Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 13:4 (2022) ► pp.585–604

The role of prior and actual situational context in conversational routines produced by Chinese learners of English

| Beihang University

This study aims to investigate the effects of English proficiency (EP) and study-abroad (SA) experience on routine production among 143 Chinese university English learners. The interplay of learners’ mastery of prior context (PC) and actual situational context (ASC) knowledge reflected their productive competence of routines (PCR). Participants were divided into three groups based on their EP levels and length of SA experience: high EP without SA, low EP without SA, and high EP with SA. A pilot study with 41 American native speakers was conducted to determine the target response set as the baseline. A seven-item computer-animated production task was used to elicit routines that revealed learners’ mastery of ASC and PC knowledge. The findings revealed that EP was only necessary for learners’ PC knowledge and PCR. SA experience, alongside SA and EP interaction, had a significant impact on both sides of ASC and PC knowledge, as well as learners’ overall PCR.

Keywords: routines, prior context, actual situational context, proficiency, study-abroad experience, Chinese learners of English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework and literature review
    • 2.1Prior context vs. actual situational context
    • 2.2Literature review
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Instrument
    • 3.3Experimental procedure
    • 3.4Evaluation of productive competence of routines
    • 3.5Data collection and analysis
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Analysis and discussion
    • 5.1Effects of English proficiency and study-abroad experience on productive competence of routines
      • EP vs. PCR
      • SA vs. PCR
      • EP and SA interaction vs. PCR
    • 5.2Effects of English proficiency study-abroad experience on actual situational context knowledge
      • EP vs. ASC knowledge
      • SA vs. ASC knowledge
    • 5.3Effects of English proficiency and study-abroad experience on prior context knowledge
      • EP vs. PC knowledge
      • SA vs. PC knowledge
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 4 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20027.wan
References
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen
2009 “Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics.” Language Learning 591: 755–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 321: 206–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Awareness of meaning of conventional expressions in second-language pragmatics.” Language Awareness 23(1–2): 41–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Routines in L2 pragmatics research.” In Handbook of SLA and pragmatics, ed. by Naoko Taguchi, 47–62. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Maria-Thereza Bastos
2011 “Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics.” Intercultural Pragmatics 81: 347–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jacob
1988 Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1992 “A power primer.” Psychological Bulletin 1121: 155–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Zoltan
2009 The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halenko, Nicola
2018 “Using Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL) Tools to Enhance Output Practice.” In Practice in Second Language Learning, ed. by Christian Jones, 137–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele
2008 “Data collection in pragmatics research.” In Culturally speaking (2nd Ed.), ed. by Helen Spencer-Oatey, 279–303. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan
2000 “A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances.” Journal of Pragmatics 32(6): 605–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Formulaic language in English lingua franca.” In Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Laurence R. Horn, 191–218. New York & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010 “Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(11): 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “How does pragmatic competence develop in bilinguals?” International Journal of Multilingualism 12(4): 419–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, Olga Obdalova, Ludmila Minakova, and Aleksandra Soboleva
2018 “A study of the perception of situation-bound utterances as culture-specific pragmatic units by Russian learners of English.” System 761: 219–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinginger, Celeste
2008 “Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France.” Modern Language Journal 92, Supplement S1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Citing, Wendong Li, and Wei Ren
2021 “Tracking the trajectories of international students’ pragmatic choices in studying abroad in China: a social network perspective”. Language, Culture and Curriculum 34(4): 398–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, Alison, and Susan M. Gass
2005 Second language research: methodology and design. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ren, Wei
2022 Second language pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 L2 pragmatic development in study abroad contexts. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Pragmatic development of Chinese during study abroad: A cross-sectional study of learner requests”. Journal of Pragmatics 1461: 137–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, Carsten
2012 “What learners get for free: Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments.” ELT Journal 661: 10–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko
2011 “The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience in pragmatic comprehension.” Language Learning 611: 904–939. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Production of routines in L2 English: Effect of proficiency and study-abroad experience.” System 411: 109–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Developing interactional competence in a Japanese study abroad context. Bristol & New York: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of the study abroad research.” Language Teaching 51 (1): 124–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko, Qiong Li, and Xiaofei Tang
2017 “Learning Chinese formulaic expressions in a scenario-based interactive environment.” Foreign Language Annals 501: 641–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko, Shuai Li, and Feng Xiao
2013 “Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental investigation in a study abroad context.” Chinese as a Second Language Research 21: 23–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko, and Carsten Roever
(eds) 2017 Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Yuqi
2022 L2 pragmatic competence in Chinese EFL routines. Cham: SpringerBriefs in Education. DOI logoGoogle Scholar