Cover not available
Part of
Critical Reflections on Data in Second Language Acquisition
Edited by Aarnes Gudmestad and Amanda Edmonds
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 51] 2018
► pp. 7–32

Chapter 1
Data collection and analysis in developmental L2 pragmatics research

Discourse completion test, role play, and naturalistic recording

| Carnegie Mellon University
This chapter compares common data collection and analysis methods used in longitudinal studies in second language pragmatics. Specifically, three data collection methods used to document speech act development are compared: discourse completion tasks (written and spoken), role plays, and naturalistic recordings. I critically discuss benefits and shortcomings of these data collection methods, in response to three questions: (1) What is the nature of speech act data collected in each method?; (2) What kind of analysis is performed on the data collected?; and (3) What conclusions are drawn as evidence for speech act development? The chapter concludes with critical reflections and directions for future investigation into pragmatic development.
Keywords: research methods, L2 pragmatics, DCT, role play, naturalistic recording
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Pragmatic competence: Evolving definitions
  • Definitions of pragmatic competence and methods of examination
    • Knowledge of form-function-context relationships
    • Adaptability in interaction
    • Learner agency
  • Literature review: Methods
  • Written DCT data
  • Spoken DCT data
  • Role play data
  • Naturally and semi-naturally occurring data
  • Critical reflections and conclusions
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 10 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.51.02tag
References (54)
References
Alcon-Soler, E. (2002). Practice opportunities and pragmatic change in a second language context: The case of requests. Estudios de Linguistica Ingleasa Aplicada, 3, 123–138.Google Scholar
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2014). Insert and post-expansion in L2 Arabic requests. System, 42, 189–206.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The development of requests by L2 Learners of Modern Standard Arabic: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 570–583.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: developing language tests and justifying their use the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279–304.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barron, A. (2007). ‘Ah no honestly we’re okay’: Learning to upgrade in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 129–166.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bataller, R. (2010). Making a request for a service in Spanish: Pragmatic development in the study abroad setting. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 160–175.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–59.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Code, S., & Anderson, A. (2001) Requests by young Japanese: A longitudinal study. The Language Teacher, 25(8), 7–11.Google Scholar
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (in preparation). Research methods in L2 pragmatics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In E. Usó Juán & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological Issues (pp.41–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Hasler Barker, M. (2015). Complimenting in Spanish in a short-term study abroad context. System, 48, 75–85.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukasawa, E. (2012). Development of the speech act “compliment response” and is relation to outside classroom English use during study abroad. Sophia Linguistica, 60, 123–146.Google Scholar
Gonzales, A. (2013). Development of politeness strategies in participatory online environments: A case study. In N. Taguchi & J. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp.101–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1995). Aw, man, where you goin? Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 37–62.Google Scholar
Hassall, T. (2006). Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study. In M. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp.31–58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp.269–293). Baltimore, MA: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence in Japanese as a second language (pp.101–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp.316–341). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22, 502–530.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Politeness in interaction. Introduction. Special Issue.Multilingua, 25, 243–248.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215–247.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System, 45, 92–102.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, E. -Y., & Brown, L. (2014). Negotiating pragmatic competence in computer mediated communication: The case of Korean address terms. CALICO, 31, 264–284.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khorshidi, H. R. (2013). Study abroad and interlanguage pragmatic development in request and apology speech acts among Iranian learners. English Language Learning, 6, 62–70.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2014). The effects of different levels of linguistic proficiency on the development of L2 Chinese request production during study abroad. System, 45, 103–116.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LoCastro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ren, W. (2012). Pragmatic development in Chinese speakers’ L2 English refusals. EUROSLA Yearbook, 12, 63–87.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salsbury, T., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). I know your mean, but I don’t think so: Disagreements in L2 English. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series (Vol. 10, pp.131–151). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Schauer, G. A. (2004). May you speak louder maybe? EUROSLA Yearbook, 4, 253–273.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shively, R., & Cohen, A. (2008). Development of Spanish requests and apologies during study abroad. Íkala: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 13(20), 57–118.Google Scholar
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356–382.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28, 113–135.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (Vol.7, pp.333–361). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2013). Refusals in L2 English: Proficiency effects on appropriateness and fluency. In P. Salazar & O. A. Marti (Eds.), Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond. Spain: Rodopi.Google Scholar
(2015). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatics learning abroad, in class and online. System, 48, 3–20.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., & Li, S. (2016). Development of pragmatic knowledge in L2 Chinese: Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a study abroad context. Modern Language Journal, 100, 775–796.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–111.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warga, M., & Schölmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 221–251.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodfield, H. (2012). Pragmatic variation in learner perception: The role of retrospective verbal report in L2 speech act research. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D. A. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues (pp.209–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, R. (2002). Discourse approaches to oral language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 105–132.Google Scholar
(2008). Discursive practices in language learning and teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in language learning and teaching (pp.426–443). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 271–292.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Dixon, Tülay & Daniel H. Dixon
2024. A simple methodology for identifying speech act tendencies. Applied Pragmatics DOI logo
SAKAGUCHI, Riu , Hidenori ISHIKAWA & Rikko SAKAGUCHI
2023. Empatheme Data Collection Method and Applications of English Learner Data. Journal of JSEE 71:4 ► pp. 4_45 ff. DOI logo
Mohammad Hosseinpur, Rasoul, Reza Bagheri Nevisi & Abdolreza Lowni
2021. A Tale of four measures of pragmatic knowledge in an EFL institutional context. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 31:1 ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo
Siddiqa, Aisha & Shona Whyte
2021. Classroom learning of English L2 requests: Input and interactional opportunities in French secondary schools. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Taguchi, Naoko
2021. Application of Immersive Virtual Reality to Pragmatics Data Collection Methods. CALICO Journal 38:2 DOI logo
Cohen, Andrew D.
2020. Issues in the assessment of L2 pragmatics. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 16:1 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Cohen, Andrew D.
2020. Considerations in assessing pragmatic appropriateness in spoken language. Language Teaching 53:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Cohen, Andrew D.
2021. The Assessment of Target-Language Pragmatics. In Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics [Springer Texts in Education, ], ► pp. 311 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.