Abstract
This paper synthesizes cross-sectional studies of the effect of proficiency on second language (L2) pragmatics to answer the synthesis question: Does proficiency affect adult learners’ pragmatic competence? Findings have revealed an overall positive proficiency effect on pragmatic competence, and in most cases higher proficiency learners have higher pragmatic competence. However, increased proficiency does not guarantee a native-like pragmatic performance because proficiency effect varies depending on the nature of target pragmatic features such as types of speech acts (degrees of directness and conventionality) (e.g., Cook & Liddicoat, 2002; Félix-Brasdefer, 2007), modalities of pragmatic performance (comprehension and production) (e.g., Bradovi-Harlig, 2008, 2009), social variables involved in task situations, such as social status (e.g., Allami & Naeimi, 2011), social distance (e.g., Maeshiba, Yoshinaga, Kasper, & Ross, 1996), and power relationship (e.g., Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012). Moreover, proficiency effect is mediated by contextual variables such as length of stay in the target language community (e.g., Shardakova, 2005; Taguchi, 2011, 2013; Xu, Case, & Wang, 2009).
Highlights
Originated in Hymes (1972), the ability to use language appropriately in communication is regarded as important as knowledge of grammatical rules in all theoretical models of communicative competence (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010; Canale & Swain, 1980)
Pragmalinguistic failure is fundamentally a linguistic problem, “caused by differences in the linguistic encoding of pragmatic force” (Thomas, 1983, p. 99), whereas sociopragmatic failure results from “different perceptions of what constitutes appropriate linguistic behavior” (Thomas, 1983, p. 99). The distinction between these two types of failure parallels the dichotomy between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics, which can be found in the definition of pragmatic knowledge of Bachman and Palmer’s (2010) model of communicative competence
The acquisition of formulaic expressions is similar to that of vocabulary knowledge, showing a gap between comprehension and production. These findings suggest that modalities of pragmatic performance should be taken into account when we discuss proficiency effect on L2 pragmatics
Summary
Originated in Hymes (1972), the ability to use language appropriately in communication is regarded as important as knowledge of grammatical rules in all. L2 pragmatic acquisition requires learners to achieve a threshold level of proficiency, suggesting a positive proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence (for a review, see Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, 2001, 2013; Kasper & Rose, 1999, 2002) This assumption has been supported by many empirical studies with a cross-sectional design across different proficiency levels or a comparison between L2 learners and native speakers (NSs) (e.g., Al-Gahtani& Roever, 2012; Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Dalmau & Gotor, 2007; Garcia, 2004; Geyer, 2007; Maeshilba, Yoshinaga, Kasper, & Ross, 1996). In service of attaining a more comprehensive picture of how proficiency affects L2 pragmatics, this synthesis study addresses the following research question: Does L2 proficiency affect adult learners’ pragmatic competence?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
