Chapter published in:
Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics
Edited by Naoko Taguchi and YouJin Kim
[Task-Based Language Teaching 10] 2018
► pp. 248–263

The effects of task type and L2 proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task performance

| City University of New York
| University of Liverpool
| University College London
| Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Conceived within the TBLT framework, the present study examined pedagogic tasks as vehicles for demonstrating L2 learners’ discourse appropriacy in oral production. Eighty ESL learners’ discourse appropriacy was measured using three pragmatically-oriented task types (complaint, refusal, and advice) across four different proficiency levels. The findings showed that, for all task types, as general proficiency increased, ratings of discourse appropriacy also increased. We found that there was a pronounced difference in discourse appropriacy between the intermediate and advanced proficiency levels, and that for learners at higher levels of proficiency, discourse appropriacy did not vary from task to task. In contrast, task type made a difference for less proficient learners in that the refusal task was particularly challenging compared with other tasks.
Published online: 15 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.10eki
References

References

Babai Shishavan, H., & Sharifian, F.
(2016) The refusal speech act in a cross-cultural perspective: A study of Iranian English-language learners and Anglo-Australian speakers. Language and Communication, 47, 75–88.Google Scholar
Baralt, M.
(2013) The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(2000) Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 182–192). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012) Pragmatics in SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147–162). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2013) Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63, 68–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barron, A.
(2006) Learning to say ‘you’ in German: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. In M. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 59–82). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Beebe, L.
(1995) The social rules of speaking: Basics – not frosting on the cake. The Language Teacher, 19(3), 4–11.Google Scholar
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R.
(1990) Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), On the development of communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Beebe, L., & Waring, H.
(2005) Pragmatic development in responding to rudeness. In J. Frodesen & C. Holten (Eds.), The power of context in language teaching and learning (pp. 67–80). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeCapua, A.
(1998) Pragmatic transfer and cultural stereotyping. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 9, 21–36.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Révész, A.
(2012) Tasks and teacher feedback in the Spanish foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 62, 851–879. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haverkate, H.
(1984) Speech acts, speakers and hearers (Pragmatics and Beyond 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, N.
(2010) Style shifts among Japanese learners before and after study abroad in Japan: Becoming active social agents in Japan. Applied Linguistics, 31, 45–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H.
(1999) Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Rose, K.
(2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kim, H. -J.
(2006) Providing validity evidence for a speaking test using FACETS. Teachers College Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 6 (1). From http://​journals​.tc​-library​.org​/index​.php​/tesol​/article​/view​/180
Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P.
(2015) The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N.
(2015) Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Norouzian, R., & Plonsky, L.
2018). Eta- and partial eta-squared in L2 research: A cautionary review and guide to more appropriate usage. Second Language Research, 34, 257–271. Crossref
Olshtain, E., & Celce-Murcia, M.
(2001) Discourse analysis and language teaching. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 707–724). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F.
(2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Purpura, J.
(2004) Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A.
(2009) Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E.
(2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37, 828–848.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M.
(2014) The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–650. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roever, C.
(2009) Teaching and testing pragmatics. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 560–577). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S., & Kasper, G.
(2013) Assessing second language pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, G.
(2004) ‘May you speaker louder maybe?’ Interlanguage pragmatic development in requests. EUROSLA Yearbook, 4, 253–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.
(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
(1997) Task-type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swales, J.
(1990) Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N.
(2007) Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28, 113–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011a) Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of appropriateness, accuracy, and fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49, 265–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011c) The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience in pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 904–939. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2015) Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, S.
(2010) Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (Vol. 7, pp. 391–421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M.
(2012) Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1240–1253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J.
(1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A.
(1995) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Young, R.
(2011) Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 426–443). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Lee, Yow-jyy Joyce & Yeu-Ting Liu
2021. Promoting Oral Presentation Skills Through Drama-Based Tasks with an Authentic Audience: A Longitudinal Study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 april 2021. 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.