Investigating Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence in a Chinese EFL Context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55766/DQNZ9834Keywords:
ILP competence, speech acts, conversational implicature, Routines, genderAbstract
Interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) competence is vitally important for EFL learners to avoid embarrassment which could happen in an interaction between speakers from different cultural backgrounds. The present research aimed to investigate the EFL learners’ ILP competence and its variations by gender while conducting speech acts, understanding conversational implicature and performing routines. The participants were 390 Chinese English majors. The data was collected with the ILP competence test and semi-structured interviews. The ILP competence test was developed for the Chinese context by the present researchers. The quantitative data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics and independent T-test. The qualitative data were analyzed with content analysis. The results indicated that the EFL learners’ ILP competence was at the medium level. Significant differences existed at the overall level and in conducting speech acts and performing routines at the category level according to gender. Significant differences were also found in the four aspects of conducting speech acts: 1) correct speech acts, 2) typical expressions, 3) amount of speech and information, and 4) levels of formality, directness and politeness. In addition, in some individual items in understanding conversational implicature and performing routines, significant differences were found. Overall, the females performed better than their male counterparts.
References
Bouton, L.F. (1994). Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught.
Journal of Pragmatics 22(2): 157-167.
Boyle, J. P. (1987). Sex Differences in listening Vocabulary. Language Learning 37(2): 273-284.
Derakhshan, A., and Eslami, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the pragmatic development of
apology and request. The Electronic Journal of English as a Second Language 18(4): 1-24.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. and Hyun, H. H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ 8(2): 1-15.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole P. and Morgan J. L. (Eds): Syntax and Semantics: Speech acts
(pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
He, G. (2011). Influences of Cultural Differences between the Chinese and the Western on Translation. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research 2(2): 483-485.
He, Z. R. (2003). Notes on pragmatics. Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics 18(1): 1-26.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 225-252.
Hudson, R.A. (2000). Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hudson, T., Detmer, E. and Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics.
(Technical Report 7). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Kasper, G. (2010). Pragmatics and language learning (Vol12). Hawaii: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Kasper, G.and Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 1-10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Labov, W. (1991). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language variation and
linguistic change 2: 203-231.
Lakoff, G. (1975). Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. New York: Springer Netherlands.
Lee, W. T. (2012). An Analysis of Taiwanese university EFL learners. Journal of Lan Yang 11: 67-77.
Levinson, S. C. (1983), Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, X. P. (2012). A correlational study of interlanguage pragmatic competence development on gender difference of
English majors. Journal of Suzhou University 27(8): 121-123.
Li, Q. H.and Zou, R. (2015). A review on the ILP competence testing. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages
(4): 43-50.
Liu, J. D. (2004). Measuring interlanguage pragmatic knowledge of Chinese EFL learners (Doctoral Dissertation,
City University of Hong Kong).
Liu, J. D. (2012). Chinese EFL learners’ English proficiency and their pragmatic competence development. Foreign
Languages in China 9(1): 64-70.
Mori, S. and Gobel, P. (2006). Motivation and gender in the Japanese EFL classroom. System 34(2): 194-210.
Naoko, T. (2013). Production of routines in L2 English: Effect of proficiency and study-abroad experience. System
(1): 109-121.
Penelope, E. and Sally, M. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roever, C. (2014). Testing ESL pragmatics. New York: Peter Lang.
Salahshour, F., Sharifi, M. and NedaSalahshour, S. (2012). The relationship between language learning strategy use,
language proficiency level and learner gender. Social and Behavioral Sciences 70: 634-643.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, A. J. B. D. (2003). The effects of instruction on pragmatic development: Teaching polite refusals in English.
Second Language Studies 22(1): 55-106.
Soo, J. Y. (2013). Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 pragmatic production: Investigating relationships among pragmatics,
grammar, and proficiency. System 42: 270-287.
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing Learnability in second language pragmatics. Trosborg, A. (Eds.), Handbook of
pragmatics VII (pp. 391-421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Takahashi, T. and Beebe, L.M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English.
JALT Journal 8(2): 131-55.
Wang, D. C. (1995). A study on neurolinguistics. Foreign languages 2: 1-7.
Wang. X. M. (2006). How sexual difference affects EFL learners’ linguistic and pragmatic competence. Foreign
Language and Literature Studies 87: 29-33.
Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals. RELC Journal 39(3): 318-337.
Wardhaugh, R.and Fuller, J. M. (2014). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Weerachairattana, R. and Wannaruk, A. (2016). Refusal Strategies in L1 and L2 by Native Speakers of Thai. Suranaree
Journal of Social Science 10(1): 119-139.
Xu, L. and Wannaruk, A. (2015). Reliability and Validity of WDCT in Testing Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence
for EFL Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 6(6): 1206-1215.
Yamanaka, J. E. (2003). Effects of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmatic comprehension of Japanese
ESL learners. Second Language Studies 22(1): 107-175.
Yang, Q. (2006). An Investigation of the Non-English Majors’ Pragmatic Competence (M.A. dissertation, Shangdong
Normal University).
Yin, L. (2009). Cultural differences of politeness in English and Chinese. Asian Social Science 5(6): 154-156.
Yue, X. B. (2015). Application of Scaffolding Instruction in releasing Communication Anxiety. Journal of the Chinese
Society of Education 1: 14-17.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 วารสารเทคโนโลยีสุรนารี Suranaree Journal of Social Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ThaiJO