2015 | 5 | 4 | 557-581
Article title

Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence

Title variants
Languages of publication
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).
Physical description
  • *Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 42-65.
  • *Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 385-406.
  • Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). 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 in pragamtics. In K. Rose & G. Kapser (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 Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 205-222). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • *Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755-795.
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(s1), 68-86.
  • *Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. T. (2011) Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction, and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 347-384.
  • *Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259.
  • Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165-180.
  • Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex.
  • Bonganets,T., Kellerman, E., & Bentlage, A. (1987). Perspective and proficiency in L2 referential communication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 171-200.
  • Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
  • *Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 19-39.
  • *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.
  • Davis, J. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning, 57, 611-649.
  • Decapua, A., & Dunham, F. J. (2007). The pragmatics of advice giving: Cross-cultural perspectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(3), 319-342.
  • *Félix-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 pragmatic awareness 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.
  • *Hoffman-Hicks, S. (1992). Linguistic and pragmatic competence: Their relationship in the 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.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Middlesex: Penguin.
  • Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
  • Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language Learning, 53(Suppl. 1), 1-352.
  • Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System, 45, 92-102.
  • *Koike, D. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 257-281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
  • LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 29, 69-89.
  • LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. New York: Routledge.
  • *Maeshiba, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 155-187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • *Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of learning environment? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Norris, M., & Ortega, L. (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • *Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008). Modifying L2 criticisms: How learners do it? Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 768-791.
  • *Pinto, D. (2005). The acquisition of requests by second language learners of Spanish. Spanish in Context, 2, 1-27.
  • Rose, K. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27-67.
  • *Shardakova, M. (2005). Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 423-451.
  • Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 89, 543-562.
  • *Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533.
  • *Taguchi, N. (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28, 113-135.
  • *Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 904-939.
  • *Taguchi, N. (2013a). Production of routines in L2 English: Effect of proficiency and study-abroad experience. System, 41, 109-121.
  • Taguchi, N. (2015). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System, 48, 3-20.
  • *Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189-223.
  • *Takenoya, M. (2003). Terms of address in Japanese: An interlanguage pragmatics approach. Sapporo: Hokkaido University Press.
  • Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
  • *Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • *Wannaruk, A. (2008). Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC Journal, 39(3), 318-337.
  • Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth versus Breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.
  • *Xu, W., Case, R. E., & Wang, Y. (2009). Pragmatic and grammatical competence, length of residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 37, 205-216.
  • *Yamanaka, J. E. (2003). Effects of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmatic comprehension of Japanese ESL learners. Second Language Studies, 22, 107-175.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.