C
(2005) Testing ESL pragmatics. Frankfurt: Gunter Narr.
Rose, K.R
(2000) An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 27-67.
Sasaki, M
(1998) Investigating EFL students' production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 457-484. BoP
BoPTakahashi, S
(1996) Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 189-223.
Thomas, J
Trosborg, A
(1995) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. BoP
BoPWesche, M.B
(1987) Second language performance testing: The Ontario test of ESL as an example. Language Testing 4: 28-47.
Yamashita, S
(1996) Six measures of JSL pragmatics (Technical Report No. 14). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.