Research method effects on third language learners’ refusals

Abstract

Research in interlanguage pragmatics has largely ignored the multilingual background of language learners (Kasper, 2007, Safont-Jorda, in press). Although some studies have been conducted (Safont-Jorda, 2003, 2005a, b; Safont-Jorda and Alcon, in press), they have focused on the learners' requestive behavior. No studies on L3 learners' refusals have been published to date. Additionally, research methods employed in the analysis of L2 and L3 learners' pragmatic competence elicit the target pragmatic item in an artificial way, whether it be, written (i.e., Discourse Completion Test) or oral (i.e., role-play), as they provide learners with a written/oral prompt for an imaginary situation. In fact, learners provide potential answers (provided that fact tool place). Researchers have widely criticized this approach as it does not account for real communication. There are a number of situational factors influencing pragmatic and communicative development as shown by recent research (Dewaele, 2007) which are not considered if data collection is restricted to controlled pragmatic production. On that account, this paper compares refusal strategies employed in a DCT and in an instructional setting, that of the language classroom, by second and third language learners. Participants were 12 adult English learners engaged in an intermediate English course. They were Catalan-Spanish bilingual (6 subjects) and Spanish monolingual (6 subjects). As expected, results show a difference in the type of refusal strategies employed in real (i.e., classroom) and royal (i.e., oral role-play) interaction and they also point to the advantage of L3 over L2 learners in the variety of refusal strategies employed.1 IntroductionThe main aim of the present paper is to examine the effect of two variables on the pragmatic production of learners of English as a Foreign Language. On the one hand, we have taken into account the effect of the research method adopted on the use of refusal strategies. On the other, we have considered the learners' linguistic background, that is, whether they were monolingual or bilingual and thus were learning English as a second (i.e., L2) or as a third language (i.e., L3). Bearing our purpose in mind, we shall first consider those studies which have contrasted results obtained by means of an oral production task and those using ethnographic or pseudo natural data. Secondly, research on the role of bilingualism in language learners' pragmatic production will be taken into account and a particular focus will be given to the use of L3 refusals. Finally, results from our study on the effect of the research method and bilingualism in English learners' production of refusals will be described.1.1 Research methods in IL exhortative actsAccording to Clark and Bangerter (2004), three main methods have been employed in pragmatics research, namely those of intuition, observation and experiment.(...) With intuitions, you imagine examples of language used in this or that situation and ask yourself whether they are grammatical or ungrammatical, natural or unnatural, appropriate or inappropriate. This was Searle's method. With experiments, you invite people into the laboratory, induce them to produce, comprehend or judge samples of language, and measure their reactions. With observations, you note what people say or write as they go about their daily business. We will name these methods by their characteristic locations: armchair, laboratory andfield (Clark and Bangerter, 2004: 25).Interlanguage pragmatics research has adopted methods employed in LI pragmatics, and has particularly made use of 'laboratory' experiment methods. As stated by Jucker (2009), these elicitation techniques (i.e., laboratory) rely on the informants' cooperation. Participants have to imagine situations and report the way they would behave or the way they would expect others to behave in them. Some authors seek to determine the most effective method for measuring pragmatic ability (Brown and Ahn, 2011; Yamashita, 1996). …