The role of proficiency in the production of refusals in English in an instructed context

Abstract

The present study attempted to explore the role that learner proficiency plays in the written production of refusals. A total of 100 Spanish university undergraduates representing four proficiency levels in English participated in the study. To assess learners' pragmatic competence, a written Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was administered. Learners' production of refusals was analyzed following Salazar, Safont and Codina's (2009) taxonomy. Results indicated that, with regard to the production of direct refusal strategies, beginners (A1) outperformed the rest of the groups included in the present study. Additionally, most learners showed a preference for the use of indirect strategies, and in line with other studies (Kwon, 2004; Sadler and Eroz, 2002) most of the participants resorted to the ubiquitous pattem of refusing by expressing regret for not complying with the request, as well as presenting an excuse for not being able to do so. As for adjuncts, we have suggested that the least proficient group may have transferred L1 patterns into the L2. Moreover, we have claimed that, due to age differences of the beginners, age could make a difference in L2 pragmatic development, and deserves further analysis.1 IntroductionThe major and probably most important goal in second/foreign language (L2) learning is to be able to communicate successfully in the L2, which in turn implies not only being able to understand but also be understood by both other learners of the L2 as well as native speakers (NSs) of the target language.Although successful communication has been for many years equated to using the L2 grammatically correct, especially in instructed settings, it is incontrovertible that grammatical competence is not enough, and that L2 learners need to use the L2 accurately and appropriately. Moreover, successful L2 learners need to exhibit an acceptable command of pragmatic knowledge in the target language. Consequently, how L2 learners acquire and develop their pragmatic ability in the L2 has become one of the major concerns in the study of L2 development.Differences between learners' pragmatic ability and native speaker (NS) norms have been supported by many studies (Alcon and Codina, 2002; Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Hassall, 2001; Takahashi, 2001; Trosborg, 1995). Although some of this pragmatic knowledge, as Kasper (1997) argues, is universal and can be transferred from their LI, learners do not necessarily take advantage of the knowledge they already possess, and may need to be explicitly taught. Here, pedagogic intervention is justified on the grounds of making learners aware of the knowledge they have available. Moreover, in environments where opportunities for developing pragmatic competence may be scarce (Jeon and Kaya, 2006), a role for pragmatic instruction seems sensible. Although the so-often reported mismatch between learner pragmatic and grammatical competences (Kasper and Schmidt, 1996; Takahashi, 1996) advocates for pragmatic instruction, research results appear to be most controversial when considering the role of L2 language proficiency in pragmatic development. Some authors argue that a certain degree of linguistic competence may be necessary, though not sufficient, for developing pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1990; Hoffman-Hicks, 1992) whereas others suggest that pedagogical pragmatic intervention may be necessary even at beginning levels of language instruction (Tateyama et al, 1997). Therefore, although many studies (Alcon, 2005; Eslami-Rasekh et al, 2004; Martinez-Flor, 2008; Safont, 2003, 2004; Salazar, 2003; Takahashi, 2001) support the need for pragmatic instruction, intervention may be only effective once the learner possesses a certain degree of proficiency in the L2. Thus, the need to attain a threshold level of L2 linguistic ability as a prerequisite for the effect of pragmatic instruction to kick in remains controversial (Codina, 2008).Research of learners' pragmatic transferability into L2 performance seems to provide contradictory results (Tran, 2002), as well. …