Taguchi 2011 Language Learning

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

The Effect of L2 Proficiency

and Study-Abroad Experience

on Pragmatic Comprehension

Naoko Taguchi

Carnegie Mellon University

This cross-sectional study examined the effect of general proficiency and study-abroadexperience on pragmatic comprehension in second-language English. Participants were25 native English speakers and 64 Japanese college students of English divided intothree groups. Group 1 (n = 22) had lower proficiency and no study-abroad experience.Group 2 (n = 20) and Group 3 (n = 22) had higher proficiency than Group 1 butdiffered in their study-abroad experience. Group 2 had no study-abroad experience, butGroup 3 had a minimum of 1 year of study-abroad experience in an English-speakingcountry. They completed a pragmatic listening test measuring their ability to comprehendconventional and nonconventional implicatures. Group performance was compared forthe comprehension accuracy scores and response times. There was a significant effect ofproficiency on response times but no effect of study-abroad experience. Comprehensionaccuracy scores revealed mixed findings. It was advantageous for students to have study-abroad experience in the comprehension of nonconventional implicatures and routineexpressions but not in indirect refusals.

Keywords interlanguage pragmatics; pragmatic comprehension; conventional andnonconventional implicatures; routines; study-abroad

Introduction

Corresponding to the growing interest in the functional and social aspects ofsecond-language (L2) ability, the last two decades have seen a steep increase in

I wish to thank the students who participated in this research and for the instructors in the research

site who assisted me with data collection. Thanks also go to the associate editor, Scott Jarvis,

and three anonymous reviewers of Language Learning for their constructive feedback. I am also

grateful for Marc Siskin for his technological assistance and Courtney Sutter for proofreading

the manuscript. I am responsible for all the errors that may remain. This study was funded by a

Language Learning Small Research Grant.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naoko Taguchi, Modern Lan-

guages Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Baker Hall 160, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890.

Internet: [email protected]

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904–939 904C© 2011 Language Learning Research Club, University of MichiganDOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00633.x

Taguchi Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

studies of L2 pragmatic competence and development (for reviews, see Cohen,2008; Kasper, 2007; Kasper & Rose, 1999, 2002; Kasper & Roever, 2005).The primary objectives of these studies have been to reveal learner-specificand external factors that affect pragmatic competence because these factors arebelieved to explain the variation observed among learners in the outcome ofdevelopment and augment our understanding of the underlying mechanisms ofthat development. Among the factors examined, L2 proficiency and experiencein living in the target language community have been the most popular factors.Abundant studies have compared learners across proficiency levels or differ-ent living arrangements (e.g., study-abroad vs. domestic, formal instructionalsettings) on select aspects of pragmatic competence (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig &Dornyei, 1998; Bouton, 1994; Dalmau & Gotor, 2007; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003,2004; Geyer, 2007; Hill, 1997; Matsumura, 2001; Pinto, 2005; Rose, 2000;Rover, 2005; Schauer, 2006, 2008, 2009; Shimizu, 2009; Taguchi, 2008b,2008c, 2009a; Xu, Case, & Wang, 2009). However, research that has examinedthe effect on pragmatic competence of both factors combined is still limited.This study aims to fill the gap in the literature by looking at the impact oflanguage proficiency and study-abroad experience on L2 learners’ pragmaticcomprehension. Three groups of Japanese learners of English with differinglevels of proficiency and study-abroad experience completed a pragmatic lis-tening test measuring their ability to comprehend two types of conventionalindirect meaning: indirect refusal intentions and routines, and nonconventionalindirect meaning. The study examined whether proficiency and host country ex-perience jointly or separately explain learners’ ability to comprehend differenttypes of indirect meaning accurately and fluently.

Background

Over the last few decades, research on interlanguage pragmatics has shown arapid development as a field that investigates wide-ranging issues in the natureand development of L2 pragmatic competence (for reviews, see Cohen, 2008;Kasper & Rose, 1999, 2002; Kasper, 2007; Kasper & Roever, 2005). One of thecentral questions explored in these studies is what factors affect pragmatic com-petence and development. Among them, general proficiency and study-abroadexperience are the factors most addressed in the previous research (e.g., Dalmau& Gotor, 2007; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003, 2007; Geyer, 2007; Matsumura, 2001;Pinto, 2005; Rose, 2000; Rover, 2005; Schauer, 2006, 2008, 2009; Shimizu,2009; Taguchi, 2008b, 2008c, 2009a; Xu et al., 2009). The popularity of thesetwo factors is explained by the conceptualization of pragmatic competence:

905 Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904–939


Many aspects of pragmatic competence are inseparable not only from cognitiveconsiderations but also from sociocultural practices. To become able to com-municate intentions appropriately in a situation or to comprehend meaning thatis not explicitly stated, one needs a refined knowledge of linguistic systems aswell as target language skills to mobilize the knowledge in real-time interac-tion. To this end, a functional level of proficiency is necessary for pragmaticperformance. However, the social nature of pragmatic competence also impliesthat exposure to the target pragmatic input, combined with opportunities toengage in social interaction and practice pragmatic functions, is indispensableto pragmatic growth. Because the target community is likely to afford those op-portunities, a number of studies have examined the experience of living in a hostcountry, such as a study-abroad experience, as a potential factor contributing tosuccessful pragmatic learning (e.g., Barron, 2003; Kinginger, 2008; Schauer,2009). Below, I will review a group of studies that have examined these twofactors, L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience, in relation to pragmaticcompetence and development.

Effect of L2 Proficiency on Pragmatic CompetenceInterest in the effects of proficiency on pragmatic competence in part stemmedfrom the emergence of theoretical models of communicative competence inthe 1980s and 1990s (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale &Swain, 1980). Drawing on Hymes’s (1972) emphasis on the sociocultural use oflanguage, these models situated pragmatic and sociolinguistic competence as adistinct, indispensable component within L2 proficiency, apart from grammat-ical, discourse, and strategic competencies. Empirical efforts followed the leadby investigating whether pragmatic competence makes unique contributionsto general proficiency. A large body of studies compared L2 learners’ per-formances of a particular pragmatic feature across different proficiency levelsdetermined by standardized exams, grade level, or length of formal study (e.g.,Beebe & Takahashi, 1987; Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz, 1990; Dalmau &Gotor, 2007; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003, 2007; Geyer, 2007; Hill, 1997; Hoffman-Hicks, 1992; Maeshiba, Kasper, & Ross, 1996; Omnar, 1991; Pinto, 2005;Robinson, 1992; Rose, 2000; Rover, 2005; Taguchi, 2007b, 2009a; Takahashi,1996; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Takahashi & DuFon, 1989; Takenoya, 2003;Trosborg, 1995; Yamashita, 1996; Xu et al., 2009; see Bardovi-Harlig, 1999,and Kasper & Rose, 1999, 2002, for reviews). These studies have repeatedlyfound that high general proficiency supports quality pragmatic performance,but it does not guarantee a nativelike performance (see Bardovi-Harlig, 2001,for a review).

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904–939 906


In the area of pragmatic production, this generalization has been drawn fromcross-sectional studies that have compared speech act productions across differ-ent proficiency groups. Early studies compared speech acts with correspondingfirst-language (L1) and L2 data, and they documented cases of positive andnegative L1 transfer in the use of strategies and lexicosyntactic choices (e.g.,Hill, 1997; Maeshiba et al., 1996; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989; Takahashi, 1996;Takahashi & Beebe, 1987). Central interest in these studies has been the pro-ficiency effect on transfer, leaving somewhat contradicting evidence. Somestudies have found that L2 proficiency is positively correlated with pragmatictransfer: higher proficiency learners are more susceptive to L1 interference(e.g., Hill, 1997; Maeshiba et al., 1996; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989; Robinson,1992; Takahashi & Dufon, 1989). Other studies have found a negative correla-tion between proficiency and transfer (e.g., Takahashi & Beebe, 1987). Lowerproficiency learners end up with more targetlike production than higher pro-ficiency learners because they do not have sufficient linguistic resources totransfer complex L1 pragmatic conventions in L2 production.

These findings suggest that the relationship between L1 transfer and profi-ciency is in part mediated by the nature of the target pragmatic features. Sup-porting evidence comes from Takahashi’s (1996) study. Using a transferabilityjudgement scale, Takahashi examined whether Japanese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) students of two different proficiency levels could judge thetransferability of L1 request strategies to L2 in an appropriate manner. Shefound that the perceived transferability of certain L1 strategies was negativelyinfluenced by learners’ low proficiency. However, regardless of proficiency,learners overall projected false form-function mappings between L1 and L2on complex, biclausal L2 request forms. They did not perceive syntacticallycomplex English forms as functionally equivalent to Japanese polite requestutterances and thus refused to transfer them.

More recent studies have continued to explore the effect of proficiencyon speech acts, contributing to the generalization that higher proficiency doesnot always lead to native-like L2 pragmatic performance. For instance, Felix-Brasdefer (2007) examined the speech act of requests produced by L2 learnersof Spanish at three different proficiency levels: beginning, intermediate, andadvanced (proficiency determined by course level). Open role-plays were usedto collect data in four situations of varying degrees of formality. Analysesof request head acts and modifications revealed a decline in the use of di-rect strategies with increasing proficiency: More than 80% of the beginners’requests were direct requests, whereas the percentage was 36% and 18% forthe intermediate group and advanced group, respectively. In contrast, a strong



preference for conventionally indirect strategies was found among intermediateand advanced learners, although their use was limited to two forms of querypreparatory strategies. Advanced learners employed lexical and syntactic mit-igators often, but the frequency and variety of these mitigators fell short ofnative speakers’ norms.

Dalmau and Gotor (2007), on the other hand, compared the speech act ofapology produced by 78 Catalan learners of English at three different profi-ciency levels (proficiency determined by the standardized proficiency exam andthe level of study). They responded to a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) con-taining eight apology situations. The apology strategies used by the participantswere coded. A proficiency effect was found in the repertoire of apology expres-sions, with higher proficiency learners attempting a greater variety of apologystrategies and decreasing the overgeneralization of non-target-like apology ex-pressions (e.g., using “excuse me” when apologizing). More proficient learnersalso used a greater number of lexical intensifiers, approximating the targetnorm, but the overall frequency still fell short of that of native speakers. Higherproficiency learners also struggled at the morphosyntactic level, as seen in theproduction of erroneous forms (e.g., “I’m sorried”).

While most previous studies examined the impact of proficiency on learn-ers’ appropriate production of pragmatic functions, Taguchi (2007b) examinedthe proficiency effect on the processing dimension of pragmatic competence(i.e., fluency of speech act production). Fifty-nine Japanese students of En-glish at two different proficiency levels (proficiency determined by TOEFLscores) produced requests and refusals in a role-play task involving low- andhigh-imposition situations. The learners’ speech acts were analyzed for overallappropriateness (rated on a 6-point scale), planning time, and speech rate. Therewas a significant proficiency effect on appropriateness ratings and speech rate.However, the two proficiency groups did not differ on planning time. Thesefindings inform us that linguistic competence is not sufficient for pragmaticfluency as operationalized as planning time.

Previous cross-sectional studies have also looked into the relationship be-tween proficiency and pragmatic comprehension (e.g., Cook & Liddicoat, 2002;Garcia, 2004; Koike, 1996; Taguchi, 2008b, 2008c; Yamanaka, 2003). Garcia(2004) compared the pragmatic comprehension of low- and high-proficiencyL2 English speakers by examining their ability to recognize indirect speechacts (proficiency determined by TOEFL scores). Comprehension of indirectrequests, suggestions, corrections, and offers were assessed using a multiple-choice listening test developed from corpora of naturalistic conversations. Gar-cia found that proficient speakers had an advantage in comprehension, whereas



the difference between native speakers and the high-proficiency group was min-imal. The type of speech act had a significant effect on comprehension ability,and a significant group difference in comprehension was found in all speechacts except indirect requests.

Taguchi (2009a), on the other hand, examined the effect of proficiencyon the comprehension of implicatures in L2 Japanese. Thirty native Japanesespeakers and 84 college students enrolled in the elementary-, intermediate-,and advanced-level Japanese courses completed a listening test that measuredtheir ability to comprehend three types of implicatures: indirect refusals, con-ventional indirect opinions, and nonconventional indirect opinions. Refusalswere found to be the easiest to comprehend, followed by conventional and non-conventional indirect opinions. This tendency was the same across learners’proficiency levels, but there was no difference in native speakers’ compre-hension. Advanced and intermediate students scored significantly higher thanthe elementary students, but no difference was found in comprehension speedacross groups.

In summary, the previous studies summarized above revealed mixed find-ings regarding the effect of proficiency on pragmatic comprehension and pro-duction. In general, the proficiency effect is positive, reiterating the integralrole that pragmatic competence plays within the framework of communica-tive competence and L2 proficiency. As their proficiency develops, learnersgain better control of pragmatic functions, as evidenced in their ability toblock negative L1 transfer, ability to manage appropriate levels of directnessin speech acts, use of more targetlike mitigating expressions, and more accu-rate comprehension of indirect meaning. However, previous research has alsorevealed that linguistic competence does not guarantee nativelike pragmaticcompetence. Advanced-level learners still transfer L1-based speech act strate-gies, lack nativelike sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge, and lagbehind in processing efficiency and fluency in pragmatic performance. Thesefindings call for more investigation of the proficiency effect in pragmatic per-formance over a variety of pragmatic functions and attributes in order to de-termine the relationship among proficiency, pragmatic targets, and pragmaticcompetence.

Effect of Study-Abroad Experience on Pragmatic CompetenceBecause the majority of the studies that have revealed a positive relationshipbetween proficiency and pragmatic competence were conducted in a foreignlanguage context, the findings imply that development of pragmatic compe-tence is possible solely with linguistic maturity, without an exposure to the



target language in a country where it is spoken natively. However, whetherthe host country experience facilitates pragmatic development has been exam-ined in a separate line of study-abroad studies. These studies are divided intotwo major strands. One is a group of cross-sectional studies that comparedpragmatic competence between learners in a study-abroad context (SA) andat-home, formal instructional context (AH) (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei,1998; Matsumura, 2001; Niezgoda & Roever, 2001; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka,1985; Rover, 2005; Shimizu, 2009; Taguchi, 2008c; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987).The other is a group of longitudinal studies that regarded language learningin a study-abroad context as a unique case of second language acquisition andexamined the effect of this specific learning context on pragmatic developmentin single-learner groups, without a comparison group in a domestic educationalsetting (e.g., Atsusawa-Windley & Noguchi, 1995; Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford,1993; Barron, 2003, 2006, 2007; Bouton, 1992, 1994, 1999; Cohen & Shively,2007; DuFon, 2000; Hassall, 2006; Kinginger, 2008; Kinginger & Blattner,2008; Kinginger & Farrell, 2004; Marriot, 1995; Matsumura, 2001; Sawyer,1992; Schauer, 2004; Shiveley, 2008; Taguchi, 2008b; Warga & Scholmberger,2007; Xu et al., 2009). Some studies have included both: comparison of SAand AH groups and longitudinal investigation of the SA group (e.g., Schauer,2006, 2008, 2009).

The former line of studies has generally revealed an advantage of SA overAH contexts in pragmatic development (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998),but evidence also exists that AH learners demonstrate superior performanceto SA learners (e.g., Niezgoda & Roever, 2001). Furthermore, similar to theeffect of L2 proficiency, a trend gleaned from these study-abroad investigationsis a rather selective effect of the study-abroad experience on pragmatic devel-opment. The acquisition of some pragmatic features (e.g., comprehension ofroutines) is better assisted by experiences in the target language community,whereas others develop naturally in a foreign language learning environment(e.g., comprehension of implicature; Rover, 2005).

The superiority of the SA over the AH context for pragmatic develop-ment intuitively makes sense, considering that pragmatic competence entailsthe ability to control the complex interplay of language, interlocutors, and thecontext in which the interaction takes place. In the target language environ-ment, learners potentially have abundant opportunities to gain such pragmaticawareness and practice. They have opportunities to observe how people conveyappropriate levels of politeness and formality in speech acts. Being exposedto unscripted, authentic discourse in everyday interaction, learners can alsopractice inferential comprehension.



Some previous studies support this premise by documenting the superiorityof a SA context over an AH context in pragmatic performance and devel-opment. Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei (1998) examined English-as-a-second-language (ESL) and EFL learners’ ability to detect pragmatic and gram-matical errors in the performance of speech acts. Learners watched videoscenes in which the interlocutors’ speech acts contained either grammaticalor pragmatic errors. EFL learners detected more grammatical errors, whereasESL learners detected more pragmatic errors. High-proficiency ESL learnersshowed better grammatical and pragmatic awareness. The findings were con-firmed by Schauer’s (2006) replication study, which found that, compared withEFL learners in Germany, German ESL learners recognized a considerablyhigher number of pragmatic errors. Their pragmatic awareness continued toimprove during their 9-month study-abroad period almost to native-speakerlevels.

However, Niezgoda and Roever’s (2001) study, another replication ofBardovi-Harlig and Dornyei (1998), yielded contrasting findings. EFL learnersin the Czech Republic detected a higher number of pragmatic and grammat-ical errors in speech acts and judged both error types as more serious thanESL learners. EFL learners’ sensitivity to pragmatic inappropriateness wasattributed to the fact that they were advanced speakers enrolled in a teacher ed-ucation program. Proficiency also influenced their appropriateness judgments.Low-proficiency learners in both environments recognized more pragmatic thangrammatical errors and rated pragmatic errors as more severe, but the tendencywas the opposite for the high-proficiency learners.

Adapting Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei’s (1998) instrument, a recent studyby Xu et al. (2009) examined the effect of length of residence (LOR) in the targetlanguage community and L2 proficiency on pragmatic competence. Participantswere 126 L2 English speakers in U.S. universities at two proficiency levels.Higher proficiency participants were enrolled in graduate programs and had aminimum TOEFL score of 550, whereas lower proficiency participants wereall undergraduate students. They were further divided into two groups based ontheir LOR. One group had lived in the United States more than 1 year, whereasthe other group had LOR of less than 1 year. Results revealed a significant effectof LOR and proficiency on correct identifications of pragmatic errors, but therewas no interaction effect between the two variables. Both factors contributedto the accurate recognition of pragmatic infelicities, although proficiency hada stronger impact than LOR (the eta squared effect size of .07 for proficiencyvs. .03 for LOR). These findings add to the previous literature: Amount oftime spent in the host country, not experience of residence abroad per se, plays



a role in increased pragmatic competence, but when compared with generalproficiency, the effect is weaker.

The findings contrast with Matsumura (2003), who used structural equationmodeling to examine the effect of proficiency and amount of target languageexposure on recognition of appropriate advice-giving expressions among 137Japanese learners of English during study-abroad. He found that exposurewas a predictor for pragmatic development but proficiency was not. However,proficiency had an indirect effect on pragmatic development via exposure:Higher proficiency learners sought more opportunities for exposure, whichconsequently fostered their pragmatic development.

In the area of pragmatic comprehension, very few studies to date have di-rectly compared SA and AH groups. Rover (2005) compared ESL and EFLlearners on three pragmatic constructs: comprehension of implicatures, com-prehension of routines, and production of speech acts. The implicature sectiontested comprehension of two types of implicatures: formulaic implicatures thatwere marked by conventional structures (e.g., showing agreement by saying“Is the Pope Catholic?”) and idiosyncratic, nonconventional implicatures. Theroutine items tested recognition of situational routines that were tied to specificsituations and functional routines that were not situation-bound. The speechact section had 12 items that elicited requests, refusals, and apologies. Therewas a significant effect of residence abroad on the comprehension of routinesbut no effect of context on the comprehension of implicatures and productionof speech acts, although there was a significant L2 proficiency effect on both.

Taguchi (2008c), on the other hand, compared the gains in accurate, speedycomprehension of conversational implicatures between SA and AH contexts.Sixty EFL students in Japan and 57 ESL students in the United States completeda computerized listening task that measured their ability to comprehend indirectrefusals and indirect opinions. Indirect refusals were considered conventionalbecause they followed a common, predictable discourse pattern (giving a reasonfor refusal). In contrast, indirect opinions were considered less conventional andidiosyncratic in nature because meaning was not attached to specific linguisticexpressions or predictable patterns and because linguistic options regardinghow to express the opinion are wide open (e.g., indicating a negative opinion ofa movie by saying “I was glad when it was over”). Comprehension was analyzedfor accuracy (scores) and speed (response times). Results revealed a reversedpattern of development between the two groups. For the EFL group, the size ofgain was much smaller for comprehension speed than for accuracy. In contrast,ESL learners showed significant improvement in comprehension speed with asizable effect size, but with only marginal improvement in accuracy.



Taguchi (2008c) explained the findings from the perspective of cognitivetheories of skill development that postulate that processing speed developsnaturally in accordance with increased associative practices between input andresponse (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Anderson et al., 2004). The processing of prag-matic meaning involves a coordinated action of a number of factors, includinglinguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural processes, which must be automatized toachieve speedy comprehension. The small gain in comprehension speed foundamong the EFL learners may be due to the fact that they lacked sufficient op-portunities for associative practices to develop performance speed. In a foreignlanguage environment, these EFL learners had limited incidental exposure toL2; as a result, mapping practices between form and meaning did not occurfrequently. Greater gains in comprehension speed shown by the ESL learners,on the other hand, could be due to the abundant incidental processing practiceavailable in their environment.

As shown in these cross-sectional studies, the positive effect of sojournabroad was not all-encompassing over different pragmatic targets: Some as-pects of pragmatic competence were more influenced by study-abroad experi-ence than others. Similar observations are drawn from longitudinal studies. Bytracking down learners’ development during their sojourn abroad, those studieshave documented learners’ changes in pragmatic competence as well as factorsthat might have triggered those changes.

In the area of pragmatic comprehension, Bouton (1992, 1994) investigatedthe longitudinal development of ESL learners’ comprehension of conversa-tional implicatures. Learners completed a written test that had 33 short dia-logues including different types of implicatures. After 17 months of living inthe target country, learners still fell behind native-speaker-level comprehension.In particular, four types of implicatures remained difficult: indirect criticism,Pope questions, sequence implicatures, and irony. After 4.5 years, learners’comprehension of relevance-based implicatures became nativelike; however,they continued to have problems with some formulaic implicatures.

Previous studies on pragmatic production, on the other hand, generallyhave found that during study abroad, learners’ use of strategies and tactics toperform pragmatic functions shows a solid progress, whereas the precise syntaxand lexis needed to encode pragmatic intentions do not develop as quickly(e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993; Barron, 2003; Schauer, 2004, 2009;Warga & Scholmberger, 2007). For instance, in Warga and Scholmberger’sstudy (2007) that examined the speech act of apology, seven English-speakinglearners of L2 French completed a DCT six times during a 10-month study-abroad period. In the situations of equal relationship, learners initially justified



their conduct and did not offer to repair the damage caused. Over time, learners’handling of these strategies improved. Justifications decreased from 80% to20%, approximating the native-speaker frequency of 30%, and offers of repairincreased in frequency from 50% to 70%. However, learners’ acquisition ofpragmalinguisitc forms remained largely unchanged. Learners continued tooveruse certain upgrading expressions—for instance, tres, meaning “very”—and underuse another—vraiment meaning “really.”

Schauer (2004, 2008, 2009), on the other hand, examined the develop-ment of the request speech act among German learners of English. In Schauer(2004), a multimedia elicitation task was administered three times over a 9-month study-abroad. A few external modifiers that were initially underem-ployed (small talk, flattering, showing appreciation, showing consideration)improved after the 4-month stay. Development toward the native speakers’ re-quest strategy preferences was also found in the increased use of hinting inlow-imposition situations and also in a broad repertoire of request strategiesthat the SA group acquired, comparable to the native-speaker range (Schauer,2008). In contrast, several internal modifiers involving lexical and syntacticdowngraders remained underdeveloped. Consultation devices (e.g., Would youmind), imposition minimizers (e.g., a bit), and tag questions were used 25–50% less frequently than in the production of native speakers, and the degreeof progress was negligible. After the 9-month period, the learners still retainedthe nontarget use of the hedged performative form (e.g., “I want to ask you to”+ verb) in high-imposition situations, possibly due to negative transfer fromthe L1.

As shown in these longitudinal studies, form-function-context mappingsare not internalized in a linear, fast-paced manner even when living in thetarget language community. Moreover, the study-abroad experience does notseem to have equal effects over different aspects of pragmatic competence.Some aspects get picked up quickly in learners’ systems as a result of ex-posure to the target language in its full social context, whereas other aspectstake some time to get internalized. These variations in the pace of develop-ment have been attributed to a variety of factors within individuals, context,and the interaction between them. Those factors include differential amountand intensity of sociocultural contact and the range of social experiences (i.e.,variety of social situations that one encounters in context), learner agency andsubjectivity in accessing opportunities for pragmatic practice, and availabil-ity of feedback and modeling from native-speaker peers (e.g., DuFon, 2000;Hassall, 2006; Kinginger, 2008; Kinginger & Farrell, 2004; Schauer, 2006,2009).



A rare study by Matsumura (2007) illustrates the sociocontextual factorsthat affect pragmatic changes before and after study-abroad. It is a follow-up toan earlier study by the author that examined L2 English learners’ recognitionof advice-giving expressions (Matsumura, 2003). Japanese learners of Englishreceived a questionnaire containing 12 advice-giving scenarios and were askedto select the most appropriate of four advice options: direct advice (the useof “should”), hedged advice, indirect comments with no advice, and optingout. The learners in Canada and Japan took the questionnaire four times in1 year. Initially, both groups chose indirect and hedged forms of advice wheninteracting with high-status interlocutors (i.e., professors). This tendency, whichwas congruent with that of native speakers of Canadian English, remained thesame over the length of their stay in the target culture. By contrast, whenadvice was given to equal or lower status interlocutors (e.g., friends), the SAgroup outperformed the AH group and became able to choose more directadvice forms over time. SA learners’ superior performance was attributed tothe amount of exposure in the target language, which was mediated by generalproficiency.

Matsumura (2007) examined changes among those Japanese participantsafter they returned from studying abroad in Canada. A subset of 15 learnerscompleted the same questionnaire three times: 1 month, 6 months, and 1 yearafter their return to Japan. Their choice of advice expressions gradually di-verged from that of native speakers of Canadian English. Interestingly, studentsretained their ability in lower status and equal-status situations, but they di-verged the most in higher status situations. After the 3-month point of reentry,the learners increasingly preferred not to give advice to professors. Follow-upinterviews revealed that the learners’ perceptions of professor-student relation-ships in Japan caused this pragmatic attrition. Due to their awareness of socialstatus in Japan and L1 sociopragmatic norms, they gradually realized that ex-pressing opinions to higher status persons is not a Japanese social norm. As aresult, they began to refrain from giving advice in such situations in their L2 aswell.

In summary, previous cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have yieldedmixed findings regarding the effect of residence abroad on pragmatic per-formance and development. Findings generally support the facilitative effectof the SA over the AH context on the perception of pragmatic appropriate-ness (Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998; Matsumura, 2001; Schauer, 2006) andproduction of speech acts (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Olshtain & Bulm-Kulka,1985; Shimizu, 2009). However, counterevidence exists that AH learners some-times outperform their SA counterparts in the perception of appropriateness



(Niezgoda & Roever, 2001) and in the accurate comprehension of implicatures(Taguchi, 2008c).

Furthermore, SA experience brings about different effects according topragmatic targets. As shown in Rover (2005), the decisive variable for the com-prehension of routines is the residence in the host country, whereas proficiencyplays a crucial role in the comprehension of implicatures and production ofspeech acts. In Taguchi’s (2008c) study, on the other hand, both SA and AHlearners gained more on accurate and speedy comprehension of indirect refusalsthan indirect opinions. When the gains between accuracy and comprehensionspeed are compared, the SA and AH groups showed a reversed pattern ofdevelopment. The SA learners showed much more profound development incomprehension speed than accuracy, whereas for the AH group, the gain wasgreater for accuracy than comprehension speed.

Longitudinal studies have also confirmed the differential effect of SA ex-perience on pragmatic targets. Comprehension of implicatures that draws ongeneral inferencing mechanisms (i.e., relevance-based implicatures) developsnaturally after learners spend some time in the target country, but some formu-laic implicatures that draw on culture-specific knowledge (e.g., Pope questionsand irony) remain difficult to comprehend (Bouton, 1992, 1994). Rituals andmanners of performing pragmatic acts, such as how to offer a repair for thedamage caused when apologizing or how to establish a positive atmospherethrough small talk when making a request, are learned relatively quickly dur-ing study abroad, but the acquisition of morphosyntactic devices shows slowdevelopment (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993; Barron, 2003; Schauer,2004, 2009; Warga & Scholmberger, 2007). These findings suggest a complexrelationship between residence abroad experience and pragmatic targets, withgeneral proficiency as a mediating factor (Matsumura, 2003; Rover, 2005). Thestructure of pragmatic targets, proficiency, and experience in the host countryinteract with each other and jointly influence one’s ability to perform pragmaticfunctions.

More empirical research is needed to confirm these generalizations. To fur-ther expand the construct of pragmatic competence, the effects of proficiencyand residence abroad should be examined based on learners’ processing effi-ciency in performing pragmatic functions, not only in relation to accurate andappropriate pragmatic performance. Following Kasper’s (2001) claim that prag-matic competence entails the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge and gainingautomatic control in processing it in real time, a line of studies by Taguchi (e.g.,2005, 2007b, 2008b, 2008c) has investigated how rapidly learners can articu-late speech intentions and draw inferences of indirect meaning, and the findings



have generally confirmed that accuracy and fluency, as measured by responsetimes, speech rate, and planning time, form distinct dimensions of pragmaticcompetence and do not coincide perfectly in the course of pragmatic develop-ment. Hence, it is worth investigating whether these two different dimensionsof pragmatic competence—accuracy and fluency—are affected differently byproficiency and residence-abroad experience. Such an analysis will provide amore fine-tuned understanding of the construct of pragmatic competence andfactors affecting the competence and its development.

Purpose of the Study

This study examined the effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experienceon L2 English learners’ pragmatic comprehension. Pragmatic comprehensionwas operationalized as the ability to comprehend conventional and nonconven-tional implicatures accurately, in a speedy manner. This study asked: Do L2proficiency and study-abroad experience affect pragmatic comprehension inL2 English?

Method

ParticipantsParticipants were 25 native speakers of English and 64 Japanese students ofEnglish in a liberal arts college in Japan (hereafter EFL students). The collegeprovides a unique immersion environment in which all courses are taught inEnglish and international students are 10–15% of the population. First-yearstudents receive about 20 hours of instruction per week in the intensive Englishprogram, and after that, they proceed to upper level courses to complete theirundergraduate degree. Students are required to study abroad for the whole oftheir third year. The 64 participants formed three groups (Table 1). Students inGroup 1 were all first-semester EFL students who had lower proficiency basedon their TOEFL scores. Group 2 and Group 3 students were from the upper levelof the college. Both groups had higher proficiency than Group 1 but differedin their study-abroad experience.1 Group 3 had experience of studying in anEnglish-speaking country for a minimum of 1 year, whereas Group 2 studentshad never left Japan. Group 3 students’ average time in Japan after the studyabroad was 15 months, ranging from 3 months to 3 years (SD = 10). In additionto the EFL participants, 25 native English speakers (14 males and 11 females)also participated and provided baseline data. They were undergraduate studentsat a U.S. university.



Table 1 Demographic information about the participants

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Gender(male:female)

6:16 6:14 3:19

Average age (range) 18.18 (18–20) 20.15 (19–24) 21.55 (19–29)Formal English

study5.91 years 7.60 years 8.46 years

Average TOEFL(SD)

443.64(SD = 12.71)

554.70(SD = 16.81)

554.86(SD = 17.38)

Range: 413–457 Range: 520–580 Range: 520–583Study-abroad

experienceNone None Average: 13.73

months(SD = 8.36, range:

9–41)

Instrument: Pragmatic Listening TestA computerized pragmatic listening test (PLT) was developed from corporaof naturalistic conversations in English to examine EFL students’ ability tocomprehend two types of implicatures: conventional implicatures (k = 16)and nonconventional implicatures (k = 16). (See Taguchi, 2009b, for the de-scriptions of the test development process.) Conventional implicatures conveymeanings by fixed linguistic forms or by the conventions of language use spe-cific to the situation. There were two types: indirect refusals and routines.Indirect refusals involved conventionalized discourse patterns of giving anexcuse to refuse someone’s invitation, request, and suggestion (e.g., saying“I’m not feeling well” when refusing an invitation to a dinner). Routines weredefined as more or less immutable macrolexemes with a fixed meaning within asituation and a communicative function (Coulmas, 1981; Wray, 2000). They re-flected conventions of linguistic forms associated with situations. For instance,the expression “How can I help you?” represents a speech act of “offer” thattakes place within the frame of shopping. This study used fixed and semifixedexpressions that commonly occur under certain situational conditions and func-tions (e.g., “For here or to go?” in a service encounter exchange and “That’s sosweet of you” when thanking someone). (See Table 2 for the complete list of theroutine expressions.) The author consulted the previous literature to identifytarget routines (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2008; Kecskes, 2003; Rover, 2005).

Nonconventional implicatures, on the other hand, encode meaning that isunderstood not only from linguistic forms or conventional language use. Rather,



Table 2 Sample PLT items

Conventional ImplicaturesRefusalsMike: Hey Nancy, what are you doing? Do you wanna do something tonight?Nancy: I don’t know. I was just gonna watch TV.Mike: I wanna go out tonight. Maybe we can go to the Japanese restaurant.

The new one just opened.Nancy: I don’t have any money this week to pay the bills.

1. Nancy doesn’t want to go out tonight. (CORRECT)2. Nancy is going out tonight.3. Nancy got a bill from the restaurant.4. Nancy is watching TV with Mike.

RoutinesSalesclerk: Hi how can I help you?Customer: Ah, could I get a small regular coffee, with milk? And a slice of apple

pie.Salesclerk: For here or to go?Customer: To go please.Salesclerk: Heres a large cup, we don’t have small because we ran out of the small

ones.Customer: OK, thank you.

1. The man ordered cake.2. The man is taking the coffee out. (CORRECT)3. The man is having coffee in the shop.4. The man ordered a large cup.

Nonconventional ImplicaturesMike: Why are you working so hard, Nancy?Nancy: Hey Mike. My medical exam is coming up next week. You know I

took it before, but I have to get a better score to get into a medicalschool.

Mike: What was your score before?Nancy: Ten fifty.Mike: I’d be happy with seven hundred.

1. Mike thinks Nancy’s exam score is good. (CORRECT)2. Mike thinks Nancy’s score is poor.3. Nancy is a medical school student.4. Nancy’s medical school exam is next month.

Note. Routine expressions extracted from the corpora and used in the PLT are: “That’sso sweet of you,” “For here or to go?” “I’ll be right back,” “Out of 10 (dollars)?” “Itcomes to 5 (dollars),” “Here you go,” “There we go,” and “I’m sorry” (expression ofsympathy).



they result from a consideration of the utterance within a particular discoursecontext. See the following example below:

A: Did you like the movie?B: I was glad when it was over.

As shown in this example, when expressing negative opinions of the movie, op-tions regarding how to express them are wide open. Thus, compared with con-ventional implicatures, nonconventional implicatures are more idiosyncraticand less stable across contexts. Nonconventional implicatures used in thisstudy involved indirect comments or opinions that did not involve conventionallinguistic features or language use patterns (e.g., indicating a negative opinionof a dinner by saying “The food was late”).

Conventional and nonconventional implicatures were taken from corpora ofnaturalistic conversations. Two corpora of face-to-face conversations of Ameri-can English were used for this study, representing two registers: family/friends’interactions and service encounter interactions. Family/friends’ interactionswere from the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBC)(Du Bois, Chafe, Meyer, & Thompson, 2000), whereas service encounter in-teractions were taken from the TOEFL 2000 Spoken and Written AcademicLanguage Corpus (T2K-SWALC) (see Biber, Conrad, Reppen, Byrd, & Helt,2002, for descriptions). The SBC was used to locate conventional implicatures,consisting of indirect refusals and routines that occur in interaction amongfamily and friends. Service encounters in the T2K-SWALC were analyzed tofind routines in service situations.

The implicatures were taken from the corpora if the conversational con-text was judged accessible to the beginner EFL students whom this studytested. Dialogues that involved culture specific knowledge, educationallyinappropriate content, technical language, and slang were excluded. This initialprocess yielded a total of 24 nonconventional implicatures and 26 conventionalimplicatures (14 indirect refusals and 12 unique routines). While largely main-taining the target implicature, I wrote dialogues based on the context in whichthey occurred in the corpora. Rather than taking them directly from the corpus,I modified and adapted dialogues to better serve the level of the target learnergroup and goals of the research.2

The initial pool of dialogues was pilot-tested with native speakers of Englishin order to confirm the reliability of the intended interpretations of the targetimplicatures. Ten native speakers of English, all undergraduate students in aU.S. university (five males and five females) were asked to read each dialogueand supply the interpretation of the target nonliteral utterance included in the



dialogue. Individual interviews were also conducted to gain insights into thefactors that influenced their interpretation. The items that revealed inconsistentinterpretations were eliminated.

The first version of the PLT had a total of 42 items: 2 practice items, 8filler items, and 32 experimental items. The filler items tested literal compre-hension and were adapted from the corpora. The experimental items were oftwo types: conventional implicatures (16 items) and nonconventional impli-catures (8 refusals and 8 routines). Each item had a short dialogue followedby multiple-choice questions with four possible answer options (see Table 2).3

The test asked participants to listen to the dialogue and select the statementthat is correct based on the content of the conversation. In the experimentaldialogues, the correct answer was the speaker’s implied intention. Conversa-tions were counterbalanced over four interlocutor relationships: college friends,housemates, co-workers, and family members.

The length of the conversations was kept relatively similar to control impacton short-term memory. The number of words used in dialogues was on average49, with a range of 46–52 (SD = 1.5) In addition, because the response timewas part of the investigation, the number of words used in question and optionsentences was kept similar to make response times comparable. The number ofwords in option sentences was either 26 or 27 words (SD = 0.50). To reducethe potential effects from different vocabulary knowledge, all vocabulary inconversations and option sentences were drawn from the JACET List of 8000Basic Words (JACET, 2003). Because the 3,000 most frequent words are at thehigh school level, they were used to write conversations and option sentences.These vocabulary items were considered attainable by the EFL students inthis study because they were all high school graduates and passed the collegeentrance exam.

The PLT was computerized using the software “Revolution” (Runtime Rev-olution Ltd., 1997) and first administered to 25 native speakers of English in aU.S. university. There were four items on which the native speakers achievedlower than a 90% accuracy rate, and these were revised. The revised items werethen checked with the same native speakers. The test was then given to the EFLstudents. Internal consistency reliability based on Cronbach’s alpha was .89for the full test, .80 for conventional implicatures, and .82 for nonconventionalimplicatures. Table 2 displays sample items.

Data CollectionThe PLT was given individually using PC computers via the program “Revolu-tion.” The participants put on headphones and read directions in English with



Japanese translations. They practiced two items and then proceeded to the 40test items. Each item had the same format: immediately following each dia-logue, a multiple-choice question with four answer options in English appearedon the screen. Participants were told to read each possible answer option andchoose the correct statement based on the content of the dialogue by pressingthe corresponding key from 1 to 4. Response time was measured between themoment when the question appeared on the screen and the moment when theypressed the number key. The computer recorded the answers and latencies.

Data AnalysisThis study investigated the effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experi-ence on EFL students’ pragmatic comprehension. Pragmatic comprehensionwas operationalized as the accurate identification of implied meaning and thespeed with which the answer was chosen. Accuracy was measured by the PLTusing an interval scale between 0 and 32 across two item types: conventional im-plicatures (indirect refusals and routines combined, k = 16; scale of 0–16) andnonconventional implicatures (k = 16; scale of 0–16). Comprehension speed,also interval data, was operationalized as response times and was calculated byaveraging the number of seconds taken to answer items correctly. The indepen-dent variable was group membership, which had three levels: lower proficiency,no study-abroad experience (Group 1); higher proficiency, no study-abroadexperience (Group 2); and higher proficiency with study-abroad experience(Group 3). The dependent variables were accuracy scores and response times.Because the sample size was small, the Kruskal-Wallis test (nonparametric test)was used to examine the group differences. Because the response time data didnot form a normal distribution, a logarithmic transformation was performed onthe data before submitting it to the statistical analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell,2001). Outliers were also checked. The alpha level was set at.05; however,because the analyses required two statistical comparisons, the alpha level wasadjusted to.025 using the Bonferroni correction to avoid a Type I error (SPSS,1998).

Results

Tables 3 and 4 summarize descriptive statistics of the PLT accuracy scores andresponse times for each participant group. All EFL groups showed lower accu-racy scores and slower response times when comprehending nonconventionalimplicatures than conventional implicatures. Of the two conventional impli-cature types, indirect refusals were easier and took less time to comprehend



Table 3 Descriptive statistics: PLT accuracy scores

Item type Group Mean SD Min. Max.

Conv. (k = 16) 1 7.64 2.89 4.00 13.002 12.75 1.80 10.00 16.003 14.23 0.97 12.00 16.00

NS 15.29 0.75 14.00 16.00Refusal (k = 8) 1 4.20 1.67 2.00 7.00

2 6.95 0.76 6.00 8.003 7.27 0.55 6.00 8.00

NS 7.88 0.34 7.00 8.00Routine (k = 8) 1 3.80 1.70 1.00 6.00

2 5.80 1.32 3.00 8.003 6.95 0.79 5.00 8.00

NS 7.42 0.72 6.00 8.00Nonconv. (k = 16) 1 7.00 2.38 3.00 12.00

2 8.45 1.96 4.00 12.003 10.32 2.17 7.00 15.00

NS 14.67 0.96 12.00 16.00

Note. Conv. = conventional implicatures; Nonconv. = nonconventional implicatures.Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad (n = 22); Group 2: higher proficiency, nostudy abroad (n = 20); Group 2: higher proficiency with study abroad (n = 22). NS:native speakers (n = 25).

than routines. Not surprisingly, native-speaker comprehension was almost uni-formly accurate and fast across item types. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed asignificant group difference in accuracy scores for all item types: χ2 = 59.27(p < .025, η2 = .94) for nonconventional implicatures and χ2 = 61.55(p < .025, η2 = .98) for conventional implicatures. Similarly, significant groupdifferences were found in response times: χ2 = 46.77 (p < .025, η2 = .74)for nonconventional implicatures and χ2 = 46.35 (p < .025, η2 = .74) forconventional implicatures. In order to detect the location of the differences,post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using the Mann-Whitney Utest. See Tables 5 and 6 for the summary.

As shown in Table 5, the Mann-Whitney U test revealed a significantdifference in the comprehension accuracy of nonconventional implicatures inall contrasts. Group 1 learners obtained significantly lower accuracy scoresthan Group 2 and Group 3. The Group 3 score was higher than that of theGroup 2 participants, although it was still considerably lower than that ofnative English speakers. Hence, both proficiency and living experience in a host



Table 4 Descriptive statistics: PLT response times

Item type Group Mean SD Min. Max.

Conv. (k = 16) 1 15.48 6.20 7.79 31.172 11.26 2.53 7.83 18.543 11.50 2.59 7.73 16.42

NS 7.61 1.32 5.14 10.14Refusal (k = 8) 1 14.73 5.09 8.18 26.37

2 9.87 8.44 6.89 18.123 10.18 2.54 6.25 14.64

NS 6.67 1.46 4.40 10.48Routine (k = 8) 1 15.62 7.43 6.63 35.96

2 12.97 3.11 8.79 21.613 12.81 3.26 8.21 19.51

NS 8.63 2.00 4.09 12.28Nonconv. (k = 16) 1 17.65 5.05 11.39 30.08

2 13.88 5.04 8.04 29.423 13.31 3.80 7.18 22.92

NS 8.33 2.40 5.15 16.32

Note. Conv. = conventional implicatures; Nonconv. = nonconventional implicatures.Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad (n = 22); Group 2: higher proficiency, nostudy abroad (n = 20); Group 2: higher proficiency with study abroad (n = 22). NS:native speakers (n = 25). Response times refer to average number of seconds taken toanswer each item correctly.

Table 5 Summary of pairwise comparisons: PLT accuracy scores

Conventional implicatures Nonconventional implicatures

Group 1 vs. 2 z = −4.72∗ z = −2.26∗

Group 1 vs. 3 z = −5.58∗ z = −4.08∗

Group 2 vs. 3 z = −2.78 z = −2.56∗

Note. Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad, Group 2: higher proficiency, no studyabroad, Group 3: higher proficiency with study abroad.∗p < .025.

country significantly affected comprehension of nonconventional implicatures.Comprehension of conventional impicatures revealed a different pattern. Therewas a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 but not betweenGroup 2 and Group 3, suggesting that general proficiency, not study-abroadexperience, affected the comprehension accuracy of conventional implicatures.As a post hoc analysis, two types of conventional implicatures (i.e., indirect



Table 6 Summary of pairwise comparisons: PLT response times

Conventional implicatures Nonconventional implicatures

Group 1 vs. 2 z = −2.75∗ z = −2.97∗

Group 1 vs. 3 z = −2.51∗ z = −3.33∗

Group 2 vs. 3 z = −0.28 z = −0.05

Note. Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad; Group 2: higher proficiency, no studyabroad; Group 3: higher proficiency with study abroad.∗p < .025.

refusals and routines) were analyzed separately. The findings revealed thatcomprehension accuracy differed in all group contrasts for the routines but notfor the indirect refusals: There was no significant difference between Group 2and Group 3, indicating that study-abroad experience did not affect L2 learners’ability to comprehend indirect refusals. However, it should also be noted herethat there was a ceiling effect in the comprehension of indirect refusals. As thisitem type was easy to comprehend, it is possible that there was no additionaladvantage of study-abroad experience in comprehension.

Concerning the comprehension speed measured as response times, as shownin Table 6, both implicature types revealed similar patterns: Significant groupdifferences were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 but not betweenGroup 2 and Group 3. Hence, proficiency, not study-abroad experience, pos-itively affected comprehension speed, regardless of the implicature type. Thispattern was the same for the indirect refusals, a type of conventional implica-tures. However, the pattern for the routine items was different: no significantdifference was found in any group contrasts, indicating that neither proficiencynor study-abroad experience affected the speed with which the students com-prehended routines.

Discussion

This study revealed a complex interaction among proficiency, host countryexperience, and multiple dimensions of pragmatic comprehension. Differentaspects of pragmatic comprehension—comprehension of conventional andnonconventional meaning, accuracy, and comprehension speed—were affecteddifferently by proficiency and study-abroad experience, lending support to theprevious literature. Although higher level proficiency or residence experiencein the target country is advantageous for increased pragmatic abilities to someextent (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1999; Bouton, 1994; Dalmau & Gotor,



2007; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003, 2007; Geyer, 2007; Hill, 1997; Matsumura, 2001;Pinto, 2005; Rose, 2000; Schauer, 2006; Shimizu, 2009; Xu et al., 2009), theydo not necessarily translate into superior performance on all aspects of prag-matic competence (e.g., Garcia, 2005; Rover, 2005; Taguchi, 2008b, 2008c).

Significant effects of proficiency and study-abroad experience were foundin the comprehension accuracy of both implicature types. However, when rou-tines and indirect refusals were analyzed separately, study-abroad experienceaffected the comprehension of routines but not indirect refusals. As for com-prehension speed, proficiency, not study-abroad experience, was the decisivefactor, and the pattern was the same for both implicature types. These findingssuggest an intricate relationship among item type, comprehension ability, andthe factors affecting them. Different degrees of comprehension load encodedin implicatures were affected differently by proficiency and residence-abroadfactors.

In this study, indirect refusals were the easiest and fastest to comprehend forall groups, lending support to previous findings. A line of research by Taguchi(e.g., 2005, 2007a, 2009a) in L2 English and Japanese found that learners com-prehend indirect refusals significantly better and faster than less conventionalindirect opinion expressions, and general proficiency affects the comprehen-sion. This is because indirect refusals use a fixed pattern of discourse exchange(i.e., giving a reason for refusal), which is assumed to reduce processing effortin communication (Sperber & Wilson, 1995). Because this refusal pattern isshared between Japanese and English, Japanese learners of English are able totransfer their knowledge to L2 comprehension and use it to their advantage.

Due to this shared conventionality, proficiency probably becomes a de-cisive factor here. Because the pragmatic aspect of processing is relativelyeasy to handle, what differentiates learners is their general English abilities tocomprehend aural input, skim through answer options written in English, andmake a timely decision about the refusal intentions. Higher proficiency learn-ers are more skilled at using these component linguistic processes, leading tomore accurate and faster comprehension of this item type than is the case withlower proficiency learners. In the present study, study-abroad experience didnot particularly benefit comprehension because what learners needed was thefunctional-level threshold proficiency that would allow them to take advantageof the shared conventionality of this discourse pattern.

In contrast, comprehension accuracy of routines was significantly affectedby both proficiency and study-abroad experience, suggesting a different na-ture of conventionality between indirect refusals and routines. Comparedwith refusals, routines have a stronger association with specific situations or



communicative functions. For instance, the phrase “For here or to go?” occursin the service encounter situation of buying food, and the meaning is fixedacross similar situations. The invariant nature of routines typically assists ourcomprehension because they are processed as a chunk rather than a series ofisolated words, and their meaning is immediately retrievable from long-termmemory, as long as people are aware of the forms and their contextual require-ments. Due to the situation-specific nature of the routines, experience in thetarget country, which potentially afforded access to many similar situations,served as a critical factor in comprehension. Due to the context-dependent,culture-specific nature of the routines, the students who had never lived inthe host country were probably not able to pick them up naturally in a homecountry environment that has more limited access to situations in which theseroutines occur. The present findings are in line with Rover’s (2005) study: ESLlearners were significantly better at comprehending routine expressions thanEFL learners. These findings together indicate that students with study-abroadexperience have an edge when it comes to routines.

Similar to routines, comprehension of nonconventional implicatures wasaffected by both proficiency and study-abroad experience. Comprehension ofthis item type was the most difficult and slowest for all groups. Different fromconventional implicatures, they were context-independent and did not reflectfixed linguistic forms or customized discourse patterns of refusals. Because thelinguistic expressions used to convey these implicatures are highly variable,they demanded more word-by-word bottom-up processing, such as analysisof syntactic and lexical information, as well as analysis of contextual cues toinfer meaning. Due to the greater linguistic and inferential demand involved,comprehension of this implicature type probably required more linguistic andprocessing resources in which higher proficiency was an advantage.

Study-abroad experience provided an additional advantage for the compre-hension accuracy of this implicature type. Similar to routines, learners whospent at least a year abroad probably had more exposure to target languageinput and communication patterns which afforded plenty of opportunities topractice inferential processing. This, in turn, boosted their comprehension ofnonconventional implicatures. As Bialystok (1993) claimed, adult L2 learnersalready have pragmatic rules internalized in their L1s; they know how to conveythoughts politely or how to interpret indirect meaning in L1. The problem foradults is to relearn the form-function relations appropriate to their L2, whichentails learning new expressions and conventions as well as the social con-ditions and contexts in which they occur. When expressions and conventionsare shared between L1 and L2, like in the case of indirect refusals, transfer of



L1-based skills may occur relatively easily with sufficient proficiency. However,when the norms and conventions are L2-specific, like in the case of routines,or they do not operate within shared conventionality, conscious learning andpractice opportunities become beneficial. Regarding nonconventional implica-tures, opportunities to encounter these are probably more available in the targetlanguage community. Because violations of Gricean maxims (Grice, 1975) arecommon in everyday conversation (Cutting, 2008), learners who spend timeabroad probably gain plenty of practice in inferential processing while engagedin authentic interaction, and the result is superior performance in this area.

Regarding the other aspect of pragmatic comprehension examined in thisstudy—namely, fluency of processing—there was a significant proficiency ef-fect on comprehension speed for both conventional and nonconventional im-plicatures. The present findings contradict previous findings that found a pro-ficiency effect on accuracy but not on comprehension speed (Taguchi, 2005,2007a, 2008b). In Taguchi’s previous studies, proficiency was examined eithervia regression analysis with proficiency as the predictor variable and responsetimes as the dependent variable or via cross-sectional analysis comparing re-sponse times across different proficiency groups. Here I will discuss Taguchi’scross-sectional study (2008b) to draw meaningful comparisons with the presentfindings. Taguchi (2008b) used a multiple-choice listening test to examine theability to comprehend implicatures among learners enrolled in elementary andintermediate Japanese courses at a U.S. university. The listening task used inher study had the same format as the one used in the present study, except thatthe multiple-choice options were given in the learners’ L1, not in the L2. Shefound that the intermediate-level learners scored significantly higher than theelementary group for both conventional and nonconventional implicatures butthat response times showed no between-group differences.

Contradictory findings gleaned from these studies could be attributed to theway they operationalized proficiency. Taguchi (2008b) used the course levelto operationalize proficiency and did not use standardized proficiency exams.Additionally, the two groups were only 1 year apart in their course of study(i.e., first and second year in the Japanese study). Hence, it is possible that thedifference in comprehension speed was not so large across adjacent levels ofproficiency. Different from accuracy scores, a larger proficiency gap might benecessary to observe a proficiency advantage in fluent pragmatic processing. Incontrast, the present study used TOEFL scores to distinguish proficiency levels,and the difference was large, more than 100 points apart between the low- andhigh-proficiency group (i.e., Group 1 and Group 2), which might have resultedin different processing speed. Additionally, different from Taguchi’s study, this



study presented the multiple-choice options in the learners’ target language.Hence, the response times inevitably involved the time spent on reading andprocessing the option sentences in the L2. Although grammar and vocabularyused to write the sentences were kept at the beginner level, higher proficiencylearners might have been more skilled at word-by-word processing of syntacticand lexical information than lower proficiency learners, resulting in shorterresponse times.

Another difference between Taguchi’s (2008b) study and this study is theinstructional arrangement. The participants in Taguchi’s study were enrolled ina form-oriented Japanese class that met 4 hours a week and had limited contactwith the target language outside of class. Because improved speed in pragmaticprocessing requires repeated processing practice and exposure to input, whichneither proficiency group had, the participants probably took a similar amountof time to process pragmatic information despite their proficiency differences.In contrast, the participants in the present study were enrolled in an intensivelanguage program and received 20 contact hours per week in a bilingual uni-versity. Thus, it is possible that the intensity of the target language contact andrepeated processing practice available on campus served as a decisive factorfor the development of processing speed. Group 1 and Group 2 in this studydiffered in their TOEFL scores, but they also differed in the length of studyin this particular immersion environment. Group 1 students were all freshmenwho had just started their academic English study in the university, whereasGroup 2 involved sophomores and beyond. The differential speed of inferentialprocessing detected between the groups could come from the combination ofproficiency difference and the length of study in the intensive learning context.Regrettably, this study could not separate these two factors in the design. Itwill be left to future research to investigate whether the length of study in animmersion setting makes a unique contribution to pragmatic performance anddevelopment.

Not finding a study-abroad effect on comprehension speed in relation to anyof the implicature types is somewhat counterintuitive, considering that L2 ex-posure and practice available during study abroad are likely conditions in whichperformance speed develops. According to cognitive theories of skill acquisi-tion, the speed of language processing develops naturally in accordance withincreased associative practices between input and response (e.g., Anderson,1993; Anderson et al., 2004). Performance speed gradually increases throughpractice, because connections of nodes in the neural network system becomereinforced through repeated activations of these nodes. At the elementary level,performance requires a great deal of attention and thus takes time. As learners



become more skilled, basic processing components become automatic, freeingup space for more complex processing components. Repetition and practicepromote this development of performance speed (Segalowitz, 2000, 2007).Hence, in theory, the study-abroad context, which provides abundant process-ing practice in a naturalistic setting, is an ideal place for the development ofprocessing speed.

This premise was partially supported by Taguchi’s (2008a) study, whichcompared ESL and EFL learners in their development of comprehension speedof implied meaning. Although both groups made a significant gain over time,the increase of speed was much larger than that of accuracy for the ESL group,whereas the pattern was reversed in the EFL group, as one would predict onthe basis of skill acquisition theory. Compared with the EFL learners, the ESLlearners were probably more often exposed to everyday out-of-class incidentalpractice in processing the target input, leading to increased comprehensionspeed.

The present study did not support these previous findings. One potentialexplanation is that the students with study-abroad experience examined herewere all returnees. They had spent a year abroad previously but were notresiding in the target language environment at the time of data collection. Onaverage, they had spent 15 months in Japan after they returned from studyingabroad. Hence, it is possible that the skill they gained during study abroadgradually decreased after they came back to Japan. In that sense, they wereno different from the other EFL participants with no study-abroad experiencein their living arrangement. Upon data collection, they were living in Japanand had limited incidental exposure and processing practice in English. Hence,sustained, unremitting practice with the target language input and concurrenttime-on-task might be necessary to enhance performance speed and stabilize it(DeKeyser, 2007).

A piece of evidence that supports this interpretation comes from post hoccorrelational analyses between comprehension response times and the amountof L2 contact on campus reported by the EFL learners in this study. Aftercompleting the pragmatic measures, the participants took a 10-item surveyadapted from Segalowitz and Freed (2004), which asked them to indicate howmany days per week and how many hours per day they spent doing certainactivities in English, including using the four basic language skills, interactingwith native or fluent speakers of English, watching TV and movies, or doinghomework. There was a significant correlation between the total amount of timespent in English and response times on the PLT (r = .34, p = .005). Hence,



there seems to be a moderate relationship between time-on-task and processingspeed of processing pragmatic meaning.

The present findings partially support Matsumura’s (2001, 2003, 2007)findings. He found that EFL learners’ recognition of appropriate advice-givingexpressions showed profound progress during study abroad in recognizing ap-propriate expressions to use with equal-status and lower status interlocutors,and the ability was retained after their study abroad. However, the ability torecognize appropriate expressions addressed to higher status interlocutors grad-ually declined after they returned to their home country. The learners’ choiceof advice-giving expressions was strongly influenced by their perception of so-cial status and evaluation of appropriate behavior in their living environment.Pragmatic development took place at an early stage of study abroad whenlearners had ample opportunities to observe native-speaker norms of socio-pragmatic patterns. However, the gains were not retained post-study-abroad inthe home country context because of the different sociocultural norms and con-ventions between the L1 and L2. Supporting Matsumura’s findings, the presentstudy suggests a rather short-lived effect of study-abroad experience on prag-matic competence, at least in the dimension of speedy inferential processing.More future investigations are warranted on the robustness of the study-abroadeffect.

Limitations of the Study and Implications for Future Research

The present study revealed which aspects of pragmatic comprehension coulddevelop naturally in a home country environment corresponding to theirlinguistic maturity and which aspects benefit more from exposure to the targetlanguage community. Based on the limitations of the study, I will present severalimplications for future research. In addition to the small sample size, this studywas limited because it only “indirectly” examined the effect of study-abroadexperience on pragmatic performance. The participants with study-abroad ex-perience were all returnees who had spent a year abroad but were not living inthe host country at the time of data collection. Although the effect of the study-abroad experience was still present in the accurate comprehension of routinesand nonconventional implicatures, in order to seek a more direct relationshipbetween residence abroad and pragmatic performance, future research shouldinclude L2 groups recruited in the host country environment. Such an additionis important because the processing aspect of pragmatic competence (i.e., re-sponse times) was found to be impervious to the study-abroad experience inthis study.



Another limitation of this study is that it used general proficiency as a vari-able but did not include the length of formal study as an additional variable.All three L2 groups differed in their length of formal English study, and, inparticular, the difference between Group 1 and Group 2 was notable. Althoughthe length of target language study inevitably interacts with the level of pro-ficiency one gains in that language, future research should make an effort toeither control this variable or include it in the design of the study.

In addition, this study was not able to control the timing of the TOEFL forGroup 3. Among the 22 Group 3 students, 17 reported TOEFL scores takenafter study abroad, whereas 5 reported scores before study abroad. Although amajority of the students reported recent scores (i.e., after study abroad), varia-tion in the timing of TOEFL might have affected the findings. In future studies,a more homogeneous composition of Group 3 students would strengthen theconclusions drawn from the study. Future investigations could also pursue morein-depth analysis of the performance among members of Group 3. There wasconsiderable variation in the range of time that had elapsed after the Group 3students had returned from study abroad. Because attrition effects were prob-ably at work in some cases in Group 3, it would be interesting to see to whatextent the group members’ performance differed according to the period thathad passed since their return. Equally interesting would be to add qualitativemeasures to examine the quality of their study-abroad experience and its effecton pragmatic comprehension.

Finally, different levels of mastery among the subconstructs of pragmaticcomprehension exhibited in this study, along with differential degrees to whichthey were affected by the two target variables, tell us that pragmatic competenceis a multifaceted construct, and single variables cannot explain all dimensionsof pragmatic competence. Because the majority of previous studies, whethercross-sectional or longitudinal, limited their analyses to one aspect of pragmaticknowledge within single-participant groups, future research should expand thescope of the target pragmatic construct, investigating both the comprehensionand production of pragmatic functions as well as both the knowledge andprocessing dimensions of pragmatic competence.

Revised version accepted 23 November 2009

Notes

1 Group 1 students were all freshmen. They took the PLT 3 weeks after they enteredthe university, and their TOEFL scores were their entry scores. Group 2 and Group3 students reported TOEFL scores taken at different times of their undergraduate



study (from sophomore to senior year), not necessarily the scores taken at the timeof data collection. However, considering that the Group 1 students were all at entrylevel, it is reasonable to assume that they had lower proficiency than Group 2 andGroup 3 students, who were mostly juniors and seniors. Among the 22 students inGroup 3, 17 students reported a TOEFL score taken after study abroad and fivestudents reported a score before study abroad.

2 The following example shows how a naturalistic dialogue was adapted and modifiedto a listening test dialogue. The excerpt below is from the SBC file #035, aconversation among mother (Patty), daughter (Stephanie), and sister (Gail). Pattysuggests that Stephanie should look into Adrian College (line 5). In line 9,Stephanie turns down the suggestion by saying that the college does not have manymajors, and she wants to go to a school with a variety of majors.

1 Patty: How about this school called Adrian College in Michigan,2 Stephanie: Yeah,3 Patty: It’s real4 Stephanie: it’s in Adrian Michigan.5 Patty: not very far from uh Ann Arbor.

. . . They sent you a lotta information.

. . Sounds like a neat school.6 Stephanie: But,

. . they don’t ha=ve a lot of7 Patty: It’s a smaller school.8 Gail: . . I had a really good book that I should give you.9 Stephanie: They don’t have that many4] majors Mom.

. . . I wanna go to a school that has a . . large variety of majors,and so if I change,I have something to look at.

While maintaining the gist of the target refusal utterance (line 9), severalmodifications were made to the rest of the conversation to create a plausible testitem (see below). First, mother-daughter conversation was changed to mother-sonconversation to distinguish gender. Second, the sister’s interruption (line 8) waseliminated. Third, the first utterance by the mother was added to provide a sense ofbeginning. The son’s response was inserted in line 2 to clarify the situation and topicof the conversation.

1 Mother: Hey Steve, you’re still on the internet. What are you doing?2 Son: I’m checking out some colleges to see which one I should apply to.3 Mother: How about this school called Adrian college in Michigan. They sent

us a lot of information. It sounds like a neat school.4 Son They don’t have many majors.



Due to these modifications made to the original conversations, I acknowledge thatthe dialogues in the listening test were not truly authentic as they were representedin the corpora.

3 The three option sentences were written in the following manner: (a) the optioncontaining a meaning opposite to the target meaning, (b) the option containingwords or phrases taken from the last utterance, and (c) the option related to theoverall conversation.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D. Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004).

An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060.Atsusawa-Windley, S., & Noguchi, S. (1995). Effects of in-country experience on the

acquisition of oral communication skills in Japanese. ARAL, 12, 83–98.Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York:

Oxford University Press.Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics:

A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49,677–713.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Empirical evidence of the need for instruction inpragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching(pp. 13–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2008). Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics.In Understanding second language process (pp. 205–222). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.

Bardovi-Harlig, K, & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognise pragmaticviolations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning.TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233–259.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: Alongitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,15, 279–304.

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to dothings with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Barron, A. (2006). Learning to say “you” in German: The acquisition ofsociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. In M. DuFon & E. Churchill(Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 59–82). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.

Barron, A. (2007). “Ah no honestly we’re okay”: Learning to upgrade in a studyabroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 129–166.



Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag? Social status and patternedvariation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L.Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse andpragmatics (pp. 199–218). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESLrefusals. In R. Scarcella, D. Andersen, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developingcommunicative competence in a second language (pp. 55–74). New York: NewburyHouse.

Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmaticcompetence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics(pp. 43–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing inthe university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9–48.

Bouton, L. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it comeautomatically without being explicitly taught? In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.),Pragmatics and language learning monograph series vol. 3 (pp. 66–80). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

Bouton, L. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English beimproved through explicit instruction?: A pilot study. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru(Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series vol. 5 (pp. 88–108).Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Bouton, L. (1999). Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting connversationalimplicatures in English. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teachingand learning (pp. 47–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical aspects of communicative approaches tosecond language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.

Cohen, A. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect fromlearners? Language Teaching, 41, 213–235.

Cohen, A., & Shivery, R. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish andFrench: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. ModernLanguage Journal, 91, 189–212.

Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. (2002). The development of comprehension ininterlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. AustralianReview of Applied Linguistics, 25, 19–39.

Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardizedcommunication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.

Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Dalmau, M. S., & Gotor, H. C. (2007). Form “sorry very much” to “I’m ever so

sorry”: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English.Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 287–315.

DeKeyser, R. (2007). Study abroad as foreign language practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.),Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitivepsychology (pp. 208–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S.A. (2000). Santa Barbaracorpus of spoken American English, Part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic DataConsortium.

DuFon, M. (2000). The acquisition of negative responses to experience questions inIndonesian as a second language by sojourners in naturalistic interactions. In B.Swierzbin, Morris, F., Anderson, M., Klee, C., & Tarone, E. (Eds.), Social andcognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 77–97). Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003) Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study ofpragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish, Multilingua,22, 225–255.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and lengthof residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54, 587–653.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom:A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–286.

Garcia, P. (2004). Developmental differences in speech act recognition: A pragmaticawareness study. Language Awareness, 13, 96–115.

Geyer, N. (2007). Self-qualification in L2 Japanese: An interface of pragmatics,grammatical, and discourse competences. Language Learning, 57, 337–367.

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax andSemantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

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, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Hill, T. (1997). The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University-Japan, Tokyo.

Hoffman-Hicks, S. (1992). Linguistic and pragmatic competence: Their relationship inthe overall competence of the language learner. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.),Pragmatics and language learning monograph series vol. 3 (pp. 66–80). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

Hymes, H. D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes(Eds.), Sociolinguisitics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Middlesex, UK: Penguin.

JACET (Japan Association of College English Teachers). (2003). JACET list of 8,000basic words. Tokyo: Author.

Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. AppliedLinguistics, 22, 502–530.

Kasper, G. (2007). Pragmatics in second language learning: An update. Languagelearning celebrates 30 years of AAAL. Retrieved February 2, 2011, fromhttp://www.aaal.org/index.php?id=53.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics, 19, 81–104.



Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford:Blackwell.

Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel(Ed.), The handbook of research in second language learning (pp. 317–334).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton.Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans

in France [Monograph]. Modern Language Journal, 92, 1–124.Kinginger, C., & Blattner, G. (2008). Development of sociolinguistic awareness in

study abroad. In L. Ortega & H. Bynes (Eds.), Longitudinal studies and advancedL2 (pp. 223–246). New York: Routledge.

Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of metapragmaticawareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The interdisciplinary journal of study abroad,10, 19–42.

Koike, D. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanishforeign language learning. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures(pp. 257–281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Maeshiba, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguageapologizing. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 155–187).Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Marriot, H. (1995). The acquisition of politeness patterns by exchange students inJapan. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context(pp. 197–224). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approachto second language socialization. Language Learning, 51, 635–679.

Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmaticdevelopment, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24, 465–491.

Matsumura, S. (2007). Exploring the aftereffects of study abroad on interlanguagepragmatic development. Intercultural Pragmatics, (2), 167–192.

Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A functionof learning environment? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in languageteaching (pp. 63–79). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactionsto native speech act behavior. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 303–325). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1989). Speech act behavior across languages. In H. W.Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 53–67).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Omnar, A. (1991). How learners greet in Kiswahilo: A cross-sectional study. In L.Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph seriesvol. 2 (pp. 59–73). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an InternationalLanguage, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.



Pinto, D. (2005). The acquisition of requests by second language learners of Spanish.Spanish in Context, 2, 1–27.

Robinson, K. R. (1992). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmaticsresearch. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language(Tech. Rep No.3). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second LanguageTeaching & Curriculum Center.

Rover, C. (2005). Testing EFL pragmatics. Frankfurt: Gunter Narr.Rose, K. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic

development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27–67.Runtime Revolution Ltd. (1997). Scotland, UK: Author.Sawyer, M. (1992). The development of pragmatics in Japanese as a second language:

The sentence-final particle ne. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as anative and foreign language (pp. 83–125). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i atManoa.

Schauer, G. (2004). May you speaker louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmaticdevelopment in requests. EUROSLA Yearbook, 4, 253–272.

Schauer, G. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast anddevelopment. Language Learning, 56, 269–318.

Schauer, G. (2008). Getting better in getting what you want: Language learners’pragmatic development in requests during study abroad sojourns. In M. Putz & J.Neff-van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage andcross-cultural perspectives (pp. 399–426). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context.London: Continuum.

Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H.Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan.

Segalowitz, N. (2007). Access fluidity, attention control, and the acquisition of fluencyin a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 181–186.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluencyacquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 175–201.

Shimizu, T. (2009). Influence of learning environment on L2 pragmatic realization:A comparison between JSL and JFL learners’ compliment responses. In N. Taguchi(Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 167–198). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Shiveley, R. (2008). Politeness and social interaction in study abroad: Serviceencounters in L2 Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SPSS. (1998). SPSS base 8.0 applications guide. Chicago: Author.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.



Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a second language.Modern Language Journal, 89, 543–562.

Taguchi, N. (2007a). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehensionin English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 313–338.

Taguchi, N. (2007b). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics,28, 113–135.

Taguchi, N. (2008a). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmaticcomprehension in English as a second language. Language Learning, 58, 33–71.

Taguchi, N. (2008b). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language.Modern Language Journal, 92, 558–576.

Taguchi, N. (2008c). The role of learning environment in the development ofpragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 423–452.

Taguchi, N. (2009a). Comprehension of indirect opinions and refusals in L2 Japanese.In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 249–274). New York: Mouton deGruyter.

Taguchi, N. (2009b). Corpus-informed assessment of L2 comprehension ofconversational implicatures. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 738–749.

Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 18, 189–223.

Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence byJapanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131–158.

Takahashi, S., & Dufon, M. A. (1989). Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: Thecase of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED370439)

Takenoya, M. (2003). Terms of address in Japanese: An interlanguage pragmaticsapproach. Sapporo, Japan: Hokkaido University Press.

Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies.New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Yamanaka, J. E. (2003). Effects of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmaticcomprehension of Japanese ESL learners. Second Language Studies, 22, 107–175.

Yamashita, S. (1996). Six measures of JSL pragmatics (Tech. Rep. No. 14). Honolulu:University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Warga, M., & Scholmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic behaviorin a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 221–251.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Xu, W., Case, R.E., & Wang, Y. (2009). Pragmatic and grammatical competence,length of residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 37, 205–216.


Taguchi 2011 Language Learning

Documents

effect of study

year of study

language english

language learning issn

effect of general proficiency

proficiency levels

lower proficiency

higher proficiency