Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp.563-578
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 09 May 2022 Revised 18 Jun 2022 Accepted 30 Jun 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202206.563

Investigating the features of L2 Pragmatic Competence in Conversation from Role-Play Interaction

Soo Jung Youn ; Panjanit Chaipuapae
(1st author) Assistant Professor, English Education Department, Daegu National University of Education, Tel: 053) 620-1425 sjyoun@dnue.ac.kr
(co-author) Lecturer, Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University Bangkok, Thailand panjanit.c@ku.th


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to discuss what second language (L2) pragmatic competence in conversation entails by demonstrating varying interactional patterns of English L2 learners’ role-play performances. Data came from a role-play interaction corpus of adult English as a Second Language (ESL) learners with varying first languages. Using a conversation analytic approach, we demonstrate the turn-by-turn characteristics of role-play task performances of learners at different levels of pragmatic competence. The various example performances suggest that high-level learners utilized a range of resources, ranging from diverse grammatical resources to interactional resources, such as effective turn organizations and acknowledgement tokens to maintain the continuity of talk. The findings reveal that pragmatically appropriate conversation entails multi-dimensional components, including grammatical complexity and accuracy in a single response, as well as various interactional strategies, such as contextualizing an upcoming talk and repairing communication breakdown which are important for context-appropriate interactional achievement. We discuss concrete characteristics of pragmatically appropriate conversation, as well as suggestions for how a task-based approach could assist teaching pragmatics to L2 learners.

Keywords:

L2 pragmatics, role-play task, interactional competence, conversation analysis

References

  • Al-Gahtani, S. and C. Roever. 2012. Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics 33(1), 42–65. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr031]
  • Al-Gahtani, S. and C. Roever. 2018. Proficiency and preference organization in second language refusals. Journal of Pragmatics 129, 140–153. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.014]
  • Atkinson, J. and J. Heritage. 1984. Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Barón, J., M. L. Celaya and M. Levkina. 2020. Learning pragmatics through tasks: When interaction plays a role. Applied Pragmatics 2, 1–25. [https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.18010.bar]
  • Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody, ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, 56–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Drew, P. and E. Couper-Kuhlen. (2014). Requesting – from speech act to recruitment. In P. Drew and E. Couper-Kuhlen, eds., Requesting in Social Interaction, 1–34. John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.01dre]
  • Hall, J. K. and S. Pekarek Doehler. 2011. L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann and S. Pekarek Doehler, eds., L2 Interactional Competence and Development, 1–15. New York: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-003]
  • Hassall, T. 2020. Preference structure in request sequences: What about role-play? Journal of Pragmatics 155, 321–333. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.020]
  • Jefferson, G. 1984. Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson and J. Heritage, eds., Structures of Social Interaction, ix-xvi. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kasper, G. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. S. Omar, eds., Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, 281–314. Hawai‘i: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i.
  • Kasper, G. and M. Dahl. 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 215–247. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009955]
  • Kasper, G. and J. Wagner. 2014. Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 34, 171–212. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000014]
  • Long, M. H. 2016. In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 5–33. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000057]
  • Norris, J. M. 2009. Task-based teaching and testing. In M. Long and C. Doughty, eds., Handbook of Language Teaching, 578–594. Oxford: Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch30]
  • Pekarek Doehler, S. and E. Berger. 2018. L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics 39(4), 555–578. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021]
  • Plonsky, L. and Y. Kim. 2016. Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 73–97. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000015]
  • Searle, J. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5, 1–23. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837]
  • Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208]
  • Taguchi, N. 2019. Routledge Handbook of SLA and Pragmatics. New York: Routledge.
  • Taguchi, N. and Y. Kim. 2016. Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics 37, 416–437. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu039]
  • Taguchi, N. and C. Roever. 2017. Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Taguchi, N. and Y. Kim. 2018. Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10]
  • Taguchi, N. and S. J. Youn. forthcoming. Pragmatics: Assessing learning outcomes in instructional studies. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss and Y. Kim, eds., Research Methods in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Tamimi Sa’d, S. H. and J. Gholami. 2017. Teaching Iranian elementary EFL learners to say ‘No’ politely: An interlanguage pragmatic study. TESL–EJ 21(1), 1–23.
  • Van den Branden, K., M. Bygate and J. M. Norris. 2009. Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate and J. M. Norris, eds., Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader, 1-13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.1.02van]
  • Wong, J. and H. Z. Waring. 2020. Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy: A Guide for ESL/EFL Teachers. New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429488023]
  • Youn, S. J. 2015. Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing 32, 199–225. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214557113]
  • Youn, S. J. 2018. Task-based needs analysis of L2 pragmatics in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36, 86–98. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.10.005]